In her state-of-the-state message, Governor Sebelius proposed "... a new tax checkoff that will allow Kansans to donate to military families in need simply by checking a box on their tax return." Who could oppose a tax check-off for military families in need?
We already have two so-called "checkoffs". First, there is the Chickadee Checkoff or Kansas Non-game Wildlife Improvement Program. And we have the Senior Citizens Meals on Wheels Contribution Program. A donation to either of these programs by means of the state's income tax return form "... will reduce your refund or increase the amount you owe." So, it isn't quite as simple as merely making a checkmark in a little box. (Actually, there is no "box" on the tax form to check. This slight misrepresentation tells me that the Governor's speech-writer hasn't seen a recent K-40.) Rather than simply make a checkmark, one must actually write in a dollar amount to make a donation, which I presume is tax-deductible next time around. Still, that's a simple way to donate to a cause.
But, there are reasons to oppose the military families in need "check-off". First, an additional check-off could conceivably reduce the amount of money donated to non-game wildlife and meals-on-wheels programs. At what point will the tax form fail to provide room for check-off programs? Secondly, setting up a state ran military families-in-need program is re-inventing the wheel. Numerous programs to provide social welfare services to needy military personnel and their families are operated by the American Red Cross and the various military services. Third, the need for assistance to military problems is a national government responsiblity, rather than the State of Kansas'. Should a military family assistance program fail, other social safety nets that are largely funded by federal tax dollars are available to fill the gap. Fourth, troop deployments have been happening for centuries and, except for the absence of the family's military member, have not created new unendurable hardships on those remaining at home. Support the troops and let the military support the families of the troops, which they do with pay allotments, housing allowances, health care, etc. Fifth, pandering politicians always dig for themselves a deeper hole with every hole they open. It's in vogue now to pander to military families, but is it the role of state government?. Who will be the next political target for government sponsored charities?
Monday, January 30, 2006
Apple and Beet Salad
This concoction from my grandmother's recipe box sounded interesting. I'm not sure how many servings the recipe would produce, but I can guarantee it'll make up pucker up.
Ingredients
1 package lemon jello
1 cup hot water
1 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon pepper
1 tablespoon vinegar
1 cup beet juice
3/4 cup chopped beets
3/4 cup chopped apples
Ingredients
1 package lemon jello
1 cup hot water
1 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon pepper
1 tablespoon vinegar
1 cup beet juice
3/4 cup chopped beets
3/4 cup chopped apples
Proposed Violent Sex-Pred Sentences
The Kansas Senate passed Senate Bill 334 with new sentencing guidelines for sex crimes. The bill sets a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years without parole on first-time sex offenders where the victim is a child. A minimum 40-year sentence is imposed on second time sex offenders. A life sentence without the possibility of parole is given to third-time offenders. Lifetime parole and attachment to an electronic monitoring device is included for these offenders upon release. An 18-year-old first-time convictee would be 43 when released. Assuming another similar conviction within 2 years of release (at age 45), this habitual sexual predator would serve another 40 years before release at age 85. What are the odds that a third conviction will earn the ultimate sentence: life without parole?
Friday, January 20, 2006
Governor's Proposals for Sex Offenders
In the 2006 State of the State message, Kathleen Sebelius recommended two legislative acts to deal with the Kansas sex offender problem, particularly those criminals who hurt children. Her "…common sense steps to make (our) families safer…" are: (1) double prison sentences for sex offenders, and (2) require all repeat sex offenders (to) wear electronic tracking devices. Well, what is "common sense"? It is "sense", that is, understanding, judgement or opinion, etc., which is supposedly "common", that is, usual, standard, ordinary, conventional, shared, etc. And, if her solutions were "common sense', that is, something everyone can understand and agree with, wouldn't they have already been implemented? "Common sense" apparently is not as pervasive as one might believe. Perhaps telling the Kansas Legislature a proposal is "common sense" makes them less resistant to an idea.
Within several days of her speech, a Senate committee approved new punishments for sexual offenders - life sentences without parole for violent sexual offenders and, for other sexual offenders, long sentences and lifetime electronic monitoring for parolees. It remains to be seen what the full Senate and House of Representatives will do with this proposal; one that lawmakers are reported as calling a "priority". I guess its priority comes from the "common sense" of this approach not being previously recognized.
If we have to pay for more prisons to house sexual offenders forever and for longer, I have a suggestion. House them in wooden barracks without amenities and within fenced compounds, like the POW stalags of World War II. Each jailed offender could wear a GPS transmitter to alert a minimal security staff of any attempted escape and, if the escape were successful, of their whereabouts. At least, this rudimentary facility would keep costs down and provide a place to train the staff for the new agency, Kansas Electronic Monitoring of Repeat Sex Offenders Bureau (KEMORSOB), which will be needed to keep track of all the released sex offenders. Without a special state unit, each of 105 counties will have to set up their own monitoring divisions or add staff to their law enforcement dispatch systems to handle the new workload. Now, there are some common sense proposals to mull over.
What makes sense, common or not, is not to throw the book at all sex offenders. Rather, the sexual predator program ran by SRS at Larned State Hospital, which has been in effect since 1994, should be expanded (but housed in stalag-type compounds). Already, sex offenders who are termed predators, non-violent or violent, are confined indefinitely (which is the same as life without parole proposed for the violent ones) for care and treatment. We merely need to sentence all sexual offenders to the sexual predator program first, with a prison sentence to follow their cure or whatever conversion from perversion to normality is called. Because few sexual predators are cured and returned to society, this would eliminate the expense of electronic monitoring of released repeat sexual offenders and, by providing more subjects, create the opportunity for an in-depth study of sexual perversion, so that its causes can be better understood. We really need to understand the difference between simple bad sexual behavior, deserving punishment, and uncontrollable predatory sexual behavior, deserving isolation. The solution to protecting children is to reduce the number of sexual offenders, a proactive solution, rather than jailing those who harm children, a reactive solution. Let's use common sense and take a proactive stance to head off damage to a child.
Within several days of her speech, a Senate committee approved new punishments for sexual offenders - life sentences without parole for violent sexual offenders and, for other sexual offenders, long sentences and lifetime electronic monitoring for parolees. It remains to be seen what the full Senate and House of Representatives will do with this proposal; one that lawmakers are reported as calling a "priority". I guess its priority comes from the "common sense" of this approach not being previously recognized.
If we have to pay for more prisons to house sexual offenders forever and for longer, I have a suggestion. House them in wooden barracks without amenities and within fenced compounds, like the POW stalags of World War II. Each jailed offender could wear a GPS transmitter to alert a minimal security staff of any attempted escape and, if the escape were successful, of their whereabouts. At least, this rudimentary facility would keep costs down and provide a place to train the staff for the new agency, Kansas Electronic Monitoring of Repeat Sex Offenders Bureau (KEMORSOB), which will be needed to keep track of all the released sex offenders. Without a special state unit, each of 105 counties will have to set up their own monitoring divisions or add staff to their law enforcement dispatch systems to handle the new workload. Now, there are some common sense proposals to mull over.
What makes sense, common or not, is not to throw the book at all sex offenders. Rather, the sexual predator program ran by SRS at Larned State Hospital, which has been in effect since 1994, should be expanded (but housed in stalag-type compounds). Already, sex offenders who are termed predators, non-violent or violent, are confined indefinitely (which is the same as life without parole proposed for the violent ones) for care and treatment. We merely need to sentence all sexual offenders to the sexual predator program first, with a prison sentence to follow their cure or whatever conversion from perversion to normality is called. Because few sexual predators are cured and returned to society, this would eliminate the expense of electronic monitoring of released repeat sexual offenders and, by providing more subjects, create the opportunity for an in-depth study of sexual perversion, so that its causes can be better understood. We really need to understand the difference between simple bad sexual behavior, deserving punishment, and uncontrollable predatory sexual behavior, deserving isolation. The solution to protecting children is to reduce the number of sexual offenders, a proactive solution, rather than jailing those who harm children, a reactive solution. Let's use common sense and take a proactive stance to head off damage to a child.
Monday, January 16, 2006
The State of Rural Development
Governor Kathleen Sebelius mentioned in her State of the State message to the Kansas Legislature and citizens that, in response to the economic recession of 3 years ago, the state's: politicians, policy-makers, business and community leaders, etc. (pick one or more or add your own) "made a commitment to ... promote investment in rural areas." Continuing on the subject of rural development, the Governor said, "I believe we must continue to encourage development in our state's rural areas, and we must help all businesses by giving them an incentive to create jobs in Kansas." And then, she went on to propose eliminating the property tax on new business nachinery and equipment. However, she did not connect the dots, namely, offer property tax exemption for new business machinery and equipment only in rural areas where she says investment should be promoted. What happened to the commitment to rural development? This is obviously a question of semantics and definitions.
Perhaps, the better question to be asked is, how feasible is rural development? In some economic models, the hinterland (rural areas remote from metropolitan centers) is traditionally a place of ample, low-cost labor for manufacturing assembly work and for the extraction or production of raw materials. Kansas has plenty of hinterlands with an adequate road network and water resources. But, they are being depopulated primarily by net out-migration due to lack of jobs, caused by shrinking agricultural employment. Is the critical mass of labor necessary to sustain economic development that involves investment in business machinery and equipment present? Many would argue 'Yes', citing labor availability studies that recognize a rural plant site's ability to draw workers from a wide area and by giving the work force credit for older, yet still able workers. Nobody would sanely assert that rural development in not feasible from the standpoint of availability of labor and other critical resources.
However, for rural development in terms of job growth to be possible, there must be a demand for manufacturing assembly work in rural areas. With all the out-sourcing of manufacturing asembly jobs to countries with cheap labor, the traditional concept of the hinterland has been drastically altered. No longer is it just those areas outlying metropolitan centers. Low cost sea, rail and truck transportation has redefined the hinterland to include any region with cheap labor. The wage differential between plants in U.S. rural areas and foreign factories is great enough that the cost of transportation still favors out-sourcing to the far reaches of Earth. Markets for manufactured goods have also been globalized, making cheap transport, efficient distribution, and low-cost labor an inter-related phenomenon. There doesn't appear to be any way to reverse the trend in job location that manufacturing has taken. Certainly, the actions of a state by itself will not influence the creation of base employment. The federal government, working in concert with the states, could possibly have some small measure of influence to create more jobs for rural areas. But, there is no panacea.
Rural areas need to start thinking that fewer is better, rather than try to recoup past population numbers. The available resources in rural areas has not shrunk. Greater productivity allows fewer people to operate larger farms. Central retail and service outlets provide greater selection and affordability of goods and services. State development assistance should be focused on rural economic centers, rather than extending imited resources to all towns and villages, using poverty as the primary measure of need. The low-income measure of federal policy, which is aimed at urban areas, is counter to the needs of the rural areas as a whole. There are more votes in the rural economic centers than in the remnants of once prosperous, but now decaying, villages. An effective rural development policy for Kansas would capitalize on the assets of rural Kansas, and not subsidize liabilities left over from an agrarian society that will never be revived.
An important question is, what type of development does the Governor envision for rural Kansas? Indeed, what do most Kansans see as the future of our hinterlands. Job creation through non-agriculturally related enterprises is unlikely. Tourism has made giant strides, but except for special niches, like hunting and fishing, rural areas still lack popularity as a vacation destination. The housing stock is aging overall, despite substantial new residences that grace many farmsteads. Thanks to forward-looking construction and maintenance programs, the rural highway infrastructure is a serviceable asset. Rural schools are by-and-large modern and adequate through state financial assistance in school construction. Facilities for health care such as hospitals, clinics, and a variety of life care housing are in general modernized. Municipalities provide many recreation amenities. Rural counties have up-to-date law enforcement and jail facilities and renovated public buildings. Basically, the development needed in rural Kansas is more of the same, modernization and replacement of basic facilities and additional sustainable amenities, but only in economic centers that can sustain themselves.
Actually, the state should be strongly promoting better quality housing in rural areas by pro-actively eliminating sub-standard housing. Fewer houses of higher average quality simply recognizes the population loss. This would also prevent in-migration of low-income residents who are attracted by low-cost, sub-standard housing. Reducing the low-income rural population relieves and prevents strain on rural social support systems of all sorts from law enforcement to welfare, programs that are more economically and efficiently provided in urban centers. Preventing in-migration of people who are dependent on employment incomes, reduces the need for job creation in rural areas, which is unlikely at best. At the same time, mobile home and manufactured housing development should be prevented, except for farmsteads.
Although a connection between meth labs and sub-standard housing is probably not statistically documented, intuitively it exists. Doesn't it make sense that high numbers of meth labs in Kansas and other states with extensive rural areas is connected to the availability of low-cost housing. Eliminating sub-standard rural housing would dry up the places where illegal drug production can occur. At least it would force illegal meth labs to gravitate to areas more readily observed by law enforcement. The State of Kansas should discourage habitation of sub-standard properties.
Somehow, I doubt if any of my suggestions for curing the malaise of rural Kansas will be considered during this coming legislative session. The commitment to rural development without specific workable proposals is nothing more than lip-service, empty promises to placate bygone dreams.
Perhaps, the better question to be asked is, how feasible is rural development? In some economic models, the hinterland (rural areas remote from metropolitan centers) is traditionally a place of ample, low-cost labor for manufacturing assembly work and for the extraction or production of raw materials. Kansas has plenty of hinterlands with an adequate road network and water resources. But, they are being depopulated primarily by net out-migration due to lack of jobs, caused by shrinking agricultural employment. Is the critical mass of labor necessary to sustain economic development that involves investment in business machinery and equipment present? Many would argue 'Yes', citing labor availability studies that recognize a rural plant site's ability to draw workers from a wide area and by giving the work force credit for older, yet still able workers. Nobody would sanely assert that rural development in not feasible from the standpoint of availability of labor and other critical resources.
However, for rural development in terms of job growth to be possible, there must be a demand for manufacturing assembly work in rural areas. With all the out-sourcing of manufacturing asembly jobs to countries with cheap labor, the traditional concept of the hinterland has been drastically altered. No longer is it just those areas outlying metropolitan centers. Low cost sea, rail and truck transportation has redefined the hinterland to include any region with cheap labor. The wage differential between plants in U.S. rural areas and foreign factories is great enough that the cost of transportation still favors out-sourcing to the far reaches of Earth. Markets for manufactured goods have also been globalized, making cheap transport, efficient distribution, and low-cost labor an inter-related phenomenon. There doesn't appear to be any way to reverse the trend in job location that manufacturing has taken. Certainly, the actions of a state by itself will not influence the creation of base employment. The federal government, working in concert with the states, could possibly have some small measure of influence to create more jobs for rural areas. But, there is no panacea.
Rural areas need to start thinking that fewer is better, rather than try to recoup past population numbers. The available resources in rural areas has not shrunk. Greater productivity allows fewer people to operate larger farms. Central retail and service outlets provide greater selection and affordability of goods and services. State development assistance should be focused on rural economic centers, rather than extending imited resources to all towns and villages, using poverty as the primary measure of need. The low-income measure of federal policy, which is aimed at urban areas, is counter to the needs of the rural areas as a whole. There are more votes in the rural economic centers than in the remnants of once prosperous, but now decaying, villages. An effective rural development policy for Kansas would capitalize on the assets of rural Kansas, and not subsidize liabilities left over from an agrarian society that will never be revived.
An important question is, what type of development does the Governor envision for rural Kansas? Indeed, what do most Kansans see as the future of our hinterlands. Job creation through non-agriculturally related enterprises is unlikely. Tourism has made giant strides, but except for special niches, like hunting and fishing, rural areas still lack popularity as a vacation destination. The housing stock is aging overall, despite substantial new residences that grace many farmsteads. Thanks to forward-looking construction and maintenance programs, the rural highway infrastructure is a serviceable asset. Rural schools are by-and-large modern and adequate through state financial assistance in school construction. Facilities for health care such as hospitals, clinics, and a variety of life care housing are in general modernized. Municipalities provide many recreation amenities. Rural counties have up-to-date law enforcement and jail facilities and renovated public buildings. Basically, the development needed in rural Kansas is more of the same, modernization and replacement of basic facilities and additional sustainable amenities, but only in economic centers that can sustain themselves.
Actually, the state should be strongly promoting better quality housing in rural areas by pro-actively eliminating sub-standard housing. Fewer houses of higher average quality simply recognizes the population loss. This would also prevent in-migration of low-income residents who are attracted by low-cost, sub-standard housing. Reducing the low-income rural population relieves and prevents strain on rural social support systems of all sorts from law enforcement to welfare, programs that are more economically and efficiently provided in urban centers. Preventing in-migration of people who are dependent on employment incomes, reduces the need for job creation in rural areas, which is unlikely at best. At the same time, mobile home and manufactured housing development should be prevented, except for farmsteads.
Although a connection between meth labs and sub-standard housing is probably not statistically documented, intuitively it exists. Doesn't it make sense that high numbers of meth labs in Kansas and other states with extensive rural areas is connected to the availability of low-cost housing. Eliminating sub-standard rural housing would dry up the places where illegal drug production can occur. At least it would force illegal meth labs to gravitate to areas more readily observed by law enforcement. The State of Kansas should discourage habitation of sub-standard properties.
Somehow, I doubt if any of my suggestions for curing the malaise of rural Kansas will be considered during this coming legislative session. The commitment to rural development without specific workable proposals is nothing more than lip-service, empty promises to placate bygone dreams.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
State of the State Family Values
Taking a cue from the Republicans' preference for limited government, Kansas Democrat Governor Sebelius, in her 2006 State of the State speech said, "... and I will continue to fight any attempt to put government where private industry should be." Perhaps, this is why the speech was devoid of any mention of gambling. Does this also signal a change of mind about last year's plan for state-owned casinos?
Now, to counter new challenges allegedly posed for child-rearing parents: pornographic Web sites, unsafe chat rooms, violent video games and inappropriate television and motion picture content; the Governor says the State will act. 'Inappropriate', we shall assume, is a code word for unsavory sexual content, vulgar bathroom humor and gratuitous violence. The Governor proposes that the state make availalble to parents software that blocks children's access to offensive Web sites, guides that identify "family friendly" TV shows and movies, and restrictions on the sale of video games. (Aren't all these things currently available on the market?) Her recommendation would put state government in a private industry role, if it's proposed that the State produce tools such as Web blockers or industry rating systems. Other than re-inventing the wheel, could the Governor be suggesting punitive taxes on inappropriate material and other retail business regulations as an aid to parents, as some conservative Christians have suggested taxes on pornography? If not these kinds of actions, what is left? Will the Governor have a bill introduced to revive the former Kansas movie censorship board be revived and broaden its purview?
Child-rearing itself is a "private industry", at least it is in my experience, except when the state has a compelling reason to get involved. Foster homes may be government subsidized; tax exemptions are allowed for supported dependents; and criminal laws exist for child endangerment, but the underlying responsibilty for raising children is still the parents' or, in some cases, parent. Then, why claim that state government should insure that parents aren't alone in their fight to raise their children the right way, whatever 'the right way' means. Television sets and home computers have off/on switches. TV sets have tuners. Video games can be previewed before letting the kids play them. The content of movies is rated by a widely accepted system, and mom and pop drive their darlings to the megascreen showplace and pay for the tickets. Being a parent entails certain responsibilities. But, apparently the moms and dads who are touted in the speech as "...the first and best teachers for their children." are failing at the challenge of instilling "...the values that lead to a life of meaning, rather than a life wasted." and, therefore State action is deemed necessary.
I hope that adequate documentation has been made of the evils brought on by the Internet, computers, television programs, motion pictures, and possibly other modern technological innovations (Ipods, DVDs, CDs, etc.) threatening our scoiety. It would be a shame if government action were instigated to combat an imaginery menace. It sounds to me like the real evil is a lack of parental supervision for our easily diverted, impressionable youths. What government action is proposed for our under-performing parents: parenting classes, stiffer parental responsiblity laws, marriage only for adults who demonstrate good parent potential, or loss of parental rights by vigilant child welfare advocates?
Let's consider a hypothetical example of techno-evil. If a 14-year old female willingly meets an adult male at a motel for sex, having been enticed to go there in an Internet chat room, is this cause for restriction of chat rooms or should the parents be punished for lack of child supervision? Cetainly, the adult male should be severely punished. Then, why not the adult parents as well? The adult male would not have succeeded in his seduction of innocence personafied without the complicity of the girl's parents or parent through supervisory failure. However, punishing parents is a highly unlikely outcome. The parents are considered too busy earning a living to be held accountable for their children's failings. Children who are out of control are considered juvenile delinquents, and are possibly subject to detention to control their errant ways. But, how did they develop into such terrors? Maybe, it's time to forget about aiding parents deal with their miscreant children and start incarcerating the children who are caught in R-rated or worse movies, who watch sleazy TV shows, who spend hours on the home computer blasting away with weapons, who view porn on the Web and who exhibit other similar behaviors.
As the legislature considers the Governor's family values initiatives, I hope they get it right. Somehow, I'm not confident that they will be successful.
Now, to counter new challenges allegedly posed for child-rearing parents: pornographic Web sites, unsafe chat rooms, violent video games and inappropriate television and motion picture content; the Governor says the State will act. 'Inappropriate', we shall assume, is a code word for unsavory sexual content, vulgar bathroom humor and gratuitous violence. The Governor proposes that the state make availalble to parents software that blocks children's access to offensive Web sites, guides that identify "family friendly" TV shows and movies, and restrictions on the sale of video games. (Aren't all these things currently available on the market?) Her recommendation would put state government in a private industry role, if it's proposed that the State produce tools such as Web blockers or industry rating systems. Other than re-inventing the wheel, could the Governor be suggesting punitive taxes on inappropriate material and other retail business regulations as an aid to parents, as some conservative Christians have suggested taxes on pornography? If not these kinds of actions, what is left? Will the Governor have a bill introduced to revive the former Kansas movie censorship board be revived and broaden its purview?
Child-rearing itself is a "private industry", at least it is in my experience, except when the state has a compelling reason to get involved. Foster homes may be government subsidized; tax exemptions are allowed for supported dependents; and criminal laws exist for child endangerment, but the underlying responsibilty for raising children is still the parents' or, in some cases, parent. Then, why claim that state government should insure that parents aren't alone in their fight to raise their children the right way, whatever 'the right way' means. Television sets and home computers have off/on switches. TV sets have tuners. Video games can be previewed before letting the kids play them. The content of movies is rated by a widely accepted system, and mom and pop drive their darlings to the megascreen showplace and pay for the tickets. Being a parent entails certain responsibilities. But, apparently the moms and dads who are touted in the speech as "...the first and best teachers for their children." are failing at the challenge of instilling "...the values that lead to a life of meaning, rather than a life wasted." and, therefore State action is deemed necessary.
I hope that adequate documentation has been made of the evils brought on by the Internet, computers, television programs, motion pictures, and possibly other modern technological innovations (Ipods, DVDs, CDs, etc.) threatening our scoiety. It would be a shame if government action were instigated to combat an imaginery menace. It sounds to me like the real evil is a lack of parental supervision for our easily diverted, impressionable youths. What government action is proposed for our under-performing parents: parenting classes, stiffer parental responsiblity laws, marriage only for adults who demonstrate good parent potential, or loss of parental rights by vigilant child welfare advocates?
Let's consider a hypothetical example of techno-evil. If a 14-year old female willingly meets an adult male at a motel for sex, having been enticed to go there in an Internet chat room, is this cause for restriction of chat rooms or should the parents be punished for lack of child supervision? Cetainly, the adult male should be severely punished. Then, why not the adult parents as well? The adult male would not have succeeded in his seduction of innocence personafied without the complicity of the girl's parents or parent through supervisory failure. However, punishing parents is a highly unlikely outcome. The parents are considered too busy earning a living to be held accountable for their children's failings. Children who are out of control are considered juvenile delinquents, and are possibly subject to detention to control their errant ways. But, how did they develop into such terrors? Maybe, it's time to forget about aiding parents deal with their miscreant children and start incarcerating the children who are caught in R-rated or worse movies, who watch sleazy TV shows, who spend hours on the home computer blasting away with weapons, who view porn on the Web and who exhibit other similar behaviors.
As the legislature considers the Governor's family values initiatives, I hope they get it right. Somehow, I'm not confident that they will be successful.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Flint Hills Sunrise
During Winter, the Kansas Flint Hills are bathed in an orange-red cast of the prairie grasses' Fall color, a bright, rich bronze, burnished by the sun and wind, yet subdued by muting shadows produced by the outcrops of rock, undulations of ground and jutting vegetation. On a clear Winter morning, as the sun begins to rise over the Flint Hills, the demarcation between land and sky begins to glow faintly, reflecting the same orange-red color. As the sun's rim first appears above the eastern skyline, the sky immediately above the horizon glows like a ripe peach in all directions, abating as it rises above the hilltops, blending into a pastel green, and moving upward, into a light blue with a gray cast, a ghostly reminder of the displaced darkness. Unless you looked Southeast toward the point of the sun's appearance, from the reflected glow of the bronze hills that tints the lower edge of the morning sky, you could not be sure where the sun will come up, such is the beauty of the ring of warm light along the horizon. Once the sun has fully risen, the faint peach colored sky along the horizon transforms into a band of pastel green between the ochre ground and the cerulean blue sky for the remainder of the day. It's quite a sight to behold, the early morning light in the Flint Hills.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
State of the State Message
Governor Kathleen Sebelius gave her State-of-the-State message yesterday evening and didn't once mention the science standards mess. I guess that indicates its importance in the overall scheme of things. Then again, there were a lot of unmentioned Kansas issues.
Steve Abrams was interviewed after the speech for his reaction to the school funding issue, like he would know something about it. Not once did he mention the science standards, nor was he questioned about them. Dale Goter, public TV's interviewer, is a polite man. Dale stretched his politeness with a hard-hitting question. Abrams was asked if the legislature might take up the question of changing the constitution to have an appointed, rather than elected, board. Abrams's answer was that its been considered before and may be considered again.
If the Governor doesn't think the science standards are worth mentioning, perhaps it's time to douse the hulla-balloo about them. Energy would be better spent campaigning for new KBOE members to replace the wing-nuts who have proven themselves incapable of developing sound educational standards.
Steve Abrams was interviewed after the speech for his reaction to the school funding issue, like he would know something about it. Not once did he mention the science standards, nor was he questioned about them. Dale Goter, public TV's interviewer, is a polite man. Dale stretched his politeness with a hard-hitting question. Abrams was asked if the legislature might take up the question of changing the constitution to have an appointed, rather than elected, board. Abrams's answer was that its been considered before and may be considered again.
If the Governor doesn't think the science standards are worth mentioning, perhaps it's time to douse the hulla-balloo about them. Energy would be better spent campaigning for new KBOE members to replace the wing-nuts who have proven themselves incapable of developing sound educational standards.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Pineapple Drop Cookies
Ingredients:
2/3 cup Spry (Crisco)
1 tsp salt
1 tsp vanilla extract
1 cup brown sugar, firmly packed
1 egg, well beaten
2 cups, sifted flour
2 and 1/2 tsp baking powder
1 cup crushed pineapple, undrained
1 cup rolled oats
1 cup nuts, chopped
Directions:
Blend Spry, salt and vanilla.
Add brown sugar, cream well.
Add egg, mix well.
Sift flour and baking powder and add flour mixture alternately with pineapple, mix well.
Add rolled oats and nuts, blend.
Drop from spoon on greased baking sheet.
Bake in moderate oven (350 degrees) for 15 to 18 minutes.
Note: The following recipe was sent on a one-cent postcard to Margie Rogers, my grandmother, by Hazel Carlisle of Toronto, KS, on April 25, 1942. Judging from the creases and bent corners, Grandma used it often. I can't claim to remember this particular cookie, except if Grandma baked 'em, you can bet we ate 'em.
2/3 cup Spry (Crisco)
1 tsp salt
1 tsp vanilla extract
1 cup brown sugar, firmly packed
1 egg, well beaten
2 cups, sifted flour
2 and 1/2 tsp baking powder
1 cup crushed pineapple, undrained
1 cup rolled oats
1 cup nuts, chopped
Directions:
Blend Spry, salt and vanilla.
Add brown sugar, cream well.
Add egg, mix well.
Sift flour and baking powder and add flour mixture alternately with pineapple, mix well.
Add rolled oats and nuts, blend.
Drop from spoon on greased baking sheet.
Bake in moderate oven (350 degrees) for 15 to 18 minutes.
Note: The following recipe was sent on a one-cent postcard to Margie Rogers, my grandmother, by Hazel Carlisle of Toronto, KS, on April 25, 1942. Judging from the creases and bent corners, Grandma used it often. I can't claim to remember this particular cookie, except if Grandma baked 'em, you can bet we ate 'em.
Search for Science Standards Changes Master Plan
In yesterday's post, I asked, "Who is responsible for the plan to amend the [Kansas] standards by attempting to cast doubt on evolution and changing the definition of science?" I have decided to attempt an answer to my question by conducting a Web search for clues and telltale signs of this malfeasance. One of the likely culprits is the Kansas Republican Assembly (KRA), wing-nut central and sponsor of the Free Academic Inquiry and Research Committee (FAIR).
On the KRA Web site, http://www.ks-ra.org/, Charlotte Esau, KRA Executive Director writes, "…we must hang onto our state school board seats and work to grow our majority there!" Although no reference to the redefinition of science or questions about evolution was found on the KRA Web site, KRA supports the KBOE members who messed with the science standards.
In a KRA Web site page seeking money for wing-nut candidates, is written:
"Funds donated to the Free Academic Inquiry and Research Committee (FAIR) go to recruit and support candidates for office who support reform in our education system. FAIR is largely responsible for the current majority on the Kansas State Board of Education and is pleased to support candidates who share KRA's vision for better, more efficient schools that place Kansas students at the head of the class."
KBOE wing-nuts have used educational reform as one of several justifications for their actions vis-à-vis the science standards. "Better, more efficient schools" is touted as a benefit of a school voucher program proposed by Kansas Education Commissioner Corkins. FAIR's funding is intended to advance KRA's vision for education, but nowhere is the need to alter science standards to remove a possible barrier to vouchers mentioned. KRA appears to be part of a complicity in the science standards mess, but no master plan is overt on their Web site. The search will continue.
In the meantime, I hope KRA will explain how all the students in Kansas could be placed "…at the head of the class." Also, I hope KRA will correct misspelled words on their Web site. After all, if someone claims to promote education, at least they should exhibit some benefit from it.
On the KRA Web site, http://www.ks-ra.org/, Charlotte Esau, KRA Executive Director writes, "…we must hang onto our state school board seats and work to grow our majority there!" Although no reference to the redefinition of science or questions about evolution was found on the KRA Web site, KRA supports the KBOE members who messed with the science standards.
In a KRA Web site page seeking money for wing-nut candidates, is written:
"Funds donated to the Free Academic Inquiry and Research Committee (FAIR) go to recruit and support candidates for office who support reform in our education system. FAIR is largely responsible for the current majority on the Kansas State Board of Education and is pleased to support candidates who share KRA's vision for better, more efficient schools that place Kansas students at the head of the class."
KBOE wing-nuts have used educational reform as one of several justifications for their actions vis-à-vis the science standards. "Better, more efficient schools" is touted as a benefit of a school voucher program proposed by Kansas Education Commissioner Corkins. FAIR's funding is intended to advance KRA's vision for education, but nowhere is the need to alter science standards to remove a possible barrier to vouchers mentioned. KRA appears to be part of a complicity in the science standards mess, but no master plan is overt on their Web site. The search will continue.
In the meantime, I hope KRA will explain how all the students in Kansas could be placed "…at the head of the class." Also, I hope KRA will correct misspelled words on their Web site. After all, if someone claims to promote education, at least they should exhibit some benefit from it.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Who's Calling the Shots?
I cannot conceive of six fundamentalist Christians from the right wing of the Kansas Republican Party (wing-nuts for short), who form the majority of the ten member Kansas State Board of Education, deciding to change the State science standards without some common impetus. My reason for not imaging their behavior as the spontaneous, coincidental acts of six independent-minded individuals is their divergent backgrounds and geographical dispersal. Who is responsible for the plan to amend the science standards by attempting to cast doubt on evolution and changing the definition of science? The likely culprits from Kansas include, but are not limited to:
Steve Abrams, Ark City Vet and experienced KBOE Chairman
John Calvert, a retired attorney and intelligent design (ID) promoter
Bob Corkins, former anti-tax lobbyist and new Education Commissioner
Officers of Kansas Republican Assembly, wing-nut central and sponsor of FAIR
Unnamed co-conspirators: financial backers, fundamentalist preachers, etc.
Seldom is unanimity of purpose achieved in the political arena without a common framework of ideological statements. Surely, a manifesto exists that sets forth the plan to change the school standards. But, unless one is a member of the cabal to undermine science, one would not be privy to such a document. Perhaps, an apostate will expose a written plan of action that directs the behavior of the wing-nuts on the KBOE.
Because similar efforts to undermine science are being made in other states, there is likely national coordination of the program attacking science. The broader the conspiracy, the more likely its tenets are written. The more widely such a document is disseminated, the greater the likelihood that it will be exposed. I'm wondering and waiting. Who will reveal it?
Steve Abrams, Ark City Vet and experienced KBOE Chairman
John Calvert, a retired attorney and intelligent design (ID) promoter
Bob Corkins, former anti-tax lobbyist and new Education Commissioner
Officers of Kansas Republican Assembly, wing-nut central and sponsor of FAIR
Unnamed co-conspirators: financial backers, fundamentalist preachers, etc.
Seldom is unanimity of purpose achieved in the political arena without a common framework of ideological statements. Surely, a manifesto exists that sets forth the plan to change the school standards. But, unless one is a member of the cabal to undermine science, one would not be privy to such a document. Perhaps, an apostate will expose a written plan of action that directs the behavior of the wing-nuts on the KBOE.
Because similar efforts to undermine science are being made in other states, there is likely national coordination of the program attacking science. The broader the conspiracy, the more likely its tenets are written. The more widely such a document is disseminated, the greater the likelihood that it will be exposed. I'm wondering and waiting. Who will reveal it?
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
New Science Standards - A Trojan Horse?
The furor caused by fundamentalists on the Kansas State Board of Education (KBOE) by their changes to the science standards is portrayed as creationism versus Darwinism, an attack on public schools, introducing religious education into public schools, and a slew of other cultural controversies. However, because fundamentalists prefer home schooling their children or sending them to private fundamentalist Christian schools, why would they care about the content of science standards for public schools in Kansas? For those fundamentalists who believe the Holy Bible's creation story and who seek no further scientific explanations of the origin of life, why would they change the definition of science itself to include the study of non-observable supernatural phenomenon? Is this really action of the KBOE about evolution versus creationism or about public school students learning about the so-called theory of intelligent design?
Could it be that the real reason behind the new science standards is to pave the way for school vouchers? The science standards as proposed by the KBOE are not mandatory for local school boards. But, for the Kansas legislature to approve a bill enabling a system of vouchers to pay for students who attend private schools of religious instruction with public funds, it is conceivable that students receiving vouchers would be required to receive instruction that conforms to the state educational standards. Science standards that did not include supernatural causes would not be acceptable to fundamentalist Christian religious instruction. Thus, changing the science standards would remove a barrier for school vouchers, and perhaps even create the impression that the money would be used for a public purpose, i.e. meeting state educational standards.
The actions of the KBOE members who have made a mess of the science standards don't seem to be about science at all. They have demonstrated by their public remarks that they lack an understanding of science. Rather, their actions appear to be merely a means to an end, namely, paving the way for the use of public funds to pay for religious instruction. The real effort in opposing the actions of the KBOE should be directed toward defeating the proposed school vouchers. The reasons for opposition should be based on the defects of the school voucher proposal - misuse of public funds, inappropriateness for rural Kansas, damage to public education, and other problems it would create for our social and economic welfare.
Could it be that the real reason behind the new science standards is to pave the way for school vouchers? The science standards as proposed by the KBOE are not mandatory for local school boards. But, for the Kansas legislature to approve a bill enabling a system of vouchers to pay for students who attend private schools of religious instruction with public funds, it is conceivable that students receiving vouchers would be required to receive instruction that conforms to the state educational standards. Science standards that did not include supernatural causes would not be acceptable to fundamentalist Christian religious instruction. Thus, changing the science standards would remove a barrier for school vouchers, and perhaps even create the impression that the money would be used for a public purpose, i.e. meeting state educational standards.
The actions of the KBOE members who have made a mess of the science standards don't seem to be about science at all. They have demonstrated by their public remarks that they lack an understanding of science. Rather, their actions appear to be merely a means to an end, namely, paving the way for the use of public funds to pay for religious instruction. The real effort in opposing the actions of the KBOE should be directed toward defeating the proposed school vouchers. The reasons for opposition should be based on the defects of the school voucher proposal - misuse of public funds, inappropriateness for rural Kansas, damage to public education, and other problems it would create for our social and economic welfare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
