Showing posts with label Kansas City Star. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kansas City Star. Show all posts
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Journalistic Excess
In a story about the federal budget proposed by the Obama administration, the KC Star on Friday, February 27, 2009, used a lot of adjectives. The budget and related financial matters were referred to as: bloated, eye-popping, aggressive, unspecified, gargantuan, huge, large, significant, breathtaking, and expanding, to cite a several of the adjectives used. I guess the press thinks that the only way to interpret the President's budget proposal is to adopt the opposition's spin. Well, get over it. The country has about 300,000,000 people and who knows how many businesses and other organizations. I'd guess somewhere between 25,000,000 and 50,000,000 million. That's a lot of people and players. Is the budget supposed to get smaller. Nowhere in the paper's analytical piece, pawned off as news, was there any per capita comparative analysis or adjustments for inflation. Raw numbers, that sound big to people locked in a 60s mentality, were the order of the day. After splattering the front page of the paper with red ink stains and spots, I think they did enough to show that they can't cope with modern day amounts.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
McClanahan's Red Light Running Solution
E. Thomas McClanahan, conservative pundit of the Kansas City Star, in a commentary of January 4, 2009, stated that "Longer yellow-light times mean fewer violations and accidents." In addition to the "blinking green" and "point of no return striping" he has offered yet another idea as to how the problem of motorists disrespecting red lights can be solved. McClanahan cites several studies that reported decreases in intersection accidents after yellow-light times were lengthened, but he did not mention the duration of the previous yellow-light phase of the traffic signal cycle, the speed limit applicable at the intersection, the type of collision reduced, or any other of several factors that could affect the number of collisions. In other words, he focused solely on the length of the yellow-light phase of the signal cycle as the determinant of motoring safety.
The KC Star editorial board stated recently that the yellow-light duration at intersections where cameras are planned ranged from 3.6 seconds to 3.9 seconds and, that where cameras are installed, they would monitor the times to see if they are changed or not. Considering all the interest in the fairness and practicality of red-light cameras, it is time to look at some facts. At 35 miles per hour, the speed limit usually applicable on streets with traffic signals, a vehicle will travel 180 feet in 3.5 seconds or 205 feet in 4.0 seconds. According to national traffic authorities, the stopping distance for a car traveling 35 mph, assuming good brakes and a good road surface condition, is approximately 51 feet. From this data, it can be seen that a vehicle driver, who is not speeding excessively or is not physically impaired, has more than sufficient reaction time and braking power to bring a vehicle to a stop before entering an intersection.
A short ( one to two second) yellow light phase can present problems to speeding drivers, while longer phases (three to four seconds) are more forgiving of excessive speed. Lengthening a short yellow phase could be beneficial, but doing the same for a yellow phase that is already of ample duration would be unlikely to provide any benefit.
Personally, I consider red-light cameras to be a "two-fer", better traffic enforcement and more revenue, both of which Kansas City surely needs. If McClanahan really wants to "step up enforcement in the proper way-- with traffic cops issuing tickets at the scene", then I'll be looking for his commentary supporting a tax increase to pay the bill for his desire.
The KC Star editorial board stated recently that the yellow-light duration at intersections where cameras are planned ranged from 3.6 seconds to 3.9 seconds and, that where cameras are installed, they would monitor the times to see if they are changed or not. Considering all the interest in the fairness and practicality of red-light cameras, it is time to look at some facts. At 35 miles per hour, the speed limit usually applicable on streets with traffic signals, a vehicle will travel 180 feet in 3.5 seconds or 205 feet in 4.0 seconds. According to national traffic authorities, the stopping distance for a car traveling 35 mph, assuming good brakes and a good road surface condition, is approximately 51 feet. From this data, it can be seen that a vehicle driver, who is not speeding excessively or is not physically impaired, has more than sufficient reaction time and braking power to bring a vehicle to a stop before entering an intersection.
A short ( one to two second) yellow light phase can present problems to speeding drivers, while longer phases (three to four seconds) are more forgiving of excessive speed. Lengthening a short yellow phase could be beneficial, but doing the same for a yellow phase that is already of ample duration would be unlikely to provide any benefit.
Personally, I consider red-light cameras to be a "two-fer", better traffic enforcement and more revenue, both of which Kansas City surely needs. If McClanahan really wants to "step up enforcement in the proper way-- with traffic cops issuing tickets at the scene", then I'll be looking for his commentary supporting a tax increase to pay the bill for his desire.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Kansas City Star vs. Governor Sibelius
The Kansas City Star in a Sunday editorial published the day before Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius gave her State of the State speech listed eight "top picks" for action by the Kansas Legislature. It occurred to me that I might listen to her Monday night speech, paying particular attention to how the legislative ideas expounded by the Governor diverged from those proposed by the Star. Below is what I learned along with my reaction.
In the area of highways, the Star proposed adding mass transit to the Kansas transportation plan. Sibelius suggested that perhaps another 10-year iteration of the plan, concluding this year, might be authorized. Mass transit is not going anywhere in Kansas. There is no interest by Kansas commuters and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, is not proposing mass transit links that would be advantageous to Kansans. Highway needs are still of major importance for movement through and around the Kansas metropolitan areas and between urban centers across the state. With federal stimulus money possible, several important highway projects that would be leading candidates for the early years of a new 10-year plan may get done. Look for all the attention to be devoted to economic stimulus with a new long-range plan coming up in the 2010 legislature.
As to public smoking restrictions, the Star wants a statewide ban on smoking in public places. The Governor made no mention of this issue, so presumably it's not high on her priority list. Presumably, she would support new laws that decrease cancer risks, therefore, if the legislature acts, which I doubt will happen, the Governor will go along. I doubt that cigarette taxes will be increased. Both parties have ruled out tax increases during a recession to cure a recession caused budget crisis and they would not want to appear hypocritical by putting both new restrictions and taxes on smokers.
To decrease deaths among teenage drivers, the Star supports raising the driving age and adding other restrictions to youthful drivers. This issue got no comment from the Governor. Since she's term limited, presumably she would not veto raising the age to begin driving. Interestingly, the Star didn't suggest a minimum age for driving, just raising it. Well, I will make a suggestion. I say raise it to 19, unless the individual wanting to drive has a high school diploma or GED certificate. That would not only make highways safer, it would reduce the expense of parking lot maintenance at high schools.
It seems to me that newspapers don't sell a lot of ad space for political campaigns and, hence, they don't protect their advertiser's interests. The Star favors disclosure of all financial donors' identities. Again, no mention of this issue by the Governor. It's hard to tell where she would come down on this issue. Personally, I feel full disclosure should be the rule. You have the right to support a candidate with your funds and to freely associate with others to do so. Why should your identity be shielded from view? There is no penalty attached to free speech, only the judgement of your peers. Why would you want to escape the judgement of your peers by donating anonymously?
Under the mantle of energy policy, the Star plugged renewable fuels for power generation rather than coal, as does Sibelius who favors expanding power generation from all sources as long as it's not coal-fired. The Senate President's response led me to believe that the Western Kansas Republicans will lead another attempt to build a power plant that mainly serves Colorado with energy and pollutes the air in Eastern Kansas. Neither the Star nor the Governor mentioned nuclear power directly. I say expand Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant. It has an excellent operating record from both safety and economical power standpoints. Besides, Coffey County could use more tax revenue.
For the care of vulnerable citizens, the Star is particularly interested in the mentally disabled. Sibelius extends her concern to all disabled persons. I am with her, but I cannot understand how enrollment in aid programs can be suspended as is proposed as a expense saving device. Equal protection under the law should not mean "until we can afford it." I say, "Serve one, serve all." There is a moral imperative here. The gate-keeper should be a standard of need, the worst cases get served first, rather than time of application. If that can't be done, then pony up the bucks.
Under the umbrella of health care, the Star emphasizes treatment access as of priome concern. Sibleius emphasized the advances made in Kansas towars becoming a center for cancer research. Both are important. More public clinics are definitely needed. I don't think the legislature will take any action, lacking funds and knowledge of what the Federal government will do to improve health insurance coverage.
Life science. the leading area of new research, also was of interest to both the Star and the Governor. The newspaper is pushing bioscience, while the Governor touts the economic development potential of a life science corridor between Manhattan and the Kansas City area. It is ironic that the county that passed a dedicated sales tax to boost state efforts in life sciences, cancer research and education, will probaly get the shaft from reduced state shared revenues. That's double punishment for the taxpayer. I say that, if the localities and higher education must bear the brunt of state budget corrections, then the local "Research Triangle" tax should be suspended unless or until the state fixes things.
This legislative session will be one to follow closely.
In the area of highways, the Star proposed adding mass transit to the Kansas transportation plan. Sibelius suggested that perhaps another 10-year iteration of the plan, concluding this year, might be authorized. Mass transit is not going anywhere in Kansas. There is no interest by Kansas commuters and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, is not proposing mass transit links that would be advantageous to Kansans. Highway needs are still of major importance for movement through and around the Kansas metropolitan areas and between urban centers across the state. With federal stimulus money possible, several important highway projects that would be leading candidates for the early years of a new 10-year plan may get done. Look for all the attention to be devoted to economic stimulus with a new long-range plan coming up in the 2010 legislature.
As to public smoking restrictions, the Star wants a statewide ban on smoking in public places. The Governor made no mention of this issue, so presumably it's not high on her priority list. Presumably, she would support new laws that decrease cancer risks, therefore, if the legislature acts, which I doubt will happen, the Governor will go along. I doubt that cigarette taxes will be increased. Both parties have ruled out tax increases during a recession to cure a recession caused budget crisis and they would not want to appear hypocritical by putting both new restrictions and taxes on smokers.
To decrease deaths among teenage drivers, the Star supports raising the driving age and adding other restrictions to youthful drivers. This issue got no comment from the Governor. Since she's term limited, presumably she would not veto raising the age to begin driving. Interestingly, the Star didn't suggest a minimum age for driving, just raising it. Well, I will make a suggestion. I say raise it to 19, unless the individual wanting to drive has a high school diploma or GED certificate. That would not only make highways safer, it would reduce the expense of parking lot maintenance at high schools.
It seems to me that newspapers don't sell a lot of ad space for political campaigns and, hence, they don't protect their advertiser's interests. The Star favors disclosure of all financial donors' identities. Again, no mention of this issue by the Governor. It's hard to tell where she would come down on this issue. Personally, I feel full disclosure should be the rule. You have the right to support a candidate with your funds and to freely associate with others to do so. Why should your identity be shielded from view? There is no penalty attached to free speech, only the judgement of your peers. Why would you want to escape the judgement of your peers by donating anonymously?
Under the mantle of energy policy, the Star plugged renewable fuels for power generation rather than coal, as does Sibelius who favors expanding power generation from all sources as long as it's not coal-fired. The Senate President's response led me to believe that the Western Kansas Republicans will lead another attempt to build a power plant that mainly serves Colorado with energy and pollutes the air in Eastern Kansas. Neither the Star nor the Governor mentioned nuclear power directly. I say expand Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant. It has an excellent operating record from both safety and economical power standpoints. Besides, Coffey County could use more tax revenue.
For the care of vulnerable citizens, the Star is particularly interested in the mentally disabled. Sibelius extends her concern to all disabled persons. I am with her, but I cannot understand how enrollment in aid programs can be suspended as is proposed as a expense saving device. Equal protection under the law should not mean "until we can afford it." I say, "Serve one, serve all." There is a moral imperative here. The gate-keeper should be a standard of need, the worst cases get served first, rather than time of application. If that can't be done, then pony up the bucks.
Under the umbrella of health care, the Star emphasizes treatment access as of priome concern. Sibleius emphasized the advances made in Kansas towars becoming a center for cancer research. Both are important. More public clinics are definitely needed. I don't think the legislature will take any action, lacking funds and knowledge of what the Federal government will do to improve health insurance coverage.
Life science. the leading area of new research, also was of interest to both the Star and the Governor. The newspaper is pushing bioscience, while the Governor touts the economic development potential of a life science corridor between Manhattan and the Kansas City area. It is ironic that the county that passed a dedicated sales tax to boost state efforts in life sciences, cancer research and education, will probaly get the shaft from reduced state shared revenues. That's double punishment for the taxpayer. I say that, if the localities and higher education must bear the brunt of state budget corrections, then the local "Research Triangle" tax should be suspended unless or until the state fixes things.
This legislative session will be one to follow closely.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Reading the KC Star - June 3, 2005
Headline - Stay fit, not fat, CDC insists. April report flawed, Director concedes.
"Weighing a little too much might not kill you, but there's nothing healthy about it, the head of the nation's health agency said Thursday."
Lead sentence by Marilynn Marchione, AP Reporter.
The article professed that, "Julie Gerberding, chief of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, distanced herself from an April report that being overweight wasn't so bad." Is this not the same person who distanced herself from the flu vaccine debacle of last year? Are we beginning to see a pattern? One would expect proactive, rather than reactive, oversight from the CDC chief.
By the way, the definitive article ahead of "nation's health agency" should have been caught by the article's editor and changed to the indefinite 'a'. CDC is merely one of several national government health agencies.
Headline - Precious Doe Case: Lessons Learned
"The tipster who provided key information in the Precious Doe murder investigation called police 50 times starting last year, Kansas City police acknowledged Thursday."
- Lead sentence by Christine Vendel, Reporter.
The Precious Doe case was a four year police effort to identify a girl's headless body left in a wooded area near houses. The child's identity was key to solving the crime. The tipster was the murdered girl's great-grandfather who started calling police in July, 2004, after he became suspicious about the girl's whereabouts.
The homicide detective who led the investigation claimed, despite the fact that only three of the tipster's 50 calls were logged and only 1 returned, "Yes, we dropped the ball, but we picked it up and ran it in for the game-winning touchdown." Sounds to me like they fell on their own fumble in their end zone. Final score: Tipster 2, Police 0. Let's give credit where credit is due.
The detective is quoted further: "Is there a way to do it better in the future? That's what I want to look at. I have some ideas in mind." Well, well, well, what a wonderful place for an idea.
A deputy chief suggests having two different detectives talk to tipsters who call multiple times for a "second opinion". Sounds to me like a different mind-set is needed. How often are kids or the elderly dismissed as incompetent solely because of their age?
In defending the police's incompetence, the detective is quoted, in regard to the fact that the tipster's 50 calls were among 1,100 tips policed received in the case, " When you have the number of tips we had, detectives need to prioritize and use their judgement." Sounds good, but how many of those 1,100 tips came in the last 10 months before the case was solved? More than 50? Judgement without intelligence is like soap without water. Sounds to me like selection criteria for police detective should include critical thinking skill and analytical ability. Do you want to bet the latter traits get short shrift when picking who moves up from beat officer to detective? Indeed, let's hope lessons are learned from Precious Doe.
"Weighing a little too much might not kill you, but there's nothing healthy about it, the head of the nation's health agency said Thursday."
Lead sentence by Marilynn Marchione, AP Reporter.
The article professed that, "Julie Gerberding, chief of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, distanced herself from an April report that being overweight wasn't so bad." Is this not the same person who distanced herself from the flu vaccine debacle of last year? Are we beginning to see a pattern? One would expect proactive, rather than reactive, oversight from the CDC chief.
By the way, the definitive article ahead of "nation's health agency" should have been caught by the article's editor and changed to the indefinite 'a'. CDC is merely one of several national government health agencies.
Headline - Precious Doe Case: Lessons Learned
"The tipster who provided key information in the Precious Doe murder investigation called police 50 times starting last year, Kansas City police acknowledged Thursday."
- Lead sentence by Christine Vendel, Reporter.
The Precious Doe case was a four year police effort to identify a girl's headless body left in a wooded area near houses. The child's identity was key to solving the crime. The tipster was the murdered girl's great-grandfather who started calling police in July, 2004, after he became suspicious about the girl's whereabouts.
The homicide detective who led the investigation claimed, despite the fact that only three of the tipster's 50 calls were logged and only 1 returned, "Yes, we dropped the ball, but we picked it up and ran it in for the game-winning touchdown." Sounds to me like they fell on their own fumble in their end zone. Final score: Tipster 2, Police 0. Let's give credit where credit is due.
The detective is quoted further: "Is there a way to do it better in the future? That's what I want to look at. I have some ideas in mind." Well, well, well, what a wonderful place for an idea.
A deputy chief suggests having two different detectives talk to tipsters who call multiple times for a "second opinion". Sounds to me like a different mind-set is needed. How often are kids or the elderly dismissed as incompetent solely because of their age?
In defending the police's incompetence, the detective is quoted, in regard to the fact that the tipster's 50 calls were among 1,100 tips policed received in the case, " When you have the number of tips we had, detectives need to prioritize and use their judgement." Sounds good, but how many of those 1,100 tips came in the last 10 months before the case was solved? More than 50? Judgement without intelligence is like soap without water. Sounds to me like selection criteria for police detective should include critical thinking skill and analytical ability. Do you want to bet the latter traits get short shrift when picking who moves up from beat officer to detective? Indeed, let's hope lessons are learned from Precious Doe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
