Kansas, the place where I spent my formative years skipping school to go fishing in farm ponds, is populated with thoughtful stewards of the nation’s breadbasket. It also has a habit of turning reason on its head. The state famously dropped evolution from its educational curriculum in 1999, along with the age of the Earth and the history of the universe, for good measure.

Now the state’s “Committee on Energy and Environment” is proposing a law that would prohibit spending on anything that won’t set Kansas on a course to self-destruction. House Bill No. 2366 would ban all state and municipal funds for anything related to “sustainable development,” which it defines as: “development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come."

If this definition sounds familiar, that’s because it was lifted verbatim from what’s commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report, one of the seminal documents in the modern practice of sustainability. The Brundtland Report was the product of a four-year commission set up by United Nations member countries that were increasingly concerned that the world’s resources were being squandered and its environment spoiled.

Roger Dorn wrote:I once knew somebody from Kansas City who compared it favorably to Paris....made it a point not to stay in contact.

I agree we would all be better off if Kansas disappeared into a sinkhole.

laf837 wrote:Topeka, hands down, the worst state capital I've ever visited (been to at least half the country's state capitals)

TenuredVulture wrote:

laf837 wrote:Topeka, hands down, the worst state capital I've ever visited (been to at least half the country's state capitals)

Worse than Trenton?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I posted three articles from people (or in the case of The Economist, a magazine) who were in the UK for part or all of Thatcher's tenure. All three were written by those who supported Obama in the most recent presidential election. They provided a different perspective on the important, transformative, and largely positive impact Thatcher had on the UK and the rest of the world.

I think I'm a bit more than casually informed on the topic, and I've read cases against her more times than I would have cared to. You're doing a weird thing in this thread recently insulting anyone who disagrees with you (generally me) as not really knowing anything. I know a lot more about politics than pretty much anyone else who posts here. I don't go around telling people that in every post I make. It's obnoxious as fuck.

I bow to no one here in my admiration of your knowledge of electoral processes, the implications of campaign strategy, and the other stuff of 'real' politics. I've shown I'm less convinced of your grasp of world-historical events. There is really not much chance that you know significantly more about Thatcherism than I; you've proven you do not know all that much, and I know I don't know all that much about the reality of her time in office. Grow a skin.

Roger Dorn wrote:I once knew somebody from Kansas City who compared it favorably to Paris....

BDawk wrote:Listen, Kansas is objectively horrible. I've had to drive the width of the state 4 times. Pity me.

then I dreamt I was in the jacuzzi with that old whore in #10 and then I knew that I'd never, ever, ever drink again.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I posted three articles from people (or in the case of The Economist, a magazine) who were in the UK for part or all of Thatcher's tenure. All three were written by those who supported Obama in the most recent presidential election. They provided a different perspective on the important, transformative, and largely positive impact Thatcher had on the UK and the rest of the world.

I think I'm a bit more than casually informed on the topic, and I've read cases against her more times than I would have cared to. You're doing a weird thing in this thread recently insulting anyone who disagrees with you (generally me) as not really knowing anything. I know a lot more about politics than pretty much anyone else who posts here. I don't go around telling people that in every post I make. It's obnoxious as fuck.

I bow to no one here in my admiration of your knowledge of electoral processes, the implications of campaign strategy, and the other stuff of 'real' politics. I've shown I'm less convinced of your grasp of world-historical events. There is really not much chance that you know significantly more about Thatcherism than I; you've proven you do not know all that much, and I know I don't know all that much about the reality of her time in office. Grow a skin.

I'm no expert on the life and times of Margaret Thatcher, and I'm not pretending to be. I've read a few books about her and her/Reagan (fawning), plenty of articles (both sides, mostly fawning), and tons of testimonials from English folks (scathing); on the economics side, it's partially what I studied in college, and it's an interest of mine. I have sufficient background on the subject matter to post a couple links to articles written by people more informed than I am about the topic that I found interesting in a politics thread on a Phillies message board. I don't know how I proved that I don't know much about Thatcher or Thatcherism. I didn't write piles of factually incorrect stuff. I posted a couple of links.

You do this weird credential dick waving stuff, and I don't get it.