Category: Uncategorized

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News says no moderate Muslim voices denounce violence due to burning of Koran. American Islamic Fourm for Democracy is a moderate voice opposed to violence.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
General Petraeus denounced the burning of the “holy Koran” March 20, 2011 as hate speech. With due deference to the General’s extraordinary military abilities, he should stick to what he does excellently –engage in war against our enemies.

Bill O’Reilly on Fox News 4-6-2011 said that there are no moderate Muslims condemning the violence in the Middle East related to the burning of the Koran. O’Reilly should check out physician Dr. Jasser who founded American Islamic Fourn for Democracy which is a moderate voice opposed to sharia law and supportive of state/ mosque separation. Why not ask Dr. Jasser on to explain his views on the radicalization of Islamic youth in America?

“As deadly demonstrations spread across Afghanistan, American Muslim leaders condemned the violence as well as the Quran-burning by a fundamentalist Christian minister in Florida whose actions were cited as provocation for the killings.
By Allauddin Khan, AP
Protesters carry a wounded colleague during a demonstration to condemn the burning of a copy of the Muslim holy book by a Florida pastor in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on Saturday.
www.freefile.irs.gov
“Clearly the Islamist agenda is to use any tidbit of information out of the West to try to paint America and the West as anti-Islam and anti-Muslim,” said M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.
He said the killings over the weekend in Mazar-i-Sharif and Kandahar were the result of extremist leaders using the burning of a Quran last month in Gainesville, Fla., as an excuse for violence.REACTION: Fla. pastor denies responsibility for Afghan killings
FAITH & REASON: CNN won’t air ‘hateful’ interview with pastor who burned Quran
Terry Jones, 59, who runs the Dove World Outreach Center, held a mock “trial” of the Muslim holy book and burned a copy on March 20. He had threatened to do so last fall, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but backed down.

His actions last month gained little initial notice in the USA until the violence erupted Friday. Thousands of demonstrators in Mazar-i-Sharif overran a United Nations compound, killing seven. On Saturday, nine people were killed when hundreds marched in Kandahar, attacking cars and businesses and confronting security forces.

Demonstrations continued Sunday in Jalalabad, and a police officer was killed in a second day of violence in Kandahar, the Associated Press reported.

Jones did not return phone calls seeking comment. One of his group’s websites, StandupAmerica.org, posted a statement by Fran Ingram responding to what she said were calls to the church suggesting “you have the blood of the U.N. workers on your hands.”

“The teaching of the Koran is to be blamed. The leaders of Islam who teach the violence and hatred it contains have blood on their hands,” she wrote. “Free speech. We still have that in America.”

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Sunday that his Muslim advocacy group tried to ignore Jones because he has a tiny following and is not representative of mainstream American thought. “We believe he’s just in the mode of pure publicity seeking,” Hooper said of Jones. “We’ve purposely downplayed it as much as possible.”

Hooper denounced the violence as “a completely inappropriate reaction” to the Florida preacher.

“Everybody has freedom of speech. In this case, even freedom to do stupid and reprehensible things. But everybody also has the responsibility to act in a way that doesn’t harm others or doesn’t lead to the harm of others,” Hooper said.

Share

The Heritage Foundation, a research & educational think tank promotes free enterprise, limited govt, individual freedom…

Take a look at The Heritage Foundation. It’s staff produces timely accurate research addressing key policy issues. It’s got about 750,000 members and welcomes you as a member. Membership starts at $25.

Share

Perhaps Tea Party Patriots hamstrung from robust politcal speech because its a 501c3 charity?

Why give money to a 501c4 charity such as the Tea Party Patriots if they cannot engage in “robust” political speech such as telling President Obama to leave the oval office ASAP and go back to doing a job for which he has competence — not politics, not as President, not as a lawyer, not teaching constitutional law.

Share

Nationally, the Tea Party Patriots is organized a a 501c4 charitable organization. Which means (??) certain regulations apply as to what political activity the Tea Party Patriots can engage in. For sure, taking educating the publicc as to the deficit and taking a stand for reduction of the federal deficit should be OK activities. However — as a 501c3 organized as a charitable organization — The Tea Party Patriots cannot have a bias for or against any individual political campaign. That means the Tea Party Patriots cannot oppose Obama’s 2012 campaign.

So as not to run into the IRE of the IRS, perhaps it’s best that 2-3 families on every block in America organize their individual Block Tea Parties — without any formal mechanism.

Political speech is one of the most protected forms of speech. But, probably political speech — for example, that ObamaCare as preached by President Obama is about as transparent as the Obama and Pelosi are (“we must vote for it so we know what’s in it) is political speech that a 501c3 cannot engage in.

So, is it smart to give money to the Tea Party Patriots when they cannot fully engage in “robust” political speech? Like, telling President Obama, get out of the Oval office and go back to doing whatever you can do for a job! Below are some contact numbers for the Tea Party Patriots. Maybe they have other ideas how to do robust speech against President Obama himself. Remember Rush Limbaugh when he said, “I hope he fails!” Yes I want the Tea Parties activists to say something like that.

Your Tea Party Patriots National Coordinator Team,
Debbie Dooley, Jenny Beth Martin, Mark Meckler, Sally Oljar, Diana Reimer, and Dawn Wildman

TPP Support email: support@teapartypatriots.org
TPP Support phone number: 404-593-0877

Jenny Beth Martin (jennybethm@gmail.com, Twitter @jennybethm, Facebook)
Dawn Wildman (dmwlaw1@cox.net)
Mark Meckler (mark@teapartypatriots.org)
Debbie Dooley (debbie0040@yahoo.com)

Tea Party Patriots, Inc. operates as a social welfare organization organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to Tea Party Patriots, Inc. are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
1025 Rose Creek Dr, 620-322, Woodstock, GA 30189

Home

For America’s Future

Tea Party Sunshine

Join us in shining a light on our governments from the federal to the local level, sunshine is the best way to ensure transparency and accountability.

American Policy Summit

If you missed the 1st Annual American Policy Summit, you can see what you missed here.
Quick Links
TeaPartyPatriots.org
Donate
TPP Store
Find A TPP Group
Health Care Compacts

Thanks for Your Support

Share

Which emergency room in Latin America or Middle East or Africa do you want to go for cardiac failure comopared to American emergency care?

Ask 10 friends who have needed emergency care in various countries and see how their experiences compare with U.S. visits to their local emergency rooms. Obama thinks based on the following study that our medical is terrible.

The Worst Study Ever?Scott W. Atlas — April 2011PrintPDF

The World Health Organization’s World Health Report 2000, which ranked the health-care systems of nearly 200 nations, stands as one of the most influential social-science studies in history. For the past decade, it has been the de facto basis for much of the discussion of the health-care system in the United States, routinely cited in public discourse by members of government and policy experts. Its most notorious finding—that the United States ranked a disastrous 37th out of the world’s 191 nations in “overall performance”—provided supporters of President Barack Obama’s transformative health-care legislation with a data-driven argument for swift and drastic reform, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. spends more on health than any other nation.

In October 2008, candidate Obama used the study to claim that “29 other countries have a higher life expectancy and 38 other nations have lower infant mortality rates.” On June 15, 2009, as he was beginning to make the case for his health-care bill, the new president said: “As I think many of you are aware, for all of this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured, the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend substantially less than we do are actually living longer than we do.” The perfect encapsulation of the study’s findings and assertions came in a September 9, 2009, editorial in Canada’s leading newspaper, the Globe and Mail: “With more than 40 million Americans lacking health insurance, another 25 million considered badly underinsured, and life expectancies and infant mortality rates significantly worse that those of most industrialized Western nations, the need for change seems obvious and pressing to some, especially when the United States is spending 16 percent of GDP on health care, roughly twice the average of other modern developed nations, all of which have some form of publicly funded system.”

In fact, World Health Report 2000 was an intellectual fraud of historic consequence—a profoundly deceptive document that is only marginally a measure of health-care performance at all. The report’s true achievement was to rank countries according to their alignment with a specific political and economic ideal—socialized medicine—and then claim it was an objective measure of “quality.”

WHO researchers divided aspects of health care into subjective categories and tailored the definitions to suit their political aims. They allowed fundamental flaws in methodology, large margins of error in data, and overt bias in data analysis, and then offered conclusions despite enormous gaps in the data they did have. The flaws in the report’s approach, flaws that thoroughly undermine the legitimacy of the WHO rankings, have been repeatedly exposed in peer-reviewed literature by academic experts who have examined the study in detail. Their analysis made clear that the study’s failings were plain from the outset and remain patently obvious today; but they went unnoticed, unmentioned, and unexamined by many because World Health Report 2000 was so politically useful. This object lesson in the ideological misuse of politicized statistics should serve as a cautionary tale for all policymakers and all lay people who are inclined to accept on faith the results reported in studies by prestigious international bodies.

Before WHO released the study, it was commonly accepted that health care in countries with socialized medicine was problematic. But the study showed that countries with nationally centralized health-care systems were the world’s best. As Vincente Navarro noted in 2000 in the highly respected Lancet, countries like Spain and Italy “rarely were considered models of efficiency or effectiveness before” the WHO report. Polls had shown, in fact, that Italy’s citizens were more displeased with their health care than were citizens of any other major European country; the second worst was Spain. But in World Health Report 2000, Italy and Spain were ranked #2 and #7 in the global list of best overall providers.

Most studies of global health care before it concentrated on health-care outcomes. But that was not the approach of the WHO report. It sought not to measure performance but something else. “In the past decade or so there has been a gradual shift of vision towards what WHO calls the ‘new universalism,’” WHO authors wrote, “respecting the ethical principle that it may be necessary and efficient to ration services.”

The report went on to argue, even insist, that “governments need to promote community rating (i.e. each member of the community pays the same premium), a common benefit package and portability of benefits among insurance schemes.” For “middle income countries,” the authors asserted, “the policy route to fair prepaid systems is through strengthening the often substantial, mandatory, income-based and risk-based insurance schemes.” It is a curious version of objective study design and data analysis to assume the validity of a concept like “the new universalism” and then to define policies that implement it as proof of that validity.

The nature of the enterprise came more fully into view with WHO’s introduction and explanation of the five weighted factors that made up its index. Those factors are “Health Level,” which made up 25 percent of “overall care”; “Health Distribution,” which made up another 25 percent; “Responsiveness,” accounting for 12.5 percent; “Responsiveness Distribution,” at 12.5 percent; and “Financial Fairness,” at 25 percent.

The definitions of each factor reveal the ways in which scientific objectivity was a secondary consideration at best. What is “Responsiveness,” for example? WHO defined it in part by calculating a nation’s “respect for persons.” How could it possibly quantify such a subjective notion? It did so through calculations of even more vague subconditions—“respect for dignity,” “confidentiality,” and “autonomy.”

And “respect for persons” constituted only 50 percent of a nation’s overall “responsiveness.” The other half came from calculating the country’s “client orientation.” That vague category was determined in turn by measurements of “prompt attention,” “quality of amenities,” “access to social support networks,” and “choice of provider.”

Scratch the surface a little and you find that “responsiveness” was largely a catchall phrase for the supposedly unequal distribution of health-care resources. “Since poor people may expect less than rich people, and be more satisfied with unresponsive services,” the authors wrote, “measures of responsiveness should correct for these differences.”

Correction, it turns out, was the goal. “The object is not to explain what each country or health system has attained,” the authors declared, “so much as to form an estimate of what should be possible.” They appointed themselves determinants of what “should” be possible “using information from many countries but with a specific value for each country.” This was not so much a matter of assessing care but of determining what care should be in a given country, based on WHO’s own priorities regarding the allocation of national resources. The WHO report went further and judged that “many countries are falling far short of their potential, and most are making inadequate efforts in terms of responsiveness and fairness.”

_____________

Consider the discussion of Financial Fairness (which made up 25 percent of a nation’s score). “The way health care is financed is perfectly fair if,” the study declared, “the ratio of total health contribution to total non-food spending is identical for all households, independently of their income, their health status or their use of the health system.” In plain language, higher earners should pay more for health care, period. And people who become sick, even if that illness is due to high-risk behavior, should not pay more. According to WHO, “Financial fairness is best served by more, as well as by more progressive, prepayment in place of out-of-pocket expenditure. And the latter should be small not only in the aggregate but relative to households’ ability to pay.”

This matter-of-fact endorsement of wealth redistribution and centralized administration should have had nothing to do with WHO’s assessment of the actual quality of health care under different systems. But instead, it was used as the definition of quality. For the authors of the study, the policy recommendation preceded the research. Automatically, this pushed capitalist countries that rely more on market incentives to the bottom of the list and rewarded countries that finance health care by centralized government-controlled single-payer systems. In fact, two of the major index factors, Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution, did not even measure health care itself. They were both strictly measures of equal distribution of health and equal distribution of health-care delivery.

Perhaps what is most striking about the categories that make up the index is how WHO weighted them. Health Distribution, Responsiveness Distribution, and Financial Fairness added up to 62.5 percent of a country’s health-care score. Thus, almost two-thirds of the study was an assessment of equality. The actual health outcomes of a nation, which logic dictates should be of greatest importance in any health-care index, accounted for only 25 percent of the weighting. In other words, the WHO study was dominated by concerns outside the realm of health care.

Not content with penalizing free-market economies on the fairness front, the WHO study actually held a nation’s health-care system accountable for the behavior of its citizens. “Problems such as tobacco consumption, diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance,” WHO declared. But the inclusion of such problems is impossible to justify scientifically. For example, WHO considered tobacco consumption equivalent, as an indicator of medical care, to the treatment of measles: “Avoidable deaths and illness from childbirth, measles, malaria or tobacco consumption can properly be laid” at a nation’s health-care door.”

From a political standpoint, of course, the inclusion of behaviors such as smoking is completely logical. As Samuel H. Preston and Jessica Ho of the University of Pennsylvania observed in a 2009 Population Studies Center working paper, a “health-care system could be performing exceptionally well in identifying and administering treatment for various diseases, but a country could still have poor measured health if personal health-care practices were unusually deleterious.” This takes on additional significance when one considers that the United States has “the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita in the developed world over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80s.”

Share

Given a choice, teachers will opt out of paying union dues http://freedomOK.net

Where teachers have been given choice to not pay union dues they opt out in huge numbers.

“Three weeks ago, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill restricting the power of public-employee unions and increasing what their members pay for health and pension benefits. But the law hasn’t yet taken effect—and its opponents have found a judge to issue a highly questionable ruling threatening sanctions against any official who implements it. It seems “Wisconsin Nice” is now gone with the wind.

It began in February, when 14 Democratic senators left the state in order to avoid giving Republicans the quorum they needed to pass Mr. Walker’s bill. Unions bused in thousands of members and supporters to protest it. Death threats were made against several legislators (on Thursday, felony charges were filed against one woman for allegedly emailing legislators about plans for “putting a nice little bullet in your head.”)

After four weeks, Republicans finally passed the bill after amending it so it required a smaller quorum. The Democratic senators returned, but promptly backed a blizzard of lawsuits to block the bill from taking effect.

They found an ally in Judge Maryann Sumi of Dane County. She issued a restraining order against publication of the law, arguing that it was likely that plaintiffs would prove it was passed without the required notice in the state’s Open Meetings Law. On Thursday, she followed up with an order declaring the law “not in effect.”

Legal analysts say it’s preposterous for a judge to enjoin publication of a law before it has even taken effect, as citizens don’t have standing to challenge a law until they are subject to it. In a similar case in 1943, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that a judge had no such authority. In 1977, another state Supreme Court opinion reiterated that under separation of powers “no court has jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative process at any point.” Rick Esenberg, an assistant professor of law at Marquette University, says he is “speechless” over the fact that Judge Sumi “has failed to articulate why she has the authority” to issue her ruling.

View Full Image

Associated Press

JoAnne Kloppenburg and Justice David Prosser
.The case will ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court. That’s why unions and liberal groups are now pouring millions into TV ads to try to oust Justice David Prosser—a member of the court’s 4-to-3 conservative majority—in an election next Tuesday.

Victory would mean a seat on the court for JoAnne Kloppenburg, an assistant state attorney general—and a court with a liberal majority that may well uphold Judge Sumi’s decision.

Liberal groups are doing all they can to politicize this judicial race. An American Federation of Teachers local has sent a letter to its members asserting that “a Kloppenburg victory would swing the balance (on the court) to our side. A vote for Prosser is a vote for [Gov.] Walker.” It is time, the letter says, “to get even.” Ms. Kloppenburg certainly isn’t discouraging such thinking. She told the Madison Capital Times that “the events of the last few weeks have put into sharp relief how important the Supreme Court is as a check on overreach in the other branches of government.”

Why are the unions and their liberal allies so desperate to block Mr. Walker’s reforms? It’s all about the money. Unions can’t abide the loss of political clout that will result from ending the state’s practice of automatically deducting union dues from employee paychecks. For most Wisconsin public employees, union dues total between $700 and $1,000 a year, much of which is funneled into political spending to elect the officials who negotiate their contracts.

Union officials recognize what can happen if dues payments become voluntary. Robert Chanin, who was general counsel of the National Education Association from 1968 to 2009, said in a U.S. District Court oral argument in 1978 that “it is well-recognized that if you take away the mechanism of payroll deduction, you won’t collect a penny from these people, and it has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary. I think it has to do with the nature of the beast, and the beasts who are our teachers . . . simply don’t come up with the money regardless of the purpose.”

There is evidence to back up his fears. In 2001, Utah made the collection of payments to union political funds optional, and nearly 95% of public school teachers opted not to pay. In 2005, Indiana GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels limited collective-bargaining rights for public employees, and today only 5% of state employees pay union dues.

Some union supporters recognize the problems with coercive dues payments. Tom Geoghegan, a noted union lawyer, wrote in the Nation magazine last November that it should be “a civil right to join, or not to join, a labor union.” He said it was time to “repackage labor law reform, even over the protest of organized labor itself.” He noted that workers in countries “like Germany are free not to pay [their dues]—and many don’t.” Indeed, the U.S. is filled with powerful groups, such as the American Association of Retired Persons, that thrive on voluntary payments because they are seen as providing genuine services to members.

Even Ms. Kloppenburg, the favored candidate of unions, doesn’t like paying mandatory dues. In 2009, she responded to a survey by saying the Wisconsin Bar Association should become “voluntary.” Then it would be “better situated and motivated to be more transparent, be more accountable, be more responsive.” She went on to say that government attorneys such as herself “do not benefit as much as private attorneys from the non-reimbursed dues that we pay.”

In an interview on Friday, Gov. Walker told me that dues money and union power is “the real issue” in opposition to his reform. “After it became clear we were serious, they couldn’t wait to throw their members under the bus by saying they could live with higher contributions for health and pension benefits,” he said. “The issue they wouldn’t bend on was the power collective bargaining gives them on dues.”

Share

Should redevelopment money (for blight) be spent for various projects in Santa Cruz, CA and elsewhere?

Tom Honig is the former editor of the Santa Cruz Sentinel located in Santa Cruz, California.

Who is Tom Honig?

Though retired, he is still a journalist will always be a journalist. Been around a long time in Santa Cruz County, California.

Tom Honig’s interests are business (redevelopment currently) and politics in Santa Cruz County, California. He was the former editor of the local paper in Santa Cruz. The current editor is Mr. Miller.

Tom Honig has a blog: TomHonig.com

My question to Tom Honig: How can the editorials published by the Santa Cruz Sentinel improve? Any suggestions? Can anyone –or can you Mr. Honig — please improve the syntax if not the content of editorials written by Mr. Miller, the current editor of the paper? It’s easy to fall asleep reading Mr. Miller’s editorials.

The Monterey Bay Forum wishes Tom Honig the best as he continues to be who and what he is: a journalist who has been aroumd Santa Cruz, CA for many years.

About REDEVELOPMENT: Isn’t redevelopment money supposed to be to combat BLIGHT? I do not see blight in Santa Cruz County. So why the rush to spend money on redevelopment? Sounds like just another way to use tax payer money for what ever the government currently wants.

Tom, where was there or is there “blight” in Santa Cruz County California.

So what say you?

Share

Some (SDC) special education students in California (PVUSD) with normal abilities are never taught to read or write. Why? What to do?

Taxpayers must require accountability for costs of special education. Vouchers and charter schools can create more accountability. Some special education students are placed in the most restricted placement — Special Day Class (SDC) — and are never re-assessed as to progres made. Children with normal IQs placed in SDC languish there for years.

Share

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
Every child with an Individual Education Plan (IEP) needs regular measurement of the child’s abilities to see if the IEP “fits”, or if the child has “outgrown” it or that it is not appropriate and needs to be changed. Regular measurement of the child’s progress typically is done every three years.

But some children’s IEPs are never “measured” again after the initial placement in a Special Day Class (SDC) placement — the most restricted educational placement. That’s wrong. It harms the child. It wastes money. The system must be more accountable.

What to do? Taxpayers speak up!

Maybe its time that parents of special education students got vouchers that followed their disabled students and could apply for any school of their choice? When parents of children of special education have more choice it’s highly likely that the quality of the education will improve.

Maybe it’s time for taxpayers to require that all California special education students are assessed very year as to progress made toward expected goals in reading, writing and arithmetic. And maybe it’s time to tie teacher pay to progress made by special education students.

It’s often the case that Special Day Class (SDC) students stay in the same class with the same teachers and aides for 2-3 years in a row. And too frequently there is no regular assessment of SDC students with standardized measures.

Some special education students in California go through 12 years of public education with minimal initial measurement of their abilities using standardized tests. Once a child is retained that child is typically passed on year after year whether or not that child has made any progress in reading and writing.

If you are a special education student in California you are about 1/2 as likely to become Proficient or higher in reading. Forty percent of California general ed students are Proficient compared to 20% of special education students. Of course, that highlights that 60% of California students are not proficient in reading.

In 2007-08 the national average per cost of student was $7,268. California paid a bit more than the national average — $8,853 — and had a ranking of 43. That means that only 7 states were lower than CA in ranking.

The County Office of Education (COE) in Santa Cruz spends $24,600 per student. COE receives 6.2 million for 252 students.

The biggest special education cost is for separate classes for students in a Special Day Class placement. One third of the special education budget went to pay for separate classes in 2006-2007.

Think of a pie cut into thirds. One-third of the special education “pie” goes to pay for separate classes for the Special Day Class (SDC) students. So why not take that 1/3 of the pie and turn it over to parents to create Alternative SDC Voucher Placements? I bet parent-run classes would require more progress in reading, writing and arithmetic.

California spends 20% more on special education student than the nation as a whole, partly due to higher wage costs. Targeted federal, state and local funds totaled $4.7 billion in 2006-07 to defray the additonal costs associated with special education.

If you are a parent with a child in a SDC placement in California it’s time that you required your school to regularly show progress based on standardized measures. Alternative methods of testing do not give you –or the taxpyers paying– the information needed to show that the public is getting value for money spent.

What say you? Time that parents with children in special education got vouchers? I think so. DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: In 1994, Sari Kovats had no credentials yet selected as lead researcher for IPCC on how climate change affects people.

Climate change real? Look at the lack of credentials of someone who made the first report. Was a governmental agency using someone to get a particular opinion?

Share
Sara Kovats cited as an authority on climate change years before Ph.D. credential

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
March 19, 2011
IPCC guru was a student when writing ‘authoritative’ reports.

So what is Sari Kovats doing now in her profession having authored as an uncredentialed student authoritative reports on climate change? Is she a recognized leader in her field?

In 1994 was a governmental agency — the IPCC — using her to get a particular opinion?

As she had no Ph.D. or other credentials, Sari Kovats obviously was not a recognized “authority”. What about her research methods? Can anyone fault her on her methodology?

See Sari Kovats’s Vitae below:

Here is her Vitae:

Sari Kovats BA MSc PhD
Senior Lecturer in Environmental Epidemiology
Room 233, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK
Tel: +44(0)20 7927 2962Get email addressvCard

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Affiliated to: SEHR.
Disciplines: Epidemiology.

Research areas: Climate change, Environment, Public health, Risk.

Background
Sari Kovats is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Teaching
Sari organises the Module “Environment, Health and Sustainable Development” in Term 1, and is a tutor to students on the MSc Public Health.

Research
Sari has researched health issues related to climate change since 1994 and has published widely on the health impacts of weather and climate, including extreme weather events (heat waves) and associated public health responses.

She was a Lead Author in the Human Health chapter in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC as well as contributing to the Second and Third Assessment Reports.

Sari is a member of Scientific Steering Committee of Global Environmental Change and Human Health Project of ESSP (Earth System Science Partnership), and is currently Chair of the Centre on Global Change and Health at LSHTM.

Selected publications
Kovats, R.S.; Ebi, K.L.; Heatwaves and public health in Europe. Eur J Public Health, 2006; 16(6):592-9
Hajat, S.; Kovats, R.S.; Lachowycz, K. Heat-related and cold-related deaths in England and Wales: who is at risk? Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2007; 64(2):93-100
Kovats, R. S. Heat waves and health protection British Medical Journal, 2006; 333(7563):314-315
Kovats, R. S.; Campbell-Lendrum, D.; Matthies, F. Climate change and human health: Estimating avoidable deaths and disease Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(6):1409-1418
Ahern, M.; Kovats, R.S.; Wilkinson, P.; Few, R.; Matthies, F.; Global health impacts of floods: epidemiologic evidence. Epidemiol Rev, 2005; 27:36-46
Kovats, R.S.; Edwards, S.J.; Hajat, S.; Armstrong, B.G.; Ebi, K.L.; Menne, B.; The effect of temperature on food poisoning: a time-series analysis of salmonellosis in ten European countries. Epidemiol Infect, 2004; 132(3):443-53
Kovats, R.S.; Hajat, S.; Wilkinson, P.; Contrasting patterns of mortality and hospital admissions during hot weather and heat waves in Greater London, UK. Occup Environ Med, 2004; 61(11):893-8
Kovats, R. S.; Campbell-Lendrum, D. H.; McMichael, A. J.; Woodward, A.; Cox, J. S. Early effects of climate change: do they include changes in vector-borne disease? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 2001; 356(1411):1057-68
Full publications listing (since 2001)

—————————————————————-

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports have motivated governmental action to cut carbon emissions, relied on an uncredentialed student named Sari Kovats for writing and supervising its supposedly authoritative reports. Donna Laframboise of NOconsensus.org brings us the shocking news.
In 1994, Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. She was 25 years old. Her first academic paper wouldn’t be published for another three years. It would be six years before she’d even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before she’d graduate.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this about how IPCC authors are selected:

There is a very careful process of selection…These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of publications, on the research that they have done…They are people who are at the top of their profession as far as research is concerned in a particular aspect of climate change…you can’t think of a better set of qualified people than what we have in the IPCC. [bold added]

Academically speaking, Kovats was invisible back in 1994. That anyone connected to the IPCC could have considered her a scientific expert is astonishing.

I’m sorry to say that that was just the beginning. When it came time to write the next version of the climate bible, Kovats received a promotion. She was selected to be a lead author, again for the health chapter – despite the fact that her doctoral studies wouldn’t begin until the year the IPCC report was published.

What do we suppose happened with the next edition of the climate bible – the one that appeared in 2007, still three full years before Kovats earned her doctorate? Was she selected once again to be a health chapter lead author? You betcha.

But by then the IPCC, in its wisdom, had decided she was a scientific expert in other areas, as well. Kovats served as a contributing author for three additional chapters in Working Group 2:

•Chapter 1 – Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems
•Chapter 6 – Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
•Chapter 12 – Europe
She was also an IPCC expert reviewer.

So how does a neophyte suddenly beome the “top of [her] profession”? The great Andrew Bolt, of the Courier Mail/Herald Sun in Australia has a good answer:

Maybe she just has the right opinions.

Share

218 Claudius Drive, Aptos, CA to house 1,116 “unduplicated visitors” a year due to federal grant with no prior notice or input from public.

Why not a tent city rather than top dollar cost to rent a three bedroom house for $4 thousand a month to house only 8 persons at any one time in Aptos, CA.

Share

Cameron Jackson, Ph.D. DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

A peer-staffed crises residential program located in a three bedroom residence in a toney area of Aptos is slated to open March, 2011 to assit persons with major mental illness. These clients, without a high level of support, would require hospitalization.

The federal government dangles moeny and Santa Cruz County accepts — without prior consultation from the neighborhood or public at large and no imput by taxpayers who pay the bill.

Why did our local Santa Cruz County government representatives purchase 5 years of top of the market residential housing in one of the most expensive areas in Santa Cruz County ($3,900 for a 3 bedroom house with ocean view and two jacuzzis) to provide mental health housing for 1,116 visitors a year? (Someone should find out whether the 5 year lease agreement with the owner picks up the costs of utilities and taxes as well.)

Supervisor Pirie who represents Aptos states that she did not know. So who did decide?

How about some belt tightening by local Santa Cruz government? Did the results of the November, 2009 elections sink in here in Santa Cruz County — that the public wants to cut government costs?

Approximately 1,116 visitors at risk of psychiatric hospitalization due to symptoms of hallucinations (e.g., hearing voices or seeing things that aren’t there), delusions (false beliefs), agitation and impaired functional abilities will be housed at the proposed peer-staffed crises residential program.

At any one time, up to 8 persons will be at 218 Claudius with staff of 7.35 Full Time Equivalent (FTE). So there will be almost a one to one staff to patient ratio at 218 Claudius on a 24 hour 7 day a week basis.

Why 218 Claudius? Well, yes indeed, 218 Claudius in Aptos, CA has a magnificent view of Monterey Bay. It is a quiet, residential neighborhood. A resident at 218 Claudius can readily walk to Rio del Mar Beach which is only a few blocks down the hill. Likewise, it is a short 15 minute walk to Deluxe Market located on Rio del Mar Blvd. Should there be some life endangering situation — some resident goes out of control — the Fire Department is about a mile away and there are no speed bumps in between.

Public transportation to and from 218 Claudius is a bit iffy however. Say a person wanted to get from the River Street shelter in Santa Cruz, CA to 218 Claudius in Aptos, CA using public transportation. The last bus from Santa Cruz to Cabrillo College (#71) leaves at 4:00 pm and a person must catch the 4:45 pm #55 bus to get to Rio del Mar near Claudius. That is the last bus. Thus, people must drive their car or be driven if arriving after 5 pm. And there are few street lights in Aptos.

The Santa Cruz Metro bus telephone number is 831 425-8600. Expect a 15 minute wait if calling as I did around 3:30 pm. That kind of wait is not good for persons suffering from mental illness and seeking immediate crises assistance.

As there is no bus after 5 pm, persons in crises coming to 218 Caudius must either drive, be driven or walk. There are no street lights. And parking is quite skimpy. Will the 7.3 Full Time Equivalent persons working drive their vehicles? Probably.

How well thought out was this decision? Who were the key players making the decision?

written by Cameorn Jackson DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
——————————————————-
Below are two articles from local papers about the new mental health facility.

Rio Del Mar residents fighting County Mental Health Department

Group home for mental health patients being opened without notice

Residents are up in arms about a mental health facility being placed without notice in the middle of their neighborhood on Claudius Drive in Rio Del Mar by the County’s Mental Health Department. More than a dozen residents have lodged complaints with county Supervisor Ellen Pirie over the County’s plans. Pirie claims she didn’t learn about the facility until recently.

After receiving numerous complaints from residents, Pirie scheduled a neighborhood meeting to allow residents to ask questions and air concerns to county health officials, and for county officials to explain details of the program.

The community meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday Feb 16, 2011 in the meeting room at the Rio Sands Motel on Aptos Beach Drive. Pirie will not be attending the meeting due to another commitment in Washington DC.

County health officials claim they weren’t legally required to provide notification to neighbors. They had intended to contact residents but just hadn’t gotten around to it.

The County plans to begin moving in patients by the end of March.
One of the residents, Cindy Jewell, said, “It was discovered last week by our neighborhood in Rio Del Mar that an eight-bed mental health crisis respite house is being opened at 218 Claudius Drive in Rio Del Mar. Beds and office equipment have been moved in and there was no advance notification to anyone in the neighborhood or the community of Aptos.”

After contacting Pirie, the neighbors were informed that as this crisis respite house was unlicensed and staffed by peers, no notification or zoning requirements were necessary. Further research into the origin of the $3.5 million 5-year federal grant by the County Mental Health Services Department revealed that this program is still being tested. This will only be the seventh facility initiated in the United States and the only one in the state of California. The County has chosen a location, on a cul-de-sac, with little privacy for the mentally ill staying at this crisis house.

It has been reported that County health officials have signed a 5-year lease in February to rent the 3,000-square-foot with ocean views for $3,900 a month. According to the county health department, the facility is to provide transitional housing for people suffering various forms of mental illness, including severe depression, hallucinations and other issues that impair daily living.

The County Mental Health Department received the federal grant in September to operate and innovative treatment facility for those going through a particularly stressful time to prevent an actual mental health crisis. It is to be a voluntary early intervention on the part of the patient, not an alternative to a hospital commitment.

A one-hour program posted last April ran on Santa Cruz CTV with Yana Jacobs, Program Manager of Adult Mental Health Services, stating they wanted to find a ‘pretty’ location that ‘feels like a respite’ for their clients to enjoy.

The neighbors point out that even though this type of facility may be necessary and the program may prove to be a viable option for the future based on results gained in their community, they claim that this location is not the appropriate place for what the county is trying to achieve with success in really helping the mentally ill.

Residents say that the facility selected should have much more separation from its residential neighbors, access to seven-day per week public transportation, more parking, be closer to community services and the home should be located in a mixed use neighborhood versus an area zoned as single family residential posing a possible security threat to kids and adults and it’s an inappropriate facility for the neighborhood.

Jewell said that over 30 neighbors made contact to Supervisor Ellen Pirie with limited response. However, Pirie finally scheduled a community meeting for 6 p.m. Wednesday, March 16 at the Rio Sands Motel meeting room.

According to Jewell the concerns they would like addressed include:

•Why did the County of Santa Cruz purposely avoid a public hearing or public notice before establishing this crisis respite house?

•With a minimum 320 people going through this home per year, why was their not some sort of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) conducted?

•If this facility is not a residential use and is a medical facility, why was there no notice?

•Why was this house selected?

•Who is responsible if something goes wrong as the staff consists of “peers” and not professionals?

At a time when dollars are being conserved throughout our county, state and federal government, those opposing the facility, “have grave concerns about the cavalier attitude of the county employees that are treating this $3.6 million grant as free money.”

Yana Jacobs said on CTV that there was still uncertainty as to whether or not the crisis respite house needed to be licensed. Ellen Pirie stated that the house is unlicensed but no documentation has been shared with the community demonstrating that it was not necessary even though its paid employees – consisting of management, counselors, data collectors and 24/7 staff – will be ‘peers’ with no medical professionals on site.

According to county health officials it is planned to have patients rotating in and out of the eight-bed respite program every 3-10 days, with approximately 320 patients each year. The program will be staffed and managed by on-site peer counselors, people who have suffered from the same mental conditions.

•••

The house is on a cul-de-sac where the homes are close enough that neighbors can hear each another from their houses despite the grant specification that the location should be where houses are “not too close” and neighbors won’t “care much about the goings on inside” the facility. The house is not ADA (Americans with Disability Act) compliant as specified in the grant. There is no street parking available due to the narrow street, no sidewalks or streetlights. The bus service only runs on weekdays during the daytime hours with no weekend or night services. Additionally, it was reported just last week that local bus services would be reduced by 30 percent due to budget constraints.

However, the house does have a full panoramic view of the Monterey Bay.

Community meeting with county health officials and residents concerning respite group home: 6 p.m. Wednesday, Rio Sands Motel, 116 Aptos Beach Drive, Aptos. Information: 566-2202

Santa Cruz County to open new residential psychiatric center
By Kurtis Alexander
Posted: 09/18/2010 01:30:03 AM PDT

SANTA CRUZ — People who may be suffering a mental health problem will soon have another option for treatment — a 24-hour crisis center to help nip small psychiatric issues before they get out of hand.

The new county-run residential facility, scheduled to open before the end of the year, is being funded by a $3.6 million federal grant and will come with the distinction of being staffed not by hospital employees, but by people who have had and have overcome mental health issues themselves.

“The whole idea is to catch the problem early and ratchet it down before people have to go to the hospital,” said Yana Jacobs, county director of adult mental outpatient services, who has been planning the new center. “The story here is that people with mental illness are taking charge and helping one another.”

This week’s news of five years worth of funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has county health officials scurrying to find a site and staffing for the new center. Officials have not figured out where they want to be located, only that they’d like a centralized site near a bus line.

Plans for the new center come as county health officials reconfigure services for the mentally ill. Last year, Dominican Hospital announced the closing of its longtime psychiatric center, prompting the county to draw up plans for its own 16-bed acute-care psychiatric unit.

The new peer-run center will work in concert with the acute unit, health
Advertisement
officials say, allowing them to steer people with bigger issues to the acute unit while still providing help for those with lesser problems.

“Our plans depend on us having a whole healthy network of services,” said Leslie Tremaine, county mental health and substance abuse director.

The peer-run center, according to the terms of the federal grant, will accommodate about 225 patients each year, offering care to the public seven days a week, all day for such problems as mood swings and depression. Stays will average eight days.

“People are going to come for respite. They’re coming here for a break,” said Jacobs, who hopes the care will prevent patients from getting more sick and showing the problems that come with more advanced stages of mental illness, like losing a job or home.

Mental health experts estimate one in five people has suffered from a mental health problem at some point in their life.

To inquire about the new center, suggest a site or apply for a job, call 454-4539.

Share

NPR calls Tea Party supporters racist. President Obama blames racism for large drop in public’s view of his job performance. Has racism become the ultimate put down by liberals/ progressives?

NPR claims Tea Party supporters are racist.

Have you listened to National Public Radio (NPR) in your area? Do you find that NPR is biased towards the left? Seems to be.

Should tax payer money support an organization such as NPR that has a bias for only one side — the liberal/ progressive side — of the political spectrum?

Now it appears that NPR thinks that Tea Party supporters — people who want to shrink the government deficit — are racists.

Who is a racist these days? President Obama has said that he has lost support because of racists.

Could it be that the public increasingly does not support President Obama’s policies and find that the results of his policies leads to unfortunate consequences? Perhaps President Obama’s drop in job approval has nothing to do with the color of President Obama’s skin?

Take Libya for example. Probably most Americans support humanitarian aid for the rebels so that they are not killed by their government. Two countries — France and Portugal — have recognized the rebels as a legitimate government.

Yet President Obama has done nothing as the leader of the free world to support freedom and liberty in Libya. Why? Maybe he will answer that question in a press conference — but don’t hold your breath. Meanwhile, a lot of poor people with dark skin are losing their lives and asking for help from former President Bush — since no help is forthcoming from the first President of the U.S. who is part black.

See the following article:

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian,” said NPR’s Ron Schiller to two undercover reporters. “I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of [movement].”

Not knowing he was being videoed, Schiller continued: “The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamo-phobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-American, gun toting—I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.” (Click here for transcript and here for video.)

Schiller is being heavily criticized for these comments, as is NPR and elite liberal thinking in general. Schiller, NPR Foundation president and vice president for development (until these comments), is the Left’s latest exhibit in smearing the Tea Party movement as bigots, racists, fascists, Hitler-ites, followers of Attila the Hun, Torquemada, Genghis Khan, or whatever other handy demon.

Yet, what’s telling about Schiller’s comments is their lack of factual basis, an even greater sin from a man whose business, and erstwhile employer, is the reporting of facts. His comments are a PR problem for NPR, furthering the perception that NPR is not about unbiased reporting but primarily about opinion—a leftist opinion camouflaged as objective news.

As evidence for my perspective, I’d like to share some statistical information on the Tea Party movement. This information was widely published and is easily available to anyone, least of all a major news organization like NPR.
In March 2010, Gallup did a comprehensive survey of the Tea Party (click here). Gallup is the most respected polling firm on the planet, and not conservative. The headline Gallup chose to highlight its study speaks for itself, “Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics.”

That study found that 49 percent of “Tea Party identifiers” are Republicans while 43 percent are independents and 8 percent are Democrats. The majority are not Republicans.

As to Schiller’s strange “evangelical” comment, the study found that a little over a quarter of Tea Partiers describe themselves as “pro-choice” on abortion, suggesting a stronger libertarian presence than a uniform “evangelical” movement. That’s no surprise to anyone who has observed the Tea Party even casually.

The Tea Party movement was inspired by the breathtakingly reckless spending by the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democratic leadership that took power in 2009. Its issues are far more economic/fiscal than religious/moral. There’s a more discernible Ayn Rand “Atlas Shrugged” element than a Jerry Falwell “Moral Majority” feel—and Rand was no evangelical.

Generally, Gallup’s survey indeed found that the Tea Party was “fairly mainstream” in its demographics.

At the same time as Gallup’s study, another survey was released, by Rasmussen. Particularly interesting about this survey was that it gauged public opinion—i.e., how others viewed the Tea Party. Overwhelmingly, by 62 percent to 12 percent, Rasmussen found that “Mainstream Americans” judged the Tea Party “closer to their views” than the Democratic Congress. By 68 percent to 16 percent, Americans deemed Tea Party members “better informed” than members of Congress.

This suggests, as a matter of statistical fact, that NPR’s Ron Schiller is the extremist when it comes to Tea Party views. That’s a claim I can make from data—which Schiller never offered.

This information is out there, and has been for a while. I know it because, I, too, work in a field where reporting and analysis must be based on information. Anytime I talk to someone who has been to a Tea Party rally, I ask questions. Before I form or adjust an opinion, I want to hear actual experiences. And beyond anecdotal examples, I’d like some hard data.

How could an NPR person—the pinnacle of the liberal news profession—ignore such information?

The answer is more psychological-political than logical. Many liberals despise the Tea Party movement because of its roots in opposition to Obama-Pelosi-Reid. Really, though, the Tea Party was inadvertently created by liberals—or, at least, by their reckless spending policies in Washington.

Yet, for many Obama supporters, that kind of careful analysis of opponents is jettisoned. They’d rather transmogrify their detractors into devils and gargoyles than try to understand them and perhaps even answer them.

In Ron Schiller’s take on the Tea Party, we have a member of the liberal elite constructing a reality of his own making, one that flies in the face of evidentiary experience, of thoughtful inspection.

Unfortunately, Schiller is far from alone. And isn’t it ironic that he, NPR, his former boss at NPR, Vivian Schiller (no relation), are losing—actually, resigning? They are losing to perceptions of NPR—correct perceptions of NPR’s bias, perceptions that are grounded in reality, in actual examination.

Americans are gathering facts on the folks at NPR, and they don’t like what they’re hearing.

Share