Who’d have thought that just four months later gas prices would be down about fifty percent? Most people thought that the public would never see cheap gas again. Life as we knew it was going to change. Fortunately, for my pocket and your pocket they were wrong. A quick visit to Bloomberg.com will have some academic answers, but it’s not that complicated.
For the last 15 years, the American public has for the most part driven big gas guzzling vehicles. Throughout the nineties, GMC and Ford manufactured large SUV’s and trucks that the average Joe scooped up to drive around town in. Gas was cheap, so it didn’t matter that Average Joe’s Ford Expedition got 11 miles to the gallon. In December of 1998, the average gas price was just below $1. Everyone was buying ridiculous, stupid, and gigantic vehicles. Prices spiked a little bit from 2000 to 2005 but it remained relatively practical to drive a guzzler.
Then in August of 2005, everything changed. Suddenly, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf of Mexico and gas went from being about $2.49 a gallon to about $3.39 a gallon. Since then, oil companies continue to claim that the prices were justified, but I think it’s a heaping pile of horse shit. Hurricanes have been devastating the Gulf of Mexico since Pangea broke up, and the continents formed into the shape they are today. How come gas prices weren’t affected by hurricane’s in the 1990’s? It sounds to me like the 2005 price spike was not a result of hurricane damage but more like an experiment by the oil companies to see if Average Joe would pay over $3 for a gallon of gas. It worked. Exxon/Mobil was reporting record quarterly profits for the next few years, and up until now.
From 2005 until now, prices spiked every summer. They would drop down to about $2.49 in the winter and go up into the $3 range during the summer. However, in the summer of 2008, the oil companies fucked up. There’s no other way to put it. They fucked up. Gas prices actually hit $5 a gallon in some places. The public was angry. And their anger was justified. There’s nothing like spending a ton of your money on gas that’s sold to you by a company that profits by over $40 billion dollars a year. But lately, it seems like one of the most coveted qualifications in a CEO is that he or she has to be out of touch with the the general public and really stupid. How did these companies think that the American economy could sustain under the weight of $5 a gallon gasoline? Well, they managed to postulate that by being completely out of touch with the general public. The high prices of fuel forced the prices of every tangible object sold in the world to increase by a lot. Average Joe and every other person that’s literate can understand that simple economic concept. Now, the public was insanely angry at the oil companies. Here’s a tip for any CEO running an oil company: don’t piss off your customers dummy! Everyone parked their big gas guzzlers and bought hybrids or economical four door sedans. Let’s do a little math. If the average person burned twenty gallons a week in their guzzlers, now they’re probably burning about seven gallons a week in their economy car. Multiple that number by all of the people that got rid of their guzzlers and the product equals big bucks!
Fuck you Exxon/Mobil. I’m glad you had to lower the price of oil. Of course, they’ll continue to pretend that they have no control over the price and that it’s based on market conditions. But we all know that is complete bullshit. In fact, one could argue that if a business didn’t have some level of control over the price of their product they’d go out of business faster than gas prices go up. It looks like the oil companies shot themselves in the foot this summer. Too bad they didn’t shoot themselves in the head. It’s hard to fathom $3 a gallon gas next summer. The national MPG average will probably go up quite a bit. This past summer American’s waved goodbye to their guzzlers and welcomed economy cars and hybrid models. Even some of the big trucks are hybrids that are getting two to three times more miles to the gallon. That’s really impacting all of the oil companies. They like to tickle their asses and tell themselves that the price of fuel is down because the economy is bad, but I’m not driving any less. We all still have to go to work. We all still have to drive. Memo to all of you all CEO’s: we’re not driving less, we’re driving cars that don’t drink as much fuel. But you’re all too stupid to realize that. Have fun on your yachts this holiday season, we’ll all be hoping there’s a hell just so you all can burn in it.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Only in the NFL
So Michael Vick announced today that he expects the NFL to reinstate him once he has finished serving his sentence. Only in NFL can a convicted felon be given his job back after committing such an awful crime. The NFL has no guts! They need to stand up to these "thugs" like Michael Vick and Adam "Pacman" Jones. They need to say, "We won't tolerate the type of shit from you thugs." Is it that ridiculous to expect guys that are getting paid millions of dollars to stay out of trouble? Clearly, the NFL thinks it is. Furthermore, they’re sending a message to the younger players. The message is crystal clear. It says, “Hey, if you can play football, we don’t give a fuck as to what you do in your spare time. Go ahead and torture animals or assault woman because we don’t give a shit. As long as you get the ratings, we’ll let you play.” And that is where you the fan comes into play. I’m not telling you to not watch football, but at least speak up. Write to the NFL and tell them get these punks out of the league. Believe me folks, I’m no Holy Roller or moral saint, but I don’t hit woman or kill animals for fun. How far does it have to go before the NFL shows us some guts? I’m scared to find out.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Drug Testing in Schools
One of the best things about America is the rights we as citizens are afforded by our wonderful Constitution. The Bill of Rights basically serves as the center piece of American ideology that has evolved into histories most advanced and successful political ideology known today. The year the Constitution was ratified (1789), serves as a moment in time when everything changed for the better. The divine right of kings became the past, and freedom, equality, and the right to pursue happiness became the present and the future.
The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Unfortunately, Bernards Township school officials do not feel as though this amendment applies to their students. As was reported in Sunday’s ledger, school officials in Bernards are considering implementing random drug testing in their school system. Everything about random drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, there are activist judges, hell bent on eliminating drugs from our culture. These judges try to circumvent the fourth amendment by creating bogus rulings to allow drug testing to continue. But let’s be honest, random drug testing is a complete invasion of one’s privacy.
In order to prove it, let us begin by breaking down the Fourth Amendment. The first statement is, The right of the people to be secure in their persons. All citizens have a right to be secure in their persons, meaning that citizens have a right to not be searched just for the sake of being searched. Is that not what random drug testing is? Are school officials not just testing kids randomly for the sake of testing them to find some rogue student who may have smoked weed at a party? Obviously, more serious drugs users will be obvious enough to spot. In fact, they may be so obvious that the school may be able to legally invoke a search using probable cause. What a concept! This part of the amendment keeps innocent people from having to take time out of their day, to be pulled aside, brought into a nurse’s office, and forced to urinate into a cup in a authoritative manner.
Next, the language of the Amendment goes on to state this: The right of the people…against unreasonable searches and seizures. To those students that are not using drugs, a random drug test is about as unreasonable of a search and seizure as one could be subjected to. Why should students that are following the rules by going to class, studying, and not using drugs be subjected to such utter nonsense. The burden of drug prevention rests solely on the parents of the children, and the legal system of the United States. It is not the responsibility of innocent students to have to endure unreasonable searches and seizures in order to prevent their peers from using drugs. The school has shifted the burden off their shoulders and onto their student’s shoulders. In Susan Bugman’s article it states that last year 400 students were tested and only 11 students tested positive. That means that 389 unlucky students were pulled out of class and forced to urinate under supervision. They were searched unreasonably without a warrant or probable cause. These 389 students were all drug free yet they were forced to shoulder the burden of drug prevention. Random drug testing is the easy way out for the district. More education about the dangers of drugs would better suit these children. Furthermore, scare tactics such as this only force students with a drug problem to hide their drug addiction rather than seek out help. America’s drug policy has not, and is not working. It is not fair to force these students to give up their rights to help the school district catch 11 culprits who probably just tested positive for marijuana anyway. Although that is purely speculative, marijuana is the only drug that stays in one’s system for an extended period of time.
To delve further into the language of the Fourth Amendment it ends with this: … but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This means that if a search is to be conducted it must be done under the supervision of the guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. To conduct a search the following conditions must be present: ”probable cause” which is defined as an objective belief that a crime has been committed; “supported by oath or affirmation” which means a legal document must be written stating why a search is to be conducted. This document or affidavit is written under oath and is subject to perjury laws; and finally, “and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” which means that a search must be particular. Searches just cannot be conducted randomly. The search cannot be conducted and bestowed upon random citizens just because. If random drug testing isn’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment then I don’t know what is.
Now of course if there is a drug problem amongst high school teenagers, then it is the public’s responsibility to address it. However, everything about drug testing is un-American. First, it goes against the most fundamental procedure of our justice system. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Drug testing assumes everyone is guilty and forces individuals to prove their innocence. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution not the defense. If we as a society condone behavior that randomly selects individuals and forces them to prove their innocence then we as a society are condoning the same ideology that forced us to create an America. Sure, the latter examples are extremes, but extremism can be an effective mechanism in highlighting nuances that would otherwise go unnoticed.
While I as in individual have no immediate stake in the issue of drug testing in schools, I find the very idea of school officials thumbing their noses at constitutional protections to be repugnant. Schools are institutions that are funded by the taxpayers. They must adhere to the laws of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. School officials are not above it.
We as a society must act responsibly and use better tactics to keep kids from getting involved with drugs. Testing them is simply not the answer. We need a plan that involves intense and most importantly honest education. Statistics show that strong arm tactics and legal enforcement are much more expensive than education and treatment. I urge the parents of Bernards Township to please tell these school officials that they have no right to drug test these children. These students have rights that must be respected. It is unfair to the children who have never used drugs to have to go through testing. Show these children respect for their rights, respect for the constitution, and respect to them by offering them honest drug education devoid of scare tactics. That is the least you can do for kids. They deserve it.
The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Unfortunately, Bernards Township school officials do not feel as though this amendment applies to their students. As was reported in Sunday’s ledger, school officials in Bernards are considering implementing random drug testing in their school system. Everything about random drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Of course, there are activist judges, hell bent on eliminating drugs from our culture. These judges try to circumvent the fourth amendment by creating bogus rulings to allow drug testing to continue. But let’s be honest, random drug testing is a complete invasion of one’s privacy.
In order to prove it, let us begin by breaking down the Fourth Amendment. The first statement is, The right of the people to be secure in their persons. All citizens have a right to be secure in their persons, meaning that citizens have a right to not be searched just for the sake of being searched. Is that not what random drug testing is? Are school officials not just testing kids randomly for the sake of testing them to find some rogue student who may have smoked weed at a party? Obviously, more serious drugs users will be obvious enough to spot. In fact, they may be so obvious that the school may be able to legally invoke a search using probable cause. What a concept! This part of the amendment keeps innocent people from having to take time out of their day, to be pulled aside, brought into a nurse’s office, and forced to urinate into a cup in a authoritative manner.
Next, the language of the Amendment goes on to state this: The right of the people…against unreasonable searches and seizures. To those students that are not using drugs, a random drug test is about as unreasonable of a search and seizure as one could be subjected to. Why should students that are following the rules by going to class, studying, and not using drugs be subjected to such utter nonsense. The burden of drug prevention rests solely on the parents of the children, and the legal system of the United States. It is not the responsibility of innocent students to have to endure unreasonable searches and seizures in order to prevent their peers from using drugs. The school has shifted the burden off their shoulders and onto their student’s shoulders. In Susan Bugman’s article it states that last year 400 students were tested and only 11 students tested positive. That means that 389 unlucky students were pulled out of class and forced to urinate under supervision. They were searched unreasonably without a warrant or probable cause. These 389 students were all drug free yet they were forced to shoulder the burden of drug prevention. Random drug testing is the easy way out for the district. More education about the dangers of drugs would better suit these children. Furthermore, scare tactics such as this only force students with a drug problem to hide their drug addiction rather than seek out help. America’s drug policy has not, and is not working. It is not fair to force these students to give up their rights to help the school district catch 11 culprits who probably just tested positive for marijuana anyway. Although that is purely speculative, marijuana is the only drug that stays in one’s system for an extended period of time.
To delve further into the language of the Fourth Amendment it ends with this: … but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This means that if a search is to be conducted it must be done under the supervision of the guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. To conduct a search the following conditions must be present: ”probable cause” which is defined as an objective belief that a crime has been committed; “supported by oath or affirmation” which means a legal document must be written stating why a search is to be conducted. This document or affidavit is written under oath and is subject to perjury laws; and finally, “and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” which means that a search must be particular. Searches just cannot be conducted randomly. The search cannot be conducted and bestowed upon random citizens just because. If random drug testing isn’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment then I don’t know what is.
Now of course if there is a drug problem amongst high school teenagers, then it is the public’s responsibility to address it. However, everything about drug testing is un-American. First, it goes against the most fundamental procedure of our justice system. Defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Drug testing assumes everyone is guilty and forces individuals to prove their innocence. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution not the defense. If we as a society condone behavior that randomly selects individuals and forces them to prove their innocence then we as a society are condoning the same ideology that forced us to create an America. Sure, the latter examples are extremes, but extremism can be an effective mechanism in highlighting nuances that would otherwise go unnoticed.
While I as in individual have no immediate stake in the issue of drug testing in schools, I find the very idea of school officials thumbing their noses at constitutional protections to be repugnant. Schools are institutions that are funded by the taxpayers. They must adhere to the laws of the land. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. School officials are not above it.
We as a society must act responsibly and use better tactics to keep kids from getting involved with drugs. Testing them is simply not the answer. We need a plan that involves intense and most importantly honest education. Statistics show that strong arm tactics and legal enforcement are much more expensive than education and treatment. I urge the parents of Bernards Township to please tell these school officials that they have no right to drug test these children. These students have rights that must be respected. It is unfair to the children who have never used drugs to have to go through testing. Show these children respect for their rights, respect for the constitution, and respect to them by offering them honest drug education devoid of scare tactics. That is the least you can do for kids. They deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
