Lexington Herald-Leader (Sunday) - - Opinion -

We, the Sis­ters of St. Fran­cis and As­so­ci­ates of Tif­fin, Ohio, rec­og­nize the right of ev­ery per­son to live in safety with ac­cess to the ba­sic ne­ces­si­ties of life. We are watch­ing with grow­ing con­cern as thou­sands of Cen­tral Amer­i­cans are mov­ing to­ward the south­ern border of the United States look­ing for a safe haven. Most left their own coun­tries be­cause of poverty, vi­o­lence and lifethreat­en­ing sit­u­a­tions. In light of this, we call for the fol­low­ing:

No use of mil­i­tary forces at the border; no trau­ma­tiz­ing of chil­dren and their par­ents.

No pe­nal­iz­ing the coun­tries of ori­gin with threats to re­duce aid.

Treat­ment that re­flects re­spect for the dig­nity of each per­son.

Use of avail­able U.S. re­sources to as­sist those who come to our border.

Al­low those who have a case for asy­lum to fol­low the le­gal process with­out be­ing held in de­ten­tion.

We call for new im­mi­gra­tion poli­cies that re­spect the dig­nity of each per­son and honor the sa­cred­ness of fam­ily unity. In sol­i­dar­ity with those who are vul­ner­a­ble, we ad­vo­cate for poli­cies that re­flect com­pas­sion to­ward those who ap­proach the United States with hope in their hearts.

AAAAASis­ters Angie Kiel and Marge Eil­er­man Booneville Sis­ter Theresa Kehres Ravenna BOR­DER­LINE HYPOCRISY

So a guy who has filed for bank­ruptcy six times — bilk­ing fi­nan­cial back­ers out of mil­lions of dol­lars all the while su­ing or be­ing sued over 4,000 times over “deals” — calls an itin­er­ant mi­grant who has just walked over 1,000 miles with his wife and two small chil­dren who want noth­ing more than to seek a bet­ter life in this coun­try a crim­i­nal.

Does he not un­der­stand his own hypocrisy? Of course not. That re­quires com­pas­sion­ate rea­son­ing and in­tel­li­gence.


This year, the big bully on the play­ground was the Ken­tucky Ed­u­ca­tion As­so­ci­a­tion. It spent enor­mous amounts of teach­ers’ money to try to elect lib­eral Democrats.

KEA of­fi­cials and mem­bers of the Ken­tucky Demo­cratic Party de­cided they wanted to wage war on the Repub­li­cans in Frank­fort for try­ing to fix the teacher pen­sions. The Frank­fort Democrats, KEA union thugs and the lib­eral me­dia did ev­ery­thing they could to sab­o­tage the ef­fort.

For­tu­nately, the good ci­ti­zens of Ken­tucky saw through the tricks and voted to keep Repub­li­cans in su­per-ma­jori­ties in both cham­bers. Our econ­omy is now start­ing to take off and Ken­tuck­ians have had enough of the good ol’ boy Democrats and their lib­eral cronies.

Re­mem­ber that the fu­ture of our kids lies with a strong econ­omy and abun­dant op­por­tu­ni­ties for all. It’s an out­rage when these KEA union thugs lie to our teach­ers. In the old days we needed unions to pro­tect work­ers, but nowa­days teach­ers need pro­tec­tion from the cor­rupt teach­ers union.


On be­half of the Ken­tucky Re­tired Teach­ers As­so­ci­a­tion, I want to ex­press our heart­felt ap­pre­ci­a­tion to the re­tired teach­ers through­out Lex­ing­ton and Cen­tral Ken­tucky who stood up to Frank­fort dur­ing this year's de­bate over pub­lic pen­sions. With­out their strong ad­vo­cacy, the more than 50,000 re­tired teach­ers in our state would be fac­ing a much bleaker fu­ture. The count­less phone calls, let­ters and emails, the at­ten­dance at pub­lic fo­rums, their will­ing­ness to travel to Frank­fort and tes­tify in com­mit­tees, meet with leg­is­la­tors and show unity for the cause clearly made a dif­fer­ence.

As they did through­out their ca­reers, they once again taught us the value of hard work, re­search, tenac­ity, deco­rum and how to ef­fec­tively and co­gently ar­gue for what is right. We must now re­main vig­i­lant and en­gaged as our state law­mak­ers pre­pare for the 2019 ses­sion of the Ken­tucky Gen­eral As­sem­bly.


MetroNet is cur­rently be­ing in­stalled in Lex­ing­ton. The pos­si­bil­ity of a cheap high-speed con­nec­tion sounds good, but there is a gap­ing is­sue that few peo­ple are talk­ing about.

Ev­ery­body hopes that MetroNet will be a van­guard for fu­ture high-tech jobs, but speed is just a com­po­nent of the pack­age. An­other com­po­nent is IPv6 (In­ter­net Pro­to­col ver­sion 6). MetroNet doesn’t sup­port IPv6.

To put this into con­text, ev­ery cell phone uses IPv6. Ev­ery broad­band (ca­ble) ser­vice pro­vides IPv6. Ev­ery modern com­puter tries to es­tab­lish an IPv6 con­nec­tion first. All modern smart TVs sup­port IPv6. It’s nearly im­pos­si­ble to find some­thing made in the last eight years that doesn't sup­port IPv6.

I have lived in many parts of the coun­try and the world and worked with many dif­fer­ent in­ter­net ser­vice providers. The only other ser­vice provider that doesn't sup­port IPv6 is Wind­Stream.This pro­to­col was de­vel­oped be­cause the num­ber of IPv4 ad­dresses needed for in­ter­net­con­nected de­vices was pro­jected to be ex­hausted within a few years.

This is not a se­cu­rity is­sue. It is a func­tional lim­i­ta­tion that will be­come more ap­par­ent as time goes on. It will not sup­port the re­quire­ments of a modern high-tech work­force.


I’m a skep­tic, pe­jo­ra­tively a de­nier, be­cause I don’t be­lieve the dooms­day cli­mate hog­wash be­ing foisted on the pub­lic by the govern­ment and me­dia. So what am I deny­ing?

I don’t be­lieve the much-ma­nip­u­lated cli­mate record is re­li­able. Tem­per­a­tures for the first half of the 20th cen­tury have been pro­gres­sively whit­tled down to make the record agree with the global warm­ing nar­ra­tive.

I don’t be­lieve the cli­mate mod­els are valid. For 30 years, their pre­dic­tions have been wrong.I don’t be­lieve in­creas­ing CO2 has any ef­fect on cli­mate and there­fore no ill ef­fects on peo­ple, plants or an­i­mals.

I don’t be­lieve po­lar bears are in any dan­ger of ex­tinc­tion.I don’t be­lieve sea lev­els are ris­ing faster now than they have in past cen­turies.I don’t be­lieve the spread of trop­i­cal dis­eases has any re­la­tion with warmer weather.

I don’t be­lieve the cur­rent weather is out of line with nat­u­ral, cycli­cal cli­mate vari­a­tion.

I be­lieve a warmer world is hap­pier, health­ier and more pros­per­ous. I be­lieve that CO2 is ab­so­lutely nec­es­sary for the ex­is­tence of all life forms on the planet. I be­lieve the sun and oceans con­trol Earth’s cli­mate.


For the record, I do not fa­vor vote buy­ing. But it’s rather ironic that an un­der­paid school ad­min­is­tra­tor in East­ern Ken­tucky will spend two years in prison for buy­ing a few votes in a lo­cal elec­tion while ev­ery­thing I read and hear seems to im­ply that the can­di­date with the big­gest bankroll is usu­ally fa­vored to win.

The last I saw, the amount of money spent on the 6th Dis­trict con­gres­sional race was more than $12 mil­lion, for a po­si­tion that pays some­thing like $174,000 ayear.

As Granny used to say, “Seems to me like some­thing is rot­ten in Den­mark.”


Dur­ing the re­cent elec­tion sea­son, I of­ten found a large, col­or­ful, flier hang­ing on my front door, ad­ver­tis­ing that I might not be home. If I wanted peo­ple to know that I am away, or at least un­re­spon­sive, I wouldn't be so care­ful to make the house look oc­cu­pied any time I am away. I deeply re­sent hav­ing some­thing left on my front door that gives my house the ap­pear­ance of be­ing un­oc­cu­pied.

So my newly adopted pol­icy is to never, ever vote for any po­lit­i­cal can­di­date whose sup­port­ers leave any­thing on my prop­erty with­out my ex­plicit per­mis­sion. That be­hav­ior tells me that the can­di­date is more con­cerned with be­ing elected (or re-elected) than with the safety and well-be­ing of the peo­ple who live in the area.

In­con­sid­er­ate, self-cen­tered peo­ple have no place in our govern­ment.


We re­cently have seen more gun vi­o­lence than most of us can re­mem­ber. We had guns in the United States in my youth as we do now, but many fewer atroc­i­ties. The dif­fer­ence that I see is in men­tal-health care.

I am not crit­i­ciz­ing men­tal-health care­givers, but we had a dif­fer­ent ap­proach in the past. There were men­tal­health care fa­cil­i­ties – hos­pi­tals – where peo­ple who were con­sid­ered dan­ger­ous to them­selves or oth­ers were treated un­til deemed safe to re­join the com­mu­nity. Mass shoot­ings are of­ten com­mit­ted by peo­ple whom friends, fam­ily, neigh­bors and co-work­ers rec­og­nize as pos­ing a threat, but they aren’t re­ported or treated.

I am a physi­cian but not in­volved in men­tal-health care and can­not tell those pro­fes­sion­als how to do their jobs, but I can say that many of these vi­o­lent peo­ple need health care that is dif­fer­ent from what they re­ceive. I urge those who know a per­son with an ill­ness that may in­volve ag­gres­sion or vi­o­lence to help to see they get the care they need.


The fa­ther of a friend of mine was a Medal of Free­dom (known as Amer­ica's high­est civil­ian recog­ni­tion) re­cip­i­ent. You could not print what he would have said about the ap­par­ent award by Pres­i­dent Trump of the medal for po­lit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tions to the Repub­li­can Party.

JOHN BAR­BER Frank­fort

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.