« Previous Story | Front Page | Next Story »


Egg Him

By Ken Poland
Opinion | March 3, 2012

COLBY, Kan. - I would furnish a case or two of eggs to a group of you women to hurl through the door into Rush Limbaugh's broadcast studio.

I have to bite my tongue to keep from describing him with a little more colorful adjectives than a despicable, arrogant, chauvinist.

He is (or should be) an embarrassment to any intelligent member of society, no matter, your political or religious affiliation.


28 Comments

It's hard to know what to say about Rush. On the one hand, I just want to ignore him. On the other hand, I would like to rage, rage at him. Either way, he will go on his merry way doing what he does best, taking things to the extreme. One of my friends informed me this morning that he's lost some of his sponors. I should hope no self-respecting sponsor would stay with him, but I suppose he reaches a large enough audience of weak-minded people who agree with him that sponsors will stay no matter what.

He's a pimple on the you-know-what of society. I try to ignore him as much as possible. I do believe this will backfire on the Republicans, which is a good thing.


It sounds like Rush has the Left so much in a tizzy (as evident with the above post) as of late that a lot of libs are standing on their heads telling the rest of the world "you're upside down" - keep it up Rush, I love it when the Left is irate!


Egg hurling? Ya know Ken, that kind of adolescent behavior, if this were Singapore or Malaysia, could get you at least 3 strokes of the rotan cane. Question; where’s all the outrage when that sniveling little Bill Maher hurls an insult in the direction of Sarah Palin on a regular basis? This website is eerily silent on that particular topic.


Well, Jonathan, maybe I will just plead 2nd childhood for my adolescent suggestion. But give me a little credit, I could have offered a few rotten eggs for the party. That way I could just plead for lenience by arguing 'he threw rotten eggs first'.

If calling someone adolescent is meant to be demeaning, let me return the favor. Defending an arrogant, chauvinist, right wing talk show host, by a middle aged man, indicates adolescent maturity level judgment in choice of his hero.

I don't approve of some of the descriptive adjectives used to describe Sarah Palin. And, I don't think you will find any evidence that I encouraged anyone to keep it up. You can most likely find evidence that I expressed my doubt as to her qualification to be our President. I never posted any judgment of her religious authenticity or her moral character.

I would love to just ignore Rush, like Diane is trying to do, but, there comes a time when some people become so obnoxious, you just can't ignore them.

Do you know the young woman, personally, that Rush was labeling with such vulgar discriptions? You indicate that you are of the Christian faith. Would you expect to hear Jesus speaking about any woman in that way? I surely can't!


Lovely that your first reaction to speech you don't like is physical violence. By all means, get your ticket and go commit some battery against your political opponents. Classy stuff Ken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egging


Our country’s economy is completely upside down on its head – trillions of dollars in debt with ridiculously high unemployment, Iran is trying hard to develop nuclear weapons, and $5 per gallon gas is just around the corner and what are we talking about as of late - free birth control? This Fluke woman, more than likely a plant from the Democratic Party, is petitioning the federal government to mandate subsidization of a “pill” that will help take the responsibility out of promiscuous behavior. And let’s face it, that’s what the “pill” has primarily been used for over the decades – alleviating the consequences of immoral behavior. I can understand Rush’s frustration when he let the “s” word slip out. This ridiculous charade last week involving this Georgetown University student and Congress is nothing more than the Left’s ongoing attempt to further expand the country’s welfare state. We conservatives must continue to fight hard to get it stopped. We’ve had it up to here. We’re sick and tired of liberals screwing our country up.


I can't remember exactly how it went, but I recall a saying that went something like: Sticks & stones may break my bones, but your words don't hurt me at all.

Any responsible adult knows, by now, that words are more effective and long lasting forms of bullying than physical forms of bullying. Bruises, scratches, and bones heal much faster than emotional and mental scars. Assassination of character can wipe out a persons past good behavior and cast doubt on any future that person hopes to have. Assassanation of character happens to be a ploy used by far too many of our politicians. Lawyers object in court proceedings and the judge sustains the objection and instructs the jurors to disregard the statement or evidence. But, the human mind is like the computer hard drive, you can erase it but it is still there. It has to be 'written over' numerous times before it can't be recalled. So it is with images imprinted in the human mind by words. Appologies will not erase the images formed by words that should not have been uttered to begin with.

How many people who are defending Rush Limbaugh's assassanation know the lady and have any idea of her moral character and behavior? (Assanasion or lynching is what it was, she hasn't been tried and convicted, in an open court, on his charges.) Is the fear of the same bullying tactics keeping other women from speaking out? Women who don't agree with Patriarchal dominance of society, which seems to be how this issue is being debated and decided, are not free to voice their opinions or opposition.

If, in fact, I throw an egg at Rush, he can wash it off and it is done with. What he threw at Sandra Fluke will not wash off. And, yes I could be charged with assault & battery and defacing of property, pay a fine and be required to clean up the mess. But, some are cheering Rush and calling for more of the same vulgur disrespect for a particular woman and casting the same discription on any women who support her.

"We conservatives must continue to fight hard to get it stopped. We’ve had it up to here. We’re sick and tired of liberals screwing our country up." The end justifies the means, thus anything goes and the more outrageous the better.

Coffee shop bantering, talk show host entertainers, and campaign speech writers are all out of line with such expressions and insinuations.

We have one commentator here who seems to know that Sandra's only reason for defending access to birth control is to protect herself from promiscuous immoral behavior. I guess he has some verifiable statistics to prove that to be the most demanding situation for birth control. In that case, is he indicating that the statistics for women of his faith group would indicate that they are protecting themselves so they can go bed hopping?

I know a few women who, i'm inclined to think, may be, but I know a great deal more women (married & un-married) who are not taking advantage of birth control to go shopping for variety. I don't have to list all the varied reasons for hormone and drug treatments known for their pregnancy prevention. And those uses have a direct health care purpose.


Incidently, Schlyer, I haven't had any calls to set up a delivery point for my eggs. So quit worrying about it.

And if some irate women do form a group and chuck eggs at him, I'll maybe have the proverbial 'egg on my face' for suggesting that action. And if it happens, I can appologize like Rush, claiming humor or comedy as motivation for my suggestion. I don't honestly advocate or support that form of protest or action. But, what the heck, it was only words, right? No harm done? So, let's forget about this little segment and I'll come back tomorrow and see if I can come up with another way to insult those right wing conservatives that are 'screwing up our country'.

If he is egged in his studio, he can go out and buy a new suit, the cleaning crew will clean up his studio, and he'll be all comfy for tomorrow's show. Can Sandra erase the results of his attack on her that easily and quickly?


From the egging link I provided earlier - "A nurse was blinded in one eye when an egg was thrown at her from a passing car in March 2008 in Dublin.[1] A boy in Long Island also lost sight in one eye after teens from a local high school threw eggs out of a passing car on Halloween 2005"

But yeah, you just keep telling yourself that he'd be all comfy the day after. Sure, its violence, but its only a little violence. I'm positive you'd have no problems if I egged women going into an abortion clinic. They could just wash it off and buy new clothes. They won't so easily wash off the stain of that abortion so quickly.*

*Note: This example is not my personal intention nor thoughts on abortion. Its simply a rhetorical device to illustrate the absolute idiocy of Ken's justification for a violent act against a political opponent. Violence is violence, and its never acceptable to perform, promote or suggest it as a response to unpopular speech.

And please, stop quoting Jonathan's comments to me as if I said them, agree with them, or am required to defend them.


I subscribe to a site that publishes ‘a thought for today’. Here’s a recent thought: THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
We should not write so that it is possible for the reader to understand us, but so that it is impossible for him to misunderstand us. -Quintilian (Marcus Fabius Quintilianus), rhetorician (c. 35-100)

Schlyer, if someone doesn’t want to understand, it is impossible to write so they can! If you have been reading my posts, you will surely see that I am not an advocate of violence. I can guarantee that I have never slapped anyone, thrown pies at anyone, or thrown eggs at anyone. Didn’t do that when I was a kid and I’m sure not going to now! I try not to use derogatory or demeaning adjectives to describe those whose opinions I disagree with. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, it is pretty danged hard not to.

We are all guilty of poor choice of words, now and then. We are all guilty of offensive answers to questions. We excuse ourselves by saying, ‘I spoke without thinking’. And that is usually absolutely right. We automatically verbalized our true feelings, before we could tone them down or cover them up. Did Rush speak before he thought? I don’t think so! He most likely rehearses his dialogue and purposely chooses his adjectives to be as debasing to his targets as he can. What he called Sandra Fluke was vulgar and insinuated her lifestyle. No! He wasn’t insinuating, he was purposely stating it as facts. Was he lying? I don’t know, but until I know, I will give her the benefit of doubt. He not only ‘threw egg on her’ but he, also, attacked a whole group of women, without knowing whether they were or weren’t what he called them.

Do you know Sandra? If you do and you think he was stating facts, even if they were rather crude and vulgar, you should say so and defend him. If you don’t know her, then you should voice your disapproval of his statement. If you can do so without using poor analogies or messing up the grammar, then great. But don’t pick apart anyone else’s disapproval because you think they weren’t smart enough to make it clear, where they stood or what the consequences he should suffer for his unethical, vulgar, and uncalled for segment in his program. Even if you think someone else is operating with double standards, you shouldn’t refuse to accept their disapproval of a given action or statement. Because you think I was out of line don’t give Rush a pass.

I hope you have never referenced ‘pie in the face’, ‘slap in the face’, ‘egg on the face’, or any other cliche type phrases. If you only insinuate idiocy instead of calling someone an idiot, or call it stating a miss-truth instead of calling someone a liar, etc. , that’s a little like ‘passed on’ for ‘dead’; not quite as harsh but means the same. “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw bricks”.

You said you were positive I’d have no problem with you egging women going into an abortion clinic. Is that an opinion arrived at by reading my ‘liberal left wing’ posts? If so, you should back up and start listening a little closer! I’d have a problem with eggs being thrown either direction. I have a problem with the epithets thrown at the women going into the clinics. I also have a problem with epithets being thrown the other way.


So in summary: Ken didn't mean to say it. He's not violent. Everyone does it. He spoke without thinking. But the original post is still up there. Suggesting violence is an acceptable response to unpopular speech.

"Did Rush speak before he thought? I don’t think so! He most likely rehearses his dialogue..."

How convenient for you to believe that Rush does it on purpose, while yours is just an accidental misstatement. Maybe that's true though.

"You said you were positive I’d have no problem with you egging women going into an abortion clinic. Is that an opinion arrived at by reading my ‘liberal left wing’ posts?"

It was sarcasm. Clearly, neither your nor any author of this site (nor any right thinking person) would be OK with someone egging people going into an abortion clinic. Because egging people is violent and wrong.

And yet, you post and then defend, suggestions that egging Rush Limbaugh would be appropriate. Its almost as if you are actually OK with violence as long as its visited upon political opponents. Because I can't come up with another logical reason why egging Rush is OK, but egging abortion patients is wrong.

"Even if you think someone else is operating with double standards, you shouldn’t refuse to accept their disapproval of a given action or statement."

That's an amazing statement. So pointing out someone is a hypocrite is not acceptable to you?

"If you only insinuate idiocy instead of calling someone an idiot, or call it stating a miss-truth instead of calling someone a liar, etc. , that’s a little like ‘passed on’ for ‘dead’; not quite as harsh but means the same."

Person A writes a statement. Person B writes a response. Person C reads both and decides Person A's argument is inferior/flawed/etc and then makes their own decision about the issue. That's kind of the way I imagine political discourse is supposed to proceed.

If my comments make you think less of your own writings, or those of others I respond to, the solution is easy: make better arguments.


Schyler, you amaze me! "It was Sarcasm". Now isn't that just OK for you, but you didn't catch any sarcasm in my post? If you can't read and understand when I flat told you I didn't really think egging was appropriate, then just close your mind and keep thinking it is only the left wing liberals that are short of manners and intelligence.

I'm still waiting to see whether you approved of Rush Limbaughs vulgar names for all women who support contraceptive use. I certainly hope you don't have any females in your family that would fall into his category.


Ken, I see no text to support you 3 days later claiming sarcasm for your violent suggestions. In my sarcastic paragraph, I included a note very specifically so that it would be clear I was being facetious.

Me previously --> "*Note: Its simply a rhetorical device to illustrate the absolute idiocy of Ken's justification for a violent act against a political opponent."

"I flat told you I didn't really think egging was appropriate"

How'd I miss that. Its not like you titled your post - "Egg Him", and patted yourself on the back for not suggesting rotten eggs in your first comment, or justified your violent response "there comes a time when some people become so obnoxious, you just can't ignore them.", or downplayed the effects of violence "Bruises, scratches, and bones heal much faster than emotional and mental scars." despite acknowledging that your suggestion was a criminal act "And, yes I could be charged with assault & battery and defacing of property,".

So what to believe? Your first instinct and several comments were pro violence. Then you start to walk it back, while not apologizing or amending your original statements in any way. Still a toss up as far as I'm concerned.

"I'm still waiting to see whether you approved of Rush Limbaughs vulgar names for all women who support contraceptive use."

The short answer is no. The long answer is that "all women who support contraceptive use" is a blatant, flat-out lie, and you know it. Rush criticized her not because she supported contraceptive use - but because she expects all of us to help her pay for her use of it. To say otherwise is to either be willfully deceitful or severely lacking in knowledge of the current debate.


"flat-out lie" Thank you, for once you didn't beat around the bush! You don't seem to be able to read and understand. What ever it was he was criticizing is a little hard to discern. Her testimony was not demanding pay from the government. She was, mainly defending contraceptive treatments for reasons beyond birth control. It's a little hard to keep all the other garbage out of the debate. You are staying in the shadows, but clearly joining the radical right that has one goal in mind. Complete restriction of contraceptives. Abortion isn't in this argument that Sandra was testifying on. it is impossible to keep it out, because there are those who will 'conflate' it into the script, just like you declared that I was considering health care and insurance as one and the same. You came back and claimed the 'self insured' religious institutions were being denied freedom of religion. I guess you didn't keep listening beyond the first round of debate. They were specifically exempted if their business wasn't open to the unrestricted public and were not benefiting from tax dollars to cover costs for the indigents.

I don't know you real intimately, but I'd suggest you be little careful about calling others hypocrits. I've not known anyone that didn't fail to practice what they preached, some time. Maybe you are, indeed, the exception.

Try debating the issues instead of 'conflating' them.

My tractor will be calling me early in the morning, so goodnight.

If I am wrong about you being in the shadows, then get out in the light and quit accusing others of not being straight forward. You don't approve of Rush's choice of words? Do you approve of his suggesting contraceptives are used so women can have sex anywhere and anytime with whoever they want to?

And, I guess you don't think physical wounds heal faster than emotional scars. I certainly wasn't saying physical wounds weren't real or that they were of no concern. And, maybe you never heard the saying I tried quoting? Religious leaders (not all are Catholic) didn't physically harm their victims. But the emotional trauma has stayed with them for years and affected their ability to relate properly in nearly all areas of their social lives. Tell me that is a blatant and outright lie! Certainly there are some who got over it and moved on. But there are some who thought they had and simply hadn't. And, by the way, it isn't just the liberal psycologists and pastors that are saying this.


"You are staying in the shadows, but clearly joining the radical right that has one goal in mind. Complete restriction of contraceptives."

Shadows? What are you talking about? Ken, I'm tired of you lying about my positions. That's not my goal. I've never said anything that could be construed as such. It is wrong, a lie, a fabrication, and for you to put words like that in my mouth is frankly, disgusting.

"Do you approve of his suggesting contraceptives are used so women can have sex anywhere and anytime with whoever they want to?"

No, and why are you suddenly talking abortion? I'm going to explain my rhetorical device again - I used abortion as a setting only to illustrate the absurdity of your egg throwing idea. Nothing more.

"I guess you didn't keep listening beyond the first round of debate. They were specifically exempted if their business wasn't open to the unrestricted public and were not benefiting from tax dollars to cover costs for the indigents."

There were existing religious objection exemptions dealing with both insurance (self insurance specifically) and health care (example, objecting pharmacists don't have to dispense an abortion pill). This new mandate narrowed those exemptions to what I find to be unacceptable levels.


"No, and why are you suddenly talking abortion?" "Ken, I'm tired of you lying about my positions. " "to put words like that in my mouth is frankly, disgusting."

Schyler, you are truly amazing!!! It was you who inserted abortion into this discussion, not me. It is you that keeps twisting my positions, not me twisting yours. And, who puts words into mouths? You can do a pretty good job of reading your thoughts into what I write. I have not accused you of lying, but you certainly have a unique way of obfuscating the truth.

There was an excellent collumn by Randy Mathews in Tues. Mar 9 Salina Journal. He noted how the H.S. kids conducted themselves in a forensics tournament. Maybe you need to get a few pointers from the students and their instructors.

Putting aside our differences, what Rush said, irregardless of others who may have spoken the same way, HE WAS OUT OF LINE !

You are convinced you have won this debate, so I'll just sit down and let you have your victory party. I can ignore you, along with Rush.


This is one of the silliest exchanges I've heard in a long time. Ken was engaging in hyperbole and those of us who were English majors recognize hyperbole when we see it. Yes, egging women going into an abortion clinic would be a violent act, but in my years of doing clinic support, I saw the anti-choice crowd do worse than that to those women. By the way, abortion doesn't leave a stain. It leaves a woman free to pursue her life in the way that she chooses.

I've had a lot of thoughts about Rush Limbaugh's nastiness toward a woman who was brave enough to come forward and voice her opinion in a public way. Mainly, I think Limbaugh is a "big, fat, liar," as someone already said. He's full of it in so many ways that I don't know how he keeps from choking on it or how anyone can take him seriously.

Then I ask myself what if he had such a thing about my wonderful granddaughters--I have no daughters--how would I have reacted. I can think of many things I would like to do to a man who said such a thing about my granddaughters. Castration is high on the list. Yes, that's violent. No, I wouldn't do it. I'm a life-long advocate for peace. Violence never solved anything. However, even the best among us have thoughts of doing violence when someone has done violence to those we love. I consider what Limbaugh said about Ms. Fluke a form of violence.

Having said that, in the long run, restraint works better than anything else. Right now, I'm unhappy with Sam Brownback and what he's doing to the state of Kansas with his Koch-run agenda. Does that mean I intend to do him violence? No. I intend to work hard to get him out of office the legal way, through the ballot box with my voter ID in hand.

One of these days, people are going to get sickened enough by the hate that Limbaugh and those like generate that he and his clones will have no audience.


"Putting aside our differences, what Rush said, irregardless of others who may have spoken the same way, HE WAS OUT OF LINE !"

I agree. Suggesting violence as a response to out of line speech however, is never acceptable.


It amazes me how many people believe that women who use contraception are either promiscuous or just sluts. So many married couples make the responsible decision to use contraception through out their marriage so they can plan their families, manage their ability to bring in two incomes and, truth be told, it's nobody's business but theirs. By the same token, whether a woman is single or married - her need or choice to use contraception is again, nobody else's business. The judgement that surrounds this very basic issue is outrageous. What ever a woman medically requires or chooses should be strictly between herself and her doctor. It behooves insurance companies to not cover contraception simply because they save money when women are responsible for their lives. Pregancy and the babies that ensue cost much more than the cost of effective and safe birth control. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous. Mrs. Romney recently stated that women are more concerned with the economy than with contraception - OH, REALLY? Well, let's look at that logically. If a women can't work because she's pregnant or has to stop working because she can't afford child care for her newborn, then yes, economy is what it's all about but that could easily be changed for the better if she has access to contraception. So, seeing as this discussion began with some virtual egg throwing, I ask you, what comes first - the pill or the job? Women aren't stupid. They want sovereign control over their bodies and they deserve that. Any opinion to the contrary should be of no consequence what so ever. But here we are. So, we fought before and won. We'll fight again and win. Keep it up you haters of women.


OH, and FYI for those of you who don't know:

"A study, published in the Dec. 8 issue of The Lancet, researchers reviewed birth control studies, and found women who take the pill have a 12 percent lower overall death rate than women who don't. They also found risk of developing ovarian and endometrial cancers fell by up to 60 percent in pill users compared with women who have never taken it. The cancer protection lasted for 20 years, suggesting a clear long-term benefit of taking the pill, the authors said." as reported by ABC news.


Thank you, Jude. You've brought some common sense to the debate. You're right. Women aren't stupid, but apparently some Republicans think they are.


"It amazes me how many people believe that women who use contraception are either promiscuous or just sluts."

Many? There are lots of people saying slut and prostitute outside of Rush? I don't think I've seen any.

"...her need or choice to use contraception is again, nobody else's business."

Who has said that women should not have the choice to use contraception if they want it? Because that's not been part of the debate over the past weeks.

The policy issue isn't whether she is allowed to USE contraception - its about who is going to PAY for the contraception. When the government mandates that it be provided at no cost, it becomes a public policy issue. And we all have a say in public policy.

"They want sovereign control over their bodies and they deserve that."

And they have that control without the contraception mandate. Nobody is being denied access to contraception. Its a physical good. If women want it, they can buy it. Even Catholic women.

"Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous. Any opinion to the contrary should be of no consequence what so ever."

Well, that certainly makes things easy. Just summarily dismiss any ideas that don't fit your worldview.


Diane - "By the way, abortion doesn't leave a stain."

That's why I also wrote this in the same comment.

*Note: This example is not my personal intention nor thoughts on abortion. Its simply a rhetorical device to illustrate the absolute idiocy of Ken's justification for a violent act against a political opponent. Violence is violence, and its never acceptable to perform, promote or suggest it as a response to unpopular speech.

Gotta say I'm amused that you give Ken the "hyperbole" pass, but the chance that Rush was also using hyperbole doesn't occur to you. (maybe he wasn't - just an observation)

"However, even the best among us have thoughts of doing violence when someone has done violence to those we love. I consider what Limbaugh said about Ms. Fluke a form of violence."

You love Ms. Fluke? Or do thought of actual violent acts (Castration! Really!?) often pop into your head when you see your political allies subjected to harsh speech?

"I consider what Limbaugh said about Ms. Fluke a form of violence. "

You may 'consider' it violence, but its not. Its constitutionally protected free speech. Egging, castration and whatever other fantasies you would like to see visited upon your political opponents are ACTUAL violence. Criminal behavior.


I thought it might be interesting to see what folks on this site were saying after Gabbie Giffords was shot: Ken and Diane's comments about the Gabbie Giffords shooting

Diane - "They don't seem to realize that while most of us realize that their extremist hate speech is mainly hyperbole, someone like this shooter can't discriminate between hyperbole and marching orders."

Ken - "Recently, we have politicians, talk show heads, and even religious leaders who have been, in a way, encouraging people to take confrontational action to prove their courage and patrotism. Did this man respond to the challenge depicted by 'cross hair' images and 'lock and load' analogy?"

Diane - you still OK with Ken's "hyperbole" here? Why is his OK, but that coming from right wingers wasn't?

Ken - do you worry about who might respond to your suggestion of physical violence in this case?


Schuyler--Throwing an egg is a far cry from putting a target symbol over a person's face or name. Bullets do kill and main; eggs don't.


So its OK to advocate violence so long as its non-lethal? Quite a web of justification you've spun for yourself here. Tell me more.


Eggs can't maim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egging

"A nurse was blinded in one eye when an egg was thrown at her from a passing car in March 2008 in Dublin.[1] A boy in Long Island also lost sight in one eye after teens from a local high school threw eggs out of a passing car on Halloween 2005"


Ken, If some students at thast little college of yours said they would do just what you said, would you approve the college paying for just such a trip?

If a student threw an egg at one of the instructors at your college because said instructor has political views different from theirs, would you defend such a students right?

Lets just say you found out Limbaugh had a distant cousin who was a student at your college. Plus say Limbaugh himself was helping to pay for their college. Would you approve of that student being egged or otherwise harrassed because they are a relative?

BTW, No, I'm not a Rush fan either. I just dont approve of your telling people to chuck eggs at someone when you fail to see just how far such things can go. Your supposed to be the adult at your college, sending an example of disciplined leadership and sage to the younger generation.


Post your own comment here


Do you want to read more? You've only just scratched the surface at the Kansas Free Press. We have so much more to read! Nearly all of the pieces published here are timeless and relevant, regardless of when the articles were first published. To discover more, please take a look at our Table of Contents or go back to our Front Page.


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links below (clicking through from our site) to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the shopping links provided on a Kansas Free Press page, you are directly helping to support the Kansas Free Press:



About This Page

This page contains just one story published on March 3, 2012. The one written previous to this is titled "Religious Mischief Behind All-faith Chapel" and the story published right after this one is "Spring has Sprung"

Our most current stories are always updated on our Front Page.

Other Archives

Interested in other topics? You may wish to poke around in our Table of Contents to find other sections and archives.

Do you want to explore pieces written by specific authors? You can find archives for KFP writers by reviewing our complete Directory of Authors and Writers here.

Recently Featured Stories

My Response As a Kansan to Jessica Valenti

Jessica Valenti has come on board The Nation magazine to fill in for Katha Pollitt as the feminist columnist while Pollitt is on leave to write a book. I've found reading Valenti's columns thought-provoking and insightful. She often takes …
Of Angels and God's Dogs

There might be a whole group of us out there--people who value our relationships with animals on a par with our ties to people. "Get over it--it was just a dog" does not resonate with us. Our society places …
Of Angels and God's Dogs

There might be a whole group of us out there--people who value our relationships with animals on a par with our ties to people. "Get over it--it was just a dog" does not resonate with us. Our society places …
Roots of the n-word

While N-word dialogue has slackened following Saline County Commissioner Gile's use of it recently, the word still has great power. So, let's look inward at the N-word. To reach a much deeper path to understanding, simply go to Ad …
Corporate Tax Reform

Basehor, Kans.--For an interesting twist on the corporate tax debate, look at Alan Sloan's opinion in the April 29 issue of Fortune Magazine. In all of the froth about corporate taxation, neither proponents of tax reduction, nor corporate critics, …

News and Opinion





Get Connected

See our FB page!
Subscribe for free!
[Feeds & Readers...]
Follow Kansas Free Press on Twitter, too!
Make Kansas Free Press your home page!

Journalists, sign in.

We're reader supported!

Whenever you use the specific links below to begin any of your online shopping, a portion of your sale goes directly towards the support of this site.

Tech Depot - An Office Depot Co.


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links above (clicking through from our site) to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the shopping links provided on a Kansas Free Press page, you are directly helping to support the Kansas Free Press.

Thank you for your help!

Notices & Policies

All of our Kansas Free Press journalists are delighted that you are here. We all hope that you come here often, sign in and leave us comments, and become an active part of our community. Welcome!

Our writers are credentialed after referral to, and approval by, the editor/publisher of KansasFreePress.com. If you are interested in writing with us, please feel free to let us know here. We are always looking for Kansans who want to write about Kansas!

All authors here retain their own copyrights for their original written works, original photographs and art works. They welcome others to copy, reference or quote from the content of their stories, provided that the reprints include obvious author and website attribution and links to the original page, in accordance with this publication's Creative Commons License.

Our editor primarily reviews stories for spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting and is not liable or responsible for the opinions expressed by individual authors. The opinions and accuracy of information in the individual stories on this site are the sole responsibility of each of the individual authors. For complete site policies, including privacy, see our Frequently Asked Questions. This site is designed, maintained, and owned by its publisher, Everyday Citizen Media. The Kansas Free Press, KansasFreePress.com, and Kansas Free Press are trademarked names.

© Copyright, 2008-2012, all rights reserved, unless otherwise specified, first by the respective author, and then by KFP's publisher and owner for any otherwise unreserved and all other content.