Middle Class Part 37: Issues Article 10; Food Prices, Oil and Gas Prices, Oil Speculation and Litigious Society

And through time- no beaver has ever had an issue trying to pass the occasional woodchip through their digestive tract . . . oh, you're back. I was just informally explaining to someone, via an analogy, how difficult it is for us Independents to swallow the load of bull we hear from the candidates feeding us their wretchedly consistent rhetoric during completely useless debates. (Note: I thought about going with consistently wretched rhetoric, but what is the difference.)

My MO: Again, I have some prefatory material to include prior to continuing with the subtopic of economic issues which are affecting the overall future stability of the middle class. Anyone blindly following the herd who is comforted by the insistence their candidate seems to be showing for the needs of the middle class is no Willy Loman. "Attention must be paid" said Willy and it must be paid to the middle class to be sure. The title of the play that features that quoted line is called "Death of a Salesman", written by Arthur Miller. The salesmen are the political candidates who at this point have been trying to sell us on what is wrong with our country without telling us how they will fix it. The candidates are tired after a lifetime of "service" and do not have the energy they suppose. Many of those whom the candidates appeal to, the customer/voter sight either a lack of need for the products being sold or the funds with which to pay for those products. Sound familiar? The reference to death is only made metaphorically in the sense that given how long most of them have been campaigning, and given how little they've actually resolved through their bickering and lamentations, they ought to be downright suicidal by now. However, though we complain about the lack of useful resolutions they have revealed, we would still offer them a commission (our vote), though the products they hock we suspect will be of little benefit to us; we pity their efforts and reward them despite our disaffectedness with the way in which they do business. Most of this jives with the general storyline of that fabulous play. You may have to take my word for it should you decide not to read it. I could go on with the metaphor . . . but I am sure you would take my word for that as well.

Vice-presidential debate: The media are discussing who won and who lost the Biden v Palin debate last week. This is like declaring a victor, by smell, of a race between a skunk and a possum, with their expectation being to simply cross a road unencumbered with the passage of vehicles. What they don’t know is that a vehicle has been sent to challenge their way, it hits them and we, as voters, are left to judge which of them stinks less. Who won- are you kidding me? Biden was too busy placating Palin, having obviously been coached to treat her with kid gloves, or suffer a fate similar to that of Al Gore eight years ago, of being considered a pompous ass, whose brain synapses on political matters are firing at much higher rates than his adversary's. For Biden, this was a wise move, for one should never discount the well-known factor of voter pity which can be used to sway one’s vote. Both Biden and Palin spent about 90 minutes avoiding questions asked by the moderator, who let them get away without answering them.

“On point”: When asked a question about health care, education or whether she was pro labotomoy for certain members of the mentally unstable caribou population, Palin mentioned how strong her state was on the issue of energy. I was listening to one of the enemies (i.e. republicans or democrats) just the other day. The preeminent blow-hard, Rush Limbaugh said that Palin kicked Biden’s behind. This is a man that mixes the kool-aid that his unconscionably loyal listeners drink. I should know, I am related to some of them. Limbaugh mentioned that Palin was “on point.” My jaw is still in its dropped position. If Palin was on point during that debate, I expect I will find green bananas hanging from the trees when I head to the apple orchard this fall. Mr. Echo Narcissist Limbaugh sir- if Palin was on topic then a drunk man named Barney in his Tuesday night VFW competitive dart league shall consider that he hit the bulls-eye if his dart lodges itself in the gunt of the waitress at the Applebees across the street. That is why I listen to Limbaugh once every two months for about fifteen minutes- I need to keep track of him. The good folks in the helicopter representing the Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom used to perform the very same task when they bore down on a herd of caribou, shot a net at one and affixed a tag to one of its ears. The zoologists had to make sure the caribou wasn’t up to no good, or decided to monitor its mating habits, its seasonal migrations, its overall health, its suspected ties to the mafia etc., who can know for sure. We need to keep tabs on our lunatics, especially those wild animals, who can fool a large percentage of the population into thinking they are sane.

Comfortable with a broadcast: Knowing Limbaugh is still broadcasting comforts me in the same way as a pasty pressed firmly atop the nipple it was designed to conceal assures the stripper at least some comfort in dignity. All men immediately consider the glass is half full when the mention of a naked breast is made. Imagine this men- the boob has stretch marks, pimples and hangs down like the pendulum on a grandfather clock. I hate to break it to you, but not all lesbians are attractive, and not all boobs are firm, responsive and perky. Keep in mind- Limbaugh could be doing all kinds of distasteful things besides feeding millions of conservatives their diseased political sustenance- like, ahhh, running for office for instance. So, the pasty and the truth of hearing Limbaugh’s forked-tongued intonations is reassuring. Unfortunately, neither can cover up the whole boob. On a side note, the Bubonic plague is a flea-borne infection which enters the skin and travels through the lymphatics, killing 50% of the infected within 4-7 days and has nothing to do with an insatiable number of bionic mammaries. Ps. a boob-onic plague is when Rush Limbaugh thinks of speaking and is able to convince people of something so ludicrous even a dust particle would be wise enough to dismiss.

I Robot: Limbaugh wasn’t the only conservative to award some debate trophy to Palin. And maybe for good reason, as most of the “drive-by media” as Limbaugh calls them, supposedly awarded the laurel of victory to Biden. So, again, we have a complete lack of objectivity. Each party’s patrons, voters, pundits, experts and blow-hards demonstratively give the reward to their candidate who was unable to earn the prize by the sidestepping manner in which they string their words together. They're more hopeful that their prize-fighter will win than I was when I came to the first day of eight grade with high-top tennis shoes that were a year out of style. In robotic fashion, each candidate chose to avoid answering the questions most Americans want answered. We know what the problems in this country are and candidates of all political persuasions- we also know that you know. What we don’t know is how you are going to attempt to resolve them. Even ignorant people grow tired of being told things they already know and will not excuse you for having done so repeatedly. An Independent, who expresses his interest in digging the foundation of liberty while others grumble, doubting that the ribbon-cutting ceremony of a legitimized third party will ever come to fruition, is merry in his work and sleeps well knowing he is on the right side. He has found the third dimension, with flaws of its own, but at least there is no devil here with which I must shake hands. So folks, keep mindlessly voting for those democrats and republicans in robotic fashion, for you are nothing, really nothing, if not consistent. If it is true that “Experience is the parent of wisdom” as Alexander Hamilton writes in the Federalist #72, about the vanity, avarice and ambition of men seeking power from political office then disappointment is the child of consistency as I consider the voting preference nature of those who appreciate their own fortitude in not being swayed by any cause excepting that on which they were weaned. If you suspected I was going to tie the words contained in this paragraph to the first two, which is the title of a Will Smith movie of the same name- well, I don’t have the space for that; hopefully hinting at the not dissimilar events of the movie and the nature of voting for candidates contesting for political offices will be acceptable.

Pardon the Interruption: That introductory phrase for this paragraph serves two purposes. Firstly, I gather that any readers that might initially have found their way to my work, hate the uneven flow and erratic nature of my words by continually referring them to other segments of this overall topic- or maybe it is just the length, and; secondly, this is a reference to a sports-based talk-show, which airs at 4:30 p.m. central time each weekday on ESPN. The show features two sports reporters engaging in a menu-directed series of current sports topics listed down the right side of the television screen. At the end of thirty minutes of discussion, a hipster dufus comes on to inform the two friendly combatants who have debated the sports events of the recent past, and those which will take place in the near future, of the assertions they got wrong. The fact guy will tell them that Babe Ruth never had more than 205 hits in his career or that Joe Montana never threw more than 31 touchdown passes as a way to correct the stats and facts they got wrong- in a way- to hold them accountable for what they got wrong. This is what we need after the presidential debate is over. Case in point- Biden mentioned that the country is in the economic despair it is in because of the failed “ ‘economic policies of the last eight years’ that led to ‘excessive deregulation.’ ” When in fact, according to factcheck.org, “Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today.” Palin mentioned that Obama voted 94 times “ ‘to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction.’ ” Actually, factcheck.org found that “23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.” Why are we even paying any attention to the debates if they cannot get even half of their assertions right? I stand by my record as a blogger- 67% of the animal references I’ve made have been completely contrived. For those where I’ve thrown a bereaved beaver under the bus (not literally of course), they had it coming. The beavers have too often consumed the windfall profits of mortgage-backed securities. Aside from this, the beaver has twelve times voted for anti-birch tree legislation in the oversized rodent parliament due to their inability to successfully pass white bark chips through their digestive track.* (See the article- “Facts Go Adrift on Taxes, Energy in VP Debate” Associated Press, October 2, 2008.)

I have included the sub-topic of our litigious society at the end of this post, though it is not an economic issue, but one that I thought would fit just as well here as anywhere else. If we struggle paying for gas, credit card add-on fees, airline tickets, and food, should we really be forced to pay for someone suing the cat they stuffed at the taxidermist for loss of affection?
About that other economic stuff which is currently causing middle class financial problems—I warned you:

FOOD PRICES

1) The story: “U.N.: 50 Percent More Food Needed by 2030”; MSNBC News Service, June 3, 2008.

The quotes: “Food prices have been skyrocketing worldwide due to high oil prices, changing diets, urbanization, expanding populations, flawed trade policies, extreme weather, growth in biofuels production and speculation. They have sparked riots and protests from Africa to Asia and raised fears that millions more will suffer from malnutrition.”

Comments: I figured I would give a big picture overview of the world’s food concerns prior to whining about the fact that eggs cost 25 cents more than they did a year ago. Also, it is good to be mindful of what might be in store for us if we continue to allow unchecked millions into the country. One gentleman, I may or may not have commented on before, (the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation), who from time to time I respond to after I have been included in an email invitation to some summit in Virginia, continues to justify that we can accept millions more into our country as we have the square mileage in the U.S.A. to physically accommodate them. My good sir, what would be one reason that Asia and Africa might be suffering from a lack of food and other natural resources, let us say- oh . . . water for example? Might it be because of overpopulation? Do you think that the numbers game will never affect America’s food or water supply? And, if America’s food supply were somehow compromised or diminished, as it would be in a case of overpopulation, how would any other world leader be able to step up to the plate to assist those nations in Africa and Asia with their shortage? Sometimes, it pays to think about the future. Maybe we should get a group of musicians together to record a song that’s proceeds will go to a couple dozen of the less fortunate ala "We are the World". Yeah, I’m just being fesicous. I don’t think we have the talent on hand to complete this task; after all, there are only three Jonas brothers.

2) The story: “Food Banks Face Rising Costs, Growing Need”; Associated Press, May 26, 2008.

The quotes: “April saw the biggest jump in food prices in 18 years, according to the Labor Department. At the same time, workers’ average weekly earnings, adjusted for inflation, dropped for the seventh straight month.” The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TRFAP) conducted a survey “of 180 food banks in late April and early May found that 99 percent have seen an increase in the number of clients served within the last year.”

Comments: That sounds like trickle-down-economics to me . . . trickle-way-down-economics. If we cannot get a handle on food prices which has obviously begun to affect the middle class’ ability to go to Culvers more than twice a month, this is obviously going to affect how much surplus food the middle class can afford to give food shelves, the boy scouts that come to the door for canned goods or the amount of stale bread they can offer to feed the crows with an anxiety disorder in the back yard. Or, are we still looking at these necessary cost/economic issues in a vacuum? “The donor governments promised to spend 0.7% of GNI [Gross National Income] on ODA (Official Development Assistance)” but my secondary source (do a Google search for U.S. and foreign aid assistance- find- http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance ), indicates this is $100 billion below expectations. It seems as if even the U.S. is not giving what they had promised. To McCain’s point about our continually giving money to foreign countries that despise us, during the first presidential debate on September 26, 2008, maybe we should stop? Of course, if Obama is right about Iraq having a $79 billion surplus and the U.S. having significant debt because of Iraq, (and who could doubt this) maybe we should exhume some of this buried Iraqi surplus to minimize some of our debt. This makes too much sense- like giving a sobriety test to an airline pilot. By the way, if you want to take a look at pork-barrel/earmark spending, which reminds me of something a bargain shopper at a Famous Dave’s would do, key- “CAGW” into a Google search and pour yourself an adult beverage. I will be including this information in my government waste chapter [about CAGW, not about the pork barrel] when I self-publish and may decide to include it in every chapter until I mercifully conclude with this overall topic.

3) The source: “Costlier Food and Energy Ignite Price Jump”; Reuters.com, August 14, 2008.

The quotes: “Consumer prices rose at twice the rate expected in July to post the fastest rate of year-over-year growth in 17-1/2 years . . . The Labor Department said the Consumer Price Index . . . rose 0.8 percent in July [2008] after a 1.1 percent jump in June . . . Energy prices rose 4 percent in July after a 6.6 percent June gain” and were up 29.3% over the last year.

Comments: The article balances the actual gain against the forecasted/expected gain. The latter means nothing. I expect to buy a pair of casual shoes that won’t give me a blister on my heel, squeak the second day that I wear them, smell like industrialized rubber and for the merchandise return lady to believe me when I say they haven’t been worn. It is supposed that the department store won’t take them back if you are unable to lie with confidence- so that is what a political candidate feels like. See, it is hard to find out a pair of shoes won’t work out just by looking at them. I look at the cost of living raises many Americans receive and can tell they won’t fit the economy we’re living in.

4) The story: “Congress Pass Farm Bill, Defying Bush”; Associated Press, May 15, 2008.

The quotes: “Bush threatened to veto the $290 billion bill, saying it is fiscally irresponsible and too generous to wealthy corporate farmers in a time of record crop prices.” The existing law had “no income limit for farmers receiving subsidies.” The new bill would provide a cap on windfall profits- how un-American.

Comments: Many of the things included in the bill the president had threatened to veto, which passed, seemed relevant to the topic at hand. However, the bill also included “tax breaks for Kentucky racehorse owners and additional aid for salmon fishermen in the Pacific Northwest.” I am not an expert in the ways of the federal government, or why the president would not have been given line-item veto powers by now, but couldn’t we give him that power to remove subsidies (like the salmon stipend or $4.75 million to study the veins left on the inside of robin eggs once they’ve hatched)? I made that robin egg thing up; it is getting hard to tell isn't it? A man was charged with battery for farting near a cop last week (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26877682/. You cannot make this stuff up . . . ok, so you can, but it is much more fun when the type of stuff you normally have to make up is true. With line-item veto power, the president might be as relevant in getting a bill passed as say- a governor, who actually has line-item veto power and when he runs for president brags about having acted as a president would by being in charge of the state militia, balancing a budget, single-handedly rescuing all the cats from tree limbs twelve feet from the ground, etc. Romney and Huckabee used that old tactic (of bragging about their executive experience—as governors) to no good end- as they were both trounced by McCain. Yeah, governors, you're the head of a corporation-we're happy for you.

This bill’s major purpose was to logically rescue non-corporate farmers? Let me get this straight- the president eagerly signed the bill which allocated $162 billion to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but threatens to veto a bill that would assist American farmers while guarding against providing subsidies to farmers that are raking it in? I am just checking- there are still only about 3 months between the first week of October and the third week in January right?*****

5) The source: “Pony-Size Pig Holds Woman Captive, Sent to Stud”; Reuters, September 24, 2008.

The quotes: It appears that the pig, which goes by the name of Bruce, kept the 63-year-old woman from New South Wales State captive “with aggressive demands to be fed, even headbutting her bedroom door at night.”

Comments: Apparently this pig would be a better match for a sexually aggressive elephant seal, as it has confusedly mistaken the woman for a meal/sexual partner. By the way, it is pure speculation that the swine is under the protection of the Welsh semi-domesticated pig stipulation added as a rider to the farm bill referenced above. The cost of that arrangement- $1.6 billion. Also of note, there is such a place as a piggery. No joke- just wanted to mention the part about the piggery.

Another summary: Ok, so are we in agreement that food is more expensive these days? And can we agree that food is one of the most necessary of costs? Has it not been proven that food is more expensive than it was fifteen months ago? Has it not been proven that the people with the intention of both buying and eating food are making less in salary when compared against inflation- though a conservative can brag about how productive we are as a nation, cannot he see how hungry we may become as individuals? Might the middle class be less likely to donate food or money to those people who are even less fortunate than they are? Won’t that impact the poor and compel the politicians to rescue them? Wouldn’t this raise everyone’s taxes? For surely if we cannot curb wasteful earmark spending or regulate the business dealings of financial industry giants, by limiting CEO buyout packages, resolving welfare waste or cutback on military spending that is exactly what will happen. Again I ask, after having watched the first presidential debate, where both candidates revealed how good they are at rhetorical dodge-ball, by refusing to answer the marginally tough questions Jim Lehrer asked, how can you vote for either of them with a clear conscience? They both roll out an impressive litany of dollar amounts, percentages and fractions with rarely a proposed resolution in sight. My good presidential candidates, we know what the problems are; we know you know what the problems are and we do not need you to preface your complete inadequacy with a summation of them prior to not answering the moderator’s question each time you open your yap; in a debate that lasted about 100 minutes, you barely touched upon how you would fix the problems as they are currently constituted. Meanwhile, the media is concerned about who looked better, that there was not a defining moment during the debate and who won the debate, while completely ignoring the fact that we lost it. We lose anytime a candidate is not made to answer the question before he is elected to office, just as we answer for the questionable nature of their conduct once in office.

AIRLINE FUEL PRICES

The source: “Travelers Should Prepare for Unfriendly Skies”; Associated Press, April 22, 2008.

The quotes: “Not only did United post a $537 million first-quarter loss and announce cutbacks accordingly, crude oil surged near the once-unthinkable $120 a barrel mark and Delta Air Lines Inc. CEO Richard Anderson said domestic carriers would need to raise fares by 15 percent to 20 percent just to break even.”

Comments: I will continue to contend that a middle class citizen that continues to work 40 or more hours a week and responsibly attends to their credit and financial situation has every right to expect to be able to afford the very occasional family trip to the Grand Canyon or an airline flight to DisneyWorld. Our parents and grandparents worked to put us in the position of enjoying some of the things life has to offer while we continue to work for them. As long as we responsibly handle our income, we damn well have the right to expect that our cost-of-living increases not simply go towards gas, heating oil, groceries, the family automobile repairs, daycare, city youth athletic programs, college tuition, air conditioning service repairmen and the bribing of bunnies to leave our lattice fence alone.

Note: I have read a column and editorial or two which claims that Southwest Airlines coming to the Minneapolis/St. Paul area will lower the prices charged by other airlines as they will seek to keep flight charges low. We'll see.

CREDIT CARD REFORM

The source: “Credit Card Reforms are Long Overdue”; Star Tribune editorial, July 27, 2008.

The quotes: “Since 2000, the amount of credit card debt carried by the average household has risen 15 percent to about $8,500. Universal default- “allows card companies to raise interest rates if you paid your bill on time but were late with a different firm.” There are also “billing practices designed to increase late fees and so-called double-cycle billings that allowed card companies to charge interest on something that was paid off.”

Comments: Ah, the free-market. Sound more like a fee market to me and certainly not as reputable as a flea market. Yes, the word is that congress was looking into these practices. And so all money will be returned to the sucker who did not think to complain about these practices? Does every conservative get a piece of the financial boondoggles (housing markets, big business, credit card companies) allowed by the federal government and that is the reason they continue to justify that most popular of everyone for himself mantras “too bad for you.” Rhetorical question. Next they will tell me they have never complained about having been overcharged by an ermine that specializes in felching. That’s the free-market. One more question- has George Will subtracted the amount of debt, for which the middle class is in arrears, due to these nonsensical charges, from the amount he maintains the middle class is in debt? (See part 36, the “George Will and borrow and spend” paragraph.)

Hell-ya-elujia: A blog/article that falls under the heading: “Credit Card Reform Act of 2008–Congress to the Rescue” (http://www.doughroller.net/credit-cards/credit-card-reform-act-of-2008-congress-to-the-rescue/) contains these lines- “ . . . there is a simple solution to this problem [of excessive credit card debt]–consumers can either use the credit they have responsibly or not get a credit card in the first place. [Hallelujia] Are there circumstances truly outside a consumer’s control that causes them to pay a credit card bill late? Probably. But do we need federal legislation to tackle that problem?” Hell yes! Should we as citizens suppose that for every enacted law which protects us from predatory lenders, the federal government or other citizens should be balanced with a law that cancels out those same protections? All laws pertaining to individual liberty ought to make sense; there shouldn’t be some freedom balance sheet where we should expect to be hung out to dry just as often as we are protected. I am afraid our expectations have been illogically managed by the governments that were designed to echo the collective voice of the people, not to silence it. Far more laws ought to be written which affirm our freedoms than deny them. (For more information on such a bill, see- http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE48MA2P20080923 “House Passes Credit Card Reform Bill.” Reuters, September 23, 2008. With the Bail Out bill a priority, a credit card reform bill is not going to gain much attention. That is unfortunate. Slightly more unfortunate than when your two-year-old is happily consuming flecks of Play-Dough after stern warnings to discontinue this practice. If only the credit card companies were better listeners.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

1) The source: “Ike Still Affecting Cost of Gas as it Jumps Again”; Associated Press, September 14, 2008. Man those AP people are busy.

The quotes: “Pump prices jumped above $5 per gallon in some parts of the country Sunday as Hurricane Ike, which caused less destruction than feared, left refineries and pipelines idled and destroyed at least 10 offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Far beyond areas struck directly by high winds and flooding, Ike left behind it a bizarre pattern of prices at gas pumps, with disparities of as much as $1 a gallon in some states, and even on some blocks.”

Comments: Build more refineries and space them out across the country. There is enough open space, I am told, by that Future of Freedom Foundation guy, that there is ample land in this country for each immigrant to have a couple acres all to himself, so there is likely enough space for several hundred refineries to be constructed at distances where a mass of them would not be compromised even in a series of natural disasters. Again, on “Lost” I learned that you don’t put all of your fresh water in one location in case a wild polar bear, an unidentified jungle monster or some Tailies decide to taint, steal or bathe in it. Kidding, not sure if this was ever suitably addressed on the show. I would have to rent all of season one in order to confirm this. I cannot afford that. I have the John Adams HBO special to watch and wait in hope for the immortal words of Abigail Adams- “All men would be tyrants if they could.” Huh, I wonder in which chapter of my most necessary, mostly unread blog column, those words might most pertinently appear. Word is that she said this after he insisted they do it in the hammock in the stables. Oh, I almost forgot- can we get an oversight committee to verify that 10 refineries were destroyed to an extent that rendered them unproductive so that the rise in gas prices might be justified? It took me three weeks to write this installment and in that time gas has come down considerably the closer we have gotten to election time. Now that the bailout bill has been signed which we know is going to cost the American taxpayer, because the politicians in the know, said so- is it possible that gas prices have come down because we're on the hook for the bailout? And making oil companies gaining windfall profits, justify the rise in gas prices is not a good idea?

2) The source: “A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Oil Market”; David Cho, Washington Post, August 20, 2008.

The quotes: “The discovery [of what percentage of oil contracts were held by an oil futures company by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission] revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators.”

Comments: If oil were a commodity on the open market for which trading had just begun, this type of oversight would have been acceptable. Behold the CFTC who should be institutionalized for stupidity- they make the Securities and Exchange Commission look like a 16-year-old, short bus riding fool who still wants to go to Chuck-E-Cheese for his birthday. Note, my contention is that the latter is only slightly more intelligent. Neither are bright enough to avoid ordering a pizza at the aforementioned establishment. Some infants have been known to drown in the pool of grease that sits within each curled up piece of pepperoni.

3) The source: “Let’s Shoot the Speculators!” Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek, July 7/14, 2008, pg. 18.

The quotes: A table in the article shows that “. . . price increases for eight major commodities [rose] from 2002 to 2007. Oil rose 177 percent, corn 70 percent and copper 360 percent. . . Did ‘speculators’ really cause all these increases?” Samuelson writes that steel “rose 117 percent—and continued increasing in 2008—even though it’s not traded on commodities futures markets. A better explanation is basic supply and demand . . . When unexpectedly high demand strains existing production capacity, prices rise sharply as buyers scramble for scarce supplies.” (The italic emphasis is mine.)

Comments: For those of us not in the steel or copper, or zinc, lead, or nickel speculation business, this may not mean much to us. But, if the high demand of a commodity is expected, can we count on the price going down? I wonder what will become of futures prices, in twenty years, on commodities that either are or are not traded given the skyrocketing world and United States population increases- say water or food (corn, grain, wheat, beef, etc.) for example. With a world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2042 . . . is there futures speculation on when the next plague might hit, excepting that it hits America every four years? Samuelson’s over-arching point is that the politicians that aim the blame at the speculators are off their mark, that it is rather the “physical scarcities” at work in a supply and demand economy and not the need for more regulation that is the main problem. I don’t know about you but, while I believe Samuelson to an extent, maybe it is best if we have someone look at those regulations too. I expect we'll still be eating food in the future . . .

4) The source: “The United States Doesn’t Have Any Oil”; This is a map of the U.S. with color gradations revealing how much oil experts expect is buried beneath the ground.

The quotes: A graph shows that the U.S. produced over 8 million barrels of oil each day in 2006, though our consumption was more than 20 million barrels a day. In Alaska’s north slope it is thought that as much as 25 billion barrels of oil is waiting to be discovered. Or perhaps it is cowering in the darkness without the eager hope of being found by us numbskulls.

Comments: Well, I certainly wouldn’t promote the drilling in environmentally sensitive areas using the republican national convention mantra- “drill baby drill” but it is clear that we need to start tapping some of this reserve to stem the price of gas. Perhaps after the election, oil might again hit well over $100 a barrel. Again, the finest solution is contained in the middle- drilling in carefully selected areas, while continuing the search for renewable and alternative fuel sources. There is an old adage, applicable here as elsewhere, not quite as interesting as the one about experience and reason I wrote about above- but maybe we should not put all of our eggs in one basket. It is unfortunate that Dr. Emmett Brown’s method of fueling the De Lorean at the end of Back to the Future, by using a banana peel and other waste is not possible.

5) The source: “Cost of Gas Rises to Record, and Could Go Higher”; Reuters, March 9, 2008.

The quotes: “ ‘The price increase [to $3.20 a gallon] was entirely due to the higher costs of crude oil.’ ”

Comments: $3.20 a gallon? This is about where the price is now. (See how long ago I initially wrote this- I saw gas for $2.76 yesterday.) What a bargain. Of course we’ve been conditioned to think so. I will reiterate, gas has long been a commodity that has come relatively cheap as compared to how much we pay for bottled water per gallon for instance. What is preposterous is that the price of gas can fluctuate so much. If a hurricane is expected to hit Texas or Florida, the price per gallon rises 50 cents; if a tsunami hits Singapore the price goes up 60 cents; if a jumping spider farts in Boulder Colorado, the price might go up 12.9 cents. It is clear we need to start drilling in different parts of the country and in order to protect our investment, we need to build refineries in various locales as well. All of this while investing more money in alternative energy and fuel sources by taxing oil companies on windfall profits. If this is Unconstitutional, then with all due respect to the framers, Madison and Hamilton among them, we are going to need to update that document. Yes, I understand that there are stipulations that require each oil company to invest millions of dollars in searching for alternative fuels, but that just isn’t enough. Oh, when will a couple of the presidential candidates request a “gas tax holiday” to rescue us from the onslaught of higher gas prices? Yes, I am mocking the McCain and Clinton proposals that would have done very little to assist most Americans economically- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24120727- “McCain Calls for a Summer ‘Gas-Tax Holiday’ ” Associated Press, April 15, 2008. It is now early October, the summer long since over. I don’t know that my being able to afford to drive to Wisconsin Dells this summer would have turned me into a sheep.

6) The source: “Siphoning off Corn to Fuel Our Cars”; Steven Mufson, Washington Post, April 30, 2008.

The quotes: “Instead of sending his corn to a barge company to be shipped down the Mississippi River for expert [a farmer] now loads it into an open truck and sends it two miles up the gravel road to a hulking new ethanol distillery that he can see from his field.” The plant pays him more than twice as much as before. Unfortunately, “Not everyone thinks it’s fantastic. People who use corn to feed cattle, hogs and chickens are being squeezed by high corn prices.” Those prices are being passed onto consumers- “The wholesale price of eggs in the first quarter [of 2008] soared 40 percent from a year earlier . . . retail prices of countless food items, from cereal to sodas to salad dressing, are being nudged upward by more expensive ingredients such as corn syrup and cornstarch . . . Across the country, ethanol plants are swallowing more and more of the nation’s corn crop and a “costly link is forged between food and oil.”

Comments: I am not sure, is this an expected increase in demand? Is supply that low, or might the government want to stop paying millions of dollars to farmers for not planting corn on their fields? Yes, yes, I get all about how you do not wear out the land so that it is fertile enough after a rest to produce high quality crops. Is someone looking into how many hundreds of thousands of acres which could be planted on in order to reduce the cost of food not used for fuel? We know how effectively the oversight committee on banking and lending was while monitoring the sub prime mortgage fiasco. Really, the government and all of its potential subsidiary agencies have a worse reaction time for handling potential market influences than the Bill Gates Microsoft/PC magnates who took, what, two years to respond to the Mac campaign ads, long after their market share had been significantly reduced. Helloooo government, I thought I would let you know that the cold war is over and that terrorists flew two commercial airliners into the World Trade Center over seven years ago- in case you didn’t know. I feel so subversive.

7) The source: “Congress Hits Big Oil on Renewable Energy”; CBS/Associated Press, April 1, 2008.

The quotes: “Top executives of the five biggest U.S. oil companies were pressed Tuesday to explain the soaring fuel prices amid huge industry profits and why they were not investing more to develop renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.”

Comments: Top executives from the five major oil companies- Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP America, Conoco-Phillips and Chevron earned a combined $123 billion in 2007, argued that their profits “were in line with other industries.” That is a bit like being caught stealing a 52-inch Sony Bravia high definition television from Best Buy and excusing it by telling an employee that if he turned around he would see another guy stealing a high performance Sony Vaio computer. The oil executives said they have already spent “more than $3.5 billion over the last five years—on renewable fuels.” The headline of the article is misleading. The oil industry executives seem to have been able to take evasive action and congress has never really seemed to hit as often as it has slapped the hand that has fed them- if you were to consider campaign finance donations made to political candidates by oil companies. And, and, if we are unable to make any headway into the price of oil per barrel and thus the price of gas per gallon, by throwing billions of dollars at research of alternative energy options, perhaps we should solve another of the nation’s problems- like social security, welfare, the national debt, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the financial bailout. If we are to have our taxes raised for any and all of the aforementioned, perhaps in order to save us from something, we ought to better direct the taxes and financial imposition on the oil industries to more solvable problems. It doesn’t matter to me whether the government sees fit to allow an oil industry to take $5 from me at the gas station or $5 from my paycheck to fund the bailout. What I mind is that they take $10 total, $5 for each. I've tried, but I can't wipe two snotty noses at once. For those with multiple kids, and cold season about to arrive, this metaphor should really hit home.

Note: If the government is going to continue to take $10, then American oil companies damn well better, as an industrialized country, be able to cut the emissions blamed for rising temperatures by the expected 25 to 40 percent by 2020- According to the article “Gas Cut Targets ‘Too Ambitious’?” Associated Press, December 12, 2007. For it is clear that increased carbon emissions which it seems is contributing to global warming is the cause of this- “ ‘Bra Bandit’ Strikes again in Southwest Florida” Associated Press, October 6, 2008.

Litigious Society

Nice pants- (Litigious society): Everyone knows of the fast food patron who sued McDonald’s due to the coffee and its scalding heat. Everyone thinks- coffee is hot- buyer beware. In Nader’s book, “The Good Fight” he writes that the person bringing the suit against Mcdonald’s had a formidable case. But are all cases so ridiculously justifiable? A D.C. man, Roy Pearson, brought a lawsuit against a couple who run a dry-cleaning business. Pearson claims the “satisfaction guaranteed” promise was not delivered upon, to the tune of $54 million. Can’t we hire a grey-haired ponie-tailed, AC-DC T-shirt wearing, meth-addicted homeless man off the street to determine the illegitimacy of a case like that? Any chance this probable toothless man will agree to play second base so that a guy like me who had surgery on his face two years ago can enjoy his retirement from softball? Inside joke. What is worse, and not a joke, the man bringing the suit was an administrative law judge. How much taxpayer money was lost to public defenders, court filing fees, judges having to brief themselves on the potential merits of the case? See Henri E. Cauvin’s Washington Post article from June 26, 2007- “Court Rules for Cleaners in $54 Million Pants Suit.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html) Cauvin writes that the man who filed suit will need “to pay the court costs—likely to be a few thousand dollars” for the couple against whom he filed suit. The presiding judge was considering “making Pearson pay the couple’s attorneys’ fees arising from the two-year legal battle. With the legal costs likely to exceed $100,000.” The presiding judge was considering that- Considering? Jesus. The presiding judge delivered the verdict in a 23 page ruling. Normally, that amount of useless verbiage is restricted to under-hyped blog columnists who are seeking to spotlight economic class deficiencies. Pearson was fired from his job for this fiasco.

Pants suit: Pearson, the former administrative law judge is suing the city for $1 million because he claims “he's also a celebrated whistle blower. His suit against the city asks that his job be reinstated because Pearson was actually in the midst of blowing the lid off corruption in the District's administrative law courts, when, of course, he was sacked. The city used the news coverage of the pants suit--the fact that, as Pearson puts it in his suit, he was ‘vilified in the media for exercising his constitutional right to file and prosecute a consumer lawsuit.’—as the excuse to shove him out of his job, he argues.” And so how much more money will this cost the taxpayers to give this man the right to defend a ridiculous suit? There hasn’t been this much attention given to a pants suit since Hillary Clinton wore them to death on the campaign trail. This man’s complaint is 52 pages long- amateur. Source: “Pants Update: Pants Man Sues City” Marc Fisher, WashingtonPost.com, May 6, 2008.

Public cost: My concerns are not based on anecdotal evidence, are not apocraphal and beyond that aren’t based on me interpreting the language created by topless crickets after they have rubbed their legs together- their own legs, not each others- bleck! Anyone who desires to refute how much is lost to overly litigious citizens, even overly litigious illegal immigrants, can do a few simple Google searches which should assuage the self-righteous individual liberty folks. All citizens have the right to bring suit against former benefactors, neighbors who have punched them in the mouth, law enforcement for police brutality and George Lucas for his involvement with the latest Indiana Jones movie. Perhaps we should install a legitimacy clause in all suits brought through the legal system before they cost the taxypayers billions of dollars to defend the rights of complete nutbags. An immigrant-student with a 3.8 GPA sued the State of California because she was unable to pass a high school exit exam which asks potential graduates to “demonstrate a math proficiency at the 7th grade level and an English proficiency at the 10th grade level.” (WARNING- quoting a blogger here- the story “Immigrants Suing California Schools: An Extraordinary Sense of Entitlement.”) Nine other students were included in the suit. An Alameda County superior court judge ruled with the students, citing that “ ‘the record is replete’ with evidence of California's underfunded schools and said his decision applies to students statewide.” Due to a scarcity of resources and unqualified teachers, according to the judge and the students involved in the suit, someone who probably should not be here in the first place feels entitled to some form of monetary advantage not directed at truly needy people who have paid taxes in this country for fifty years. Perhaps the teachers are unqualified to teach even American students. I have taken college courses where the professer should have retired long ago, but I never thought of suing him because he didn’t properly teach me the nuances of Tennyson. I had no right as an American to sue him, just as no immigrant should sue a state due to improper resources they had a hand in determining- after all, I wouldn't be the least surprised if the student's parents had paid less in taxes than was needed. FYI, I should have sued the guy that made me read D. H. Lawrence.

My litigous society proposal: Develop a Litigation Oversight Board at the state court level that reviews the cases and dismisses those that are nonsensically aggressive. Yes, yes, yes, only in a dream world could this work. My solutions are too Platonic and I over-value the abilities, or even the existence of philosopher kings. It is clear that there are too many attorneys in this country finding work by panning for litigation fool’s gold among the rabble begging to make a quick buck. I am not insinuating that no immigrants have a case, as white people have beein suing over things for hundreds of years as inconsequential as who owns a pile of sheep manure and who was no party to giving an STD to a blow up doll. People have sued movie theaters for deceptive business practices for showing commercials at the stated movie start time, rather than the movie; students have sued 11 teachers for $6 million for having received failing grades because the student had more than the alloted number of excused absences = both frivolous. There is such a law protecting teachers from frivolous lawsuits called The Teacher Liability Protection Act. The point is that there are legal protections for teachers.

Grounded suits: This paragraph has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton's campaign manager's insistence that she ease up on the pants suit because of the unexpressed collective desire of Americans to see Hilary's calves. People have sued the tobacco and asbestos industries for having developed lung cancer or lung disease, respectively, due to exposure to the aforementioned toxic substances = not frivolous- the ripe banana on my kitchen countertop is bright enough to figure that out. Those two cases would go to trial with all the bells and whistles- judge, jury, court stenographer, liberal media ready to rail on the justice system at every turn. A case where a man sues mother nature for having allowed the wind to blow too strongly, costing his trees their leaves too early in the fall is a frivolous lawsuit, but I wouldn’t put it past some attorney to argue on the merits of the case because it was a really, really tall, shade providing oak tree. We should be saved the hardship of paying millions of dollars a year to enable unaccountable malcontents, whether they are American citizens or not, to file unmerited suits. Attorneys all over the country would balk at this proposal, saying that it is a Constitutional right to sue and that many of the fivilous lawsuits are never heard in court, that a judge dismisses them prior to that point. I am a complete novice in the ways of the law but that type of practicality is just what the legal system needs. I am requesting that there be a panel of objective judges to review cases before taxpayer funds are wasted.

Precedent: I know that attorneys love their precedent, it is the American attorney’s legal meat and potatoes. A republican congress and a democratic president (Clinton) enacted the “Prison Litigation Reform Act” in 1995- which strictly limits the ability of prisoners to bring actions after supposed less than adequate treatment. This is a legal protection for prisons and guards. This, to me, is a stifling of a prisoner’s first amendment rights, which I have been under no impression they must relinquish simply because they are prisoners. But the government put it in place for obvious reasons, in order to limit or quell frivolous lawsuits. I am not sure how my proposal is all that different, considering that my proposal protects people that have not been convicted of a crime and have not been accused of harshly treating those who have. Attorneys will still balk at the notion of outlawing frivolous lawsuits from even being filed because it protects big businesses, doctors, hospitals and hurts the freedoms of individual citizens. The other thing it does- it keeps ambulance-chasing attorneys from getting rich off of the imaginations and lunacy of citizens who have designed to cheat and steal from the legal system any of the esteem still owed to it at this point. What’s more- the legal profession has attempted to define what a frivolous suit actually is- ask any practicing attorney and they are sure to have their own working definition designed especially to confuse. The definition of the word “frivolous” is contained in Black’s Law Dictionary, the preeminint legal definitional tool. Contrarians to my proposal to limit frivolous lawsuits would state how difficult and subjective such lawsuits can be. Do you mean to tell me that a five member panel of legal justices who have the schooling, experience and precedent-appreciating mentality to peruse, research and qualify the legitimacy of potential lawsuit summations, in order to save taxpayers from wasting money on filings, attorney fees and litigation fees, etc., do not have the ability to determine what is frivolous when provided with a working definition in the biblical tome they most respect (Black’s Law Dictionary?) Nonsense! In twenty years, imagine how much we’ll be wasting on frivolous litigation. (Note I: the terms “Frivolous action” and “Frivolous appeal” are also defined. Note II: the words communication (basic), shakedown (informal/colloquial) and free services (archaic) are defined as well.)

Cost analysis: This is the second time I have run across this piece of information in my research- “According to [a] recent report completed by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, each U.S. citizen pays $886 annually in his/her share of lawsuit costs, totaling $3,544 for a family of four. That's money that could be better spent on groceries, health care, clothing or recreation.” The other source mentioned that the $3,544 was due to frivolous lawsuits, while the second source makes no such claim. Well, to be fair and state the obvious, not all lawsuits are frivolous. I was unable to locate articles that reasonably calculated the total cost lost to taxpayers where frivolous suits were concerned. Perhaps we need to strike the fear of god into businesses and individuals who may wrong us, but wouldn’t the better way to accelerate toward that end be to ground the individuals who would ordinarily seek damages to which they have no right? One case I looked into- Western United Realty, Inc. v. Isaacs contained this reference- “Test for determining whether a claim or defense is groundless, thus authorizing an award of attorney fees, assumes that the proponent has a valid legal theory but can offer little or nothing in way of evidence to support the claim or defense.”

Frivolity defined: The closing sentence in the definition of the word “frivolous” in Black’s Law Dictionary is this- “Frivolous pleadings may be amended to proper form or ordered stricken, under federal and state Rules of Civil Procedure.” So, the formalness of established legal precedent seems firmly in place under already existing Rules of Civil Procedure.****** Anyone arguing that I am merely conjuring an unfamiliar practice in an effort to deprive the featherbrained from their thievish ways of exploiting the vulnerability of certain businesses and persons who, it would be found by a summary review conducted by qualified judges, are less at fault than the claimant contends, are more stubbornly foolish than a perch that headbuts an amorous muskie with a primary premature ejaculation condition. Keep in mind, if a doctor is sued and the claim is not initially detected as frivolous, their malpractice insurance premiums can rise, which will raise health care costs; frivolous lawsuits also delay other more rightful cases from being heard in due time and otherwise clog up the legal system. Is there not a law in place to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits? If there are certain protections for doctors, teachers and prisons and by extension, prison guards, from what are, by definition, frivolous lawsuits, shouldn’t the taxpayers also be provided with the same protections?

Frivolous . . . “I know it when I see it”: The word “obscentiy” was famously and subjectively categorized in the following manner by Justice Potter Stewart: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [of obscene]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, . . .” This approach, figuring on a proper definition of obscenity for the purposes of deciding who between two sides lies on the right side and who on the wrong, neither hurts nor benefits anyone as much as a similarly useful definition of the word frivolous might. Perhaps we should embolden judges all over the country to ponder the merits of just that workable application to the thousands of groundless cases brought against truly unwitting parties. For, should the defendant be truly culpable, wouldn’t we expect that a set of brilliant men and women who have been instructed to value the law as much as they say they have, hold up frivolous suits in the same manner that they uphold undeniably appropriate cases with just verdicts which match the sober facts?

Babel and rabble: The way our political candidates conduct themselves as judged by the number of mistruths they speak and the manner in which they treat their competitors in the political ads, (all forsaking the issues) leads me to believe that very few of the candidates have any class at all. I would find a class action suit against the monopoly of the government and the media’s role in that monopoly something more worthy of a suit than some of the other filings I have seen. The collection of Americans who are troubled by the lack of proposed resolutions discussed by the two leading candidates vying for the presidency is a more actionable legal pursuit than most might guess. Is there a way to file a lawsuit against all of the candidates on the grounds of- babble? They make promises they cannot and will not keep and this to me should be far more objectionable to the rabble (the voters), than when the feature presentation begins at the Cineplex (see above). I sit down to watch politicians debate, hoping for a cohesive plan outlined by relatively experienced leaders and somewhat silver-tongued policy makers and all I hear is fortune cookie style rhetoric. A haunting vision comes to my mind when I think, during this election season, of any major party politician who gathers the majority of the popular or the required number of electoral votes; remember the smirk O.J. Simpson had on his face after being found not guilty on the count of murder over 13 years ago? On the night of November 4, 2008, when the verdict on who our next set of representatives will be comes in, I imagine that Obama or McCain, or U.S. senators or house members, will have a similar look, revealing how surprised they are that they got away with something. I know that the Babylonians had a better chance of getting a god convicted on dialect, language and tower tampering charges than we have of seeing much in the way of a legitimate conviction of our political candidates. Until we wise up, I feel as if all major party candidates will see us as a bunch of cuckolded Nimrods. *******

__________________________________________________

* There is no record of this- or of an oversized rodent governmental structure of any kind. On a related note- the dung beetle is the largest benefactor of subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities,** while being capable of rolling a ball of dung 50 times their own weight.*** It is mere coincidence that I would include some particulars on dung beetle talents in connection with the load of crap we heard out of Biden and Palin two weeks ago.****

** That actually is also not true.

*** This is true.

**** Or not.

***** In fact, it is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires an attorney to investigate a claimants suit with due diligence. But most of the capable attorneys are quite capable of massaging the language into making a claim sound legitimate enough to get a case healthily into the legal system. There are several other dizzying provisions at state and federal levels I could refer to which address the topic of frivolous lawsuits, so my request to batten the hatches of groundless suits will hardly sink the ship of logic. The Supreme Court even has the ability to monetarily penalize the losing party in a case if the Court deems that the losing party has filed an appeal “primarily for delay.” My friends- as John McCain might say- do you know how much money must have been spent on legal fees and litigation costs, at the taxpayer’s expense, for a case to go all the way to the Supreme Court for them to penalize the loser of such a case which was somehow cogent enough to go through trial, district and circuit courts and then onto the Supreme Court to finally penalize the plaintiff an amount that is not the least in line with how much the suit will have cost all the taxpayers? Neither do I- that is what scares me.

****** I am thinking specifically of January 20, 2009- a date that will likely be less meaningful to the sheep/voters than they think.

******* Nimrod, a Mesopotamian king of Babel, at the time the citizens attempted to build the tower that would have its top in the heavens. It is unclear whether Nimrod ordered the tower’s construction or whether he simply ruled at the time the tower’s construction began. That’s ok though, because if we keep voting because of some kind of political idolatry mandate, much like the most recognized biblical version of Nimrod, then we won’t really have accomplished anything either and we shall be known for generations to come, as being fairly poli-historically irrelevant.