jteamaz's Blog

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.

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.

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.

There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip search a 13-year old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, AZ who in 2003 forced 8th grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage. It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who ruled last fall that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard arguments in the case now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which school children are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.

Safford Middle School claims a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In Oct. 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription Naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named "Marissa" who claimed Savana was her source.

Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn't know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip search Savana under the school nurses's supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl's mother. Savana was stripped to her underwear and told to "pull her bra out the side and shake it, exposing herself," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it," exposing her pelvic area.....sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.

Savana was of course mortified, but thought she'd be in more trouble if she didn't do what they asked, and was of course, humiliated beyond words. The school's principal said "I didn't think it was a big deal because we didn't find anything."

There's no reason to suspect that a 13-year old honor roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, to to suppose other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch......remember, this was "prescription strength ibuprofen," pretty bad stuff.

It's a good thing the school took swift action before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps......

Seems a bit extreme to me, thoughts ??

Last Wednesday, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC told the story of Debbie Shank, a 52 year old former Wal-Mart employee. It goes something like this: Mrs. Shank was broad-sided by a semi truck. She is severely brain damaged, in a wheel chair, in a rest home and requires 24 hour continuous care because of that accident. Her family sued the trucking company and won a $700,000 settlement. After attorney's fees she was left with $417,000 for a trust fund to pay for her extensive care. Wal Mart upon finding out of the settlement promptly sued Mrs. Shank for $470,000 to cover what their insurance plan had paid in medical expenses. Wal Mart claims that the health plain is "required to protect it's assets so that it can pay future claims of other associates and their family members." Wal Mart could have let it slide, and received $470,000 worth of positive publicity, including a catchy slogan of "we take care of our own." But they didn't, big money wins, and the Supreme Court won't even hear the case. Mrs. Shank is left with nothing. Bear in mind that Wal Mart made over 11,000,000,000 in profit last year. Yes, that's 11 Billion.....

Wal Mart has subsequently been named to the "Worst Persons" list. See the full video with comment at www.huffingtonpost.com

I think Wal Mart could have easily let this one go, anyone else care to weigh in on this one ??

No matter how much this corporation makes, it just doesn't seem to be enough.

That's not the icing on the cake....6 days after Wal Mart beat Mrs. Shank in court, her 18 year old son was killed in Iraq.

You can't effectively govern the people in public if you can't effectively govern yourself in private, period. End of story. How can we allow you to make decisions that affect the private lives of others when you can't even control your own?

Whether you're what's-his-name in that airport toilet, or that guy with the interns, or Client #9 at The Mayflower, the right thing for you to do is get the heck out of public life. I'm not preaching and I'm certainly no Puritan. I'm just saying, if you can't follow the law, you gotta get out. These guys pound the Bible or wag their fingers while proclaiming what's right and what's wrong, then take a wide stance in a bathroom stall or leave the door to room 871 ajar.

These guys should either keep their zippers zipped or keep their traps shut and stop telling us how to live. Let's make sure the people we're electing - and their spouses - have an internal "governor" who doesn't take nights, weekends and Valentine's Day off.

We need leaders who are not going to be distracted by the explosion of their shadow lives.

To top it all off, today Dr. Laura blames Spitzer's wife for the whole thing......oh good Lord, enough already.

When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or Mom and Pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like -- watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages -- anytime we choose, it's called Network Neutrality. "Net Neutrality" for short is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet, and it means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on it's source, ownership or destination. Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data -- not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies -- including A T & T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner -- want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video -- while slowing down or blocking their competitors. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services -- or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls -- and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road. These big companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the free and open Internet at risk. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since it's inception, but a 2005 decision by the FCC put it in jeopardy. Cable and phone companies are pushing to block legistlation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.

Comcast was caught "stacking" a public hearing last week in Boston with paid seat fillers, some who were apparently pretty sleepy. They were readily caught on film sound asleep. They were allowed early entrance so that when the general public arrived to voice their opinion, they were told that the facilities were full. Comcast is trying to block Internet access just like they tried to stop public access to this hearing.

The mainstream media, to no surprise, has not been covering this ongoing story. Log on to www.savetheinternet.com and voice your opinion. Don't let these giant Corporations make the choice for you on what you can view and when........

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing "when to come in out of the rain", "why the early bird gets the worm", "life isn't always fair", and "maybe it was my fault."

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies such as "don't spend more than you earn" and reliable parenting strategies like "adults, not children are in charge."

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, and a bus driver facing charges for trying to stop an out of control little monster only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Aspirin, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment then their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded millions.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers, I Know My rights, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.

Not many attended the services because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do what most nowadays do,.......nothing.

Too bad we couldn't have had Common Sense around long enough for the election.

As a member of Teamsters Local 104 here in Phoenix, I need to pass along some information along to members of the general public as it of extreme importance, and worth a second glance.

President Bush and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Mary Peters, are ignoring public safety by opening the border to unsafe trucks from Mexico. The American people and their representatives in Congress, are opposed to the current Bush/Peters "Pilot Program" for cross-border trucking because they understand the dangers.

President Bush and Mary Peters want to forget about the facts. As a native of Arizona, Peters should know better. We know the truth:

* U.S. trucks must antilock brake systems, Mexican trucks do not.

* U.S. truck drivers must have pre-employment safety training and drug testing from a certified lab, Mexican truck drivers do not.

* U.S. truck drivers lose their commercial licenses if they're convicted of a serious traffic violation in their personal vehicle, Mexican truck drivers do not.

* 25% of all Mexican commercial licenses are forgeries.

* Mexican truck drivers are not subject to random drug screens.

Mary Peters has brazenly ignored a law passed by Congress that ordered her to end this dangers program. We are continuing to fight to stop this dangers program. We are asking the public's support to do our part to fire Mary Peters and protect our highways. Support us and protect yourselves by doing the following:

* Go to the website www.FireMaryPeters.com and use the talking points available there to send a letter to your local newspaper's editor.

* While you are on the website you can sign up for E-Mail updates about Mary Peters and cross-border trucking.

* Please call your local talk radio programs to express your opposition to unsafe Mexican trucks. (Yes, Fox, I said call talk radio.)

Thank You in advance for your efforts for all working class families. Let's keep our roads safe !!

OK, sorry guys. I wasn't going to do this, but it's just too funny to pass up.....and if you see this on the Community Pages I'll be shocked.

Fox Business continues to push the boundaries of what constitutes business news. Last week it was genital cosmetic surgery. This week week it's astrology.

On Tuesday's edition of the morning show Money for Breakfast co-host Peter Barnes interviewed astrologer Constance Stellas about the then upcoming Federal reserve Board meeting. Displaying charts she had drawn up for the meeting and for Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, she predicted a half-point rate cut.

Alas, the cosmos must've been having an off day. The rate cut was actually 0.25 percent.

Or Maybe Stellas was simply outside her area of expertise? According to her  she reads the stars to determine "what colors, sounds, tastes and feng shui are best for you." She's also the author of the Everything Sex Signs Book, Astrology Between the Sheets, which "combines astrology and psychology to uncover a potential lover's preferred seduction style, fantasies and turn-ons."

Now how much more business savvy can you get than that ??

Is this an attack on Christians everywhere, by promoting these occult/pagan practices ? I won't continue with all the different ways you could "spin" this. This was just too funny to pass up, and I think we all need a good laugh right now, enjoy......

I don't know how many of you listen to talk radio, but this was a hot topic tonite......it happened somewhere in Missouri.

This concerns a 13 year girl named Megan. Megan had a rough life and had suffered from depression on and off since the 3rd grade. She was going through nearly continuous counseling and was at times also on medication. She had a rough time with school work and was bullied by many of her classmates. She felt like she wasn't pretty enough and in general didn't have much to offer anyone. Just getting through each day was very difficult for her. She had even contemplated suicide on several occasions. Then....she put her Bio up on MySpace.com, little did she know how much her life was about to change. She soon met a young man by the name of Josh. He complimented her, telling her she had pretty eyes and was very attractive, something Megan wasn't used to. They became friends and chatted online nearly every day. Megan's Mom noticed how upbeat and happy she was, life was finally good for Megan. Mom monitored the chat and everything looked fine. Then, one day, the conversation changed. Josh's discussions turned mean, he told her he had been told she treated her friends horribly and was in general a bad person. Megan became upset, the conversations kept on a downward spiral and they started to get into heated arguments online. Megan became more and more upset, and Mom took notice and told Megan it was time to stop, but she didn't. The final day, Josh told Megan that she didn't matter to anyone and would be better off dead. Megan was highly emotional and her Mother scolded her for being so irresponsible and putting herself into the situation, and for not stopping when she was told to. She ran upstairs upset.....Mom went upstairs some time later only to find that Megan had hanged herself in her bedroom. Megan's Father heard her Mom scream. He ran upstairs, pulled her down and started CPR, but it was too late. Megan never began breathing, and died. But hold on, it gets even worse yet....

The Police of course became involved, and after some investigating they located "Josh." It turns out that Josh was an ex friends Mother who was trying to get information about someone she thought was talking about her daughter !!! Her online "friend" was actually an adult posing as another teenager. It also seems that she won't be charged with anything, as of right now anyway. I guess there's no law governing this sort of thing. Parents, monitor your kids computer time and online friends, they may not be who they seem to be.

Should this woman be charged with a crime? She will get at least some kind of civil suit I think. What are your thoughts ?