text:
Friday, April 1, 2022 Staff
YSU Honors Student Centofanti Earns Legacy Award
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio – Julie Centofanti, a sophomore in the Sokolov Honors College at Youngstown State University, is one of two students across Ohio to receive the 2022 Charles J. Ping Student Service Legacy Award for outstanding leadership and contributions to community service.
Centofanti, a biology major, received the award for creating and leading the YSU Transcribing Club, which has transcribed more than 16,000 historical documents through the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress.
YSU President Jim Tressel, who nominated Centofanti, and Richard Kinsley, executive director of the Ohio Campus Compact, will present the award April 23, as part of the annual YSU STEM Showcase.
In all, the Ohio Campus Compact is presenting Ping Awards to 10 Ohio college students. Centofanti and Anna Fender of Ohio Wesleyan University are the only two among the 10 receiving Legacy Awards, for projects that address economic, emotional and environmental needs in a community.
A graduate of South Range High School, Centofanti is a member of YSU's BaccMed program that leads students to medical school and careers in medicine. She is donating her $250 prize to the Smithsonian.
She said the idea for the Transcribing Club grew out of the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when students in the Honors College were looking for ways to do community service while also adhering to quarantine rules.
"As a busy student with an immunocompromised father, I wanted to continue serving the community while protecting my family from this virus," she said.
That's when she came across the Smithsonian's and Library of Congress' transcription service, in which volunteers transcribe and digitize millions of hard-to-read historical and scientific documents, from letters to Teddy Roosevelt to notes of early 20th-century astronomy experiments.
"This club provided the perfect platform for me to volunteer and virtually build community among honors students while quarantined at home," Centofanti said. "Club members worldwide have the opportunity to interact with students of different majors."
She said she hopes to expand the Transcribing Club by scanning, digitizing and transcribing historical documents from Youngstown and surrounding communities, allowing students to learn more about the Youngstown community while building friendships.
Ohio Realtors Installs 2023 Leadership Team
COLUMBUS, Ohio – The Ohio Realtors recently installed its 2023 leadership team during the association's winter conference here. This year's team is Ralph Mantica, president, Ali Whitley, president-elect, and Michelle Billings, treasurer. Mantica is broker/owner of Kinzeler Realty in Dayton. He…
Westminster College English Major Publishes Research
NEW WILMINGTON, Pa. – A Westminster College English major recently published research in the Richard Macksey Journal at Johns Hopkins University. Lauren Millhorn, a senior from Rogers, Ohio, published her essay "From Receptors to Revisors: Readers in the Cruso(e) Narrative,"…
Miller Named President of Dutchman Hospitality Group
WALNUT CREEK, Ohiio – Dutchman Hospitality Group has named Mike Miller as the successor to retiring president Mike Palmer. For over 16 years, Palmer has served Dutchman Hospitality Group as president. DHG, a multi-faceted company, owns and operates restaurants, inns,…


text:
FIND_PATH(Log4cpp_INCLUDE_DIR log4cpp/Category.hh)
IF (Log4cpp_USE_STATIC_LIBS)
	SET( _log4cpp_ORIG_CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES ${CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES})
	IF(WIN32)
		SET(CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES .lib .a ${CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES})
	ELSE(WIN32)
		SET(CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES .a ${CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES})
	ENDIF(WIN32)
ENDIF (Log4cpp_USE_STATIC_LIBS)
FIND_LIBRARY(Log4cpp_LIBRARY NAMES log4cpp)
IF (Log4cpp_USE_STATIC_LIBS)
	SET(CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES ${_log4cpp_ORIG_CMAKE_FIND_LIBRARY_SUFFIXES})
ENDIF (Log4cpp_USE_STATIC_LIBS )

IF (Log4cpp_INCLUDE_DIR AND Log4cpp_LIBRARY)
	SET(Log4cpp_FOUND TRUE)
ENDIF (Log4cpp_INCLUDE_DIR AND Log4cpp_LIBRARY)

IF (Log4cpp_FOUND)
	IF (NOT Log4cpp_FIND_QUIETLY)
		MESSAGE(STATUS "Found log4cpp: ${Log4cpp_LIBRARY}")
	ENDIF (NOT Log4cpp_FIND_QUIETLY)
ELSE (Log4cpp_FOUND)
	IF (Log4cpp_FIND_REQUIRED)
		MESSAGE(FATAL_ERROR "Could not find log4cpp")
	ENDIF (Log4cpp_FIND_REQUIRED)
ENDIF (Log4cpp_FOUND)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


The deplorable, miserable condition which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare [publish] this Catechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form. Mercy! Good God! what manifold misery I beheld! The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach [so much so, that one is ashamed to speak of it]. Nevertheless, all maintain that they are Christians, have been baptized and receive the [common] holy Sacraments. Yet they [do not understand and] cannot [even] recite either the Lord's Prayer, or the Creed, or the Ten Commandments; they live like dumb brutes and irrational hogs; and yet, now that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse all liberty like experts.
O ye bishops! [to whom this charge has been committed by God,] what will ye ever answer to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment discharged your office? [You are the persons to whom alone this ruin of the Christian religion is due. You have permitted men to err so shamefully; yours is the guilt; for you have ever done anything rather than what your office required you to do.] May all misfortune flee you! [I do not wish at this place to invoke evil on your heads.] You command the Sacrament in one form [but is not this the highest ungodliness coupled with the greatest impudence that you are insisting on the administration of the Sacrament in one form only, and on your traditions] and insist on your human laws, and yet at the same time you do not care in the least [while you are utterly without scruple and concern] whether the people know the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or any part of the Word of God. Woe, woe, unto you forever!
In the first place, let the preacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various texts and forms of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Sacraments, etc., but choose one form to which he adheres, and which he inculcates all the time, year after year. For [I give this advice, however, because I know that] young and simple people must be taught by uniform, settled texts and forms, otherwise they easily become confused when the teacher to-day teaches them thus, and in a year some other way, as if he wished to make improvements, and thus all effort and labor [which has been expended in teaching] is lost.
Also our blessed fathers understood this well; for they all used the same form of the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore we, too, should [imitate their diligence and be at pains to] teach the young and simple people these parts in such a way as not to change a syllable, or set them forth and repeat them one year differently than in another [no matter how often we teach the Catechism].
Now, whoever does not highly value the Sacrament thereby shows that he has no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no danger, no hell; that is, he does not believe any such things, although he is in them over head and ears and is doubly the devil's own. On the other hand, he needs no grace, life, Paradise, heaven, Christ, God, nor anything good. For if he believed that he had so much that is evil, and needed so much that is good, he would not thus neglect the Sacrament, by which such evil is remedied and so much good is bestowed. Neither will it be necessary to force him to the Sacrament by any law, but he will come running and racing of his own accord, will force himself and urge you that you must give him the Sacrament.
We should fear and love God that we may not estrange, force, or entice away our neighbor's wife, servants, or cattle, but urge them to stay and [diligently] do their duty.
God's name is indeed holy in itself; but we pray in this petition that it may become holy among us also.
When the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, and we as the children of God also lead holy lives in accordance with it. To this end help us, dear Father in heaven. But he that teaches and lives otherwise than God's Word teaches profanes the name of God among us. From this preserve us, Heavenly Father.
What is meant by daily bread?–Answer.
What does Baptism give or profit?–Answer.
How can water do such great things?–Answer.
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.
What does such baptizing with water signify?–Answer.
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord; whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 1 Pet. 3:6;Eph. 5:22.
Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.Eph. 6:4.
[The "Christian Questions with Their Answers," designating Luther as the author, first appeared in an edition of the Small Catechism in 1551, five years after Luther's death].


Business Process Management (BPM) does not mean just one solution. In fact, it does not even mean just technology. It is a philosophy, a culture that connects four critical aspects of organization – strategy, processes, people and technology.
A deep passion for processes and excellence has resulted in developing our very own BPM Reference Framework, which helps build a methods-based and change-oriented BPM capability in organizations. Relevant BPM concepts and technologies will therefore be used at different stages of the change lifecycle.
With proven experience in business analysis and process-led implementation of IT systems in large organisations, we work with IT and business stakeholders across the board to deliver collaborative solutions.
We have rich experience in evaluation, pilot, deployment and training for various BPM solutions. Our professional consultants have experience of delivering BPM services in large, global organisations across Europe, Asia Pacific, Americas and Africa.
We have the expertise to create process models using industry notations, frameworks and tools. Also, we excel in building a process architecture that caters to different audiences as per their needs.
We have the knowledge of the right BPM tools for the right job, be it for process modeling, analysis or implementation. Consequently, we help you make the right purchase decision for BPM tools.
Using the right skills, methodologies and technology, we analyse bottlenecks in your processes and services. We also deliver solutions that give a high ROI on the interventions we recommend.
We have a deep understanding of most regulatory requirements in BFSI domain. Therefore, we help uncover deviations and provide guidance to ensure adherence to company policies and procedures.
Collaborating with some of the best BPM software providers in the industry, we create, automate and integrate process applications. This facilitates better management of your organizational processes.
The metrics we design for performance measurement always align with organizational goals. We also help build reports & dashboards that provide actionable intelligence for businesses.
Looking to purchase BPM tools for your organization? Our expert consultant will understand your business requirements and can suggest suitable tools aligned to your needs and budget.
Need help with purchasing a process modeling, analysis or implementation tool?


text:
By David Flemming
At least one progressive legislator is willing to admit it: vehicle feebates are carbon taxes. Worse, he admits feebates may not even stay in Vermont. They could end up in the pockets of out-of-state billionaires funding green energy.
On Tuesday, January 14, the House Committee on Transportation considered putting new fees on all gas or diesel powered vehicles below a yet-to-be determined miles per gallon threshold.
A feebate aims to lower "transportation related fuel consumption and carbon emissions using two primary elements." These are "rebates awarded to purchasers of low emissions vehicles" which are funded by "fees assessed on the purchase of vehicles that emit more GHGs and are less energy efficient." Sounds like a carbon tax to me.
And while some legislators may have qualms about calling it as such, committee chair Curt McCormack did not. "I really like feebates, but it could be an indirect carbon tax," he said.
Leading up to this admission, was some other forthcoming analysis. Discussion of electric vehicles led McCormack to say "costs are coming down. At point do we consider (electric) vehicles without incentives?"
"A lot of people no longer consider those factors in their purchasing decision." Vehicle manufacturers are "going to have to hit that price point. The danger is if the price point is above the level where the incentive kicks in, they would just raise the price. (The manufacturer) would capture the rebate."
There are two classes of businesses in Vermont: those that cater to the needs of their neighbors and those that cater to the "needs" of the legislature. If you fool several customers once, you won't be in business long. Fool the legislature and/or the federal government, by raising the price of EV's to match any state/federal subsidy, and it seems they'll turn a blind eye so long as they like your mission statement.
McCormack frankly admits vehicle feebates create the incentives for hoodwinking the government. And yet, he "really likes" them. Of course, the only foreseeable reason for this support can be to 'fight climate change.'
Just 10 years ago during Occupy Wall Street, progressives clamored for a government that showed less favoritism for business. Now that has gone out the window.
The ends (climate action) justifies the means (giving big businesses on 'climate crusades' whatever government funding they ask for). Hardworking Vermonters could already be putting money in the pockets of billionaires like Tesla owner Elon Musk (net worth $26 billion) whenever a Vermont dealership sells an electric Tesla. And now, apparently, our legislators want to tax everyday gas-powered vehicles, which may put even more money in the hands of billionaires.
Climate action has a veneer of social justice around it. But prod that presumption a little bit, and climate justice simply becomes government redistribution from those 'too frugal to purchase the shiny new climate toys' and toward 'those who don't know how to get rich without government funding.' It is becoming apparent that even social justice warriors, like all of us who love freedom and equality, must oppose the most extreme climate alarmists.
David Flemming is a policy analyst at the Ethan Allen Institute
by Rob Roper
The ink wasn't dry on the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) memorandum of understanding before Gov. Chris Sununu (R-NH) declared it a "boondoggle" that his state would never support. That first domino fell hard, now several others are teetering.
In Connecticut, Governor Ted Lamont (D-CT), who has an approval rating of 24 percent and is already bleeding political capital over his plan to bring back tolls on interstate highways, wants absolutely nothing to do with some cockamamie gas tax. Said Lamont about TCI, "…raising that gas tax, frankly, is what other states — mainly Republican states — have done to pay for transportation. I think it's 100% paid for by Connecticut residents and probably not the way the to go."
In Maine, Governor Janet Mills had been a strong supporter of TCI until word started to get out that increasing the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel was both regressive in nature and especially punitive to rural constituents. Maine, like Vermont, is almost entirely rural. So now feeling the heat, Mills is changing her tune. According to the Boston Globe, the Maine Democrat's office said that "the challenges of climate and transportation issues for rural states like Maine are unique, and the state will be appropriately cautious when considering these issues."
Rhode Island Governor Gina Riamondo (D-RI) is still on board with TCI, but that state's speake
r of the house Nicholas Mattiello is not so sure. According to the Providence Journal, he "effectively ruled out any tax increases proposed by fellow Democrat Gov. Gina Raimondo last month, including the potential gas tax hike emanating from a regional climate initiative, saying it 'will be looked at very skeptically.'"
And, here in Vermont during his State of the State speech last week Governor Scott said, without naming TCI specifically, that "I simply cannot support proposals that will make things more expensive for [rural and low income Vermonters]." Scott has be vehemently opposed to any form of carbon tax since his first run for governor in 2016.
If New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island don't participate in the TCI program, that would leave Massachusetts, whose governor, Charlie Baker, is probably TCI's biggest booster, completely isolated. Baker himself is under increasing pressure by a growing, bi-partisan group of legislators who don't like the regressive nature of the tax.
— Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute
Lately the media has paid some much-needed attention to Vermont's financial challenges related to unfunded pension liabilities, demographic changes, and labor force at the state level. However, our towns must deal with many of the same and similar challenges. This has not received its due attention.
To help shed some light on this important but underreported issue, the Ethan Allen Institute partnered with Reason Foundation to write a report entitled "Towns in Trouble: Assessing Municipal Fiscal Health in Vermont."
We analyzed 30 Vermont towns for their fiscal year 2018, accounting for 46% of Vermont's total population. Only four are in excellent fiscal health (scored 70 or above), 16 meet a minimum of fiscal strength (scored 50-69), while 11 are in poor fiscal condition (scored 49 or less). Scores ranged from 22 to 92.
Some of these results were surprising, others less so. Many of the top performers were in Chittenden County, but even there, eight towns were only marginally healthy, and just two were in good fiscal health. Wealthy Shelburne landed exactly in the middle of the fiscal health rankings, at No. 15, with a 58 score. Lyndon has a median household income that is less than half of Shelburne, and yet it was able to score a 70 on fiscal health, a full 12 points better. So clearly, a high median income does not always equate with a healthier fiscal score.
Randolph and Rutland received two of the worst scores and have been reprimanded by their auditors for "material weaknesses" in their accounting practices. St. Albans also received a poor score, but it is taking active steps to improve and did not have any material weaknesses its auditors identified. Improving accounting practices, as St. Albans has done, may help towns to avoid cutting services or increasing taxes in the long term. But there comes a time when such drastic measures may have to be considered.
In this study, we employ a fiscal scoring system to determine which of Vermont's 30 most populous towns and cities may be at risk. We also provide a "How To" guide for citizens of smaller towns to discern their town's fiscal condition. Our methodology is similar to the studies completed by California's State Auditor and UC Berkeley's Haas Institute. We solicited feedback from over 50 Vermont municipal employees during the course of this project in order to be as accurate as possible.
We determine "fiscal health" by measuring several factors that municipal management has some control over, such as debt costs, savings and pension liabilities. While the "Property Values" and "Employment" categories are less in the control of each municipality, these only accounted for 20 of the 100 points in a score. Most of the differences between towns can be accounted for by the three categories which towns do have some control over. You can view our calculations here.
It has been 124 months since the last U.S. recession, an all-time record. Towns should be shoring up their resources for an inevitable economic downturn, which many economists are forecasting within the next two years. However, few Vermont towns look especially fiscally resilient, and many are losing population.
Fiscal stewardship, especially at the level of local accountability, should be looked upon as a process of continuous improvement, even for the towns with high scores. Often, Vermont towns aren't aware of the fiscal precariousness of their situation. Our intention is not to single out poorly performing towns. Rather, we hope to provide all Vermont communities with a new set of signposts for diagnosing their fiscal health in the coming decades, so that they can better serve their residents.
David Flemming is a policy analyst at the Ethan Allen Institute.
by Jeff Kaufman, MD
This piece was created as a letter to WVMT radio hosts Marcus and Kurt following an interview segment with Senator Philip Baruth (D-Chittnden). Printed here with permission.
Dear Marcus and Kurt,
Congratulations on an excellent segment. You were well prepared and gave Senator Baruth plenty of rope. Here's what I heard him using it for.
He began by giving a small window, seen in retrospect, into his mindset. Answering one of your questions about how he felt about the upcoming legislative session, he expressed some distress with having to wait while he was seeing problems he couldn't yet fix. He opened other windows as he continued to speak.
I found he went on during your interview with him to reveal some of the fears which drive him to use his ranking senatorial position in an attempt, I believe, to assuage his psychic tensions. He expressed several of these fears during the half hour segment.
In no particular order, topics Senator Baruth raised included his citing of Charlottesville as an example of a problem he has with public carry of rifles. He described a scene wherein a neo-Nazi group was protesting and a second amendment group was carrying AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. He said the leader of the Second Amendment group revealed that their purpose for being there was to express their Constitutional right to carry on public. However, he said that to him, they were there for the purpose of intimidating others. He is opposed to public carry of firearms, in this case long guns.
What the Senator is missing is one of the most important reasons we have a Second Amendment. Vying for self defense is the power of deterrence. How does Burlington, a city of 42,000 people, maintain law and order with only 100 police officers? Deterrence.
Effective deterrence removes the need for the use of force. Gentle deterrents operate on our roadways in the form of speed limit or radar in use signage. More obviously with the police car parked by the roadside, highly effective, even when vacant! Our very Constitution and state laws themselves act as deterrents to antisocial behaviors. Our courts and prisons are stronger deterrents, and amongst the most serious are penalties for the worst behavior such as for murder, where in some states the deterrent effect of the death penalty still saves lives. On the global scale a world super power avoids war by its ability to use ultimate power. The deterrent effect of firearms in the hands of "we the people" have protected Americans for over 230 years from criminals at the local level, from foreign aggression, and from the ever present threat of tyranny. Marcus, the caller who reminded us how German Jews ended up in ovens must not be dismissed! We are not there yet, as you said, in large part because we protect and defend our liberty according to the Constitution without compromise.
Senator Baruth said he does not want to be in a movie theater and have to worry that half the people in the theatre are carrying concealed firearms. He is opposed to concealed carry (by implication, of hand guns). Neither his personal feelings nor his exaggeration has any bearing on Vermont life nor experience. He suggested risk from firearm ownership is cause for concern giving vague references to problems other states may be having. He gave no data to back that up. In fact, good data does demonstrate the extraordinary safety Vermonters enjoy and have enjoyed historically in the Green Mountain State. Nor is there data to suggest that is changing for the worse.
He gave a self admitted crazy hypothetical as justification to confiscate firearms from the general public – he described concerns over a situation wherein an airline pilot becomes medically incapacitated and the aircraft's being saved by a civilian (presumably talked down) who saved the plane and it's passengers. He then transitioned to further the hypothetical asking what would happen if any passenger were to decide to take over the plane? Could they without proper training and certification safely land the plane? He's right, this was a crazy thought he had which has no bearing on firearms, Vermont, deterrence nor the Second Amendment.
As to how he operates when writing laws that affect every single Vermonter's life, liberty and their ability to defend it and, important to the conversation about the Second Amendment and Article 16, to deter threats to obviate the need for defense, Senator Baruth's fears, anxieties and input from a single person or group of several special interest people seem to be used to determine the fate of all of us. He referred on two occasions during the interview to conversations he had, one with some unnamed person, the other with two (or three?) unnamed people. By the input he received from these people he said he was revising the bills after giving them some additional thought. He said the second group agreed to compromise with him on gun control restrictions and as he said to a caller, he appreciates compromise.
Kurt asked him how he felt about the constitutionality of the new gun control laws he's writing to which he unsurprisingly said he doesn't believe they're unconstitutional. I believe he knows very well they are unconstitutional and violate both the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and Vermont's Constitution, Article 16, some also violating Vermont's Sportsmens Bill of Rights. I believe, based on his actions and words over time, that he feels he can get away with it and is acting with impunity.
I hope this gives some further good for thought.
– Jeff Kaufman
On January 9th, the House Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs considered the $15 minimum wage bill from 2019. Rep. John Killacky (D-Chittenden) began by saying, "I read (the 2019 report) 'Women, Work and Wages in Vermont' and the results were striking. Statewide women earn 84% of what men earn. Let's get a pay raise for Vermonters (by passing the $15 minimum wage)." Killacky's 84% number is based on hugely generalized statistics that leave a lot of relevant information out.
According to a Vermont Business Magazine article which borrows from a much more rigorous Paydata report, "overall, women in the US earn 79 cents for every dollar earned by men; when comparing compensation for all women versus all men (what PayScale calls the uncontrolled pay gap). However, in Vermont, women earn more – 87 cents for every dollar earned by men. Additionally, when PayScale controlled for various factors such as experience and job title (ie comparing apples-to-apples regarding compensation) to determine how much a woman makes compared to a man doing the same job, Vermont came out on top again."
The article continues "women tend to spend more time out of the workforce, which hurts their career. In 2018, we studied this issue and found that when a worker leaves the workforce, they incur a wage "penalty" upon their return. Workers who took a break for 12 months or longer experienced an average wage penalty of 7.3% relative to a similar worker who did not take a break. Women take more breaks and longer breaks than men, primarily for taking care of children and aging family members, and bear the brunt of this "time-off" penalty….Nationally, this 'controlled' pay gap shows that similarly qualified women earned 2% less than men who do the same job. But, in Vermont, the uncontrolled pay gap essentially disappeared and women and men in the same roles were paid the same amount."
So there you have it. Vermont women earn 100 cents on the dollar if you take into consideration their work preferences, better than the 98 cents on the dollar that American women do. Without understanding this fact, a $15 minimum wage will do more harm than good. While $15/hour might give women already working a small bump in pay, other women will be prevented from returning to the workforce if they been out for a long while, because they can no longer produce $15 an hour worth of labor. Those women will earn 0% of what a man makes.
A lower minimum wage ensures that employers can afford to give women time to get back on their feet in the workforce, giving them higher wages as they return to peak productivity. A lower minimum wage gives women the flexibility they need.
Anne McClaughry is the Ethan Allen Institute's treasurer and served on its Board of Directors
Small Business Viability
by John McClaughry
Shawn Shouldice is the longtime Vermont representative of the National Federation of Independent Business, and she's concerned about a legislature that seems to have little interest in anything that wo uld be a boost to Vermont's small businesses.
"As the legislature convenes in Montpelier," she writes, "there are many legislative initiatives that will increase the cost of doing business and hinder the owner's ability to operate and to succeed." She explains that over half of the Vermont workforce is employed by small businesses (63.3%), and there are 77,615 small businesses in the state. She says "expanding paid leave funded with a payroll tax, artificially increasing Vermont's base wage, double-digit property tax increases, fuel taxes [TCI] and higher health insurance premiums" mean trouble for these businesses.
"With more and more Vermonters seeking greener pastures, placing more financial pressure on the state's small businesses is endangering job creation and the ability for workers to meet their financial needs," said Shouldice.
Vermont's small businesses aren't asking for subsidies. The exception is renewable energy small businesses, which need subsidies to stay alive. Shouldice wants lawmakers to focus on policies that spark economic growth rather than adding cost to already hard pressed local companies.
That's not a call for a chance to feed at the public trough. Most small businesses just want to be left alone to sell their goods and services to the public. That's a thought that legislators need to get through their heads. Alas, many haven't.
— John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.
TCI Gas/Carbon Tax Policy Brief
Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI)
On December 17 the Georgetown (Law School) Climate Center revealed its long-awaited Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) draft Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) (https://www.transportationandclimate.org). Gov. Phil Scott will soon be asked to sign Vermont into TCI, that advocates say is the most important climate change initiative of 2020.
TCI is a multi-state regional agreement to drive up the price of motor fuel (gasoline and on-road diesel). It proposes to start at five, nine or seventeen cents per gallon, and escalate upward from that, with no declared maximum.
The backers of TCI believe that "climate change poses a clear, present, and increasingly dangerous threat to the communities and economic security of each [participating jurisdiction]." The MOU says that the participating states will "need to implement bold initiatives to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector," which produce 40% of human-caused emissions.
TCI will drive down those transportation sector emissions by driving up the price of gasoline and diesel fuel so that Vermonters will drive less, drive smaller cars, use electric vehicles, walk, ride bicycles, use public transportation, move closer to school and work, and so on.
TCI will accomplish this with what it calls a "cap and invest" system. TCI will set a cap, or limit, on carbon dioxide emissions from burning motor fuel. The cap will be tightened down year by year, requiring motor fuel to be made ever more expensive. Distributors of motor fuel – of which there are eighty in Vermont – will be required to purchase "allowances" in a TCI-managed auction market to match the motor fuel they have sold in each reporting period. TCI will create and issue as many "allowances" as it deems necessary to create higher fuel prices that will reduce fuel use and thus reduce CO2 emissions.
Motorists, including those driving passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, vans, school buses, delivery trucks, contractor vehicles, milk tankers, ambulances, snowmobiles and motorcycles, will pay for the "allowances" when they buy the higher-priced motor fuel at the pump.
TCI will distribute the revenues raised from the sale of its "allowances", after covering administration and legal costs, among the participating jurisdictions according to a formula not yet determined. The states are supposed to use these revenues to "strategically invest in programs to help their residents transition to affordable, low-carbon transportation options". Paying people to buy electric cars, and building charging stations for them, is a recommended use of the funds.
By increasing gasoline prices by from 5 to 17 cents per gallon the first year, and higher amounts in succeeding years,, the TCI plan will clearly be regressive, hitting working people and the poor hardest, especially in Vermont's rural areas. The MOU states that participating jurisdictions are "committed to investing in and mitigating the impacts [caused by the higher fuel prices] on low-income and disadvantaged communities…vulnerable to the impacts of a changing climate", which suggests that the TCI revenues would be used to subsidize those persons.
The TCI's "reference case" model projects that, without TCI, CO2 emissions from the 12 states will decrease by 19% from 2022 to 2032. If TCI is implemented, the model projects a 20% to 25% reduction over that decade. To achieve this, TCI would extract $56 billion from motor fuel users in the 12 states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a little more than 5 percent over those ten years.
Because the idea of the carbon tax has become unpopular in Vermont, the TCI advocates declare that TCI is not a carbon tax. However, the mandated purchase of TCI "allowances" will indisputably add an increasingly punitive government-mandated cost, payable by motorists at the pump, on the carbon content of gasoline and on-road diesel fuel. That cost is a tax on carbon.
TCI expects that each state legislature and governor will enact legislation to enforce the TCI "allowance purchase" requirement on its motor fuel distributors.
An unresolved question is whether, even if Vermont does not join TCI, TCI can still impose the tax on fuel sold to Vermont distributors at regulated terminals in Massachusetts and New York, who would then pass the cost on to Vermont distributors and through them to retail customers at the pump in Vermont.
Another unresolved question is whether TCI can require Vermont distributors to buy allowances with respect to motor fuel brought in from Canada. Quebec is a party to a cap-and-trade plan with California. The Federal government is suing to terminate it as beyond the power of a state government.
Finally, the composition of TCI's governing body, and the formula for distributing allowance revenues among the participating jurisdictions, remain to be determined.
On December 17 New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu announced that his state would not participate in TCI, which he described as "a financial boondoggle" that would force drivers to "bear the brunt of artificially higher gas prices." Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has supported TCI as a source of revenues [collected from motor fuel users] for improving public transportation. Vermont Governor Phil Scott has adamantly opposed any carbon tax.
The TCI working group is soliciting public comment through their website HERE. Make your voice heard!
Radio Host Gets Legislator to Admit TCI Is a Tax
WDEV's morning host, Dave Gram, likes taxes and doesn't like it when people refuse to call a tax a tax, which, he feels, demeans taxes. This led to a clarifying exchange between himself and Rep. John Killacky (D-S. Burlington) on December 31 over the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), which is nothing more than a regional carbon tax on motor fuels. Here are the transcript highlights:
JK. The other big dance [in the upcoming legislative session] is going to be this regional pact, the
Rep. John Killacky
Climate Initiative.
DG. The Transportation Climate Initiative.
JK. The governor has now put out a draft MOU to have Vermont join with eleven other states and the District of Columbia to do a cap and trade on carbon emissions. It's a really interesting idea. Some people are calling it a carbon tax. I don't think of it as a carbon tax. It's a regional thing, and what happens is the money that is going to be taken out of this will be invested back into green energy and a green economy here in Vermont. And, if these other states do it surrounding us and Vermont doesn't do it, the money will be invested in Maine and New Hampshire [Note: NH has already pulled out of the program.] and different places, so, it seems to me– but to get twelve states to agree is going to be interesting and to get our state – I think the legislature and the Democrats seem see the validity and the importance of this. The governor – he put out the draft, so I think he's testing the waters on this….
DG. I'm going to give you a little push back on this tax thing. I'll tell ya. I'm somebody who likes to keep language as clear and simple and direct as possible. That's what I've always pushed for in my work as a reporter and also these days on the radio. I like to call things what they are…. I think shying away from that word sort of leaves a lot of voters with the impression that you're trying to dodge something. I'm saying, if it is a tax, if we need to have a tax…. Why can't we call things what they are?
JK. Well, you know Dave, I don't mind calling it a tax. I think the distinction I hear, and maybe it doesn't change that in your framework it could a tax, is that it's invested back into the state. That this money isn't just –
DG. That's all the taxes that we pay! I pay taxes and it's invested back into public safety. It's invested back into (Talking over each other)
JK. Okay, then, I-I don't disagree with you.
DG. When people hear people say, uh, it's not a tax, it's a fee or some other magical formula where, yes, you're going to pay more money but we're going to get all these benefits. I thought that's what other taxes are….
Yes, that is what all taxes are, and TCI is a tax. A $20-$90 million carbon tax (5¢ – 17¢ per gallon) on Vermont drivers.
Proponents of TCI, like Rep. Killacky and many others, have been traveling the state in advance of the legislative session to peddle the notion that TCI is not a tax because the money raised will be "invested" in government programs with the full expectation that we, dumb citizens, will buy actually buy it. This is perhaps one of most absurd and disingenuous arguments ever put forward by elected officials (which is saying something), and Gram demonstrates just how easy it is to blow this argument out of the water. Thanks for that.
Here's the full interview, with the relevant bits found between 1:20:00 – 1:25:00.
— Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute.
If you have an opinion about TCI, they are asking for public input. Make your voice heard HERE.
The Latte Sipping, Croissant Eating Carbon Taxers
Bill Schubart perfectly encapsulated the elitist, totally-out-of-touch mindset of Vermont's carbon taxers in his latest VT Digger column in which he congratulates himself for heroically purchasing an electric car and supporting Vermont's participation in the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), the left's latest carbon tax scheme.
Much of Schubart's piece focuses on why electric vehicles in their present state of development don't make a lot of sense in Vermont. They perform poorly in cold weather, which we have an abundance of, and they don't have sufficient range to be practical in a rural state, especially for work. But, no fear, Schubart is morally up to the task of living with and around these shortcomings, writing what to my mind is the money-line of the piece: "…if it's freezing cold and I have a round trip to Montpelier [from Hinesburg], a stop at Red Hen Bakery in Middlesex for a quick charge, a latte and a croissant isn't much of a price to pay for doing my part."
What part? Apart from virtue signaling, Schubart's EV purchase and support for TCI accomplish precisely nothing in regard to climate change while inflicting unnecessary pain on a lot of people. This is immoral. According to TCI's own analysis, if the region did not adopt TCI, carbon emissions would drop by 19% over ten years anyway. If we adopt the mildest recommendation (5¢ tax), that number will go to 20%. Almost imperceptible. If we go whole hog (17¢ tax), the number goes to 25%. A 6% very minor regional change with no perceptible climate impact on a global scale whatsoever, but at a cost of over $50 billion – that's with a "B" – in regressive, highly disruptive taxes on working people. Some of that money will be used to subsidize electric vehicle purchases, leaving owners like Schubart with more disposable income to spend on French pastry and fancy coffee. Not a particularly equitable arrangement.
Schubart opines, I imagine wiping buttery crumbs from his lips with a silk handkerchief, "It's disheartening to hear special interests and climate deniers [he earlier made specific reference to EAI] froth on about their temporal material interests." Yeah, temporal material interests like driving to and for work, getting our kids to school, going to the grocery store, etc., all of which you want to make more difficult and more expensive just so you can feel good about yourself without actually having to accomplish anything.
I'm happy for Bill Schubart that he can afford the time and money to nibble croissants, sip lattes, and indulge in fantasies that he's heroically saving generations from future fire, floods and famine during the time it takes his $40K car to charge, but these are not luxuries most working Vermonters can afford. Forcing this burden upon them – especially when doing so will have no impact whatsoever on the problem you claim to want to solve — is nothing more than self-indulgent cruelty. It's certainly not something to break your arm patting yourself on the back over. This is what folks like Bill Schubart don't understand or care to contemplate.
Commentary: What You Need to Know About TCI
On December 17 the Georgetown Law Center revealed its long-awaited Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It will be open for on-line comments until February 28. At some point after that Gov. Scott will be asked to sign Vermont into TCI. Presumably the legislature would have to enact some provisions to make it enforceable on Vermont fuel dealers.
Here are twelve questions and answers that will explain what TCI is and expects to do.
Q: What is TCI? TCI is a multistate regional agreement to drive up the price of motor fuel (gasoline and on-road diesel). It proposes to start at five, nine or seventeen cents per gallon, and escalate upward from that, with no declared maximum.
Q: Why do the TCI backers want to drive up the price of motor fuel? Because they are convinced that "climate change poses a clear, present, and increasingly dangerous threat to the communities and economic security of each [participating state]." The MOU says that the participating states will "need to implement bold initiatives to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector," which produce 40% of human-caused emissions.
Q: How will TCI drive down those emissions? By driving up the price of gasoline and diesel fuel so you will drive less, drive smaller cars, use electric vehicles, walk, ride bicycles, use public transportation, move closer to school and work, and so on.
Q: How does TCI drive up motor fuel prices? It creates what it calls a "cap and invest" system. TCI sets a cap, or limit, on carbon dioxide emissions from burning motor fuel. Every distributor of motor fuel – of which there are eighty in Vermont – will be required to purchase "allowances" to match the motor fuel sold in each reporting period.
Q: So, motorists, including passenger cars, pickups, SUVs, vans, school buses, delivery trucks, contractor vehicles, milk tankers, ambulances, and motorcycles will end up paying for the allowances? Yes, of course they will.
Q: What does the state get for imposing these costs on motorists? TCI will distribute among the participating states some fraction of the revenue from its sale of "allowances", according to an as yet undetermined formula. The states are supposed to use these revenues to further drive down gasoline and on-road diesel use, and "help their residents transition to affordable, low-carbon transportation options". Paying people to buy electric cars, and building charging stations for them, is a recommended use of the funds. However, the states can use what they receive for anything their legislature desires.
Q: How many "allowances" will TCI issue? As many it sees fit. TCI will invent them out of thin air, and motor fuel distributors will be required to go into TCI's auction market to buy enough of them with real money to match their motor fuel deliveries over a preceding reporting period. The cost of these "allowances" will be included in the price you pay at the pump.
Q: Won't this plan hit hardest on working people and the poor, especially in Vermont's rural areas? Of course. It's regressive.
Q: How much will the preferred TCI scenario reduce carbon dioxide emissions from motor fuel? Drew Cline of New Hampshire's Josiah Bartlett Center analyzed the TCI economic model. He found that the "reference case" used by the Georgetown Climate Center to project what would happen from 2022 to 2032 if states did not implement the TCI would likely be a 19% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. If TCI is implemented, emissions are projected to fall by between 20% and 25% over that decade. So TCI will produce an additional emissions reduction of between 1 and 6 percentage points on top of a presumed reduction of 19 percent. In short, TCI would extract $56 billion from motor fuel users to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a little more than 5 percent over ten years.
Q: Will that reduction of emissions actually reduce "climate change"? Certainly not measurably. Probably not at all.
Q: Wait a minute. Isn't this TCI "cap and invest" scheme just another carbon tax in a fancy package, designed to make it look like it's not a carbon tax? Yes, of course.
Q: Gov. Phil Scott has steadfastly promised to veto a carbon tax. Won't he reject the MOU, as New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu has already done, and veto any legislation to force Vermont fuel dealers to buy those funny money TCI allowances that will drive up the price of gasoline and diesel fuel for all Vermonters? As of now he won't say, so if you don't want to see the TCI drive up your fuel prices year after year, it wouldn't hurt to encourage him to strengthen his resolve.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
JournalismCleveland, OH
The project's funding goal was not reached on Sat, December 14 2013 12:00 AM UTC +00:00
A Truth Untold
The exclusive and shocking true story surrounding the controversial release of the first posthumous Michael Jackson album.
A Truth Untold, LLC
Rewards Campaign FAQ 4 Updates 7 Comments 46 Community
Wanna Be Kickstartin' Something?
For the past three years we have been diligently researching the controversy that surrounded the first posthumous Michael Jackson album, Michael, released by Epic Records and The Estate of Michael Jackson in December 2010.
Our mission with the A Truth Untold Kickstarter campaign is to raise the funds required to complete the research and publish the extensive findings of the investigation as an exclusive tell-all book detailing the shocking true story of what really happened.
For those of you not familiar with the issue we've been investigating and writing about, in November 2010 a song called Breaking News was streamed on the Official Michael Jackson website, michaeljackson.com, by Epic Records (Sony Music).
The song caused an uproar of controversy among the Jackson family, The Estate, the record label, producers, musicians and Michael's fans, with questions being raised over the authenticity of the vocals. The question was: Is it really Michael Jackson singing? The Estate of Michael Jackson and Epic Records said yes, but the Jackson family and many of Michael's fans from all around the world said no!
Even though the questions hadn't subsided, the song was officially released on the posthumous Michael Jackson album titled Michael in December 2010. To this day, questions remain regarding the authenticity of the vocals on Breaking News, as well as two other songs on the album; Keep Your Head Up and Monster.
To put this into perspective: Michael Jackson is the most successful recording artist in the history of popular music. And although controversy constantly plagued his personal life for decades, one thing stood above it all - his artistry. Michael Jackson dedicated 40 years of his life to building an incomparable repertoire of pop perfection guaranteed to stand the test of time, bringing joy to generation upon generation. However, since being posthumously tampered with, it's that very legendary library of music that has now become the source of the controversy it was once immune to.
"Someone is hiding the truth. When will this mystery unfold?"
A successfully funded campaign will allow this mystery to unfold, and for the truth to finally be told. With three years of research already under our belt, we have laid the groundwork for a fascinating and shocking book thanks to the unprecedented access we've been given through dozens of interviews conducted. However, there are still missing pieces.
In order to thoroughly document the case in it's entirety as well as publish our book, we need support. That's where YOU come in! We ask that all of Michael Jackson's fans, music lovers and truth seekers join with us as we raise our voice in a quest for the truth, once and for all!
To put all the posthumous controversy into context, the book will also detail Michael Jackson's final three years in the recording studio, sharing captivating and heartwarming recollections from many of his collaborators from during that period. The reader will be introduced to the genius and perfectionism of the greatest recording artist of all time, and will be left with an overwhelming appreciation for his dedication to his craft.
Your pledge is greatly appreciated and will play a vital role in making this campaign a success. We also need your help in spreading the message. Whether it's through blogs and social networks like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram or good old fashion word-of-mouth, we need your help in making sure the truth is heard loud and clear!
"There's nothing that can't be done, if we raise our voice as one. They gotta hear it from ME. They gotta hear if from YOU. They gotta hear it from US!"
As with all Kickstarter campaigns, your generosity won't go unrewarded. Check out a comprehensive wrap up of what's being offered in return for your support!
$10 - Join the community
Thank you for supporting our quest for the truth. For just $10 you will become a valued part of the A TRUTH UNTOLD Kickstarter community. Here you'll gain access to the backers-only comment page on which you can communicate directly with others who have backed our project. You'll also be able to interact with the A TRUTH UNTOLD team and receive real-time updates delivered directly to your email inbox, keeping you in the loop regarding the campaign. If we are successfully funded you'll continue to receive updates as we endeavor to complete the research and bring the book to fruition.
$20 - Digital copy of the book
For $20 you'll receive a digital copy of the book. To show our appreciation for your generosity, you'll receive the book before anyone else, a full one month prior to its official retail release + all items featured in the previous tier.
$50 - Softcover copy of the book
For $50 you'll receive a softcover copy of the physical book. To show our appreciation for your generosity, you'll receive the book before anyone else, a full one month prior to its official retail release. You'll also receive an A TRUTH UNTOLD bookmark + all items featured in the previous tier.
$100 - Hardcover copy of the book (limited-edition)
For $100 you'll receive a LIMITED-EDITION hardcover copy of the physical book packed with exclusive, unreleased photos! Your copy of the book will be personally signed by the author. To show our appreciation for your generosity, you'll receive the book before anyone else, a full one month prior to its official retail release + all items featured in the previous tier, minus the soft cover copy as it's replaced by the signed hardcover. There are ONLY 250 AVAILABLE so get in quick!
$249 - Attend Insider Video Conferences (limited)
Be the first to hear our exciting developments and take part in helping to shape this investigation by attending quarterly video conferences. The A Truth Untold team will report developments as the investigation progresses. Insiders also get to share feedback and be part of the collaborative process as the final book comes to fruition. Please note, due to the sensitive nature of this on-going investigation and to protect our sources, attendance to the video conferences will require a signed non-disclosure agreement by all participants. Please note that there are ONLY 20 SPOTS AVAILABLE! Backers of this tier will also receive an advance hardcover copy of the book.
$499 - Be interviewed by the A Truth Untold team (limited)
Have you got something important to say? We want to give you the chance to say it! Make your permanent mark in this historic investigative process by allowing the A Truth Untold team to interview you regarding the issue. The most relevant and compelling portions of your interview would be quoted within the book. Please note that there are ONLY 6 INTERVIEW OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE! Backers of this tier will also receive an advance hardcover copy of the book.
Premium Reward
$900 - Once-in-a-lifetime studio experience
We are excited, honored and humbled to announce our Premium Reward to Michael's fans, music lovers and the public.
By pledging $900 toward our Kickstarter campaign you will gain an all-access pass to a truly spectacular one-time only event as two of Michael Jackson's former collaborators, Michael Prince and Cory Rooney, will be exclusively hosting backers of this Kickstarter campaign in a Los Angeles recording studio for this ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME experience!
You will get to personally interact with Prince and Rooney and be given unprecedented insight into Michael Jackson's legendary recording process. You'll spend hours hearing never-before-told stories and asking all the questions you've been dying to ask... with MANY unforgettable surprises sprinkled in! Tentative date: February 8, 2014 in Los Angeles.
As part of the Premium Reward you also get a hardcover copy of the book, a bookmark, and a digital copy the book.
About Michael Prince & Cory Rooney
Michael Prince was one of Michael Jackson's most trusted engineers for 14 years, from 1995 right up until his passing in 2009. His first gig with the King of Pop was the infamously ill-fated Michael Jackson: One Night Only TV special that was to take place on Saturday, December 9, 1995 at the Beacon Theatre in New York City. The special was set to include a host of exclusive performances of brand new songs from the recently-released HIStory album as well as a range of Jackson's greatest hits. It was scheduled to be broadcast by HBO on Sunday, December 10. Unfortunately, Jackson fainted during rehearsals on December 6. He was then taken to the hospital and the show was eventually cancelled.
This was Prince's introduction to the world of Michael Jackson. From there he would work with the King of Pop on a variety of live performances, including the HIStory World Tour from July 1996 to October 1997, and the Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Celebration concerts at Madison Square Garden in September 2001.
Prince worked intimately in the studio with Jackson for years on end - mostly with their collaborative partner, musician and arranger Brad Buxer. Together they recorded countless songs, demos and ideas - many of which remain unreleased and unheard by the public to this day.
Prince's most recent collaborations with Jackson were perhaps to be two of the most significant of his career. Prince was again working in the studio with Jackson on what would have been his next set of brand new music (including songs I Was The Loser, Hollywood Tonight and Best of Joy). The other project; Jackson's record-breaking This Is It residency to take place at London's O2 Arena. Unfortunately, like the HBO special in 1995, neither of them were able to be fully realized with Jackson sudden passing on June 25th, 2009.
Cory Rooney is a multi-faceted music industry veteran. He has written, produced, and developed hit songs and careers for artists including Mariah Carey, Mary J. Blige, Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony, Destiny's Child and many more. Over the course of his on-going career, he has amassed numerous platinum records, with sales of his music in excess of 100 million units.
Rooney has been just as successful in a suit as he has been in the studio. The success of his early 90s hits as a songwriter and producer caught the attention of Sony Music, who signed him first as a producer, then as the Vice President of A&R at Epic Records, in 1994. Two years later he moved on to become Vice President of A&R at Crave Records. Then, in 1998, after excelling in his A&R role at Crave Records, Rooney was scouted back to the Epic family - this time as Senior Vice President of Sony Music Entertainment.
Between 1999 and 2001, Rooney oversaw the production of Michael Jackson's Invincible album, and was instrumental in nurturing the collaboration between Michael Jackson and Rodney Jerkins.
After a February 1999 listening session, in which Michael Jackson debuted just one song (Break of Dawn, produced by Dr.Freeze) for the Epic Records executives, Rooney was given the opportunity of a lifetime; To produce a track for the King of Pop. Rooney got to work immediately, creating a song called She Was Lovin' Me.
"Michael heard it on the Friday, and I promise you by that Monday he was in New York", recalls Rooney. "He called my house and he said, 'I'm ready. I'm prepared. I'm ready to sing the song.' And he was ready. I was blown away." Despite already being an accomplished producer, songwriter and record executive, the opportunity to work with the King of Pop was a humbling honor for Rooney. "I had already had so much success in my career with Mariah Carey, Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony, Mary J. Blige and Destiny's Child – then all of a sudden you've got Michael Jackson calling you and saying, 'I love your song.' I couldn't believe it."
Rooney and Jackson worked on the song at The Hit Factory in New York City for almost a month - between March and April 1999. "Anyone who has heard that song says it's one of the best songs they've heard from Michael in the last ten years of his career," says Rooney – and they're right. It's the King of Pop rocking out at his best. However, the song was not selected for the Invincible album, and remains unreleased to this day.
Exclusive FULL story on She Was Lovin' Me can be found here.
Anticipated delivery for the book is December 2014. This date is approximate and is subject to change within reason. As this is an investigative piece, securing certain key interviews or obtaining key pieces of evidence, information, or analysis could delay the completion and release of the project. We'll use our best judgment, as well as the feedback from our backers, in determining what may reasonably warrant a delay, or otherwise. Quality, diligence and accuracy are of the utmost importance in our effort to deliver the best final product possible.
Become part of the A TRUTH UNTOLD Kickstarter community including the backers-only comment page. Interact with the A TRUTH UNTOLD team and get real-time updates delivered directly to your email inbox. Thank you for supporting our quest for the truth.
DIGITAL COPY OF THE BOOK and you get it before anyone else, a full one month before its official retail release + all items featured in the previous tier.
SOFT COVER COPY OF THE BOOK and you get it before anyone else, a full one month prior to the official retail release. Also receive an exclusive A TRUTH UNTOLD bookmark + all items featured in the previous tier.
LIMITED-EDITION HARDCOVER COPY OF THE BOOK, PERSONALLY SIGNED BY THE AUTHOR delivered to you a full one month before the official retail release + all items featured in the previous tier. (Note: softcover is upgraded to personally signed hardcover) ONLY 250 SIGNED HARDCOVERS AVAILABLE!
ATTEND ATU INSIDER VIDEO CONFERENCES! Be the first to hear our exciting developments and take part in helping to shape this investigation by attending quarterly video conferences. The A Truth Untold team will report developments as the investigation progresses. Insiders also get to share feedback and be part of the collaborative process as the final book comes to fruition. Please note, due to the sensitive nature of this on-going investigation and to protect our sources, attendance to the video conferences will require a signed non-disclosure agreement by all participants. Backers of this tier also receive an advanced hardcover copy of the book.
RAISE YOUR VOICE! Have you got something to say? We want to give you the chance to say it! Make your permanent mark in this historic investigative process by allowing the A Truth Untold team to interview you regarding the issue. The most relevant and compelling portions of your interview would be quoted within the book. Backers of this tier also receive an advanced hardcover copy of the book.
ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME STUDIO EXPERIENCE! Attend this truly spectacular, limited, once-in-a-lifetime studio experience in Los Angeles with two of the King of Pop's collaborators; Michael Prince and Cory Rooney! Attendees will be able to ask questions, hear untold stories and MUCH more! LIMITED TO 40 ATTENDEES ONLY! (Travel expenses not included)
Nov 8, 2013 - Dec 13, 2013 (35 days)


Well funded and growing start up in the AI space. This company is growing quickly and are already working with some of the key enterprise businesses across financial services and telecommunications. Join a small team where you will see your ideas become a reality!
if you are interested in having a confidential chat regarding this awesome opportunity please click apply - with your latest resume !


Are we, as committed Christians, fully aware of what Jesus meant when He said Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
5:19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
5:20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
This was of course Jesus' words to his Disciple on the slopes of Mount Beatitude pertaining to the Law as given by God to Moses… This was written by God Himself EX 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God. These have in time become known as the 10 Commandments.
This is the written commandments of Torah (the five books of Moses) and the only ones written by God… all the other commandments where given orally to Moses and they involved practical things for every day cleanliness and good health and living etc etc…It was this oral law that the Pharisees, in the time of the Babylonian 70 year incarceration of the Jews; rewrote as the Talmud…the most evil of all books.
1 Tim 1:5 Now the purpose of the commandment(Torah) is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,.


text:
The stack module implements pushdown stacks for storing integers,
characters, or arbitrary pointers (objects).

The module uses a convention of prepending \ccode{I}, \ccode{C},
\ccode{P} to \ccode{Create()}, \ccode{Push()}, and \ccode{Pop()}
function names, to indicate the stack's datatype as integer,
character, or pointer, respectively. For example,
\ccode{esl\_stack\_PCreate()} creates a stack for pointer
storage. (This is also the naming convention in the \ccode{vectorops}
module.)  Stacks can be thought of as typed objects, with the type
defined by the \ccode{Create()} call. Types may not be mixed for any
particular created stack.

% Table generated by autodoc -t esl_stack.c (so don't edit here, edit esl_stack.c:)
\begin{table}[hbp]
\begin{center}
{\small
\begin{tabular}{|ll|}\hline
\apisubhead{The \ccode{ESL\_STACK} object.}\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_ICreate()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_ICreate()}} & Create an integer stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_CCreate()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_CCreate()}} & Create a character stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_PCreate()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_PCreate()}} & Create a pointer stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_Reuse()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_Reuse()}} & Reuse a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_Destroy()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_Destroy()}} & Free a stack.\\
\apisubhead{Other functions in the API.}\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_IPush()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_IPush()}} & Push an integer onto a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_CPush()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_CPush()}} & Push a char onto a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_PPush()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_PPush()}} & Push a pointer onto a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_IPop()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_IPop()}} & Pop an integer off a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_CPop()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_CPop()}} & Pop a char off a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_PPop()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_PPop()}} & Pop a pointer off a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_ObjectCount()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_ObjectCount()}} & Return the number of objects in a stack.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_Convert2String()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_Convert2String()}} & Convert a char stack to a string.\\
\hyperlink{func:esl_stack_DiscardTopN()}{\ccode{esl\_stack\_DiscardTopN()}} & Discard the top elements on a stack.\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{The \eslmod{stack} API.}
\label{tbl:stack_api}
\end{table}

\subsection{Example of using the stack API}

Figure~\ref{fig:stack_example} shows an example of using the integer
stack, pushing 42, 7, and 3 on, then popping them off.

\begin{figure}
\input{cexcerpts/stack_example}
\caption{An example of pushing and popping data onto a stack.}
\label{fig:stack_example}
\end{figure}

The \ccode{Create()} functions create a stack for a particular
purpose. \ccode{esl\_stack\_ICreate()} creates a stack for integers,
\ccode{esl\_stack\_CCreate()} creates a stack for characters, and
\ccode{esl\_stack\_PCreate()} creates a stack for pointers.  They
throw NULL if an allocation fails.  All three stack types are free'd
by a call to \ccode{esl\_stack\_Destroy()}. All three types can also
be reused without reallocation or recreation by
\ccode{esl\_stack\_Reuse()}. A \ccode{Reuse()}'d stack retains its
original datatype.

The \ccode{Push()} functions push one datum onto the stack, of the
appropriate type. They throw \ccode{eslEMEM} if the stack needs to
reallocate internally but fails.

The \ccode{Pop()} functions pop one datum off the stack, returning it
through a passed pointer. They return \ccode{eslOK} on success, and
\ccode{eslEOD} if the stack is empty.

\ccode{esl\_stack\_ObjectCount()} returns the number of objects stored
in the stack.

A special function, \ccode{esl\_stack\_Convert2String()}, operates
only on character stacks. It converts the stack structure to a
NUL-terminated string, with characters in the same order they were
pushed. The stack is destroyed by this operation, leaving a
\ccode{char *} behind.

\subsection{Allocation strategy}

Stacks are initially allocated for a certain number of objects,
defined by a compile-time constant \ccode{ESL\_STACK\_INITALLOC} in
\ccode{esl\_stack.h}. The default is 128. Whenever a stack needs to grow,
it reallocates by doubling its current allocation.


text:
Ngeluk is een bestuurslaag in het regentschap Grobogan van de provincie Midden-Java, Indonesië. Ngeluk telt 2450 inwoners (volkstelling 2010).

Plaats in Midden-Java

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


I. Education is both industrial and fundamental; the product of engineering and affection.
II. This makes it a human process, full of incredible complexity that mirrors that complexity inside each of us. This, in turn, requires a response that is equally complex and decidedly clever.
III. In our first century of an increasingly global movement to provide public education, we have turned to our own rationality, and established systems.
IV. These systems parallel similar transitions from small farms to commercial agriculture, small shops into mega-stores, and inter-personal storytelling to seeking our "stories" from Hollywood and social media, all increasingly drive by technology.
Education's progression has led us to our current system. This system is designed to publish common goals that drive our common actions and performance.
These four subsystems and catalysts provides us with an outcomes-based, data-driven, top-down system of education that depends on the observation, measurement, and refinement of the human mind.
In the case of most schools, this translates to hundreds and even thousands of minds, each with their own stories, interests, insecurities, and needs. Thousands of spectacular complexities.
The word "mind" suggests something different than the current subsystems and catalysts provide. A brain may seek an input to produce an output, but a mind is curious and wants to play.
An outcomes-based system of education seeks only to produce outcomes. Its self-correcting systems, which glean their corrections from those strategies, data, and collaboration above, test and probe—with perfect rationality—what works and what doesn't so that we can do less of the latter and more of the former until the latter is all gone.
It is plain to see, however, that this is not what happens. The outcomes we seek to cause are first industrial—acquisition of catalogued knowledge parsed into content areas.
Presumably, the hope is that once students have mastered this catalogued, this kind of proficiency will lead to citizenship, affection, good work, happiness, and after a lifetime of humanizing it all, wisdom.
These ideas—citizenship, affection, good work, happiness, and wisdom–are purely irrational—abstractions that counter-balance systems-thinking and scientific approaches.
This means that we have designed a system of education that both marginalizes and patronizes the abstractions it hopes to produce. And its inherent rational subsystems—especially assessment and data—are impotent to respond to that which is irrational.
This is neither clever, nor our best thinking.
This cleaving of the rational and the irrational—of art and science—disrupts our collective complexity as human beings. It produces teachers that feel like pieces and students that feel like products. Curriculum is treated like machinery, and local communities like storefronts to peddle the end result to businesses.
The identification of a different set of outcomes (i.e., goals of education), with subsystems (e.g., standards and curriculum) and catalysts (e.g., gamification, as it is) that can communicate with and respond to one another seamlessly.
A humbler scale of teaching and learning that places people–and their human needs and affections–at the center.
We'll know we've succeeded when learning spaces are filled with curious minds poking at concepts and possibilities. These minds will want to, above all else, play. A mind and soul at ease will sing.
The post "A brain may seek to produce an output, but a mind wants to play." appeared first on TeachThought.


text:
Five Calvinistic Answers to the Five Errors of Arminianism
from Nathan W. Bingham Dec 28, 2019 Category: Articles
In this brief clip from his teaching series A Survey of Church History, W. Robert Godfrey examines how the five points of Calvinism originated. Watch this entire message for free.
What the Synod of Dort produces is five Calvinistic answers to the five points of Arminianism. It's Arminianism that summarized its concern in five points and it is a real misrepresentation of Calvinism to say that Calvinism is summarized in five points. As important as those points are, they aren't the summary of Calvinism. There is nothing about the Trinity. There's nothing really about Providence. There's really nothing about sacraments. There's very little about the church. If you want a summary of Calvinism, you should get the Belgic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism or the Westminster Confession of Faith. That's a summary of Calvinism in its fullness.
The Five Points are five Calvinistic answers to the five errors of Arminianism. We ought to be clear about that. We don't summarize our faith in the five points but we do say the five points are important and the Synod of Dort then produced what are known to history as the "Canons of Dort" – "Canon" from the Greek word meaning "Rules" – The Rules of Dort on the five points. And we're all familiar, I suppose, with TULIP as a summary of the Five Points. The problem is that is not the order that Dort taught in. Dort taught ULTIP which as far as I know is not a flower. That is it dealt first with Unconditional election, then with Limited atonement, then with Total depravity, then with the Irresistibility of the Holy Spirit and then with Perseverance.


Quetzaltenango is a depairtment in the wastren heichlands o Guatemala. The caipital is the ceety o Quetzaltenango, the seicont lairgest ceety in Guatemala. The depairtment is dividit up intae 24 municipalities. The inhabitants include Spainyie-speakin Ladinos an the K'iche' an Mam Maya groups, baith wi their awn Maya leid. The depairtment consists o muntainous terrain, wi its principal river being the Samalá River.
↑ Rouanet et al 1992, p.14.
Wikimedia Commons haes media relatit tae Quetzaltenango.
This page wis last eeditit on 10 Mairch 2018, at 23:00.


All about bedroom Sunday, October 14th, 2018 10:45:05 AM. For every space in your house, choose a special locus that you simply need to emulate. you'll then enhance every space protruding 100 p.c to the theme you have chosen, going away the hallways neutral.


text:
The Rangefinder Difference
Discreet and Quiet
Low Light and Vibration
Focusing and Composing
Simplicity and Mentality
There's no limit to the variety of cameras available today, but they do all fall into a variety of design categories. From SLR (Single Lens Reflex) to the new, so-called "mirrorless" cameras. Another category is the rangefinder, which is the basis for Leica M bodies. In fact, the "M" stands for the German word for rangefinder - Meßsucher. In this article we'll take a look at some of the pros and cons to the platform.
If your native language is Russian, our colleagues at the Leica Russia Blog have posted a translated article for your reading pleasure!
When compared to the average SLR (or DSLR these days), a rangefinder is often quite smaller for two reasons. First, since there's no pentaprism atop the camera (nor a bulky mirror box below that) the body size is smaller. Secondly (and again because of the lack of a mirror) lenses do not need to be of a retrofocus design which makes them smaller as well. When comparing the two body designs side-by-side, the difference is readily noticeable.
Weight is a bit more debatable, at least when it comes to Leica bodies and lenses - especially if you prefer the chrome lenses. Due to the use of a lot of brass, Leica bodies and chrome lenses are deceptively dense. The black lenses differ because they utilize black anodized aluminum for the lens barrels instead of brass, so they're a bit lighter. Bodies do not have this difference in materials based on color. When looking at other manufacturer's bodies such as the Bessa from Voigtländer or the Ikon from Zeiss for example, the weight argument is more in favor of the rangefinder as they utilize magnesium alloy in place of brass and are overall much lighter in weight. As compared to SLRs, rangefinders typically come out ahead (but not always).
Because of their size, rangefinders are often considered to be more discreet - less noticeable and more easily concealed. This depends entirely on your situation when shooting. Sometimes a smaller camera does afford you an extra measure of keeping a low profile, other times you'll be noticed just by raising a camera regardless of what it is.
For the same reason they're smaller, they're also quieter - that is, the lack of a moving mirror mechanism as found in SLRs. Without a link between body and lens (e.g. aperture) there are less moving parts there as well. While nothing is as quiet as a leaf shutter (which is barely audible even when listening for it) the rangefinder is certainly quieter than an SLR. When shooting street, in churches or other situations where being noticed or a distraction is to be avoided, it can make all the difference.
The lack of all the moving parts that make a rangefinder both smaller and quieter as mentioned above, there's another benefit. Moving parts cause vibration due to inertia and other forces. Both the sudden acceleration and more importantly, sudden deceleration of the mirror in an SLR for example. Most of the time this doesn't have much consequence as shutter speeds (or the use of flash) often freezes such movement. But when the light levels drop and you're forced to use slower shutter speeds - or use longer focal lengths - vibration can be a real problem. When compared to other camera designs, the difference is less clear. Neither leaf shutters nor "mirrorless" cameras cause vibration either.
The difference between a rangefinder and SLR is perhaps clearest when comparing the meat of the matter - focusing and composing. Instead of looking through the lens as with an SLR, the rangefinder uses a discrete optical path. This has its pros and cons. In favor of the SLR, it's essentially WYSIWYG (What You See is What You Get) since you're looking through the lens, filter (if fitted) and aperture (stopped down or not). This affords you the chance to really see what your camera sees. On the downside, you can't see what's going on outside of the frame, such as when anticipating action (the so-called "decisive moment") and depending on the speed of your lens, can make for a dark viewfinder. Some people also describe the view being akin to tunnel vision, especially on crop sensor bodies (as opposed to full frame or film). Finally, there's no viewfinder blackout with a rangefinder since there's no mirror that swings up, blocking the optical path.
Focusing is both similar to an SLR yet radically different. In the "old days" SLRs usually had a split prism focusing screen - rangefinders work on the same principle, or bringing two areas of the image into alignment. This is just about the only similarity though. When looking through a rangefinder, you are presented with a patch in the center consisting of two images and the lens focused either by aligning them or watching for the "pop" of contrast. With this approach it's very easy to see that your subject is either in focus or not - there's no "gray area." This is a very accurate and fast (with practice) way of focusing. Most modern SLRs have done away with the split and micro prism focusing aids, leaving you with just a matte screen. Even with a fast lens, which makes the focus plane more readily discerned you often need a special screen for maximum effect. But with slower lenses such screens become prohibitively dark and even regular screens darken quickly. With autofocus this isn't as critical as it used to be. - but try focusing in low light with both systems (where autofocus is often ineffective or slow) and you'll really appreciate the difference.
Rangefinders on the other hand generally offer an expansive, bright view of your scene. Regardless of the speed of your lens, it's always the same brightness and you can always see the maximum coverage of the scene. The latter is accomplished by using framelines to represent what a lens of a particular focal length would capture. The longer the focal length, the more surrounding area you see outside of the frame. Going back to the "decisive moment" comment, this is why. You can see subjects as they approach and enter the frame - allowing you to snap the shutter at just the right time. Since the viewfinder and what the lens sees are on a slightly different axis, this leads to inaccuracy when framing - more so at closer ranges. Many rangefinders correct for this for the most part, but it's not as accurate as with an SLR. The solution is simple - don't frame so tightly. The other limitation is in the variety of lens focal lengths (or applications) available with a rangefinder. They struggle at the extremes - namely macro and telephoto. While wide angle lenses are actually much better optically, there's no easy way to shoot macro and telephoto lenses are limited to about 135mm (without requiring a special attachment in either case such as the Macro Adapter M or Visoflex).
When it comes to lenses (wide angles in particular) lacking the need for a retrofocus design, rangefinder lenses can be made much smaller than their SLR equivalents since they don't have to take into account the space required by the mirror. Their image quality is generally better as a result; often much better. Even with longer focal lengths, simpler lenses generally mean better quality as a result. Then there's the old "zoom lenses vs. primes" argument. Both a pro and a con, there are no zoom lenses for rangefinders. The closest thing to it is the Leica "MATE" and "WATE" which are nicknames standing for "Medium Angle Tri-Elmar" and "Wide Angle Tri-Elmar" respectively. Rather than zooming, they offer three distinct focal lengths in one lens. Think of them as "three primes in one."
That's not to say that other manufacturers can't product high-quality lenses. They most certainly can, but the current line of modern Leica and Zeiss lenses are really something to behold. More so in the case of Leica, as they tick off nearly every technological checkbox in lens design - using both aspherical and floating lens elements as well as exotic materials for lens elements. While both Leica and Zeiss lenses are highly corrected, they go about it in different ways. Leica utilizes aspheric elements to produce smaller lenses whereas Zeiss does not.
Then there's the matter of build quality of both lenses as well as the bodies themselves. No manufacturer stands out more than perhaps Leica in this regard, as the mechanical build of both are of a very high order. While most camera manufacturers these days have embraced plastics and other high-tech materials, Leica still builds cameras "the old fashioned way" (or as they always have) by using primarily metal for construction. This aspect is discussed and explored further in our "Why Buy a Leica?" article.
There's no arguing the simplicity of rangefinder cameras. Most have little more than purely mechanical, basic controls - namely focus, aperture and shutter speed. It's not a camera for those that don't understand these basic principles of photography. But many prefer this simple, direct and fast control of the camera. There are no technological crutches - the onus to create something special rests solely on the shooter.
This brings up the notion of the mentality of shooting with a rangefinder (or similarly simple) camera. Some say it stays out of the way and lets you concentrate on making the image without all the distractions. Some people just like how it allows them to photograph or fits to how they prefer to work. Whether or not this is beneficial to you, only you can say.
You can read more about design and simplicity in our article, "Leica and Bauhausian Simplicity of Design."
In the end it really comes down to how and what you shoot as to which platform suits you best. Using the right tool for the task at hand will always make things easier as there's generally no "one size fits all" solution. But where the rangefinder excels, it is unmatched. If you shoot a lot of macro, telephoto, studio or use a lot of filters then perhaps an SLR is a better choice. But for fast and efficient people, landscape or even "general" photography, the rangefinder is hard to beat and worth considering.