Jordan Independent - state - Comments

I am glad to see this

JEAKAL — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:36:58 -0500

I am glad to see this facility getting the funds to proceed. I think this will be a great place for the local emergency personal to train at.

Today, the governor included

Mathias Baden — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:43:20 -0500

Today, the governor included $1 million for the regional public safety training facility in Sand Creek Township. He did not veto that portion of the bill provided by the conference committee.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

Several vetoes involve

Mathias Baden — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:35:19 -0500

Several vetoes involve proposed "transit ways," or what are more commonly known as light-rail transit lines, and a handful of related projects. One of the vetoes was to the tune of $70 million.

I wonder if the language used in the bonding bill indicates what kind of transit ways, aka light-rail lines, would have been funded by an increase in transportation taxes gathered by Scott County. The county rejected the state's proposal last week.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

I wouldn’t expect the

Brandon — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:21:09 -0600

I wouldn’t expect the state to be speedy on sending me money, either, but it’s good to hear that I may be getting my return sooner than I expected. I didn’t think I’d see any money until late this month or early next month.

Good luck on your return, I

iceman — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:32:48 -0600

Good luck on your return, I did mine last week and elected to have my state return sent to me as a check rather than direct deposit, and to my surprise the check arrived a day before my fed return was direct deposited, I've never seen the state act that fast on anything, let alone returning money !

You are right. Here's a

Mathias Baden — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:07:51 -0500

You are right. Here's a little more information I received today: http://www.jordannews.com/node/5224.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

Prior to moving up the

dhelke — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:35:07 -0500

Prior to moving up the Cities, I was both a teacher and an administrator at an alternative school. I recall David Bly being a teacher in alternative education and being actively involved in the Minnesota Association of Alternative Programs.

The number of students enrolled in alternative programs has increased significantly in the past decade so it does not surprise me that there is a group discussing how they operate.

Marc E. Angelucci sent a

Mathias Baden — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:05:13 -0500

Marc E. Angelucci sent a message using the contact form at http://www.jordannews.com/contact:

Why did the submission, "If you are a victim of domestic violence, get help" (7/9) leave male victims of domestic violence and their children invisible?

The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control shows: "In the United States every year, about 1.5 million women and more than 800,000 men are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner," at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm

Although men underreport more than women in crime data, sociological data shows women initiate domestic violence as often as men, that women use weapons more than men, and that 38% of injured victims are men. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes almost 200 of these studies online at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found female students initiate partner violence as often as male students and
controlling behavior exists equally in perpetrators of both sexes.
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf

Both the University of Florida and of Washington recently found similar results in their domestic violence studies.
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm

A recent study in the Journal of Family Violence found many male callers to a national hotline experienced high rates of severe violence from female partners who used violence to control them, at http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7q0032j88817218/fulltext.pdf

When we ignore male victims, we also ignore their children, who continue to be damaged by witnessing the violence regardless of how severe it is.
We cannot break this intergenerational cycle by ignoring half of it.
That's why a global coalition of experts has formed to support a research-based, inclusive approach, and their website has solid data showing women initiate the violence as often as men, at http://www.nfvlrc.org/

Marc E. Angelucci
President
Los Angeles chapter
National Coalition of Free Men
http://www.ncfmla.org

For more, see:

A University of Florida study recently found women are more likely than men to "stalk, attack and abuse" their partners.
http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/

A University of Washington study recently found women were nearly twice as likely as men to perpetrate domestic violence in the past year including kicking, biting or punching their partner, threatening to hit or throw something at their partner, and pushing, grabbing or shoving their partner. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm

A University of Pennsylvania emergency room report found 13% of men reported being assaulted by a female partner in the previous 12 months, of which 50% were choked, kicked, bitten, punched, or had an object thrown at them, 37% involved a weapon, and 14% required medical attention, at
http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/8/786

University of Pennsylvania Professor Richard Gelles states: "Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men," in his article reprinted at http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

This data is recognized by the American Psychological Association.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pc.html

This Canadian government report also recognizes the above data.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partn...

Archer, J., "Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners:
A meta-analytic review," Aggression and Violent Behavior (7) 2002, 313-351, http://www.maennerbuero-trier.de/Archer_2002.pdf

Dutton, D., & Corvo, K., "Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice," (11) 2006, 457-483, http://www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf

Professor Murray A. Straus, Family Research Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania, http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

This meeting was canceled

Mathias Baden — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:25:18 -0600

This meeting was canceled due to inclimate weather. It is an interesting bill that should be covered at a later date.

(Mathias Baden is the editor of the Jordan Independent. He can be reached at editor@jordannews.com.)

New Farm legislation is

Truepolicy — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:14:38 -0600

New Farm legislation is Coming, So let’s look back!

2007 will bring a new farm bill or farm act to rural America. For it is often referred to as both, because someone will pay the bills, while others will enjoy the acts. For in 2006, both Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture held many hearing, asking for farmer input for the 2007 legislation. From which many in Congress want to extend our present policy, as do the major farm organizations. While Ag Secretary Johanns hearings lead to the following disclosure. "Producers were loud and clear, about the disparity in farm supports. There is a spirited debate going on in the country about the current farm support structure, sensitive topic". To which this piece will reveal some of the disparities 1996-2005. To show the bottom line in modern farm policy, which is the cost or financial reward per harvested acre. To which the traditional crops of the South have won hands down. Convincing Congress, that southern crops had special needs. Hence, southern crops have enjoyed larger subsidy outlays, per harvested acre and more favorable payment formulas and special perks. That are revealed by first deciphering USDA data, under their Enron accounting rules of disclosure. For the average subsidy cost, for each harvested acre of rice 1996-2005 was $302 per acre. While cotton was $162 per acre, corn $72, wheat $38 and soybeans just $19 per acre.

To which the National Association of Wheat Growers told Congress in September the following. From 2002-2005 the average subsidy per acre of wheat was 10% of it’s cost of production or $20/acre. Soybeans were 8% of it’s cost of production or $21/acre, corn 11% or $41/acre, cotton 41% or $213/acre and rice 52% or $307/acre.

Yet don’t let the southern lobby pull the wool over your eyes as they did to northern Congressmen. With their line, we have more expensive crops to produce so we need more money to cover costs. When the truth is, the only annual guaranteed payment for soybeans were set at $11 per acre, wheat at $15 and rice at $96 per acre. So when you analysis rice market income plus subsidies, minus cost of production and do the same for wheat and soybeans over ten years. You find rice shows a $150 per acre per year profit, while wheat shows about a $15 per acre loss, as do soybeans.

Then in 2002, Congress bought out peanut quota holders and in 2005 tobacco quota holders. Yet the economics, clearly show a pay out of friends, rather than a buyout. For in years 1996-2000, peanuts only cost taxpayers about $22 per harvested acre of peanuts. But when the 2002 farm act added the peanut buyout, the cost per acre 2001-2005 jumped to about $400 per acre. Including two special perks, their own additional payment limit, plus storage and handling, which other crops don’t receive. Which equaled about $65 per acre for the 2005 peanut crop. Or enough money to store and handle a typical 45 bushel per acre wheat or soybeans crop, in commercial storage for four years, at no cost to the farmer!

Then not to be out done by peanuts. Tobacco with the help of Congress in 2005 enacted the tobacco quota buyout program. Like peanuts, it’s another political pay out. For before the buyout, the tobacco program cost was low, only costing taxpayers about $200 per harvested acre per year 1996-2004. Yet after the buyout was implemented, using the 2006 tobacco crops harvested acres as the best barometer to calculate cost and reward. The likely reward or pay out to quota holders is about $3000 per harvested acre per year, over the next ten years.

Yes, that means Congress wanted them to have the cash equal to about $30,000 per acre! This is how Congress dealt with the fact that the average American tobacco farmer maybe needed one more to maybe two cents more per pack of the cigarettes selling price to stay in business over the next ten years. Now understand, that the tobacco farmer gets only a nickel or less of each pack sold.

Now is Alan Roebke (rebkey) saying that Congress didn’t stand up to counter this program, the answer is no. What he is saying is that Congress caved into the south, when they changed it to a no cost buyout. Yes, a no cost buyout plan, managed by government and guaranteed by taxpayers. Which is a scheme based on using USDA as their agent to collect money from tobacco users and importers and have USDA re-distribute the funds to their friends the tobacco quota holder. Who most, had just been quota holders that rented their government granted entitlement, to real tobacco farmers. At about $1400 per acre per year, for the right to raise tobacco. Now after this titled buyout, anyone can raise and sell tobacco, with no government supports, checks or loans. Yet they like any American now, can still raise tobacco if they choose. Which is also true of the peanut quota buyout recipients, but the actual peanut grower in 1998-2001 now has USDA peanut base acres, to get new on going peanut subsidies. So should these events of the past, be added to the 2007 farm act debate. Or should we just allow the people who managed farm policy over the last ten years to continue the job? Will you react to this letter or are you just happy to understand why they call it a farm act or a farm bill? The choice is yours? Alan Roebke (rebkey) Policy Analyst, at Truepolicy.com Chaska Minnesota

"The second vacancy will

John K — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:28:55 -0600

"The second vacancy will occur with the resignation of the Hon. Mary E. Pawlenty effective on Feb. 12, 2007." This vacancy exists because the wife of the governor resigned so she would be free to campaign with him as her husband runs as McCain's vice president. Numerous articles appeared with this prediction. Suddenly, Governor Pawlenty is too focused on his job to run as McCain's VP. (Pawlenty to help McCain's '08 bid, http://www.startribune.com/587/story/938380.html) Why?

Under the stories available

Brandon — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:34:14 -0600

Under the stories available for new laws that have been enacted (using the first link listed above), the rules regarding annexation have been modified. Will this effect the annexation process going on between Jordan and St. Lawrence Township? (You can read the story on the law changes here: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/newlawsart2006-0.asp?yearid=2006&...)