Entries from blogs tagged with “Creative Domain”
http://worldonline.media.clients.elli...'s Republican Second District House Candidate Lynn Jenkin's new TV ad distilled to its essence:Washington bad, taxes bad, I'm a CPA, illegal immigrants bad, I'm a CPA, taxes bad, I'm a CPA, vote for me!Or as cartoonist Gary Larson might have put it, "Lynn Jenkins blah blah blah, Lynn Jenkins blah blah blah."Read more about Kansas politics, go to Kansas Watch at http://kswatch.squarespace.com
In previous posts I discussed the abuse of babies for profit by NBC on its reality show "The Baby Borrowers,"If you agree that this series should be ended you can protest in various ways. You can tell NBC what you think on the NBC FORUMYou can protest to your local NBC affiliate about the program. You could also file a protest with the FCC, although the situation would not seem to fit into a specific category of protest topics on their website.You can link to Dr. Jan Hunt's letter criticizing the show on your blog, post it on sites that reprint articles from other sites or write a letter to your local newspaper.You can contact your Senators and Representative in Congress to request a congressional investigation of the program with the possibility of prohibiting television from using children, especially babies, in reality shows. Congress should at the very least require NBC and its advertisers for the program to establish a trust fund to cover any subsequent mental health problems the children might experience because of the program. Currently only California has legislation protecting child actors from exploitation by the entertainment industry and "stage mothers".Many child actors have experienced serious psychological problems as adults. Paul Peterson who played Jeff Stone, the son on "The Donna Reed" show, has spoken out for years on the problems of child actors. You can contact the companies that advertised on the program and request that they not advertise on any future programs in the series. A partial list of advertisers includes: Verizon Wireless, Tylenol, Subway, Mentos gum, Hot Pockets, Klondike Bar, All Bran, Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep, T_Mobile, Wanted, (Pizza Hut) CoffeeMate, Samsung, Listerine, Vagisil, All State.
Public policy is tricky. You need 51% of some legislative body and a signature to put anything into effect. In the process the policy is shaped and frequently misshaped to get votes. Upon implementation there are usually negative and unintended consequences. Then there is the minority that didn't vote for it and still think it is bad public policy.It was refreshing to read the results of a research study that showed a 26-27% reduction in the probability of college students driving after drinking away from their college home after implementation of "zero tolerance" driving under the influence laws. This public policy was part of the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995 that included a provision that states would be subject to withholding of Federal-Aid Highway Funds if they did not define a 0.02 BAC level or lower for drivers under age 21 as driving while intoxicated. Kansas and all of the other states quickly changed state laws to implement this 'zero tolerance' policy. The details of this evaluation are too numerous to put in a few hundred words so I will only outline the study and refer interested readers to the report referenced below.The data came from the College Alcohol Study conducted by Harvard School of Public Health. This is a periodic survey of students enrolled in a representative sample of American institutions of higher education. This study used survey results for 1993, 1997, 1999 allowing comparisons before and after policy implementation. They include a lot of additional data to attempt to rule out other explanations for the results. Not surprisingly college age students drink. In all three years of the survey two-thirds of students reported drinking in the previous month and almost half reported binge drinking in the prior two weeks. The study compared drinking 'at home' (their college residence) to drinking away from home since drinking away for home is more likely to involve driving. They found that zero tolerance laws were associated with; - a 3-4% reduction in binge drinking; - a 14-17% reduction in drinking and driving; - a 26-27% reduction in driving after drinking away from home. - There was no evidence that drinking at home increased after the implementation of zero tolerance laws.This public policy had a large positive impact but didn't solve the problem. A large percentage of students surveyed after implementation of zero tolerance laws still reported drinking and driving. For those drinking away from home 30% still reported driving after drinking. There is still work to be done.Liang, L. & Huang, J. (2008). Go out or stay in? The effects of zero tolerance laws on alcohol use and drinking and driving patterns among college students. Health Economics. Published online in Wiley Interscience (www. interscience.wiley.com)
Once again the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) has issued 'Request for Proposals' (RFP) for family preservation and reintegration foster care and adoption services. This is an arcane part of the Kansas child welfare system that has important implications for all citizens. These contracts will affect the lives of thousands of children and families in Kansas and result in spending millions of our tax dollars.This post is about just one sentence in the Family Preservation RFP: "The purpose of this Request is to solicit the design and implementation of an evidence based practice model for family preservation program in designated geographic regions in Kansas." Sound good, doesn't it?The phrase evidence based practice means using the intervention that has the best research evidence that it is effective. This is like going to your doctor with a medical problem and expecting her or him to suggest the medicine or procedure that has been shown to be most effective in resolving the problem. What is particularly interesting is that the phrase 'evidence based practice' does NOT appear in the Reintegration Foster Care and Adoption Services RFP. This RFP states: "SRS seeks to continue the quality of the Child Welfare service system, provide for safety and stability in placement, and achieve timely permanencies for children."Safety, stability and permanency are three important child welfare results, in part dictated by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 that guides much of child welfare in the states. For each of these outcomes evidence based practices exist. Some of these practices are more powerful than others but there is a growing research literature in the field.Take stability in placement for example. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has standards for stability. One of these is that a child placed in foster care will have 2 or fewer placements during the each 12 month period in placement. Kansas does not meet this standard.DHHS has asked SRS what they will do to improve performance regarding placement stability. In response SRS identified several steps in what is called a Program Improvement Plan. This plan does not include one word about evidence based practices. Even though there is a fairly well tested intervention call Multidimensional Foster Care that has demonstrated through rigorous research that it improves placement stability. The old adage is that you get what you pay for. We are not likely to get the best foster care results because SRS is not asking child welfare contractors to use the best available interventions. This is kind of like asking you doctor if he or she is recommending the best available medical solution and getting the response. "Well I don't really know. I do the best I can."
Director of the Natural Child Project child psychologist Dr. Jan Hunt, who is the director of the is very concerned about the potential negative impact of the treatment of the babies on the NBC reality series "Baby Borrowers". Hunt is concerned that the separation from parents could increase production of the stress hormone cortisol in the babies: "When cortisol is produced due to emotional stress, the next stressful experience creates an even larger surge of cortisol. By the time a stressed child reaches adulthood, he is likely to overreact to all stressful situations, making it harder to cope with life's challenges. For all these reasons, babies and young children should be kept as stress-free as possible, to protect their future psychological and physical health."http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/baby_borrowers.htmlI have a long standing interest in how the brain develops and functions. At one time I was considering going into the field of what is called "artificial intelligence" which involves simulating human intelligence on a computer, but decided I was more interested in dealing with the actual ideas rather than the detailed process the brain uses to form them. Much of the baby's brain development involves developing brain cells to control the muscles for movement of various parts of the body, eventually including the complex process of speaking. The baby also develops neurons to store information about the baby's environment. Baby's normally don't form specific memories about individual events in their lives, but they use those events to learn how to react to their environment in the future. Babies don't remember what actually happened on early birthdays and Christmases, but they may remember these events as happy events to look forward to.Babies may remember what they consider traumatic events in a general fashion. For example, adults' fear of receiving shots may result from a memory of vaccinations received as infants. Claustrophobia and other fears sometimes are the result of very unpleasant childhood experiences. The sexual abuse scandals of the Catholic Church have publicized the fact that children may suppress memories of sexual abuse for long periods of time, but suffer from psychological problems during that period. For a baby a traumatic experience doesn't necessarily involve anything wrong or illegal. For a baby a doctor's exam can be a very unpleasant experience.Babies may not remember how they have been "mistreated", but they may associate similar situations or people with a similar appearance to that mistreatment. A baby who was particularly upset by an exam by a doctor with a mustache might in the future have a negative reaction to men with mustaches. Babies respond differently to the same situations depending upon their genetics and experiences and possibly the way their brains have developed prior to the event. Not all babies react the same way to being separated from the parents and put in the care of individuals with no child care experience. The babies in this experiment may suffer psychological problems sometime in the future. that may be triggered by persons or situations that remind the baby, child or even adult of something "bad" that happened during the experiment.
NBC is abusing small children by using them for a "social experiment" and profit on a show airing on Wednesday's at 8 EDT/ 7 CDT beginning June 25 called "The Baby Borrowers" . On the program teenagers pretend to be the parents of babies by substituting for the babies' real parents.Dr. Jan Hunt director of the Natural Child Project says: "As a parent, child psychologist and family counselor, I am deeply concerned about the premise of your new show "The Baby Borrowers," and for the present and future emotional health of the babies and young children whose lives will be so strongly affected." Scientists have only limited knowledge of how the brain develops in young children. Babies cannot say how they feel. The information the baby receives and its feelings about the information influences how the neurons in the brain develop. Scientists know that events in a baby's life can positively or negatively affect brain development. According to the news story about the show on the network's Wichita, Ks., affiliate KSNW, the people appearing on the show are volunteers who are not compensated. How does a baby volunteer to be on a television show? Using children as performers on a commercial television show without payment should be illegal if it isn't already. If adults are stupid enough to appear on a commercial television show without compensation they should be allowed to do so. But children should not be exploited for profit by heartless television networks. How can the network know the reasons why these parents allowed NBC to exploit their babiesSmall children should not be used for experiments with the only possible exception being controlled experiments conducted by professional scientists that pose zero threat to the physical or mental health of the children. The program claims to show teens how to be parents by taking care of the children for an extended period. Does that mean the babies are working longer than babies would be allowed to work if they were paid television actors? Hollywood typically has used twins for very small children on television shows to avoid overworking the children.The program claims to be a "reality show", but the situation is not realistic. The teen guinea pig parents cannot relate to their pretend babies in the same way a real parent would. The babies will not relate to total strangers the way they would to their parents. I have heard enough about the psychological problems many former child actors had to believe that children should only be used in television programs if absolutely necessary. This program is not necessary.
Don Jordan is the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS). As far as I know he is not running for president. Yet one could be confused since remarks he made on March 18 were still receiving national attention as recently as last Saturday. Groups from Colorado and Washington DC jumped on Don's statement about Sedgwick County prosecutors bullying child protection services caseworkers. Of course officials from Wichita and even Governor Sebelius had to comment. I don't know a thing about the group Citizens for Change or what Don was trying to say. I do know that child welfare is by nature a complex and contentious enterprise.According to the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform and the American Family Advocacy Center, the out of state groups, children are removed from their Sedgwick County homes at a higher rate than New York City or Los Angeles. I did some checking with mixed results. According to data from the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Census Bureau in 2005 the state of Kansas placed 4.65 children in foster care for every 1000 children in the population. This compares to 2.5 for New York State and 4.54 for California. Data was not available for New York City or Los Angeles. So it looks like Kansas places a higher proportion of children into foster care.Data from the Children and Family Research Center (CFRC) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign tell a different story. For purposes of full disclosure, I retired from this institution in 2002. This Center issues yearly reports on the Illinois child welfare system and how it compares with other states. Their 2006 report includes child non-removal rates. In other words how states are doing keeping families together. This report shows that New York and Kansas are about equal in terms of child non-removal and that California performs less well.Actually these comparisons are not helpful. Child welfare is a state enterprise. The state legislature determines what constitutes child abuse, neglect or other situations that can be used to remove a child from their home. That would be us acting through our state senators and representatives. Juvenile judges intervene in Kansas families by making a decision to find a child a "Child in Need of Care" (CINC). This can then lead to placing the child in foster care. To do this they follow our directions as codified in the Kansas Code for the Care of Children that is Kansas Statutes 38-2202 (http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes). That is where we define what constitutes a CINC. Some people think that child protective services in Kansas is about child abuse and neglect. Our definition for a CINC is much broader than that. According to the SRS website currently 78.7% of investigations are for the non-abuse or neglect category of beyond proper control. Beyond proper control is the very first part of the definition of CINC. "Child in need of care" means a person less than 18 years of age who: (1) Is without adequate parental care, control or subsistence and the condition is not due solely to the lack of financial means of the child's parents or other custodian (Kansas Statutes 38-2202). This is a very vague statement. I dare say that most youth would meet this condition at some time in their young lives. This is just one of 13 ways of becoming a CINC. In other words it is not Don Jordan, the Sedgwick County District Attorney, SRS caseworkers or even juvenile judges that are responsible for determining the criteria for removing a child from their home. It is us. If there are groups that want to change this, start where you can make a real difference and influence the legislature to change the definition of a child in need of care.
A recent report of a study of young adults who had been placed in foster care as adolescents found that those in a program with caseworkers of higher levels of education and salaries, lower caseloads and access to more services had fewer mental problems, ulcers and cardiometabolic disorders . This was not a study that randomly assigned foster youth to these two types of care so it is well to be cautious in going too far with the results. Yet it is a very promising finding. We know too little about the effects of foster care. We know that some children thrive and go on to be productive members of the community. Other children leaving foster care have troubled lives involving substance abuse, homelessness and criminal activity. We need to know what makes the difference.It is good to know that enhancing foster care seems to make a positive difference in the lives of youth. At what cost? The report includes 2 items regarding cost. Enhanced foster care cost 60% more. The youth who were in the enhanced foster care group spent nearly 2 more years in care than the other group.Would our community agree to spend 60% more on foster care then we do now? As a state we are having difficulty funding K through 12 education. We can't figure out how to have all of our citizens covered by health insurance. We have backed off of funding higher education. Increasing foster care funding by 60% doesn't seem realistic.A note of caution. This study only involved adolescents. They are just a part of the foster care caseload and we don't know if the same type of enhanced foster care would have the same results for younger children. So if we only funded enhanced foster care for adolescents, total foster care funding would not have to increase 60%.The second cost of spending nearly 2 more years in foster care raises a more difficult question. Isn't foster care supposed to be temporary? One idea behind foster care is that children should only be placed out of their home when they are in danger and that a safe and permanent home should be found as quickly as possible preferably with their own legal family. The findings of this study turn this on its head.In this society we are constantly balancing the value of family independence and autonomy against the interests of the larger community. This study suggests that larger community interests regarding these youth might supersede family interests. On the other hand how about the idea of enhanced family services? Perhaps it is time for a study of what adolescents like those in the study might achieve with enhanced services within their own home.Kessler, R.C. et al. (2008). Effects of enhanced foster care on the long-term physical and mental health of foster care alumni. Archives of General Psychiatry. Vol. 65, No. 6.
The states of Michigan and Florida need to tell the Democratic Party to seat their delegates with full voting rights or face the prospect of not having a presidential candidate on the November ballot in those states. Alternatively, these states should seek a federal injunction preventing the Democrats from conducting a nominating convention unless it gives equal rights to the residents of Michigan and Florida. Allowing a small group of Democrats to deny voters in their states the equal right to participate in the presidential candidate selection process would be a violation of the oath state officials take to defend the Constitution.The Democrats order that Barack Obama be given Michigan delegates demonstrates the Democrats have complete contempt for the electoral process because Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Michigan at the very least should sue the Democratic Party to force it to assign delegates based on the will of the voters rather than the will of authoritarian party leaders.In Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union a political party offiicial could be more powerful than government officials. In communist states the head of the communist party has often been the most powerful person in the country because he determines who holds the government offices. In the United States, government officials elected by the people are supposed to be more powerful than political party officers. At one time in the U.S. political party leaders chose political candidates in secret to insure the candidates would serve whatever special interests controlled the party. State governments created the political primary system to eliminate this form of corruption and insure popular control over the candidate selection process.In a true democracy. anyone should be able to run for office who meets the legal qualifications. However the existence of two major parties makes it difficult for anyone to win an election without the endorsement of one of the two parties. Primary elections are a means of preventing private groups from taking over the election process and limiting who can run for office. The Democatic Party is attempting to circumvent the popular selection of candidates by claiming it can tell states when they can hold presidential primaries. Allowing political parties to order state governments to follow party orders rather than the will of the people in the respective states is a direct assault on the idea of government by the people and a movement to the type of political system of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.Both major parties have small groups within them whose members believe their party should adopt a strict ideological approach to issues as is common with political parties in totalitarian states. If Congress is not going to act to insure that the presidential nominating process is open to all, the states must act. Congress is the only body that has the constitutional authority to control when state governments can set presidential primaries. If party leaders believe limits on when primaries can be held are needed, they should ask Congress to impose such limits. The political parties should not attempt to dictate to the states like the Nazi Party and the Communist Party did.
You've seen the following plot dozens of times on television. The police decide a death is an accident or suicide and someone like Jim Rockford, Harry Orwell or maybe Jessica Fletcher has to convince the police the death was a murder.Today two real live Harry Orwells, retired NYPD detectives Kevin Gannon and Anthony Duarte, are attempting to convince law enforcement officers in many jurisdictions that a series of drownings are murders rather than accidents or suicides. Like the cops on PI shows the police in most of these cases have taken the easy way out and written the cases off so they don't have to risk investigating crimes that might be very difficult to solve. The Federal Bureau Investigation isn't interested if local police don't think there is a problem.The investigation began with the death of college student Patrick McNeill, who drowned in New York City in 1997. Gannon made a promise to McNeill's parents that he would never give up on his case. They have already convinced Minnesota authorities that the death of University of Minnesota student Christopher Jenkins was a homicide instead of an accident. They believe 40 or more college men have been murdered many by drowning them in rivers, even in winter. In the best tradition of "CSI" they have examined data on river currents to determine where each body likely entered the water. Subsequent examinations of the area around the points of entry has revealed various different smiley faced graffiti. I saw an 60's or 70's era movie about urban terrorism years ago. The only thing I remember about the movie is the quote: "Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action." The number of drowning deaths of men with similar characteristics with the associated smiley face indicates the work of a serial killer or killers. The fact that nine were students at the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse is particularly suspicious. The idea of murdering people by drowning them isn't new. Characters in old gangster movies often talked about this method of eliminating someone, although the victim was often first fitted with "cement overshoes" so the body wouldn't be found. In murder mysteries victims might be drowned in bathtubs, swimming pools, rivers or the ocean.Drowning provides certain advantages to murderers. There is no murder weapon for the police to find and link the murderer to the crime. The water may wash off any DNA or fiber evidence. Getting the victim into the water can present a problem when the victim isn't cooperative, especially if the victim starts yelling. The possibility of being seen also increases the risk of being caught. The first problem can be reduced if the victim is drunk which is one of the similarities of the victims in the smiley face murders. Putting the victim in the water at night, especially during cold weather would also reduce risk. Night fishing isn't as common in cold weather as it is in warm weather so there would be less chance of someone seeing the crime. The fact that people sometimes drown accidentally or commit suicide by drowning benefits murderers, particularly if law enforcement officers don't want to bother with cases that are difficult to solve. A drowning death might reasonably be classified as an accident if the person was known to be swimming at the time, was at a party along a river bank or perhaps drowned near his or her residence particularly if impaired by alcohol or medication. However, a drowning should be considered suspicious if the police cannot place the person in the vicinity of the place where he or she entered the water or there is anything suspicious about the condition of the body, such as the placement of the arms in some cases studied by Gannon and Duarte. If the person had been drinking before the death, the police need to determine if the person was physically able to get to the point where the body entered the water particularly if the drowning didn't occur near the route the person would take to get home. If the victims were predominately black instead of predominately white, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson would be screaming for an investigation. If the victims were female, the news media would be speculating about another Ted Bundy. So, why is the FBI refusing to investigate the case? Don't the feds think white males can be the victims of crimes?What if the 40 deaths had involved some symptoms that might indicate a disease? For example, what if all of those who had died had reported muscle aches followed by a rash and then an extremely high fever. The Center of Disease Control and the World Health Organization would both be investigating to determine if there was a common cause for the deaths. The CDC would want to know if those who died had had physical contact or perhaps contact with the same individual or individuals. Perhaps they all could have consumed the same food product before becoming sick. Health officials would rather investigate something that doesn't turn out to be a crisis than risk having an epidemic develop because they didn't take the situation seriously enough. AIDS was discovered because doctors became suspicious after noticing the increasing appearance of previously rare disorders.Shouldn't the FBI be just as diligent in investigating a possible criminal epidemic? The FBI is supposed to be the nation's premier law enforcement agency. Local law enforcement agencies are often underfunded and understaffed. They may not have the type of facilities and personnel seen on CSI. They may be prone to concentrate on obvious crimes instead of attempting to deal with situations that might or might not involve crimes. Local departments are unlikely to recognize serial crimes that occur in many different jurisdictions. Gannon and Duarte believe more than one killer might be involved because in some cases deaths occurred in more than one state on the same day. Who could be the killer or killers? The fact the victims were men could indicate female killers, perhaps women wanting to emulate Aileen Wuornos who admitted to killing 7 men. A woman could lure a man by promising sex or pretending to need help with her car. A satanic cult is an obvious possibility. The fact the victims tended to be successful in sports, academics and/or popular could indicate the killers are young males with similar attitudes of the Columbine High School killers. Members of an informal group might link to each other on the Internet and help each other plan the attacks. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from the FBI. After all today's FBI isn't the FBI of Ephrem Zimbalist's Inspector Lewis Erskine.Today's FBI is the organization whose leaders didn't think the number of Saudis learning to fly airliners in 2001 was worth investigating. Today's FBI couldn't figure out that a man who wanted to learn how to fly airliners, but not land them, might be planning to hijack an airliner and crash it into something. The FBI initially believed the DC sniper was a lone white male instead of the two black males they eventually caught.If the FBI refuses to investigate and the Smiley Face deaths turn out to be murders rather than a bizarre coincidence, Congress needs to consider replacing the FBI with a real law enforcement agency that is capable of protecting us from criminals and terrorists.The killings thus far seem to be primarily in farther north along the I-95 corridor, but there is no guarantee that Lawrence and KU are safe if the killers aren't caught.
Yes that is the sales tax rate in Lawrence and it can be cut in half. No tax protest required. We don't need to cut spending. We don't need to toss out the city commission, county commission or the legislature. We need to reconsider what is not subject to the sales tax.In Kansas the sales tax was instituted in 1937. Since then the legislature has been busy letting selected sales off the hook. There are now more than 73 exclusions or exemptions. That number is from John Wong's 2006 study and does not include the last 3 legislative sessions (Sales Tax Erosion in Kansas, http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/sales_tax_erosion_ks.pdf). Each time the legislature changes the sales tax a new paragraph is added to KSA 79-3603. That is the Kansas Retailers' Sales Tax law. Take a look at http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteInfo.do. Reading it makes my head spin. Each exclusion, exemption, addition or whatever is given a letter starting with a. The latest paragraph is 'aaaa.' That means we are starting on our fourth run through the alphabet. This must be one of the legislature's favorite activities. I wonder what was changed this year.Fortunately John Wong's study is more understandable and necessarily simplified. The three largest non sales tax categories are: ¢ Exclusion of component parts and items consumed in production resulting in a 2005 tax loss of $2.3 billion.¢ Exclusion of government and nonprofit purchases resulting in a 2005 tax loss of $300 million.¢ Exemption of services resulting in a 2005 tax loss of $1.9 billion.Actual sales tax receipts in 2005 according to Wong were $1.9 billion. We could easily get that amount of money with a tax rate of 3.65% (half of 7.3%) by rethinking the exclusions and exemptions.I know there are 'good' reasons for each and every sale not subject to the sales tax. Exclusion of component parts and items consumed in production helps Kansas businesses. We all need jobs.Why would we ask government entities to pay sales tax when they would just need to raise other taxes or reduce services to pay for it?Why not help out nonprofit organizations with a sales tax exemption? They would just need to raise more money without the exemption. Except, not all nonprofits are exempt from sales taxes. Take a look at the list at http://www.ksrevenue.org/pecentitylearnmore.htm. If your favorite nonprofit is not listed it is apparently because you haven't asked your local legislator to submit a bill to add that organization to the list. Incidentally, Victory in the Valley is paragraph 'aaaa' the latest addition prior to this legislative session.The trouble with all of these 'reasonable' exemptions and exclusions is that the sales tax base just keeps getting smaller requiring a higher tax rate to generate the same amount of revenue. When we go to the grocery store we pay 7.3% rather than 3.65%. So low and middle income families have a more difficult time and pay more of their income in sales taxes than other families. We need to broaden, not narrow the sales tax base. ¢ Why not tax some services. Our economy is based more and more on services rather than manufacturing products. In 2005 consumption of services was 59% of all personal consumption expenditures a radical change from 1937 (Wong, 2006). ¢ Let's rethink some of our current exemptions. Examine each exemption with the thought that eliminating it would not increase revenue but reduce the tax rate. At a minimum we could require the legislature to replace each new $1 of sales exempted from sales tax by adding some other item.¢ Or we could be really radical and do away with the sales tax and raise that revenue through a more progressive state income tax.
One problem with political activists is that they don't realize that sometimes a party may be better off losing an election than winning it. For example, Democrats won the 1976 presidential election, but lost the next three because of the performance of their candidate after he became president. Jimmy Carter was capable of being a more effective president than he was. He just made a mistake of picking a bad time to be elected to the office. Democrats made the mistake of winning the 1992 election with Bill Clinton who promptly lost control of both houses of Congress. I'm not impressed by any of the three remaining presidential candidates and doubt that any of them is likely to win reelection. John McCain is the only one with the experience to be a half way effective president. Clinton's and Obama's lack of any executive experience means either would take a couple of years to learn the job by which time the Republicans would take control of Congress. Hillary would have an advantage over Obama because husband Bill would be available to advise her.Republicans may not realize it but an Obama victory could give them control of the White House in 2012 and possibly for the 20 years to follow.
Unless some other candidate enters the race I will be voting for you in November. However, that is only because neither of the likely Democratic candidates has the experience to be the nation's Chief Executive Officer. Your acceptance of the nonsense about purported "global warming", which Meteorologist John Coleman calls "the greatest scam in history", indicates a level of gullibility that is undesirable in presidents. I can understand how American leaders would believe that Saddam Hussein still had significant amounts of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hussein had used such weapons in the past and there was no evidence he had destroyed them. U.N. inspectors discovered unloaded nerve gas shells shortly before the U.S. invaded Iraq. However, there is no evidence for "global warming". There is no evidence of any significant temperature change other than the normal rise and fall of temperatures over time. The earth has warm years and cool years, warm decades and cool decades. The process that is supposed to produce global warming is physically impossible. Those who claim the existence of global warming admit that temperatures only changed by 1 F or 0.17% during the entire 20th Century. A one degree variation is insignificant considering that daily temperatures fluctuate by 20 - 30 F and by over 100 F from winter to summer in temperate areas during the year. The passage of a strong cold front can drop temperatures by 30 F in a matter of hours.A one degree change over a century could easily be explained by differences in equipment or changes in the locations where the equipment is located. Today's equipment is of questionable reliability. Many sites have characteristics that artificially produce higher temperatures. Temperature varies by more than one degree in different parts of my yard. Temperatures went up and down during the 20th Century and have declined since 1998. The concept of a global average temperature itself is of questionable value.Jean Baptiste Fourier first suggested that infrared radiation (IR) from the surface heated the atmosphere, but Fourier also believed that star light could heat the earth. He believed that gas molecules converted the radiation into heat. Niels Bohr demonstrated in his Nobel Prize winning research that absorption of specific wavelengths of light by gas molecules changed the energy state of their electrons rather than causing them to become hotter.Land and water heat the air by conduction rather than radiation. 70% of the earth's surface is water which is a very poor radiator anyway. Supporters of global warming have failed to provide any evidence that the low energy radiation produced by earth's surface can heat anything.Those who believe in global warming claim that it is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) trapping a small range of IR. However, physicist R.W. Wood, who invented IR photography, demonstrated in 1909 that the process of trapping IR didn't cause greenhouses to stay warm. Instead they stayed warm because they trapped heated air which doesn't readily lose heat energy by converting it into radiation. His experiment used solid barriers to trap IR. CO2 is less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere and is hardly capable of trapping IR the way the solid barriers Wood used could.Ferenc Miskolczi resigned in protest from NASA after it suppressed a study indicating that the equations used to show CO2 would cause substantial global warming contained a serious flaw that rendered the equations invalid. His corrected equations show no warming.Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner in their essay "Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics" argue that the process global warming believers talk about would be a perpetual motion machine that physicists claim would violate the laws of physics.
The recent editorial assaults on Rev. Jeremiah Wright amount to a virtual "lynching" of him.Fifty years ago the southern white Democratic elite would have used the word "uppity" to describe an outspoken preacher like Rev. Wright. Today the predominently white elite that controls the national Democratic Party probably doesn't use the word, but the recent attacks against Rev.Wright indicates the elite may have the same attitude toward black preachers who disagree with the views of the elite.When politicians associate with white preachers who make comments editors disagree with, the editors criticize the politicians. So why when a black preacher makes comments the editors disagree with, do the editors criticize the preacher?The New York Times editor criticized Rev. Wright because "Mr. Wright" has "said the government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill blacks" and "he suggested that America was guilty of 'terrorism' and so had brought the 9/11 attacks on itself."The Hutchinson News has said: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs to shut up."Religious leaders often explain calamities as punishment for immoral actions by government or society. Some U.S. government actions such as the bombing of the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo incident or supporting tyrants could be considering support for terrorism. Why should Rev. Wright be prohibited from making such statements?I doubt that the government deliberately manufactured the HIV/AIDS virus, but I recognize that such an action could have occurred. Among the possibilities is that employees within the biological weapons research program might have released such a virus without authorization or by accident.Those who attempt to censor someone for suggesting government might have done something wrong often do so to prevent discovery of the truth. If editors don't believe government created the HIV/AIDS virus, why are they afraid to have anyone mention the subject?Former President Jimmy Carter was recently on the Tonight Show. Jay Leno mentioned that Carter's mother Lillian had occasionally made controversial statements. Would today's editors have told Lillian Carter to shut up or expected Jimmy Carter to rebuke his mother?It's clear that the white elite that controls the Democratic Party believes that if Rev. Wright wants to ride on Barack Obama's bandwagon that Wright should stay in the background and keep quiet.I'm not concerned about Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright expressing views I disagree with. I am concerned about Obama's newspaper editors who feel it is part of their job to conduct character assassinations of people who might stand in the way in Obama's drive for power.The idea that religious leaders should have to adjust their views to benefit politicians, especially someone wanting to be president, should scare anyone who believes that the state should not control the church.
I disagree with Rev. Jeremiah Wright on many things, but as an American I believe that he has the right to believe whatever he wants to believe and express those beliefs. My father believed the rights of freedom of belief and freedom of expression were important enough to risk his life in Europe in World War II. I believe those rights were important enough to risk my life in Vietnam.I disagree with Rev. Wright that the U.S. government is responsible for the HIV virus, but as an historian I know that some of our ancestors gave small pox infected blankets to the Indians.America has a long tradition of belief in conspiracies. Many believe there was some type of government involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the fall of the World Trade Towers. I disagree with those theories but see nothing wrong with people wanting to have such beliefs.Wright's statements about 9/11 being punishment are consistent with a long religious tradition dating from biblical times. Religious leaders have often explained calamities as punishment for sins. I disagreed with Rev. Martin Luther King's statements about the Vietnam War, but I recognized that he had a duty to speak out against what he believed to be wrong.One of the functions of religious leaders is to condemn what they believe people or nations are doing wrong. If we want to truly guarantee religious freedom, we must allow them to continue to do so even if we disagree with them. If anyone is to blame in the controversy, it is Senator Barack Obama not Rev. Jeremiah Wright. No one held a gun to Obama's head and forced him to attend Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. If Obama had serious disagreements with Rev. Wright, Obama should have left the church instead of belatedly condemning Rev. Wright for holding various beliefs.Obama's behavior is scary in someone who wants to be president. Presidents can become intoxicated with the powers of the presidency. A candidate who makes a practice of condemning those he disagrees with as a candidate might attempt to punish those who disagree with him if he's elected.Rev. Wright's statements about HIV might not make sense to most of us, but many of those who are condemning him believe ideas that make even less sense. For example, many of them believe that carbon dioxide which is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere has some type of magical power to control the temperature of the atmosphere. They believe this even though the process they talk about is inconsistent with the laws of physics and with scientific experiments. They claim the earth is getting significantly warmer, even though they admit that the average temperature they use changed by only 1F during the entire 20th Century and such change represents only a 0.17% increase in temperature. Such a small change could indicate nothing more than differences in equipment or differences in the characteristics of the sites containing the equipment.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/apr/30/veto_override_house_set_thursday/Instead of passing a bill to impose a surcharge on ratepayers The legislature should pass a companion bill that would require Sunflower to allow its customers to set up their own generating equipment and pay them if they generate more electricity than they use. The bill would allow the KCC to establish a reasonable charge for maintaining the electric lines connecting the customers to Sunflower's system.Government needs to encourage people to switch to hybrid vehicles that can be charged at home. However such a shift would require a substantial increase in electricity generating capacity. If northeastern legislators had any sense they would want to increase the western Kansas tax base with large facilities that can be taxed and increased individual income taxes from economic development.The Sunflower would produce biofuels without diverting food crops to fuel as is currently being done.
The so-called experts cannot agree on where the year 2007 ranks in comparison with other years. But then the average temperatures for various years only differ by a degree or less. The average temperature changed only 1 F or 0.5 C (0.17%) during the 20th Century which can hardly be considered significant.I recently checked the average temperatures for the three Wichita airports for the 1st ten days of March and found Mid Continent had an average of 37.3 F Jabara 37.6 F and McConnell AFB 36.4 F. Notice that even though the sites are within a few miles of each other and would have similar situations such as runways etc. Jabara was 1.2 F higher than McConnell and Mid Continent was in between them.A one degree temperature difference even if it's one degree Celsius isn't a big deal.
Climatologists pay too little attention to the role water plays in earth's energy system, including the way water vapor affects air temperature. Water's potential to affect air temperature is well established in science. As I have noted in previous posts the ability of CO2 to affect temperature is highly questionable. Those who spend much time in greenhouses know that they are often very humid places because water evaporates from plants and from surfaces that get wet when the plants are watered. Meteorologists typically refer to the water vapor content of the air as relative humidity which is how close the air is to holding as much water vapor as it can hold at its current temperature.Unfortunately many climatologists waste so much time on the nonexistent impact of radiation on air temperature that they don't provide sufficient emphasis to the significant impact of water vapor on air temperature. Those who want to blame climate changes on humans ignore the fact that the combustion of hydrogen containing fossil fuels increases the amount of water vapor in the air. Other human actitivies such as watering yards, washing cars and operating public fountains also add water to the atmosphere.Water has some special thermal characteristics that can significantly affect atmospheric temperatures. Water heats and cools signicantly slower than other components of the atmosphere. Water vapor needs to absorb over four times more heat energy than the same mass of other air molecules to raise its temperature the same amount.Thus as the water vapor content of the air increases the atmosphere will heat and cool slower than when the air is drier. This process tends to keep the temperature from rising as high during the day or cooling as much at night, although the increase in the overnight low may lead to an increase in the daytime temperature because the air doesn't have to heat as much to reach a higher temperature. In equatorial areas deserts have higher maximum temperatures and lower minimum temperatures than jungle areas where the humidity is higher.Water vapor possesses what physicists call "latent" heat. Latent heat refers to the heat energy water molecules must absorb to go from a solid to a liquid (heat of fusion 80 calories/gram) or a liquid to a gas(heat of vaporization 540 calories/gram). This energy isn't reflected in the temperature of the water vapor. However, when water vapor condenses back to a liquid, or freezes, the release of this latent heat can raise the temperature of the air. A gram of water vapor releases enough heat energy when it condenses to raise the temperature of 2 kg of air by 1 C.Physicists define a "calorie" as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1 C. 27 C (82 F) is the same temperature as 300 K[elvin the absolute temperature scale]. At 300 K water vapor has 300 calories of heat from its temperature and 620 calories of latent heat.The dew point is the temperature at which water vapor will condense on objects or aerosals. The dew point normally is the lowest temperature the air will fall to. As the water vapor content of the air increases the dew point rises and the air doesn't get as cool at nightThe situation is more complex than I am presenting it in this post. I will deal with some of these complexities in a subsequent post. The important facts to consider are that increases in humidity can raise the low, or minimum temperature, and limit the high, or maximum temperature, each day.I recently came across a 10 year old study done by David R. Easterling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., indicating that humidity had increased and, as should have been expected, the minimum temperature had been increasing and the difference between the minimum and maximum daily temperatures, diurnal temperature range (DTR), had been declining.http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3085&method=fullThe potential impact of changes in atmospheric water vapor are real science. Water vapor holds a substantial amount of heat energy. The only potential impact climatologists can find for carbon dioxide is the highly questionable claim about absorbing and re-radiating low energy IR. But then, if would be difficult for the politicians behind the global warming scare to make a case for getting rid of water.
President George W. Bush has once again claimed the existence of a threatened calamity that is contradicted by a government study.Does the claim involve WMD in Iraq? No, if it did the Main Stream Media would have put the story on page one and it would have led the evening network news programs.Those people who believe in the threat claim that it could involve mass destruction, but it doesn't involve a military weapon.Several years ago NASA whistleblower Ferenc Miskolczi discovered a major flaw in the equations that have been used to predict catastrophic global warming. When Arthur Milne developed the equations 80 years ago he mistakenly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere as a boundary condition. Assuming boundary conditions is a common practice when solving differential equations, but boundary conditions involving any amount in any way related to infinitely makes no sense for any sitautions other than black holes.In fairness to Milne his speciality was stellar atmospheres rather than planetary atmospheres.Miskolczi eventually resigned from NASA because the agency chose to suppress the study that discussed the error. Miskolczi has revised the equations and they no longer indicate the type of catastrophy suggested by NASA bureaucrats.Prior to reading about Miskolczi's work I had thought those who talked about the idea of a very minor atmospheric gas controlling atmospheric temperature were liars or intellectually challenged. Now that I know they were using an equation containing [from my perspective] such a blatant flaw, I can understand how they would make such a mistake. However I cannot understand how real scientists could continue to make that mistake. Of course government bureaucrats masquerading as scientists don't care about scientific accuracy.There is more evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction than there is for catastrophic "global warming". Hussein had previously used WMD against his enemies and still possessed plans for a nuclear program and unloaded nerve gas shells when the U.S. invaded. C02 levels went up throughout the 20th Century but the temperature went up and down which indicates there is no connection.
Those who are criticizing conversion of corn and soybeans to fuel have a good point. Diverting food crops to fuel doesn't do much to increase energy resources, even though it reduces food supplies.Corn and soybeans have been bred for eating to provide energy for animals. Corn and soybeans cannot be efficiently converted to fuel. Too small a portion of the plants can actually be used to produce ethanol. Using wind energy for ethanol plant operation provides a greater net energy yield, but not enough to really increase energy resources.Technology to convert corn stalks and soybean leaves to ethanol would improve the yield, but such technology would eliminate the need to use corn and soybeans. Waste paper and tree trimmings could be used without diverting food crops to fuel.Currently algae provide a much more productive source of biofuels. Glen Kertz president and CEO of Valcent Products says that algae can produce 100,000 gallons of oil per acre compared to 30 gallons of oil from corn and 50 gallons per acre from soybeans. Unfortunately, ignorant politicians think that the carbon dioxide that "fertilizes" algae is a pollutant that should be prohibited. Algae production facilities connected to coal fired power plants can increase the amount of energy produced from the same amount of coal without reducing food supplies.