jteamaz's Blog

In a speech today, John McCain basically hopped into an imaginary time machine and took us to the year 2013, and the end of his first term as President. Some of what he would have us to believe......

The Iraq War is over, Iraq is a functioning democracy; Al Quaeda in Iraq has been defeated; Bin Laden has been captured or killed; no major terrorist attack in the U.S.; Iran and North Korea have renounced nuclear weapons; the Army and Marine Corps are larger and better equipped; a substantial increase in veterans benefits; the genocide in Darfur has been stopped; the U.S. has experienced substantial and "robust" economic growth; Americans are confident in their economic future; the world's food crisis has ended; test scores and graduation rates are rising all over the country; health care is more accessible; Medicare and Social Security have been fixed with tax increases or benefit reductions; we're on our way to oil independence from foreign sources; the southern border is secure; illegal immigration has been brought under control; and last but not least, there are fewer fat kids plundering through P.E. class.

Seems like an awful lot doesn't it?? The first thing to notice was that he gave not one specific on how he plans to accomplish any of it. The second, and biggest thing is, it's just plain fantasy. The contradiction here is that he states that it's important for our candidates to lay out "what they plan to achieve not with vague language but with clarity." This trip to fantasyland has no map on how we're supposed to get there. I guess that one morning we'll wake up, pigs will be flying and things will be right with the world. This viewing of things through rose colored glasses runs counter to McCains brand as a "straight talker."

82 percent of the public is unhappy with the direction of the Country, and 68 percent are unhappy with the war. 75 percent are anxious about the economy, and McCain doesn't seem to understand any of it. He, or his fellow Republicans can't run on reality or their record for the last 7 1/2 years, so they have to run on fantasy alone. It's like Mr. Rogers and a beautiful day in the neighborhood in 2013. "I can't tell you how, boys and girls, but it will be. You'll just have to trust me."

The pig that was flying overhead fell from the sky, showed his McCain button and reminded me that Hamas wants Obama to win.

Just in time for Mother's Day, Senator John McCain opposed the Fair Pay Act - a bill that would help guarantee women equal pay for equal work. The bill simply would have restored critical anti-discrimination rules that the Supreme Court struck down in a recent decision, and failed by just three votes.

Adding insult to injury, McCain said that the solution to employment discrimination was for women to get more "education and training." Yikes!! Maybe that made some sense in his day, but today with women outnumbering men on college campuses, it makes none. Study after study has shown that women are paid less than men for the same work, even when they have the same education and training.....  Senator McCain and his Republican allies have chosen to stand in the way of enforcement of a law that's been on the books protecting women for 40 years. Call on Senator McCain and Congress to pass the Fair Pay Act now. Go to: http://pol.moveon.org/fairpay/?id=12626-9252112-FqZmHY
&t=3 

If you're as incensed as many are by his statements that women are somehow poorly educated and trained you can do one more thing: Submit your resume when you sign the letter and it'll be delivered too, so Mr. McCain can see for himself that women are actually quite educated nowadays.

* Women make less for the same work, .77 for every dollar their male counterparts make.

*The pay gap is even worse for Mothers. .73 to a mans dollar and single mothers only about .60 to a mans dollar.

* Wage discrimination cuts across educational levels. Some high school at age 25, womens annual earnings around $15,162 compared to $24,092 for men. Even a Bachelor's Degree didn't help. Women with a Bachelor's degree made around $38,221 per year, while man at the same level made $55,425.

* In some places, the pay gap has actually increased. The GAO found women managers across 10 industries not only made less than their male counterparts, but in seven of those industries the gap increased between 1995 and 2001.

Senator McCain's statements aren't just misinformed - they're a sad reminder that a lot of politicians are totally out of touch with the hard realities facing working women. Please speak out today......

This was reported by the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Friday May 9th.

Biofuels are one of the major reasons you and I are paying more for groceries these days. Most of us look of it as an inconvenience, but for many in other areas of the world it's a catastrophe. U.N. Special Investigator Jean Ziegler called the use of biofuels like ethanol "a crime against a great part of humanity." It used to be that natural disasters sparked rises in fuel prices. What makes this a crime against humanity is the fact that we caused it and it can be traced to our false worldview.

In the U.S. eggs are up 35%, milk up 23%, bread up 16%. Americans generally spend 10% of their budget on food, it's of course squeezing budgets. For countries like Ethiopa and Bangladesh people can spend upwards of 70% of their income on food, so even slight increases impair their ability to feed their families. Wheat prices have doubled and corn prices have quadrupled in the last year. These countries also face political instability as the poor struggle to feed themselves and their families.

While the rise in food-staple prices has many causes, one of them is definitely man-made: the use of cropland and food-staples to produce bio-fueld such as ethanol. Transforming hundreds and hudreds of thousands of tons of foodstuffs into fuel is absolutely catastrophic for hungry people. Example: It takes 510 pounds of corn to make 13 gallons of ethanol; that amount could feed a child in Zambia for a year, it would fuel your car for only a week! What is maddening about this is the the biofuel effort is fueled by politicians handing out massive subsidies to the farm belt and pandering to glassy-eyed environmentalists. Ethanol could not make it on it's own on a level playing field. Every presidential hopeful that participated in the Iowa caucus had to sing the praises of Ethanol in order to get votes. I don't think any politician with a shred of integrity could deny that it would be more important to feed a child for a year as opposed as to fueling one's car for a week. Ask your candidate where they stand on this political folly. Call your Congressman to tell them what you feel about this massive ripoff of the American consumer.

The headline I read this morning says: "Clinton out of Math, Money, and Momentum," yet Hillary vows to keep fighting. Obama won North Carolina, Clinton won Indiana by less than 2 points.

The Math: Obama = 184.5 delegates from the nomination. Clinton - 341. There are 217 delegates, 270 Superdelegates left. Clinton lends herself another $6.4 million for a total of $114.5 million. Her campaign is suspected to being close to broke. A senior Clinton official is quoted as saying "It's going to be tough for us....we lost this thing in February." Hillary cancelled her morning show appearances, and the campaign expects calls to resign from supporters. Former Clinton backer George McGovern has called for her to drop out for the good of the party. Any number of politicians are saying she's doing the party more harm than good by staying in a race she's not going to win. Yet she still vows to fight on for the White House. I have just one question, WHY? How do you think she'll finally end it?

So this morning I get up and turn on my computer to catch up on the latest blogs and I see how the morning commute on the US 60 turned into a nightmare after a tractor and flatbed carrying a grader crashes into a wall and slams a disabled vehicle. It was initially reported that the driver fell asleep at the wheel. Pretty scary, that's why I can't keep silent any longer........and I need your comments to pass on to those who claim to be "safety" oriented.

As a Truck Driver myself, this really hits home. Let me tell you why, and give a quick lesson in some of the regulations that govern us. We are allowed to be on the clock 14 hours per day, of that we can spend 11 hours driving. The rest (3 hrs.) is for pre and post trip inspections, loading/unloading, fueling etc. We must take 10 hours off after completion of our work day. Going back on duty before that 10 hours is up is a violation. These are rules that are basically set up for over the road drivers, so when you're considered "local" or less than 150 air miles from your terminal the situation becomes quite different. Here's where we lose, and the situation can become dangerous.....

My shift starts at 11:30 AM which means that I must be finished and off the clock by 1:30 AM the next morning. That's a 14 hour day, nearly double what the average worker spends at work. I usually work at least 12 hours, but lately have been bumping the 13-14 mark routinely. This is where the problem comes in. Instead of logging out and crawling into a sleeper as an over the road driver would do, I need to finish paperwork, then I have commute time, around 1 1/2 hr. per day to and from the terminal. Then there's time spent up at home on both ends, usually around an hour or so. This all comes out of my 10 hours off, which simple math tells you that leaves about 7 1/2 hours.  I can do fine on 7 1/2 hrs. sleep but it doesn't usually work out that way. Most employers insist on pushing the limits, citing "business needs" and workload. For those of us who take our jobs seriously it seems excessive to work back to back 14 hours, and I fully admit I'm not at 100% when it happens to me. But voicing concern about it can only get you in hot water if you're not careful. Dispatchers will even push you to use an emergency rule that's available once in a week that allows you to add another 2 hours to your day, for a total of 16 hours, more than excessive as I see it. My questions to you are this....

Does it not bother you that you are sharing the roadways with drivers who are extremely fatigued and being pushed to the limits? Any employer that says they don't are probably being untruthful, kudos to those who actually don't push their drivers to this point. This is an industry problem that is usually met with cold dismissal when brought up by drivers. I think the rules should be different for local drivers, say a 12 hour maximum.

Our "Safety" Coordinator recently told us at our quarterly meeting "I have you for 14 hours, don't think you're going home after an 8 or 10 hour shift." We even have it in writing.  When and if we're involved in an accident of any kind, we're automatically guilty until proven otherwise. Employers wash their hands of any and all responsibility and will be the first to wag their fingers at us telling us it's our responsibility to make sure we're properly rested. I was stopped by a DPS officer 3 weeks ago on the way home on I-17. I wasn't speeding, I was falling asleep behind the wheel and he happened to see me weave a bit. I was 10 minutes from my home. I had just worked a nearly 14 hr. shift and was exhausted. Had he not stopped me you may have been watching me on the morning news as well.......

We need your help, voice your concerns. I plan on sharing all of your comments with our "Safety" people. It's a very important issue that needs tackled now.

In perhaps the most embarassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former 60's radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other 60's radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV?

The New York Times said they "thought the questions were excellent." They gave them an "A." An "A" can stand for many things......

As the financial services train-wreck continues,  CEO's are getting better at saying they feel shareholder's pain. But actions speak louder than words, and it's time for some of these folks to acknowledge where the buck really stops -- in actions, not words.

CEO's are happy to accept responsibility -- and fortunes in annual compensation -- when times are good. Thus far, however, unless forcefully shown the doors, they seem to show no willingness to accept real responsibility when things go bad.

If CEO's get rewarded when companies like Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Wachovia, UBS, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, GE, Bear Stearns, et al, gamble and win -- and oh boy, do they get rewarded -- then they should get punished when the same gambles lose. And don't think for a second that "unprecedented market disruption" these folks blame for recent losses is actually the cause of the tens of billions they have vaporized. The cause is and was risky bets that went bad......

Instead of saying he was "deeply disappointed" with Wachovia's disastrous first quarter, in other words, Wachovia CEO Ken Thompson should have said he was deeply disappointed, accepted full responsibility, and tendered his resignation. Why? Not because Ken actually made the bets that blew Wachovia's capital to smithereens, forcing it to raise $7 billion in emergency capital. Because Ken is responsible for those bets, and because accepting that responsibility with actions, not words, is the right thing to do.

The world won't change if today's bank CEO's resign -- the new senior executives will still take credit in good times and blame "market forces" in the bad time. But at least some high-profile people will lead by example and do what too many Americans don't: accept full responsibility for their decisions.......

This is in response to another blog on food shortages, and is a re-post, the info. is a must read for every American consumer.

One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's take a look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.

Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less effecient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents per gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Ethanol production has driven up prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. they are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive ?? Don't think you'll have to think too long.