The Whole Truth and Nothing But- Police, Lies, Truth, and Their Accidental Concurrence

Perhaps you saw the story about the New York City cop who assaulted the bicyclist who was taking part in a mass bike demonstration in Manhattan. Here is a CNN clip in case you missed it:




It seems that the officer involved claimed in his official report that the bicyclist was being operated in a dangerous manner and that he was, in fact the target of a maniac. As Jim Dwyer reports in the New York Times:

Around 9:30 on Friday night, a bicyclist pedaling down Seventh Avenue veered to the left, trying to avoid hitting a police officer who was in the middle of the street.

But the officer, Patrick Pogan, took a few quick steps toward the biker, Christopher Long, braced himself and drove his upper body into Mr. Long.

Officer Pogan, an all-star football player in high school, hit Mr. Long as if he were a halfback running along the sidelines, and sent him flying.

As of Tuesday evening, a videotape of the encounter had been viewed about 400,000 times on YouTube. “I can’t explain why it happened,” Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said on Tuesday. “I have no understanding as to why that would happen.”

...

Later that night, Officer Pogan composed a story of his encounter with Mr. Long. It bore no resemblance to the events seen on the videotape. Based on the sworn complaint, Mr. Long was held for 26 hours on charges of attempted assault and disorderly conduct.

Then, there is this second recent example of police stupidity captured on video,

as reported in the the New York Daily News:

You have to ask yourself, How can these cops be so stupid?

I have a great deal of respect for police officers. They have one of society's toughest jobs as each day they confront dangerous situations- domestic disputes, drugs, violence, crime, filth. They handle all of those nasty, smelly, dirty and dangerous situations that polite society refuses to do. And we give them the power and authority to kill on our behalf.

At times, they are our heroes.

But there are other times when they are less than fabled blue knights. As with any group of humans, they have their failures, and when those failures become public they call into question the honesty and integrity of the thin blue line.


Many years ago, I was a student at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, which was and continues to be popular with police officers and police higher officials and well respected in the world of law enforcement. I became friendly with many police officers and they took me into their confidence enough to introduce me to the term, "testi-lying".

I learned that some police officers had their own unique interpretation of the oath they take when testifying to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Perhaps they thought the "So help me god" part was really a prayer to cover their imminent misdeeds and a plea for absolution.

They shared with me their experiences of manufacturing evidence to put away bad guys. They told me that they would carry a "cold piece", an untraceable gun, that they could drop near someone they shot in order to claim self defense. It seemed the lies were almost the norm, neither condemned nor condoned by either police officials or the prosecuting authorities.

Unfortunately, as evidenced by our two video examples, the police culture continues to provide fertile grounds for misconduct as it is shielded by the Blue Wall of Silence.

While one hopes such conduct occurs only to a minimal degree, in this You Tube-age police will be under more civilian video scrutiny. Lies and cover ups-on the open street will be exposed. Will the unseemly side of police culture change or will it just be driven further underground?

No Fuel-Comment from Paul

Dear TRM,

Maybe you should be “the Rational Moderate” rather than radical. It seems we are woefully short on “rational” in this country. Or perhaps the pragmatic moderate? Or the radical pragmatic?

Concerning your commentary on the energy crisis, what is coming is nothing short of an industrial revolution in energy. How we get there is another story. The “free market” forces of the right think that method most efficient to achieving energy independence. That it really is the most efficient method of enriching an already incredibly wealthy class of people. The left feels a full-on guvmint style program the answer. Hardly. There are too many individual special interests and agendas on the left for any semblance of efficiency. The war between to two sides promises a prolonged an inefficient process cheered on by OPEC and anyone else with their straw in the oil barrel.

The next president (you don’t think this one will do it, do you?) will have to have vision enough to “take us to the moon”. Kennedy grappled with the Soviets and that was a political win. Some say that this crisis does not have the political impetus to fuel (no pun intended) a revolution in energy. I beg to differ. People think that “Big Oil” is the problem. They forget that 70 percent of the world’s oil is produced by nationalized companies. I think the American people are tired of kowtowing politically to the OPEC countries. They are willing to change the way they live. What we need is leadership.

My belief is a Kennedy “moonshot” or FDR “Manhattan” style program is the answer. It could encompass the positive aspects of both sides politically and allow the oil-types a seat at the table. No program will succeed unless big oil can play. T. Boone Pickens is smart enough to know that. That is why he decided to take it upon himself to just take a seat, invited or not.

The next president should commission a blue ribbon panel of scientists, engineers, industrialists and big oil types and charge them to develop a plan to wean us of foreign oil in 10 years and wean us off of fossil fuel energy altogether in 20. Our approach in doing this will be in several overlapping phases that will get us from point A to point B in the most efficient way. How we use energy and where we use it must be addressed. Heating and lighting our homes, large and small transportation (cars, trucks, airplanes), manufacturing, and the needs of municipalities are just a sample of the types considered. Boone Pickens recognizes the “geography of energy” where wind in the middle states and sun in the southwest are logical answers to electrical needs.

We went to the moon starting with the small step of a 12-minute sub-orbital flight crewed by Alan Sheppard. Men envisioned the steps they would have to master to get to the moon and back…and then we did them. Getting to fuel cell cars will require cheap, renewable, non-carbon producing electricity (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal). Getting to mass biofuels for aircraft, biodiesel-electric trains, and biodiesel shipping trucks, ocean shipping and smaller boats will require advancements in switchgrass and algae biofarms. But that is a way off. It’s the last step. Until then, ALL energy sources to get us off foreign oil must be considered. Namely, offshore drilling, clean coal shale (Colorado), drilling for new reserves in the Dakotas and Montana and nuclear. This first step is a necessary compromise. This would stem the wealth transfer of the US to the OPEC countries and place investment back in the US where it belongs. This unpalatable first step would be done with the understanding that all US drilling and fossil fuel production would end in 30 years and all nuclear plants decommissioned in 40 years when the renewable conversion is complete.

We have the technology. We need the national will and political leadership to accomplish this.


Paul-

Thanks for your comments. In this age of the sound bite and issue-free campaigning, a rational and reasoned discussion of the issues is "radical". Invite your friends to join the fun here.

TRM

No Fuel- Comment by Anonymous

I'm no engineer, but given that we've been on the kick of oxidizing carbon-based fuels of all kinds for the entire history of mankind (wood, coal, petroleum, natural gas, methane, etc.), as a way to perpetuate our species and ensure some standard of living, it's going to be a major paradigm shift to find some other way to meet our energy needs in the future while preserving the environment. Finding some way to enhance the electric power grid and distribute power will be one challenge, but finding methods of generating the capacity necessary to operate that grid will be yet another.

Wind offers one avenue, but I also think that greater use of solar technology is necessary as well. For that matter, geothermal and hydroelectric potential (both ocean and river current) is also ripe for further exploration. That any of these options are yet not economically feasible should be no bar to some sort of Government subidies or grants. Of course, the current occupants will likely not easily abandon their own dependence on foreign petroleum.

There's No Fuel Like an Old Fuel

Hydrogen versus Direct Electric

In the new age of gasoline-free automobiles, the ultimate decisions will be made by the automobile companies regarding the power source for our engines. Will they be Hydrogen based fuel cells or rechargeable batteries that hook into your home ac circuit?

It seems that everyone is in love with the idea of the plug-in electric, but I have yet to read an analysis that concerns a basic concept such as where and how will that electricity be generated. It seems that everyone expects electrons to flow out of the house socket as if by wizardry. Those electrons have to come from somewhere, folks, and we have to answers those question soon. Will those electrons come from nuclear plants such as pebble bed reactors? From " clean" coal plants? Natural gas plants? Oil shale fired plants? Wind turbines from the Midwest?

Or will the energy be based on a hydrogen produced and transported by the oil companies who now fuel your car? Can you really believe that Exxon Mobil, Phillips, Conoco, BP, and Shell want to give up their automobile-based profits and turn those dollars over to the electric companies without a fight? Will they allow their distribution and refining facilities to be made as obsolescent as buggy whip and ice factories? Or will they get into the wind turbine and electric business and go head to head with Duke?

The nearly bankrupt general Motors is coming out with the Chevrolet "Volt",ostensibly an electric car, however it comes with a gasoline "range extender" ("engine") to get the car home while simultaneously charging the battery. Good thing, because so far, the batteries on electrics allow only a range of 40 miles, which might be great for in-city errands, but totally unacceptable for taking a decent trip. So what they really are talking about is a $50,000 "station car"."Cheap!" as they used to say on the cover of MAD Magazine.

When you think of it, the hydrogen proponents are living in the same fantasy world as the electric guys. Hydrogen won't be sucked magically out of the ambient air, so where does the hydrogen come from? Here is a posting that you might want to read:

The mass media's fascination with fuel-cell powered cars is understandable. The promise of "clean, cheap energy from water" has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it makes better fiction than reality. Hydrogen-powered cars just emit their pollution elsewhere.

In any chemical reaction like the one that powers your car, energy must be conserved; meaning that the energy must "come from" somewhere. So where does the hydrogen "fuel" for a fuel-cell car come from? Two possible sources are

* Water - plentiful and everywhere.
* & Methane - while the U.S. has some methane reserves, we would need to import it from "non-friendlies" in order to meet current (and future) demand.

Let's look at water. First of all, the hydrogen molecules in water are strongly bound to oxygen. Therefore, it takes (substantial) energy to split water into useful hydrogen (used by the fuel cell) and oxygen molecules. The majority of that energy - in America - is derived from coal power. If you take into account that a significant minority of the power grid in America is also nuclear, we have traded a clean-burning gasoline engine for nuclear and coal powered fuel-cells. Since so-called "greens" would never advocate more nuclear power - even though that would be the best solution - we can't and won't power fuel-cell cars from water-derived hydrogen.

If, instead, we power the car by reducing methane (CH4), then we have merely traded one energy source (gasoline) for another (methane) that is far less efficient -- and therefore produces MORE carbon-dioxide per mile traveled than gasoline!

Even though Honda is beginning to produce a hydrogen fuel cell automobile, the FCX they still have not answered the hydrogen production question. Furthermore, hydrogen merely displaces the environmental impact from the end user to the fuel producer for no net environmental gain

Critics also point out that hydrogen is costly to produce and the most common way to produce hydrogen is still from fossil fuels.

Analysis of the environmental impact of different fuel technologies has shown that the overall carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen powered cars can be higher than that from petrol or diesel-powered vehicles.

I am sure that you have seen those television advertisements with oilman T.Boone Pickens in which he extols the need to develop the wind power present in the Mid-West. Certainly, that area of the country has a lot of potential energy, as the song, "Oklahoma", says, "where the wind comes sweeping down the plains". While Mr. Pickens seems willing to put up a lot of his money to develop this potential, the question of distribution seems not to to be addressed. Does the continental United States electric grid have the capacity to act as an efficient distributor of the electricity generated by wind power, or will the government have to spend billions of dollars in system upgrades and if so, is it worth the expense? An engineer I was speaking with several weeks ago told me that the electric grid system currently operates with a 95% degree of efficiency and the only question that needs to be answered is that of capacity.

We are in a period of uncertainty about future fuels, and no one will be safe placing one bet on the energy craps table. Despite the bleating of the environmentalists, look for more drilling and more efficient gasoline vehicles to predominate until the industry and market both answer some questions regarding fuel production, distribution and efficiency that have yet to be adequately answered. But is Pickens right?

Any engineers want to weigh in on this? Anyone? Bueller?

Pick Up the Phone, Brent Rinehart, the 21st Century is Calling

This would be a total hoot if it weren't real. It is a local election in Oklahoma, and yes, it is a comic book (very telling!). But the folks there should be more than slightly embarrassed about the whole thing.Right-winger Oklahoma County Commissioner Brent Rinehart is running for re-election and he has taken dead-aim at his opponents, which basically includes everyone. He seems to have some powerful, but non-voting opponents!

In one sequence, Satan says: "If I can get the kids to believe homosexuality is normal!”

The angel replies: "Hey Satan, not with Brent around you won't!”

Rinehart said he doesn't think the depiction is inappropriate and that he is proud of the comic.

"The history of my office is that I do expose the homosexual agenda, and that it does exist in the state of Oklahoma, and my history also would show that I am very much opposed to the homosexual agenda,” Rinehart said.

...

Rinehart acknowledged that the comic is edgy at times, but said it explains important issues in a light-hearted way that his constituents will enjoy.

"It makes it interesting and something that people will actually look at and understand,” Rinehart said.

Toga-wearing gays, political figures, trench coat-clad henchmen, concerned residents and Rinehart round out the comic's cast.

"This is one of the strangest things I've ever seen,” said Keith Gaddie, a political science professor at the University of Oklahoma. "I've never seen a comic book with the phrase ‘anal sodomy' in it before. That was a new one for me.”

If I can get a copy of this "comic", I will post it immediately.

More "Disconnect"

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, here, buttresses my point about the disconnect between the publics feelings about the Republicans in general and John McCain, with the poll showing a statistical tie in preferences for McCain's and Obama's plans for Iraq.

Previous polls showed a preference for withdrawal from Iraq sooner rather than later, a position closer to Obama's stated goal.

I think people are really confused about Iraq. They don't want to leave precipitously if there is a chance that we are on the right road. They don't want to stay if we are in a no win situation. And they don't believe any of the information that both parties are feeding them.

Still, after five years of combat and 4,000 deaths in Iraq, this poll spells trouble for Obama.

A READER COMMENTS on FLIGHTS of FANCY

A Reader writes:

This letter was something unique in my experience. I have never seen an entire industry band together and canvas their customers looking for assistance. These are the same guys who keep providing me less and less on every flight, but I too have noted the record profits being posted by the oil and energy companies. I recognize the market forces that drive prices to these levels, but I feel a gentle upward slope is more natural and beneficial to all.

While I worry about the short term damage to our economy brought about by oil prices, when combined with the mortgage meltdown it is exponentially more frightening. We are looking at long road back to an energetic and robust economy that equals (10 years?) the economy of just one year ago. The DOW has lost 28% of its total value in the past year! There is more bad news to come.

Here is Obama's chance to be a 2nd FDR and oversee our recovery from what will become known as "The Great Depression 2.0". He will rise above partisanship, slash our incredibly bloated government bureaucracy (dismantling the huge worthless sections of DHS), organize a new WPA, and become the most beloved President of the 21st century.

I welcome all of the research and development to come that these high oil prices will bring about. This prolonged situation will finally lead to relief from our dependence on oil and will bring renewable energy sources to primacy. In fact, it may be this that leads us out from the economic doldrums.

Reader,

I agree that we are on the edge of disaster but I don't think we will go over the precipice. Yes, we are in a bear market but that is not unheard of.

What scares me is that we truly are at the end of the age of oil. Despite all of the R&D going on in the field of energy, the transition to a new energy source will be long and painful. Therefore, the climb out will have to account for that change in addition to the economic chaos caused by the sub-prime mortgage disaster. A couple of decades for recovery? How about a century?

Your hope for Obama is far more sanguine than mine (If he gets elected, and I still think that is a big "if"). A Roosevelt comes along only once in history, and even he made his mistakes and was mired in political battles with the Republicans and the Supreme Court. Despite Roosevelt's herculean efforts, the depression didn't end until the beginning of World War 2, when industry shook off the cobwebs and geared up to become "the arsenal of democracy".

And don't look for a Democrat to drastically cut the size of government.

Thanks for writing!

TRM

DISCONNECT

With all polls showing the popularity of the President, the Republicans, and Congress at almost all-time lows this new poll from Newsweek, which shows a statistical tie between Obama and McCain spells big trouble for the Democrats.

The public should be heaping scorn upon failed Republican policies and candidates. It should be a landslide year for the Democrats and Obama should be way ahead, yet he isn't. What happened to those polls just a week ago which showed the Democrat with a 15 percentage point lead over the Republican?

I think the overriding emotion that voters are feeling right now is fear.

Fear of war in the middle east, where nightly TV news shows Iran firing missiles.

Fear of high prices, with gas pumps showing numbers that once existed only on pocket calculators.

Fear of no oil, where even oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens has his own television commercials that says the age of oil is over.

Fear of food shortages, where Brits are asked to adopt the measures that got them through the shortages of World War 2.

Fear of financial disaster, where bank failures are no longer ancient stories of the 1930s depression.

FEAR.

Fear plays into the hands of the Republicans, long thought to be the "Daddy" party, the party of strength, as opposed to the "let's all play nice together and share the toys" "Mommy" Democrats. These aren't the times to gather down by the river and sing "Kumbaya".

So while Democrats may at an advantage in local races and with the pocketbook money issues such as health care, I think the public really wants a guy at the top who wields a big stick and knows how to use it.

Events leading up to the November election will have an out sized influence on the voters.

Make no mistake about it, this is going to be a very, very, tight race.

FLIGHTS of FANCY

A valued and loyal reader of this Blog (and believe me, every reader is valued, and if you come back more than once, you definitely are loyal!) asked me to comment on a letter than recently was e-mailed by all the major airlines to their frequent flier customers. I was just about to settle down to consider a nice paper from MIT on Modular Pebble Bed Reactors, but a request from a loyal reader does not go unheeded here at TRM.

Let's admit right off the bat that the airlines are easy targets. Warren Buffett said that, over the course of its history, if you sum up all the books, no one has ever made a dime in the airline industry. Comedian Alan King used to excoriate the industry with regularity on the old Ed Sullivan Show, and that was in the days when flying was seen as the height of privilege and elegance.

So, I'll just print their letter and insert comments as appropriate. The letter is reproduced unedited except for the name of the recipient, and in full at the end of my posting. My comments are in bold.

Dear (Customer Name),

Last week, crude oil hit an all-time high of $146, and the skyrocketing cost of fuel is impacting our customers, our employees, the communities we serve, and the economy as a whole. (Nothing to argue about here. All are statements of fact.)United, and the majority of other major U.S. airlines, are asking our most loyal customers to join us in pushing for legislation to add more transparency and disclosure in the oil markets.(Let's see. Are these the same loyal customers who you want to rip off with unreasonable fees and a fare structure that is closer to a Las Vegas roulette wheel? Have you ever tried to check fares on line? Go to an airline's website and you get a fare. Back out, check another airline, then come back to the first, BOOM , a different fare ((HINT-Clear your cookies before going back to the first web site!)) And these guys are asking for "transparency"?) Please see the attached open letter from the leaders of the U.S. airline industry.

------------------------------------------------------------
An Open letter to All Airline Customers:
------------------------------------------------------------
Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices,(True enough!) but by
pulling together, we can all do something to help now. (CHECK YOUR WALLET!)


For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil
prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our customers. Since high oil prices are partly (Which part and how much? This is one of those fuzzy, unsupported-by-fact statements that allow the writer to say just about anything.) a response to normal market forces (How about growing industrial needs in China and India; Iran firing off missiles and Israel practicing bombing Iran; Iran producing nuclear material. As they say, "normal market forces", all of which are totally beyond our control.) the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and conservation. However,there is another side to this story because normal market
forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation. (OW! OW! Mr. Kotter! I know I know!)

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and
then sell it to each other again and again (OH, NO! HOW CRIMINAL!). A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts (Some? Which ones? Don't they have names? Shoddy piece of work, this! And what do others say? How about an increase in demand from Asian markets and general market jitters over the Middle East?

I read an article by Paul Krugman in the NYTIMES on June 27th, in which he stated that the increase of oil tracks the price increase in iron, which is not subject to either Mid East politics or speculative pricing.

...iron ore isn’t traded on a global exchange; its price is set in direct deals between producers and consumers. So there’s no easy way to speculate on ore prices. Yet the price of iron ore, like that of oil, has surged over the past year. In particular, the price Chinese steel makers pay to Australian mines has just jumped 96 percent. This suggests that growing demand from emerging economies, not speculation, is the real story behind rising prices of raw materials, oil included.)

estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs. (So it is OK for you guys to force us to take part in your speculative game of airline ticket prices, but it is not OK for you to take part in a world-wide speculative market. So which part of "world-wide speculative market" did you not understand?)

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past
two decades (Just for the record-two decades equal 20 years. We had Republican administrations in 12 of those 20, including the last eight. Where were you guys? Just the facts, ma'am!), these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight (Don't you just love it? These guys now want "transparency and sound market oversight." I get the giggles from this!). Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper. (I love it. They want MORE REGULATION AS LONG AS THEY ARE PROTECTED. How about this, how about more regulation for the airlines. I figure if you want the King's protection, you have to pay for it. Or how about just nationalizing the whole mess and then bringing some rational rate and route structure to the country? As Warren Buffet said, no one has ever made money in the airline business.)

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil
markets and solve this growing problem (Translation: SAVE US! For US is YOU!

Let's admit that no one likes the airlines anymore. They have an unfair and unintelligible price structure, bait and switch promotions, and front line staff who do their very best to make sure you have a miserable time. For us coach passengers, the airlines try to cram as many people into the smallest space possible without the slightest interest in providing a modicum of comfort. They engage in poor business practices that annoy their customers and they charge for every possible amenity that they haven't eliminated entirely, such as checked luggage((Wait a second!! Checked luggage is not an amenity when the airline loses it!)). How about some honesty, like, "Hey, Folks, We are losing our shirt with these rising fuel prices so we need to raise our base fare, but we won't nickel and dime you to death. And, no, we won't install pay toilets!" How about that?

Nah! Honesty will NEVER work!).

We need your help. Get more information and contact
Congress by visiting StopOilSpeculationNow.com.
http://www.unitedoffers.com/600-1sape/101395/235989/6476e6b9e8423ab2c1287f8e02bf5301

(Fun prediction. Between the Scylla and Charybdis of security needs and fuel prices your flying experience will soon look like this. You arrive at the airport and are lead to a small cubicle where you will strip and then don a one-use paper "flying suit", the better to prevent you from carrying on contraband. You will then be thoroughly sedated and placed into a small coffin-like pallet. Your pallet, will be stacked along with those of your fellow travelers in a cargo-like transport airplane. When you arrive at your destination, you will be given a stimulant and your clothes will be returned.

No security problems. No amenities required. No cabin staff needed.You are now cargo. Thank you for flying with us.)




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear (Customer Name),

Last week, crude oil hit an all-time high of $146, and the
skyrocketing cost of fuel is impacting our customers, our
employees, the communities we serve, and the economy as a
whole. United, and the majority of other major U.S.
airlines, are asking our most loyal customers to join us in
pushing for legislation to add more transparency and
disclosure in the oil markets. Please see the attached open
letter from the leaders of the U.S. airline industry.

------------------------------------------------------------
An Open letter to All Airline Customers:
------------------------------------------------------------
Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn
because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by
pulling together, we can all do something to help now.

For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of
lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both
large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil
prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain.
This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking
the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our
customers. Since high oil prices are partly a response to
normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on
increased energy supplies and conservation. However,
there is another side to this story because normal market
forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly
regulated market speculation.

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were
purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with
no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil
speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures
contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that
are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and
then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of
oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and
used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers
pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate
that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per
barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations
to control excessive, largely unchecked market
speculation and manipulation. However, over the past
two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened
or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing
these limits, along with several other modest measures,
will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound
market oversight. Together, these reforms will help
cool the over-heated oil market and permit the
economy to prosper.

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil
markets and solve this growing problem.

We need your help. Get more information and contact
Congress by visiting StopOilSpeculationNow.com.
http://www.unitedoffers.com/600-1sape/101395/235989/6476e6b9e8423ab2c1287f8e02bf5301

Robert Fornaro
Chairman, President and CEO
AirTran Airways

Bill Ayer
Chairman, President and CEO
Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Gerard J. Arpey
Chairman, President and CEO
American Airlines, Inc.

Lawrence W. Kellner
Chairman and CEO
Continental Airlines, Inc.

Richard Anderson
CEO
Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Mark B. Dunkerley
President and CEO
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

Dave Barger
CEO
JetBlue Airways Corporation

Timothy E. Hoeksema
Chairman, President and CEO
Midwest Airlines

Douglas M. Steenland
President and CEO
Northwest Airlines, Inc.

Gary Kelly
Chairman and CEO
Southwest Airlines Co.

Glenn F. Tilton
Chairman, President and CEO
United Airlines, Inc.

Douglas Parker
Chairman and CEO
US Airways Group, Inc.

Buried in the Paper

From Michael Powell's "Reporter's Notebook" deep within today's New York Times:

Policy, Up Close

Early Tuesday, in Powder Springs, Ga., policy takes flesh before the candidate’s eyes.

Jeana Brown raises her arm in a forest of outstretched hands in the bleachers at the high school and Mr. Obama points to her — “Me?!” “Yes, you” — and voice quaking, Ms. Brown says:

“I am one of your small contributors — $5 actually,” she says.

She wants to tell Mr. Obama, who is talking about the 30 percent increase in the number of Americans who have filed for bankruptcy, about her trailer.

She is 50 and her husband, James, is 48, and they worked and snipped coupons and saved for five years to afford their double-wide trailer. Their credit report had the usual nicks and dents, and so they took a 9.25 percent interest rate on their loan. They relied on their broker’s promise “that if we were good and made our payments, we could refinance at a better rate after a year.”

A year later, Ms. Brown walked back in. The broker told her that because their trailer did not have a concrete foundation — which costs thousands more dollars than they had — she and her husband could not refinance.

A job disappeared and they faced foreclosure. The couple doubled up on interest payments, from $670 to $1,378 per month. They cut off Internet and cable service and held three yard sales — everything must go!

They saved their home.

Now her husband drives a truck six weeks at a stretch and she works two jobs. Ms. Brown’s chest heaves, her voice a quivering reed.

“I tell you, I’m not sure how we keep doing this,” she says.

Obama shakes his head. The gymnasium had gone silent.

“Look,” he says, “Jeana is an example of America. Someone who is working hard, who saved, doing all the right things and then gets put into a financial bind primarily because people took advantage of her situation.”

Afterward, Ms. Brown watches him work the rope line. She has brown hair and piercing eyes and hails from coal country; she is proud to describe herself as a white “redneck.”

Her husband, James, is black. When she heard Mr. Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia, she wrote her check. “I researched him; he’s real,” she says. “I haven’t voted in 32 years but he’s got mine.”

She touches a reporter’s arm; she’s got a question.

“Do you think we’ll be able to save our trailer?”

Democratic Stupidity

If you read this past Sunday's New York Times you would have come across this story on problems the Dems face in getting their big Denver show together.

Now, any big convention can run into problems, so i wasn't too concerned about that. But these items were a perfect example of the type of liberal totalitarianism that will get them into trouble"

With the Denver convention less than two months away, problems range from the serious — upwardly spiraling costs on key contracts still being negotiated — to the mundane, like the reluctance of local caterers to participate because of stringent rules on what delegates will be eating, down to the color of the food(emphasis TRM).

...

And then there is the food: A 28-page contract requested by Denver organizers that caterers provide food in “at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white.” Garnishes could not be counted toward the colors. No fried foods would be allowed. Organic and locally grown foods were mandated, and each plate had to be 50 percent fruits and vegetables. As a result, caterers are shying away.

Caterers are shying away? What about the rest of America? This is true liberal madness
...

City Councilman Charlie Brown, a political independent, has devoted his monthly newsletter to “Food Fight” over the color-coded rules for convention food and is concerned that plans to handle the thousands of demonstrators expected to attend have not been fully thought out.

While Mr. Brown said he expects the city will “cowboy up” and have a successful convention, the lack of resolution about important issues like the demonstrators and food are “the donkey in the room.”

“We are having people say that they will be leaving town,” said Mr. Brown, who fears that the city could be in a no-win situation with the demonstrators — if there is insufficient police presence, the city could be overrun by them; if the police are overly aggressive, they will be criticized as overreacting.

And caterers, expected to feed the 40,000 people coming to town, are throwing up their hands over the food requirements.

“Everything that the Democrats did got off to a late start,” said Peggy Beck, a co-owner of Three Tomatoes Catering. “It was such an ordeal. We’ve jumped through hoops and hoops to bid on their stuff, and we had to have certain color food so the plates would be colorful.” In the end, the parties that she had been bidding on were canceled to save money. “This was some of the silliest stuff ever,” she added.

Nick Agro, head of Whirled Peas Catering, questioned whether the requirement for local organic food could meet cost constraints. “These were fantastic ideas, but I question who is willing to pay for these extra costs,”(emphasis TRM) Mr. Agro said. “My experience is that it is all coming together slowly.”

...

For the Democratic Party, the danger is that a poorly run convention, or one that misses the mark financially, will reflect badly on the party and raise questions about Democratic management skills. And more worrisome for the Obama campaign is that it will be left with the bill for overruns or fund-raising shortfalls, and that the candidate will have to compete in raising money against a convention effort desperate for cash.

If the Democrats are what they eat, then heed the words of Mr. Agro (isn't that a great name for a caterer?!):

“These were fantastic ideas, but I question who is willing to pay for these extra costs,”(emphasis TRM)

CELEBRATE THE EXPERIMENT-HAPPY 4th (now go light a firecracker!)

As a friend of mine says:

Now, my personal favorite holiday is Halloween. I love the pure chaos of that evening above all other holidays. But following closely behind are the solemnity of Memorial Day and the jubilation of the Fourth. And jubilation it should be, friends. Jubilation and awe. Jubilation for the success of the experiment we began in self-rule 232 years ago. Awe for the beauty and power of the words, the courage of the signers, and the audacity of all those who converted a declaration into a reality between 1775 and 1783.

HAPPY 232nd!

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776