Better late than never:
Impeach Bush and Cheney
Finally, Democrats are moving to impeach the administration of criminals now controlling the Oval Office. For nearly eight years, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have lied to the American people. They have launched a war that is unconstitutional and unjustified. They have imprisoned thousands of people – some of them women and children – without due process, and then proceeded to torture them. They have spied on American households. They have laughed while they trashed the concepts of due process, habeas corpus, privacy, the Geneva Convention, and basic decency. No one has held them accountable for this tyrannical behavior – until now.
When Rep. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she became one of the most powerful women in the world. Pelosi has long been critical of the current administration’s “war on terror” and the propaganda that surrounds it. Yet, before she even ascended to her current position, she made it clear that impeaching Bush was not on her agenda. Thus for two years, Democrats have held a majority in Congress and yet have not moved to impeach.
Why did Pelosi think America put Democrats in office? To pat Bush’s back and wink at his crimes?
We can understand the reluctance to impeach. Democrats became quite allergic to the whole process after President Clinton was dragged through impeachment over what should have remained a private affair (pun intended.) Millions of dollars were wasted proving that the man had, indeed, cheated on his wife. Conservatives and progressives alike took umbrage at the President’s dalliance with a White House intern – but few Americans considered his personal failure a crime against the country.
Less than a decade later, Republicans are no longer bothered by adultery. Senator John McCain not only cheated on his wife Carol; when Carol became disabled, he ditched her for a younger model, marrying the blond 25-year-old Cindy within one month of his divorce. Aren’t Republicans, who claim to be the standard-bearers of moral behavior, appalled at McCain’s sexual behavior? On the contrary – they want to make him President of the United States! Adultery is now passé for Republican politicians.
President Clinton was found innocent of the charges leveled against him, yet his impeachment affects Democratic thinking today. Some Democratic leaders apparently forgot that our forefathers established impeachment as an avenue toward justice. Impeachment should not be used as a partisan act of character assassination, as it was in Clinton’s case. But when a president has used the office to thwart the Constitution and commit war crimes, then impeachment is not only justified; it is absolutely necessary.
Thank you, Rep. Kucinich, for having the courage to stand up for justice. At this late stage in Bush’s second term, some are tempted to just let things ride. Some would even say it is “too late” for impeachment.
In a democratic republic, it is never too late to hold our leaders accountable for senseless killing. It is never too late to hold an elected official accountable for propagating 935 documented lies in order to invade another nation. It is never too late to proclaim that America is about freedom, not imperialism. It is never too late for justice.
Read the actual articles of impeachment here.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Obscure parenting tips
For the creative and the desperate
As the parents of six children, Derek and I are always in the market for creative parenting ideas. Today I will share a few things we have learned along the way.
If you have a metal door, you have a great spot to use one of the many Upwards or honor student magnets cluttering up the clutter drawer. (Or use your “My child beat up your honor student” magnet, if that’s all you have). Stick it on the door as a holder for whatever you need on the way out next morning – an SAT admission ticket, that field trip permission slip that was due yesterday, or even a note to buy toilet paper.
Circle spider bites with a permanent marker. That way you can tell whether they are growing or shrinking. (Hat tip to Pastor Mendy McNulty for this one.)
Don’t ask a child to explain why he did something, unless you honestly do not know. A person cannot indict himself, so asking this question only encourages him to assign himself new motivations after the fact. Parents call this “making excuses,” but to a child it is a matter of protecting his self-esteem.
When children ask “Why?” always tell them why. Make the explanation thorough. Serious inquiries deserve a thorough answer. Children with other motives for asking “Why?” get bored with the lengthy response and often give up the mantra.
For teens and pre-teens, I prefer to blame unpopular parenting decisions on John Tesh. My children may be unique in their fascination with Tesh’s “Intelligence for Your Life” radio program, but I find they are reluctant to argue with the man. It works like this: “Look, sweetie, I know that you personally would never text-message under the covers after bedtime. But John Tesh says everybody sleeps better if the cell phones charge on the kitchen counter every night – no exceptions.” This works for most parent-teen conflicts, and you need not listen to all the shows to use it. If it makes sense, John Tesh probably did say it, some time or other.
Traveling with young children is filled with surprises, and not always the happy kind. Since leaving behind the diaper bag a few times, we’ve learned to keep a family emergency kit in every car. Hopefully you already have jumper cables, a jack, and other tools, but this kit is for the people in the car. It should contain everything you would need if for some reason your family were trapped in the car. Ours includes wet wipes, diapers, clean socks, toilet paper, bandages, bottled water, crayons, coloring books and individually wrapped crackers.
The best road trip entertainment we have found is a classic Carpenter’s CD. The mellow tunes calm nerves and make life more pleasant. My five-year-old is especially fond of “Sing a Song,” which she calls “La la la la.” She will often request it. When she is grumpy, she asks us not to play it. “I’m not going to start singing,” she says, crossing her arms, “You can’t make me la la la la.” We shrug and promise that no one will make her sing. And then we hear Christianna’s thin little voice join in, and we all smile.
When all else fails, moo. It was only a hunch, or perhaps an instinct. One day as we were trying to get home, a certain irate toddler was screaming bloody murder because she did not care to sit in the car seat. I had tried all the normal distractions – talking, singing, stopping the car to take her for a walk, bribery, threats, cutting her out of the will, etc. At last, in desperation, I uttered a low-pitched moo. My teenage driver shot me a sideways glance and then wisely joined the mooing. Soon the entire car was filled with the sounds of calm, happy cattle. Finally the toddler stopped her high-pitched screams to utter “Mooooooo.”
The most important advice I would give to a new parent is this: Never trust anyone who is selling something. Many of the implements and gadgets touted to make parenting easier just create more parenting jobs. Plastic baby bathtubs are a great example. As a new parent, I thought that little over-the-sink tub was an essential parenting item. I’ve since realized a baby bathtub is just another thing to clean and store. It is much easier to take your baby into the bath with you whenever you wash up. It makes a nice, relaxing activity and there’s no wet baby furniture to clean up afterward.
Remember that baby bottle manufacturers are also selling something. Don’t believe the makers of alien-shaped bottle nipples labeled “more like mom.” No human female has appendages shaped like that. Baby bottles and artificial nipples contain chemicals that should never be ingested by an adult, much less a growing infant. They can also confuse young babies and interfere with their latch. In the rare case that an infant needs something other than breast milk, finger-feeding or spoon-feeding is typically safer than using a bottle.
The maker of baby formula who touts a product as “more like breast milk” is not trustworthy, either. These companies are selling something. When they distribute pamphlets claiming to provide breastfeeding tips, do not be fooled into believing they are actually advertising for their competition. These companies are financially dependent on breastfeeding problems and failures. They sell artificial milk, and they do so despite the knowledge that their product imparts innumerable health risks to your baby. Toss their tips and trust the breastfeeding experts at La Leche League for infant feeding advice.
Of course, some commercial offerings can be a blessing. A simple, one-piece potty chair is helpful for young children. Opt for a model that puts the child in a near squatting position, like the Baby Bjorn. Place the potty in a convenient location, explain its presence, and afterward try not to bring up the subject often. As many veteran moms and dads have discovered, the idea of “training” a toddler to use the potty is frustrating, self-defeating and useless. For most children, “toilet training” is no more logical than setting up language lessons to teach a normal infant how to talk. It makes no more sense than pushing a baby to walk, ready-or-not, simply because he has hit the one-year milestone. With a lot of leeway and very little prodding, most children will work it out before they go to kindergarten.
Indeed, most skills and character traits are learned from modeling, not molding. That’s why parents who smoke have little success warning their children never to start. Children do need boundaries and consequences, but neither can substitute for the time a parent spends simply being a decent, responsible human being in front of the children.
Dr. Gary Smalley says that children spell love T-I-M-E. These days we try to assuage our guilt by focusing on “quality rather than quantity.” It’s great when parents schedule the time to take a child to the park, or go on a parent-child date just to talk about life. However, few children open up on demand. Open, honest communication often happens when we are not expecting or monitoring it. It happens in the car, on the way to the mailbox, or while the pasta is boiling.
Parents have a tough job because our children are always changing. We learn along with them, and what we learn with one child may not work for the next child. I wish I knew how to teach a child to blow her nose. If anyone knows the answer to this one, please send me a hint before the next allergen comes into bloom.
As the parents of six children, Derek and I are always in the market for creative parenting ideas. Today I will share a few things we have learned along the way.
If you have a metal door, you have a great spot to use one of the many Upwards or honor student magnets cluttering up the clutter drawer. (Or use your “My child beat up your honor student” magnet, if that’s all you have). Stick it on the door as a holder for whatever you need on the way out next morning – an SAT admission ticket, that field trip permission slip that was due yesterday, or even a note to buy toilet paper.
Circle spider bites with a permanent marker. That way you can tell whether they are growing or shrinking. (Hat tip to Pastor Mendy McNulty for this one.)
Don’t ask a child to explain why he did something, unless you honestly do not know. A person cannot indict himself, so asking this question only encourages him to assign himself new motivations after the fact. Parents call this “making excuses,” but to a child it is a matter of protecting his self-esteem.
When children ask “Why?” always tell them why. Make the explanation thorough. Serious inquiries deserve a thorough answer. Children with other motives for asking “Why?” get bored with the lengthy response and often give up the mantra.
For teens and pre-teens, I prefer to blame unpopular parenting decisions on John Tesh. My children may be unique in their fascination with Tesh’s “Intelligence for Your Life” radio program, but I find they are reluctant to argue with the man. It works like this: “Look, sweetie, I know that you personally would never text-message under the covers after bedtime. But John Tesh says everybody sleeps better if the cell phones charge on the kitchen counter every night – no exceptions.” This works for most parent-teen conflicts, and you need not listen to all the shows to use it. If it makes sense, John Tesh probably did say it, some time or other.
Traveling with young children is filled with surprises, and not always the happy kind. Since leaving behind the diaper bag a few times, we’ve learned to keep a family emergency kit in every car. Hopefully you already have jumper cables, a jack, and other tools, but this kit is for the people in the car. It should contain everything you would need if for some reason your family were trapped in the car. Ours includes wet wipes, diapers, clean socks, toilet paper, bandages, bottled water, crayons, coloring books and individually wrapped crackers.
The best road trip entertainment we have found is a classic Carpenter’s CD. The mellow tunes calm nerves and make life more pleasant. My five-year-old is especially fond of “Sing a Song,” which she calls “La la la la.” She will often request it. When she is grumpy, she asks us not to play it. “I’m not going to start singing,” she says, crossing her arms, “You can’t make me la la la la.” We shrug and promise that no one will make her sing. And then we hear Christianna’s thin little voice join in, and we all smile.
When all else fails, moo. It was only a hunch, or perhaps an instinct. One day as we were trying to get home, a certain irate toddler was screaming bloody murder because she did not care to sit in the car seat. I had tried all the normal distractions – talking, singing, stopping the car to take her for a walk, bribery, threats, cutting her out of the will, etc. At last, in desperation, I uttered a low-pitched moo. My teenage driver shot me a sideways glance and then wisely joined the mooing. Soon the entire car was filled with the sounds of calm, happy cattle. Finally the toddler stopped her high-pitched screams to utter “Mooooooo.”
The most important advice I would give to a new parent is this: Never trust anyone who is selling something. Many of the implements and gadgets touted to make parenting easier just create more parenting jobs. Plastic baby bathtubs are a great example. As a new parent, I thought that little over-the-sink tub was an essential parenting item. I’ve since realized a baby bathtub is just another thing to clean and store. It is much easier to take your baby into the bath with you whenever you wash up. It makes a nice, relaxing activity and there’s no wet baby furniture to clean up afterward.
Remember that baby bottle manufacturers are also selling something. Don’t believe the makers of alien-shaped bottle nipples labeled “more like mom.” No human female has appendages shaped like that. Baby bottles and artificial nipples contain chemicals that should never be ingested by an adult, much less a growing infant. They can also confuse young babies and interfere with their latch. In the rare case that an infant needs something other than breast milk, finger-feeding or spoon-feeding is typically safer than using a bottle.
The maker of baby formula who touts a product as “more like breast milk” is not trustworthy, either. These companies are selling something. When they distribute pamphlets claiming to provide breastfeeding tips, do not be fooled into believing they are actually advertising for their competition. These companies are financially dependent on breastfeeding problems and failures. They sell artificial milk, and they do so despite the knowledge that their product imparts innumerable health risks to your baby. Toss their tips and trust the breastfeeding experts at La Leche League for infant feeding advice.
Of course, some commercial offerings can be a blessing. A simple, one-piece potty chair is helpful for young children. Opt for a model that puts the child in a near squatting position, like the Baby Bjorn. Place the potty in a convenient location, explain its presence, and afterward try not to bring up the subject often. As many veteran moms and dads have discovered, the idea of “training” a toddler to use the potty is frustrating, self-defeating and useless. For most children, “toilet training” is no more logical than setting up language lessons to teach a normal infant how to talk. It makes no more sense than pushing a baby to walk, ready-or-not, simply because he has hit the one-year milestone. With a lot of leeway and very little prodding, most children will work it out before they go to kindergarten.
Indeed, most skills and character traits are learned from modeling, not molding. That’s why parents who smoke have little success warning their children never to start. Children do need boundaries and consequences, but neither can substitute for the time a parent spends simply being a decent, responsible human being in front of the children.
Dr. Gary Smalley says that children spell love T-I-M-E. These days we try to assuage our guilt by focusing on “quality rather than quantity.” It’s great when parents schedule the time to take a child to the park, or go on a parent-child date just to talk about life. However, few children open up on demand. Open, honest communication often happens when we are not expecting or monitoring it. It happens in the car, on the way to the mailbox, or while the pasta is boiling.
Parents have a tough job because our children are always changing. We learn along with them, and what we learn with one child may not work for the next child. I wish I knew how to teach a child to blow her nose. If anyone knows the answer to this one, please send me a hint before the next allergen comes into bloom.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Let them run
The past few weeks have been very interesting for runners of all kinds. An athlete who could not run was carried. An athlete who can run was finally told he could. And in politics, Hillary Clinton was barraged with yet more calls to stop running.
Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.
In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.
Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.
If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”
Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.
Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.
Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.
Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.
Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.
Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.
Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.
Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.
At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”
So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.
Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.
In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.
Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.
If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”
Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.
Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.
Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.
Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.
Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.
Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.
Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.
Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.
At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”
So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Environmentalism on a shoestring
How to save the planet without busting your budget
Magazines and other media often paint environmentalism as a more expensive lifestyle choice. Often they use the “green” mantra to promote companies who pay for advertising. Every product that is manufactured (even if it is “green”) requires energy to produce and fuel to distribute. Each of these products also creates its own waste stream. Instead of buying more products, consumers need to look at ways to use current resources more wisely. Happily, such choices are easier on the pocketbook as well as the planet.
Take bottled water, for instance. Bottled water is increasingly popular because it seems somehow “safer” than tap water. However, as much as 40% of commercial bottled water is filled straight from the tap. Bottled water generally contains the same level of pharmaceuticals and contaminants as the water flowing from the tap. In fact, federal government standards and safety testing requirements are actually higher for municipalities than for bottlers. The plastic bottles themselves are also unhealthy, containing chemicals that have been linked to increases in cancer. So skip the bottled water and drink from the tap.
If you live in an area without drinkable water, opt for large containers rather than single-servings. This reduces waste and plastic exposure. Another tip: Do not refill and reuse water bottles. Containers that have been deemed safe (so far) for one-time use leach out more chemicals with repeated use, particularly if you wash them with hot water or in the dishwasher. The safest water bottles are made from metal.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is the chemical in plastic receiving the most scrutiny at this time. BPA has been shown to mimic estrogen in mammals. BPA exposure causes cancers and other dysfunctions in the sex organs of laboratory animals. In 2003-2004, the CDC found BPA in the urine of 93% of adults and children tested.
Bottle-fed babies are at greatest risk, since most baby bottles contain BPA. Heating the bottles in the microwave, boiling them, or washing them in the dishwasher increases leaching.
Canada has already banned baby bottles made with BPA. Here in America, Wal-Mart plans to phase out the bottles slowly by not restocking them. Until 2009, Wal-Mart will continue selling the contaminated bottles in spite of known health risks to babies.
As with bottled water, there is a way to feed babies that costs less and is healthier, too. Mothers who nurse their babies at the breast provide excellent nutrition from a clean, safe package. By contrast, formula offers only substandard nutrition in a chemically-tainted container. Formula costs $1,500 to $2,800 per year (depending on brand), and in many cases that cost is on the shoulders of taxpayers. In addition to the cost of the formula and the tainted bottles, increased healthcare costs make formula-feeding a far more expensive option.
Formula feeding is also an ecological disaster. Dairy production for formula destroys land and pollutes air and water. Artificial feeding also crowds our landfills with 550 million formula cans (that’s enough cans to circle the earth one and a half times, if stacked end to end). The plastic bottles and nipples take 200-450 years to disintegrate.
So ditch the bottled water, and the baby bottles, too. Here are a few other tricks to reduce environmental impact and save money:
Cut down on plastic shopping bags. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a floating island of plastic debris twice as big as Texas. The debris is particularly dangerous for birds and sea turtles. Turtles mistake floating plastic bags for jellyfish. Birds swallow tiny bits of broken-down plastic, which they cannot pass or break down. As plastic fills the stomach, no room remains for digesting real food. The animals literally starve to death. According to Greenpeace, at least 267 marine species have suffered from ingestion or entanglement of such debris.
Ireland, Uganda and most recently China have all banned free plastic shopping bags, recognizing the enormous environmental impact the bags create. The Chinese ban is particularly significant in light of China’s reputation as a producer of lead toys and unprecedented carbon emissions. The Chinese ban alone saves approximately 37 million barrels of oil.
Small families may be able to get by with reusable shopping bags. I have not found this to be practical for our large family, but I request that items like milk, juice, and laundry detergent be placed in my cart without a bag. Like many families, we reuse plastic shopping bags for small trashcans, stinky messes, or wet bathing suits. Some grocery stores collect and recycle plastic bags, and many still offer paper bags, which are easier to recycle.
Another way to help save the planet is to use non-toxic household cleaners. Clean the mirrors with vinegar-and-water and old newspapers. Try Borax or baking soda for scrubbing. These products are cheaper, more environmentally-friendly, and also safer for any pets or toddlers who may find them in your cupboard.
Use half the recommended laundry detergent, and skip the fabric softener altogether. For stubborn stains, break out the Borax for a bit of scrubbing. An outdoor clothesline saves energy and results in whiter whites. Even if line-drying is not practical all the time, use it when it is. Every kilowatt we forgo prolongs the life of the world we live in.
Buy locally-grown produce. In the summer time, fruit stands abound in town squares and on rural back roads. Produce from stands is likely to be fresher and have fewer chemicals, whereas grocery store produce often comes from other countries, is heavily sprayed and/or waxed, and is picked before it ripens. Eating locally-grown produce reduces America’s dependence on foreign oil, saves fossil fuels and reduces greenhouse gasses associated with trucking food to chain stores. Patronizing local businesses is also a win-win for the community.
Buy second-hand. When you purchased used goods, you not only save money, you also prevent that item for ending up in the landfill and you prevent a similar item from being produced. Second-hand items also lack the packaging that creates so much unnecessary waste. Clothing and furniture are our favorite second-hand items.
To look at some of the magazine articles and websites on environmentalism, one would think that “going green” must involve an enormous shopping trip. In practice, families often find that the most sensible environmental solutions actually save money.
Magazines and other media often paint environmentalism as a more expensive lifestyle choice. Often they use the “green” mantra to promote companies who pay for advertising. Every product that is manufactured (even if it is “green”) requires energy to produce and fuel to distribute. Each of these products also creates its own waste stream. Instead of buying more products, consumers need to look at ways to use current resources more wisely. Happily, such choices are easier on the pocketbook as well as the planet.
Take bottled water, for instance. Bottled water is increasingly popular because it seems somehow “safer” than tap water. However, as much as 40% of commercial bottled water is filled straight from the tap. Bottled water generally contains the same level of pharmaceuticals and contaminants as the water flowing from the tap. In fact, federal government standards and safety testing requirements are actually higher for municipalities than for bottlers. The plastic bottles themselves are also unhealthy, containing chemicals that have been linked to increases in cancer. So skip the bottled water and drink from the tap.
If you live in an area without drinkable water, opt for large containers rather than single-servings. This reduces waste and plastic exposure. Another tip: Do not refill and reuse water bottles. Containers that have been deemed safe (so far) for one-time use leach out more chemicals with repeated use, particularly if you wash them with hot water or in the dishwasher. The safest water bottles are made from metal.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is the chemical in plastic receiving the most scrutiny at this time. BPA has been shown to mimic estrogen in mammals. BPA exposure causes cancers and other dysfunctions in the sex organs of laboratory animals. In 2003-2004, the CDC found BPA in the urine of 93% of adults and children tested.
Bottle-fed babies are at greatest risk, since most baby bottles contain BPA. Heating the bottles in the microwave, boiling them, or washing them in the dishwasher increases leaching.
Canada has already banned baby bottles made with BPA. Here in America, Wal-Mart plans to phase out the bottles slowly by not restocking them. Until 2009, Wal-Mart will continue selling the contaminated bottles in spite of known health risks to babies.
As with bottled water, there is a way to feed babies that costs less and is healthier, too. Mothers who nurse their babies at the breast provide excellent nutrition from a clean, safe package. By contrast, formula offers only substandard nutrition in a chemically-tainted container. Formula costs $1,500 to $2,800 per year (depending on brand), and in many cases that cost is on the shoulders of taxpayers. In addition to the cost of the formula and the tainted bottles, increased healthcare costs make formula-feeding a far more expensive option.
Formula feeding is also an ecological disaster. Dairy production for formula destroys land and pollutes air and water. Artificial feeding also crowds our landfills with 550 million formula cans (that’s enough cans to circle the earth one and a half times, if stacked end to end). The plastic bottles and nipples take 200-450 years to disintegrate.
So ditch the bottled water, and the baby bottles, too. Here are a few other tricks to reduce environmental impact and save money:
Cut down on plastic shopping bags. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a floating island of plastic debris twice as big as Texas. The debris is particularly dangerous for birds and sea turtles. Turtles mistake floating plastic bags for jellyfish. Birds swallow tiny bits of broken-down plastic, which they cannot pass or break down. As plastic fills the stomach, no room remains for digesting real food. The animals literally starve to death. According to Greenpeace, at least 267 marine species have suffered from ingestion or entanglement of such debris.
Ireland, Uganda and most recently China have all banned free plastic shopping bags, recognizing the enormous environmental impact the bags create. The Chinese ban is particularly significant in light of China’s reputation as a producer of lead toys and unprecedented carbon emissions. The Chinese ban alone saves approximately 37 million barrels of oil.
Small families may be able to get by with reusable shopping bags. I have not found this to be practical for our large family, but I request that items like milk, juice, and laundry detergent be placed in my cart without a bag. Like many families, we reuse plastic shopping bags for small trashcans, stinky messes, or wet bathing suits. Some grocery stores collect and recycle plastic bags, and many still offer paper bags, which are easier to recycle.
Another way to help save the planet is to use non-toxic household cleaners. Clean the mirrors with vinegar-and-water and old newspapers. Try Borax or baking soda for scrubbing. These products are cheaper, more environmentally-friendly, and also safer for any pets or toddlers who may find them in your cupboard.
Use half the recommended laundry detergent, and skip the fabric softener altogether. For stubborn stains, break out the Borax for a bit of scrubbing. An outdoor clothesline saves energy and results in whiter whites. Even if line-drying is not practical all the time, use it when it is. Every kilowatt we forgo prolongs the life of the world we live in.
Buy locally-grown produce. In the summer time, fruit stands abound in town squares and on rural back roads. Produce from stands is likely to be fresher and have fewer chemicals, whereas grocery store produce often comes from other countries, is heavily sprayed and/or waxed, and is picked before it ripens. Eating locally-grown produce reduces America’s dependence on foreign oil, saves fossil fuels and reduces greenhouse gasses associated with trucking food to chain stores. Patronizing local businesses is also a win-win for the community.
Buy second-hand. When you purchased used goods, you not only save money, you also prevent that item for ending up in the landfill and you prevent a similar item from being produced. Second-hand items also lack the packaging that creates so much unnecessary waste. Clothing and furniture are our favorite second-hand items.
To look at some of the magazine articles and websites on environmentalism, one would think that “going green” must involve an enormous shopping trip. In practice, families often find that the most sensible environmental solutions actually save money.
Jeannie Babb Taylor
May, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
What the issues are (and aren't)
As campaign season heats up to a rolling boil, voters are bombarded on every side by campaign slogans and media chatter. Everybody wants to tell you how to vote. Some people complain when I am transparent about my advice (“Vote Democratic!”), yet they are oblivious to the subtle pressure emanating from newscasters, preachers, and the guy in the next cubical at work.
Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” – with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.
Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.
Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”
These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.
Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.
Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.
The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both Parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it hoping history will do the work of settling the question.
Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.
The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.
Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle class programs.
If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.
Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.
But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.
Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.
We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanapoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of American Idol, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.
It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.
Subtle campaign pressure uses tactics that have nothing to do with the real issues. Consider a bumper sticker shaped like a girl’s head with a big hair bow, and the words, “Do we really want a blonde for president?” Of course, such a sticker actually means, “Do we really want a woman for president?” – with an implied no. A man’s hair color (or lack of hair) is hardly fodder for comment. In fact, I wanted to list off a few blond presidents from the past, but presidential hair color is such a non-issue that my research turned up nothing.
Obviously, hair color is not a real election issue. Neither are other fashion statements, such as the wearing of a flag pin (or not). Beyond the trivial non-issues, there lies an entire field of pseudo-issues. These issues seem so compelling that special-interest groups use them to cultivate entire blocks of single-issue voters. Yet, these issues are as empty as hair color and jewelry when it comes to presidential selection.
Consider abortion. Certain candidates are identified as “pro-life” while others are identified as “pro-choice.” Church-goers, in particular, are bombarded with the message that they are not good Christians unless they vote Republican, because Republicans are supposedly “pro-life.”
These labels are nothing but campaign rhetoric. No serious presidential contender wants abortion to be criminalized. Huckabee liked the idea, but he could not even get the endorsement of Pat Robertson. Robertson, widely viewed as a pillar of the Christian right, instead backed “pro-choice” candidate Rudy Giuliani. Robertson’s choice (no pun intended) demonstrates that abortion never was an important issue to the religious right. They just used it to control voters.
Both parties intend to keep abortion legal. The only difference is that the Democrats are honest about it.
Republican officials call themselves “pro-life” and croon about creating “a culture of life,” while they not only keep it legal, but also pass legislation that increases the demand for abortion by impoverishing our nation and cutting programs that enabled poor families to afford another child. If you look at the statistics for various countries, the abortion rate is determined primarily by socioeconomic factors, not legal issues. Then there is the utter hypocrisy of a “pro-life” president presiding over so much killing overseas.
The other big pseudo-issue is gay marriage. Far right extremists would have us believe that gays are out to destroy traditional marriage. A look at divorce statistics suggests that heterosexuals are dismantling it pretty rapidly without any help.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican plans concerning gay marriage. Both Parties recognize the issue as a big, sticky mess and they tiptoe around it hoping history will do the work of settling the question.
Voters must not be distracted by these hot-button issues that have no substance behind them. Somehow we have to turn off the chatter, the moralizing and the guilt-laden messages, and instead pay attention to the real issues.
The real issues are those that matter to Americans every day. The issue that most directly impacts all Americans is the economy. We are also intensely interested in resolving the health care crisis and the wars abroad.
Fiscal responsibility is paramount. We need a president who understands how money works. Republicans repeat the mantra of “lower taxes,” but fail to acknowledge that without decreasing spending, tax cuts only increase our national debt. They say the right things (decrease the tax burden, reduce spending, common sense fiscal policy) but they do all the wrong things. Their tax cuts provide no relief for those of us who learn less than $200,000 a year, particularly when you take the tanking economy, wage stagnation, fuel prices and medical inflation into account. They spend our money as if it were burning a hole in their pocket, even while they cut funding for education and other middle class programs.
If the Democrats win in November, they will plug the leaks in the national pocketbook. One of those leaks is the no-bid contract. Under the Bush administration, no-bid contracts more than doubled in number, with spending increasing 121 percent to $103 billion from 2000 to 2006. No-bid contracts represented over half of federal procurement spending. Is it any surprise that companies like Halliburton enjoyed record profits during this time? It’s time to end no-bid contracts. Let legitimate businesses compete for government contracts. Let capitalism work.
Democrats will also end the Iraq war and bring our troops home. Lives will be saved, and dollars, too. It is disingenuous for McCain to promise lower taxes while he admits he will continue the occupation of Iraq for 100 years or more. Wars must be funded. The debts we are racking up today will eventually come calling. Taxes will be raised, if not for this generation then certainly for the next, to fund the war in Iraq.
But will the Democrats raise our taxes? Republican Party leaders keep saying so, but that does not make it true. Clinton’s plan involves a tax cut for the middle class. Only taxpayers earning more than $250,000 per year will experience any increase.
Obama’s tax plan is similar, providing relief for lower and middle class taxpayers and senior citizens. The tax cuts are offset by closing loopholes used by the wealthy and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the top tax bracket.
We have to stay focused on these issues. The TV media is not helping us do that. When George Stephanapoulos and Charles Gibson moderated the ABC debate in Philadelphia, we learned more about the moderators than we learned about Obama and Clinton. We learned that the moderators think the presidential election is just a grown-up form of American Idol, where the judges (that’s voters) will select a president based on popularity, performance and style.
It is time voters set aside the marketing glitz, the non-issues, and the pseudo-issues that occupy the national dialogue. Let’s look at the real issues and elect the person who will address them in ways that boost our economy, restore our international standing and strengthen ordinary Americans.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The truth about universal healthcare
Republican Party spokespersons big and small are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to combat the positive message of the Democratic Party. Over the next few months, you will hear them call good evil and evil good in order to trick America into four more years of Bush-style fear-mongering, war-mongering and recession.
Healthcare may be the issue that shipwrecks their good-is-evil message. For years, Republicans told us that “universal healthcare” was a dangerous, wicked Democratic plan that must be opposed. They said if everyone had healthcare, there would be no healthcare at all! Back when most voters had adequate healthcare coverage, we swallowed the lies. We believed that if healthcare were extended to the masses, it would no longer be as good for us.
Times have changed. Many of us are finding ourselves under-insured, with huge deductibles to meet before our policy ever kicks in. Many more are uninsured altogether, either because we cannot afford the employee portion of the premium, or because our company can no longer afford to offer health insurance. Will people with little or no healthcare really buy the “universal healthcare is evil” mantra?
Michael Moore’s documentary “Sicko” really brought the issue to the forefront of the American conscience. It is not that Americans did not know about the crisis. Many of us have experienced it first hand. What the movie and the buzz about it revealed is that the healthcare crisis is widespread. We are not alone in our struggles.
In fact, one survey found that 30% of respondents had delayed seeing a doctor about a known and potentially serious medical condition, because of inability to pay. Medical inflation is currently twice as high as the standard rate of inflation, meaning this problem will not resolve itself. Workers are paying more but getting less, with premiums rising four times faster than wages.
Let’s consider it from another angle. Every American child has the right to an education, whether or not her parents can afford private school. There are schools on every corner – private schools, public schools, and kitchen-table home schools. To be sure, the public education system has flaws. (So do private schools and home schools, but nobody talks about that.) Despite the flaws, we can still say this: Any American child can walk through the doors of the public school house and receive an education.
Unfortunately, I know some people who would like to see public education abolished. As you can imagine, they are people who can easily afford to educate their children privately, and they do not appreciate having to foot the bill for other people’s children.
In the dreams of the selfish, their little Richie would never have to compete with the smart but poor kid down the road. Only the wealthy would be able to educate their children. As for the rest of Americans, well, they just need to be trained for manual labor and subordinate positions to little Richie.
Most of us would be appalled at such thinking. We have been raised to believe that a basic education is every child’s birth-rite. Aren’t health and life more important than education? If every child has the right to be taught to read, then does not every child have the right to receive treatment for a life-threatening condition like asthma?
Universal healthcare simply means healthcare for all. Private healthcare plans will not be eradicated any more than private schools have been eradicated. Those who are happy with their current healthcare can keep it.
Health care is at least as important as public education, public libraries, public transportation and other services that we make available to all citizens. It is time for the United States to step into the twenty-first century and provide healthcare for all Americans. To help us do that, vote Democratic!
Jeannie Babb Taylor
www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Soaring fuel prices force trucks off the road
Relief may come in November
Everybody knows that fuel prices are sky-high. These increases inflate the price of every single product that we purchase. Other than locally-grown vegetables, every consumable that comes into our homes has ridden on an eighteen-wheeler at least once, and often more than once. Diesel has now topped $4.00 a gallon, inflating the price of everything from the produce aisle to the dairy section.
What if consumers are paying more than their fair share of the additional fuel costs? What if the brokers who schedule trucks are up-charging the shippers, then pocketing the additional funds and requiring truckers to fund the difference? What if truckers cannot take it anymore?
On April 1st, 250 trucks crawled up I-75 from Macon to Atlanta at 20 mph. The cause of the congestion was not road construction or a traffic accident, and it certainly was not an April Fool’s joke. The owner/operators were staging a public protest against high fuel prices and tight-lipped brokers who refuse to tell truckers what they’re charging shippers for fuel.
Most of us consider the high fuel prices an unfortunate side-effect of the Iraq war, or just a part of life. We continue filling our gas tanks and driving to the places we need to go. With a helpless shrug, we assume that nothing can be done.
Diesel is cheaper to produce than gasoline. Yet diesel now sells for about 70 cents per gallon more than gasoline. Only in the United States is diesel higher than gasoline. This contradiction is very telling. From a conservation point of view, it is disastrous. The disparate fuel prices reward frivolous oil use while punishing necessary industrial oil use. Part of the price difference is the 25-cent higher federal fuel tax, but most of it is simply excessive profit saddled onto a captive customer.
Truckers are a captive customer because they have no options. They cannot choose to drive fewer miles to make up for fuel inflation. They cannot select a lower, cheaper grade like gasoline users can. They cannot carpool or use public transportation instead of filling their fuel tanks. Any drop in consumption means a pay cut.
Their livelihood is tied directly to the fluctuations of oil prices. In a free market economy, you would think that increases or savings would simply be passed along to the customer. According to the truckers, it does not happen that way.
Independent owner/operators rely on brokers who link trucks with loads. The brokers charge the shippers a fuel surcharge, which is rolled into the product price along with other freight costs. However, many brokers refuse to disclose their fuel surcharge to the truckers. Although they charge the shipper more money to cover diesel price increases, only a portion of that fuel surcharge is passed along to the actual truck driver who must purchase the fuel.
Since April 1, the truckers have been protesting the surcharge rip-off in a variety of ways. The slow parade from Macon to Atlanta is just one of hundreds of protests taking place all over the United States. Other truckers have parked their trucks, declaring that they will not carry another load until the government listens to their concerns and enacts legislation to protect them.
Alfred Teeters is an owner-operator based out of Chickamauga, Georgia. Teeters says he and his wife, who have been trucking for twenty years, have written numerous emails to US Rep. Jay Neal (R-GA), US Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA), and State Senator Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga.) Teeters says none of the three politicians even bothered to reply.
Independent truckers say the fuel prices and broker practices are driving them out of business. Truckers are losing their rigs. Some are losing their homes as well.
Meanwhile, the shortage of trucks on the road increases freight costs and constricts business, hurting all Americans.
How will the protest rectify this situation? The truckers hope that they can get the attention of the public, who will then apply pressure to governors, lawmakers and the President.
What exactly are the truckers demanding? The laundry list looks something like this:
Suspension of all federal and state fuel taxes until the economy recovers.
Creation of a federal oversight committee to regulate insurance premiums on Class 8 truck insurance.
Prohibition of self insurance for large trucking fleets, in order to level the playing field for smaller companies.
Federal regulations for brokers and shippers, properly enforced, with set maximums.
Standardized safety violation fines from coast to coast.
No major trucking companies are backing the protest. The Teamsters union and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association deny organizing the protest. The association is legally prohibited from calling for a strike, because it is listed as a trade association.
Oil company executives say they sympathize with consumers regarding the high fuel price, but that they are not to blame. They claim their profits are in line with other industries. Oil profits hit another all-time high last year, totaling about $123 billion.
How long must we tolerate an economic structure that leaves us at the mercy of the oil barons? The answer may be “Only until November.” Democratic presidential candidates have unveiled detailed plans to reduce American’s dependence on foreign oil, provide stimulus for the alternative energy industry, and put bring Iraq’s oil industry back online. Hillary Clinton also wants to curtail the excessive oil profits, redirecting some of that money to fund energy research and create more jobs.
Of course, there are some voters who just do not mind paying such exorbitant prices for gasoline. They don’t care if truck drivers must pay $1,600 a week for diesel to keep their trucks on the road. They don’t mind paying $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon for milk. Those voters may try to put McCain in office.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the oil barons. A vote for McCain is a vote to escalate war in the Middle East, expanding the fighting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran and other areas for “a hundred years.” A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the manufactured oil shortage. A vote for McCain is a vote to put more and more truckers out of business. A vote for McCain is a vote to strangle the American economy.
Everybody knows that fuel prices are sky-high. These increases inflate the price of every single product that we purchase. Other than locally-grown vegetables, every consumable that comes into our homes has ridden on an eighteen-wheeler at least once, and often more than once. Diesel has now topped $4.00 a gallon, inflating the price of everything from the produce aisle to the dairy section.
What if consumers are paying more than their fair share of the additional fuel costs? What if the brokers who schedule trucks are up-charging the shippers, then pocketing the additional funds and requiring truckers to fund the difference? What if truckers cannot take it anymore?
On April 1st, 250 trucks crawled up I-75 from Macon to Atlanta at 20 mph. The cause of the congestion was not road construction or a traffic accident, and it certainly was not an April Fool’s joke. The owner/operators were staging a public protest against high fuel prices and tight-lipped brokers who refuse to tell truckers what they’re charging shippers for fuel.
Most of us consider the high fuel prices an unfortunate side-effect of the Iraq war, or just a part of life. We continue filling our gas tanks and driving to the places we need to go. With a helpless shrug, we assume that nothing can be done.
Diesel is cheaper to produce than gasoline. Yet diesel now sells for about 70 cents per gallon more than gasoline. Only in the United States is diesel higher than gasoline. This contradiction is very telling. From a conservation point of view, it is disastrous. The disparate fuel prices reward frivolous oil use while punishing necessary industrial oil use. Part of the price difference is the 25-cent higher federal fuel tax, but most of it is simply excessive profit saddled onto a captive customer.
Truckers are a captive customer because they have no options. They cannot choose to drive fewer miles to make up for fuel inflation. They cannot select a lower, cheaper grade like gasoline users can. They cannot carpool or use public transportation instead of filling their fuel tanks. Any drop in consumption means a pay cut.
Their livelihood is tied directly to the fluctuations of oil prices. In a free market economy, you would think that increases or savings would simply be passed along to the customer. According to the truckers, it does not happen that way.
Independent owner/operators rely on brokers who link trucks with loads. The brokers charge the shippers a fuel surcharge, which is rolled into the product price along with other freight costs. However, many brokers refuse to disclose their fuel surcharge to the truckers. Although they charge the shipper more money to cover diesel price increases, only a portion of that fuel surcharge is passed along to the actual truck driver who must purchase the fuel.
Since April 1, the truckers have been protesting the surcharge rip-off in a variety of ways. The slow parade from Macon to Atlanta is just one of hundreds of protests taking place all over the United States. Other truckers have parked their trucks, declaring that they will not carry another load until the government listens to their concerns and enacts legislation to protect them.
Alfred Teeters is an owner-operator based out of Chickamauga, Georgia. Teeters says he and his wife, who have been trucking for twenty years, have written numerous emails to US Rep. Jay Neal (R-GA), US Rep Nathan Deal (R-GA), and State Senator Jeff Mullis (R-Chickamauga.) Teeters says none of the three politicians even bothered to reply.
Independent truckers say the fuel prices and broker practices are driving them out of business. Truckers are losing their rigs. Some are losing their homes as well.
Meanwhile, the shortage of trucks on the road increases freight costs and constricts business, hurting all Americans.
How will the protest rectify this situation? The truckers hope that they can get the attention of the public, who will then apply pressure to governors, lawmakers and the President.
What exactly are the truckers demanding? The laundry list looks something like this:
Suspension of all federal and state fuel taxes until the economy recovers.
Creation of a federal oversight committee to regulate insurance premiums on Class 8 truck insurance.
Prohibition of self insurance for large trucking fleets, in order to level the playing field for smaller companies.
Federal regulations for brokers and shippers, properly enforced, with set maximums.
Standardized safety violation fines from coast to coast.
No major trucking companies are backing the protest. The Teamsters union and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association deny organizing the protest. The association is legally prohibited from calling for a strike, because it is listed as a trade association.
Oil company executives say they sympathize with consumers regarding the high fuel price, but that they are not to blame. They claim their profits are in line with other industries. Oil profits hit another all-time high last year, totaling about $123 billion.
How long must we tolerate an economic structure that leaves us at the mercy of the oil barons? The answer may be “Only until November.” Democratic presidential candidates have unveiled detailed plans to reduce American’s dependence on foreign oil, provide stimulus for the alternative energy industry, and put bring Iraq’s oil industry back online. Hillary Clinton also wants to curtail the excessive oil profits, redirecting some of that money to fund energy research and create more jobs.
Of course, there are some voters who just do not mind paying such exorbitant prices for gasoline. They don’t care if truck drivers must pay $1,600 a week for diesel to keep their trucks on the road. They don’t mind paying $5.00 or $6.00 a gallon for milk. Those voters may try to put McCain in office.
A vote for McCain is a vote for the oil barons. A vote for McCain is a vote to escalate war in the Middle East, expanding the fighting from Afghanistan and Iraq to Iran and other areas for “a hundred years.” A vote for McCain is a vote to continue the manufactured oil shortage. A vote for McCain is a vote to put more and more truckers out of business. A vote for McCain is a vote to strangle the American economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
