20070423

What About Obama

I have been watching the Obama rise in the opinion polls with some interest. I have been watching this rise with some skepticism. Is there anything more to the Obama rise other then an unpainted canvas I ask myself. Is there something genuine about the man that might make him worthy of consideration?

Well, (here) is a NY Times piece that reports upon his stance on foreign policy. Let me state that much of what the piece reports about causes me to consider this man to be a viable alternative for my vote. In many ways, he seems to almost give voice to my opinions, and he has the ability to be offered the microphone while my voice is limited to this blog. He can shout, but while I might attempt to shout, my voice is only a whisper.

OK, Barack Obama has my attention. He could end up being the Democratic nominee for President, so I guess I better start listening to what he has to say.

I am going to engage in a little criticism of Barack however. I am going to introduce an argument that the man might be in need of a little medication or something.

Barack Obama indicated:
If elected, Mr. Obama said he would lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and materials across the world within four years. In addition to securing stockpiles of nuclear material, Mr. Obama said the United States should work to negotiate a ban on producing new nuclear weapons material.
Hah hah hah. Guffaw. LOL (laughing out loud) ROFL (rolling on floor laughing) or in more general terms, slapping my hands on the table while screaming "ridiculous".

Let us get this straight. Barack thinks that by holding hands (under his leadership) and singing Kumbayah we can deal with nuclear proliferation. Sorry, I think the problem of nuclear proliferation needs more then singing Kumbayah. I am unwilling to think this problem is going to go away if we only are willing to hold hands together and attempt to wish it away.

Perhaps Barack needs to deal with the problem head on. How are we going to deal with the difficult problem of nuclear proliferation? Singing Kumbayah is not an answer, singing the song to unrespondent listeners is not going to solve a damn thing.

Now I am a realist, there is no perfect answer to nuclear proliferation. Anyone who thinks they have the perfect answer needs to be on meds. Barack's alluding to his solution is for us to gather hands leads me to wonder whether he should be on meds!

I am not attempting to say solving nuclear proliferation is an easy nut to crack. I am only saying we can sing Kumbayah until our voices crack, and still the problem will not be solved.

Democrats Deal With the AMT

Democrats are starting to seriously deal with the problem imposed upon the American middle class by the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax).

(See here) a Washington Post piece that reports upon the issue.

Instead of relying upon a band-aid solution that only helps to increase the national debt, Democrats are proposing a REAL solution to the problem. Let me add my voice to those applauding leadership from Democrats that attempt to actually garner fiscal responsibility from those we elect to office!

My suggestion to Democrats? If Republican or conservative Democrats (who, too, might be in the pocket of the wealthy) seek to hamstring the proposed legislation, you circle the wagons and refuse to compromise with band-aid solutions. What you offer is a REAL and long term solution. If opponents to the solution are unwilling to compromise then let the impact be felt by all those who will be impacted. You are offering a REAL solution to the problem. Let those who stand against the solution face the wrath of those who turn their backs on the solution offered.

No band-aids for the AMT! No band-aids for the AMT! No band-aids for the AMT! Should I continue to repeat myself? Democrats are proposing a long term, permanent solution to the problem. If anyone opposes the solution offered, I think they should be forced to deal with the effects of ripping off the dressing of the band-aid applied and deal with the wrath of those affected. Eventually this is going to impact the real meat of the American middle class in every Congressional district.

Responsible government is what I demand! Democrats are willing to deal with this problem with a cold dose of reality thrown in. Go Democrats!

In an effort towards fairness, let me deal with one opponent. From the Washington Post piece comes this quote:
Wisconsin Rep. Paul D. Ryan, senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, said raising taxes for the wealthiest Americans would punish small-business owners.

Let me take this one on. Sorry Paul, if the "small-business owner" makes enough money to qualify to be in the top 1% of Americans, they no longer qualify for the term "small-business owner". Your argument is completely ridiculous and is evidence that you, my dear man, need to be run out of office. Shame on you.

Debating Fuel Economy Standards

Due to the recent Supreme Court ruling that it is part of the job of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to regulate carbon emissions as well as a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, some type of increase in fuel economy standards seems to be in the future for the American automobile industry.

(See here) where MSNBC reports the automobile industry wants their voices heard on the decisions that will be made. I will note that the industry's voice up till now has been the loudest screaming against ANY increase in standards under ANY form. In the past they were unwilling to compromise and provide some input on the form of the compromise, however NOW they want their voices heard.

Personally I am favor of a graduated increase of standards over time. George Dubyah Bush proposed something similar in this year's State of the Union address, so it would seem such a gradual, yet significant increase is possible.

What do we do about the problem of computing the impact of vehicles that are "capable" (not required) to run on alternative fuels such as E85? (The MSNBC piece brings this subject up.) Well one only needs to factor in the total amount of E85 consumed and then divvy up the savings in carbon emissions amongst each E85 capable vehicle sold.

Now if the automobile industry does not want a mandated increase in fuel economy from the average of the fleet of vehicles they actually sell (they scream that consumers do not want high fuel mileage vehicles) then the government can help manage demand for them through imposing a tax on low fuel mileage vehicles with the lowest fuel mileage vehicles getting the greatest tax. Proceeds from the tax could be used to subsidize (in the form of tax credits) those consumers who buy higher fuel mileage vehicles with the amount of the tax credit determined by how much the vehicle exceeds the standard set.

Now some will scream that the above proposal would just generate additional government bureaucracy and be inefficient. These screamers would actually have a strong point in their argument. So lets trust the automobile industry to "efficiently" do all the tweaking required for them to meet the standards. "We the people", through Congress, set the standards that must be met and then count on General Motors and Ford to adjust the prices of what they offer so as to balance the demand with gas guzzlers against the need to sell enough fuel efficient vehicles so that the overall "fleet average" of vehicles sold complies with the mandated fuel economy standards. What would be the result? General Motors might have to raise the price of a large Cadillac by a couple (perhaps several) thousand dollars, generating additional profits per gas guzzler sold, so as to decrease and possibly even sell at a loss the number of fuel efficient vehicles required to comply with the standards. Vehicle prices could be adjusted monthly, weekly, or even daily by the industry in a rapid manner to manage demand. Government attempting to regulate demand through taxes and tax credits would not stand a chance of matching the quickness of response possible in a free market.

The automobile industry screams that they only manufacture what the consumer wants, which are gas guzzlers. Well I for one reply that the industry should raise the prices on gas guzzlers to dampen demand. If demand does not dampen with increased prices, use the profits to give away if need be enough fuel efficient vehicles so overall sales meet the demands.

If anyone attempts to scream they have a "right" to drive a gas guzzler, I am going to reply that there is no such "right". If you want an example of a precedence look at what society has done to when it comes to "smokers' rights"! When it comes to smoking, each smoker who takes up the habit benefits society in the long run (as long as none smokers' rights are also respected) where there is NO benefit to society from someone driving a gas guzzler when no need for the guzzling exists. In most areas of our nation, tobacco taxes are at ridiculous rates without justification. Smokers save society money without even factoring in the costs of the ludicrous taxes they pay. Meanwhile drivers of gas guzzlers cost me, while driving my fuel efficient vehicle, more money by raising the price of gasoline through increased demands for the limited supply of crude oil available.

Raise the prices on gas guzzlers to dampen demand. General Motors and Ford would almost have an unfair market advantage. They're loaded with gas guzzlers the consumer still wants to buy even at the increased price they would be available at. Meanwhile they could use the increased profits from the new "status symbol" gas guzzlers to subsidize the purchases of their fuel efficient product offerings by those who are motivated by price. Buyers will be willing to stand in line for the new Chevy Cobalt if the price is right.

Set new standards for the industry. If General Motors and Ford can't adjust I will argue that the only cure to what ails them is that they need a new CEO. Of course, if past performance is any indication, indicators are that GM and Ford needed different CEOs long ago, but that is a different argument. We're stuck with the present, and an increase in fuel economy standards needs not signal the demise of GM and Ford. The best thing America can do to help our auto industry is adopt national health care. An increase in fuel standard requirements should not threaten them in the least. A wise CEO, one with a little vision, could navigate and even exploit that storm.

If any politician really wanted to express real concern for GM and Ford, they would be in favor of national health care and would bat away complaints about increasing fuel economy standards.

20070422

Hillary Clinton On the Issues

Since I took out a microscope to look at John McCain on a few defining issues that are important to me, I thought it was only fair that I look at Hillary Clinton's stand on the same issues.

First, hard core social issues. Specifically, gay marriage and abortion.

Gay marriage: Hillary Clinton seems to be strongly in favor of "gay rights" while attempting to avoid just going all the way and stating she is in favor of "gay marriage". She tiptoes all the way up to that line without actually crossing it. In other words, she wants to give homosexuals all the rights of marriage but just call it by another name.

Abortion: Hillary Clinton is a pro-choice extremist. No room for ANY compromise on this issue because she voted against the ban on partial birth abortions. Now in my opinion, she has given a "reasonable" justification for her position even if I disagree with the position she has taken. Included in her response to the question: Are there circumstances when the government should limit choice? which was posed to her in the New York Senate campaign debate held in Manhattan in 2000, she responded (speaking about the partial birth abortion procedure): "Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice." To further illuminate her position; included in comments to NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) in January 1999 are these statements: "[Our] core beliefs and values can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century." And: "Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard." She seems to attempt to split the hair on the issue by wanting to be "pro-choice" without being "pro-abortion". She seems motivated to attempt to define her (to me) unreasonably uncompromising position the same way her husband did during his administration that abortions should remain "safe, legal and rare". Only problem with this is that during her husband's administration, everything was done to defend the "safe, legal" aspects and nothing was done about the "rare" portions of this position.

On gun control: From what I have been able to dig up, Senator Clinton never saw any aspect of proposed gun control legislation she did not like.

On taxes and the budget deficit: Here at least Senator Clinton seems to gain some traction with me. For a defining vote during her serving as New York's Jr Senator, we need only look at her vote against making the repeal of the "death tax" permanent. I am firmly in favor of a progressive tax code for my nation and the so-called "death tax" is amongst my most favorite of taxes (as long as it continues to only affect the wealthiest of estates) so her being against making the repeal permanent, while adopting such a position makes her an easy target for the so called "tax reform" crowd, wins her strong points with me. She has also spoken strongly and loudly against the mounting federal budget.

So, it appears that if both of my favorite candidates from each party were nominated to run, I would be looking at a difficult choice. Here's the scoreboard:

Gay marriage: John McCain

I do not particularly care for either candidate's position, but McCain's position is the least offensive.

Abortion: Hillary Clinton

Again, I do not particularly like either candidate's position, however if forced to choose, I would choose Hillary's "unreasonable" position over John's "unreasonable" position.

Gun Control: John McCain

Not even close. John McCain's uncompromising position wins hands down.

Taxes and the budget deficit: Hillary Clinton

Again not even close.

Seems we have ourselves a horse race. Of course, Senator McCain's efforts to win the Republican nomination seem to be disappearing in a cloud of dust while Hillary maintains front runner status in her race for the Democratic nomination (although Barack Obama could overtake her).

20070420

The Cries for Gun Control

(See here) a Washington Post piece written by Op-Ed columnist E. J. Dionne Jr that seems to attempt to open up a debate about gun control.

In this piece, Mr Dionne seems to attempt to cloak himself as a reasonable voice willing to take on the "unreasonable" National Rifle Association.

Note how the piece opens with the question:
Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing?

At least there is an admission that no reasonable debate happens, it is all just an argument. Each side puts forth their position and is unwilling to consider the statements and opinions of the other side. So, to answer the question why do we have the same futile argument every time? How about this for an answer? Gun control advocates use every horrible event involving guns to trot out the same old tired (and perhaps even unreasonable) arguments.

Now Mr Dionne attempts to make the point that in order to win some type of new, additional gun control action, reasonable goals must be set by gun control advocates. He then attempts to open the debate with specific questions which I guess he thinks any "reasonable" citizen will side with him when answering. Mr Dionne attempts to obtain clarity by asking these three questions:
Okay, let's be specific. What would the NRA's objection be to a law requiring gun dealers to establish whether a potential buyer is a student and, if so, to inform (or even get permission from) the student's high school or college before any weapons could be sold? What about raising the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 25 or 30? Why not renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons?
First, let me state that I am not a member of the NRA (National Rifle Association) that Mr Dionne rails against. I also do not currently even own a firearm. I am going to take on each question asked individually in an attempt to help explain why gun control advocates find it so hard to make any headway while they insist upon unreasonable measures.

Question 1: What would the NRA's objection be to a law requiring gun dealers to establish whether a potential buyer is a student and, if so, to inform (or even get permission from) the student's high school or college before any weapons could be sold? I can't speak for the NRA (to whom the question was posed) however I can speak as an "ordinary" citizen. Why do you propose an individual must be willing to surrender the right to own a gun just to be a student? What? If the student had only taken up carpentry he is fit to own a weapon but for some reason enrolling in a college makes him unfit? If he takes up truck driving he can seek out to purchase a weapon but if he enrolls in college he now must ask for permission from the college he is enrolled in first? For some reason enrolling in college signals a special character flaw in the individual that requires denial of rights of every other citizen that does not enroll? This question is ludicrous and Mr Dionne by even asking it exposes his position as being unreasonable. Perhaps (some would say certainly) bearing arms could be restricted while on campus. However to completely bar the student from the right to own a weapon BECAUSE he/she is only a student is absurd.

Question 2: What about raising the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 25 or 30? Let me get this straight. Our society has decided the "age of majority" is 18. At this age, the individual is allowed to enlist in our armed forces and we even pay him/her to bear arms to defend his country. Perhaps even more succinctly, 18 is the age at which entrust an even more lethal weapon, the right to vote. Mr Dionne thinks the majority of these adults below a certain age can't be trusted to own a firearm? What the heck, let's then also restrict their ability to own an automobile and deny them the right to obtain a driver's license! Here we have yet another absurd proposal.

Question 3: Why not renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons? OK, here finally we are starting to see at least a shred of reasonableness. Now, personally, I am against the ban on assault weapons, however I will agree that there must be some type of ban that restricts the lethality of weapons citizens are allowed to possess. Personally, I draw my line somewhere above semi-automatic assault weapons and somewhere below automatic 50 caliber machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. Not every citizen is entitled to own their own pocket sized nuclear weapon - grin. Personally, I am unswayed by arguments that the only purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people, that these weapons can not be used in hunting game, so they qualify for restriction. My opinion is that reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is so that citizens, previously armed, can band together in militias, if need be, to defend themselves from any tyrannical government that might arise and attempt to impose tyranny. My opinion is that assault weapons should be allowed BECAUSE they are meant to kill human beings. However I will agree that there are limits to the lethality of weapons that every citizen should be allowed in order to defend themselves. I think assault weapons, and even banana clips for these weapons, should be allowed. Perhaps where I draw the line is not where the line should be drawn. However I will continue to insist that the reason for the Second Amendment was not solely so that the average sportsman could enjoy the right to bag a deer during hunting season. The reason for the Second Amendment is to give the average citizen the right to defend himself against his own government if the need for such defense arises. Just how lethal do the weapons that can be obtained by the average citizen need to be to accomplish this goal? Here, at least, I am still open to arguments. My own argument is that they need to be at least as lethal as semi-automatic assault weapons which are designed only to kill people, but I might not win the argument.

Let me conclude this piece by answering one final question which Mr Dionne asks. It is the question with which he concludes his piece:
One more question: Why are our politicians still cowering before the gun lobby after Virginia Tech?

My answer: I do not think the politicians are cowering before the gun lobby. They are cowering before the number of citizens to which the "right to keep and bear arms" is important and these numbers exceed those of the members of the NRA. For many citizens, this is a hot button issue upon which they base their voting decision. Personally, I only give this issue "some" weight, however it is an important issue upon which I base my decision. Politicians who do not understand that our freedoms are based upon the right of the populace to defend themselves against tyranny, even tyranny from their own government, expose themselves to me.

On Israel and Palestine - Prospects for Peace

In the past, I have been critical of the new Palestinian "unity government" comprised of elements of both Fatah and Hamas.

Since then, I have attempted to watch events in the Middle East to see if there is even a hint that my opinion is mistaken.

(See here) a Jerusalem Post piece that reports:

Former PA foreign minister Mahmoud A-Zahar of Hamas said Friday that recognizing Israel contradicts the Koran...
So I guess if one is going to be a good Moslem, then peace with Israel is impossible. That sure seems like a good starting point for negotiations doesn't it? (Yes, that was sarcastic.)

The JPost piece also reports:
In an interview with a Hamas-affiliated Web site, A-Zahar said that Hamas had not given up on the principle that all of Palestine is Muslim land.
Let me point out that "all of Palestine" includes all of Israel. I guess if negotiations are opened with the "unity government" of Palestine, that includes representation by Hamas, then we can skip all of the other issues and get down to the only points that remain to be settled: How is Israel going to surrender to Palestinian forces and under what conditions will the nation of Israel be destroyed? (Yes, more sarcasm.)

The best result that could be obtained through negotiations with a government that includes Hamas is for Hamas to agree to a hudna (a temporary peace) during which they would attempt to gather strength for the ultimate showdown which is yet to come. Leaders of Hamas have indicated as much with their statements. It is my personal opinion that negotiations should not be opened under such conditions. That the economic boycott against Hamas and any government that includes Hamas should continue. When (if ever) the Palestinian people have had enough and choose to put in power a more reasonable government then there might be a point in holding negotiations.

When the Palestinian people signal they are ready to negotiate a real end to hostilities, that they too are tired of the endless bloodshed and they too want peace we should fall all over ourselves getting to our places at the negotiating table. However as long as the precondition exists that Israel must agree to commit suicide, well... Israel does have the right to defend herself and the conflict goes on.

In the meantime, Israeli settlement expansion in Judea and Samaria (the occupied Palestinian territories - or West Bank) should still cease. There is no justification for continuing this practice. The hard core, extremist elements of Israeli society (who are themselves just as unwilling to compromise as Hamas) should not receive a reward for lack of progress in the peace process.

20070418

Defending Gun Ownership

In advance of the tidal wave caused by the massacre at Virginia Tech that is going to result in renewed calls for limiting gun ownership, I am motivated to add my voice to those who will say to not allow horrific happenings should restrict reasonable freedoms.

I am going to base my own statements and opinion on this: Why does the Constitution include the right to bear arms in the first place? What motivated the original framers of the Constitution to include such a horrible right in order to GUARANTEE the existence of a civil society?

It is my opinion that the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and even bear arms (the right to bear which is sometimes currently infringed upon by law) is integral to a civil society. Laws can not keep outlaws from bearing arms. It is wrong to deny lawful citizens the rights to bear the arms that would prevent them from protecting themselves from the outlaws.

If a just society could be invented where the only thing the law abiding citizen needed to fear was a punch in the nose from the outlaw citizen, perhaps outlawing the possession of firearms by the ordinary citizen could be tolerated. But what happens when such laws cause the ordinary citizen to become a sheep subject to the government forces who alone are allowed to possess the weapons and who are prevented from defending themselves from tyranny forced upon them by an unreasonable government?

I put forth that the only reason government, whether it be local, regional, or national, does not become unreasonable is through the respect (not fear) of an armed citizenry. That this was the outcome the framers of the Constitution sought to achieve and that what they attempted to realize has been achieved. American citizens are not sheep. We are armed and dangerous. If any dictator seeks to impose his will, he is going to have to attempt to impose that will upon a public that is armed and can defend itself.

Patrick Henry gave voice to these words: "Give me liberty or give me death." Others of his day were motivated to publicize these words so that they made them famous. Today these words ring as loud as the day Patrick Henry uttered them. STILL Americans value their freedoms and are willing to die to defend them. STILL Americans are willing to take up arms if ever a tyrannical government arises that seeks to impose its will upon them without justice behind the will. What guarantees justice behind what politicians proclaim is "the will of the people" is the ability of nearly every American to take up arms when the will of the government no longer serves justice.

Now this is my understanding of the "right to keep and bear arms". It is my understanding that our forefathers felt that if an army of the government, such an army motivated by economics to serve in the armed forces, sought to impose some tyrant's will upon populace, they would have to deal with a populace that was armed against them. That any citizen's son, serving in these forces, might to have to face his armed father who was willing to rise up and stand against him.

With the "right to keep and bear arms" we enjoy a free press that reports upon the likes of the massacre at Virginia Tech. With this right, as presently defined, some maniacs like Cho Seung-Hui are going to kill innocents. However, without respect for human nature, without the ability to rise up and suppress tyranny which is enabled by the right to keep and bear arms, even more deaths might occur without the ability of a "free press" to inform us of it.

The "right to keep and bear arms" does not come without costs. However the costs of relinquishing this right is too high for me to be willing to bear it.

The Warren Buffett Bounce

(See here) an MSN Money piece that reports:

Warren Buffett has been working on the railroads -- a good sign that you might want to, as well.
Now that the word is out, that the stock market investment genius has staked a large claim in Burlington Northern Santa Fe, we can watch for the "Warren Buffett Bounce" as others try to jump on the bandwagon. After the bounce, Warren Buffett would not even need to continue holding the stock. He could sell out and realize a nice tidy profit.

I seemed to notice just such an occurrence once previously. There was a company that I was interested in investing in except that I didn't have any money available at the time. I based my decision on things I can notice at a loading dock. For example, why would a customer, that normally has a smooth shipping department suddenly have a hard time getting trucks loaded? Nowadays, if they keep trucks waiting they face detention charges, so what would motivate them to pay these charges that impact the bottom line? Ask a few questions on the loading dock and you can find out a lot. Perhaps it was a change in management and it was not a change for the good. Or perhaps it is because of increased demand for the company's products and the company is finding it hard to keep up with the demand. If it is increased demand, problems meeting this demand (and increased detention charges etc) might dampen profits in the short term, but once the company adjusts to the new demand and returns to being a well oiled machine? Well I sometimes smell opportunity.

Anyway, I had identified one such company that I would have been interested in if I had the money. Evidently Warren Buffett decided (probably for other reasons) that the company was worth staking a claim in as well. Once word spread thst Warren Buffett had bought into the company, the value of the stock shot up. However something interesting then happened. Within a couple weeks word got out that Warren Buffett had jumped ship and sold all of his holdings.

Why did Warren Buffett jump ship? Had something changed that threatened the long term profitability of the company? Here's what I decided was the explanation. Warren bought into the stock based upon the price it was available at when he made his decision. Warren normally buys large stakes in companies, and it is probably pretty hard to keep such large investment movements a secret. Once word started leaking that Warren was getting in, other investment gurus within the loop started taking a look and following suit. The value of the stock started to rise. Then word hits the street, becomes common knowledge, and the price shoots up even more.

Now what about ole Mr Buffett? He identified a long term investment opportunity. However, due to his reputation, he is able to reap long term profits in the short term. Once the value of the stock (in the short term) reaches a price that he feels it should have been capable of reaching in the long term, he can sell his holdings and realize a nice tidy profit without having to wait. Nowadays there is not even a need for him to hold on for a minimum level of time in order for his profits to qualify for the long term capital gains tax rate. Even if his profits are realized quickly, they qualify for the current Dubyah Bush 15% tax rate on capital gains profits that are realized in the short term.

Warren Buffett almost seems to have the Midas touch, every investment decision he makes turns to gold. Kinda like a self fulfilling prophecy. He's got such a reputation for success that once he decides an investment choice is a good one, it becomes one.

I do take issue with one aspect of Michael Brush's (the author of the MSN Money piece) analysis of the prospects of competition from the truck industry. Michael states:
High fuel costs and new limits on how much time truck drivers can spend behind the wheel are hurting truckers, the railroads' chief competition.
First let's analyze the high fuel costs. Most truckers are now getting a fuel surcharge. The method of figuring the fuel surcharge varies a little bit, but most often it is based on so many cents per mile factored on a) one average or another of current fuel prices (sometimes national, sometimes regional, average price) and b) an average fuel economy for a large truck, most often the industry average which is about 6 miles per gallon. Now this surcharge is paid only on loaded miles not on miles traveled between customers while empty (commonly referred to as deadhead miles) so not every mile covered receives a surcharge. Also, if a trucker needs to take a longer route due to weather or something, no surcharge is paid on the "out of route" miles unless agreed to in advance. However, at least in my own case, I am able to significantly beat the "industry average" fuel economy so that with every increase in the price of fuel, I see a small increase in profits. My fuel economy is good enough that it covers my deadhead and out of route miles and still leave me with a modest increase in profits. Now I do not cheer about increased fuel prices. My family back home still has to pay the increased prices for gasoline like everyone else. However increased fuel prices do not impact the profitability of my business.

Some truckers, who insist on idling their trucks all night long even when the temperature outside is 67 degrees, who insist on driving a "pretty" truck like a Kenworth W900 that is 90% looks and 10% streamlined, who insist on driving 75 miles per hour when the speed limit allows it even though it only means they are going to have to sit a couple extra hours in the truckstop before they can deliver, well... yeah, these type of truckers are going to find it hard to compete.

Now, the increased fuel surcharges might affect the decision of the fellah in charge of deciding whether to ship by rail or over the road. However it is my understanding that the rail companies have followed the lead of the trucking industry and they now assess a fuel surcharge of their own. Those big diesel locomotives run on diesel fuel as well and they consume diesel at an awesome rate. Rail companies probably can beat trucking companies when it comes to price, however they can not come near to offering the dock plate to dock plate certainty of speedy, on time, reliable service. Back during the Clinton economy when freight was moving like gangbusters, and trucking companies found it impossible to meet freight demands, many customers were motivated to try and "go rail". The result? The railroads found it impossible to keep up with demand and freight was sitting loaded on box cars not getting moved. When too much freight starts moving by rail, it bogs the entire rail system down and NONE of the freight is moved efficiently.

What about the "new hours of service" regulations for the trucking industry? What is the impact? First let me state that my own experience is based upon being contracted with an outfit that already was doing a pretty good job on enforcing safe and "reasonably" legal operations. This is one of the reasons I stuck with the outfit I am contracted with for as many years as I have. It didn't take me too long driving a truck to come to the realization that there are not too many things harder then trying to drive a truck while tired. I wanted an outfit that I could make a good living with that also offered a good nights sleep with regularity. I found such an outfit and I stuck with them. It is important to note that the new safety regulations do not limit the number of hours truckers can drive on the road. The total number of hours driven is the same. What has had to change is increased efficiency in getting trucks loaded and unloaded so as to keep the freight moving. Well the changes are being made and the results are that life is getting easier being a trucker. Did the trucking companies have to change? Yes they did, however it is easier for a trucking company that was already motivated to operate safely to adjust then for one who insisted on operating as an "outlaw outfit". My own experience is that if I have experienced any decrease in the number of miles I can cover every week, and this is with almost UNREASONABLE enforcement of the new regulations, the decrease has been extremely minimal. I still get my 3,000 to 4,000 miles per week (depending on the freight I haul, shorter runs mean less miles but more profit per mile) because my outfit has adjusted.

*** In order to not sound like a hypocrite, I wish to point out that I still have a piece I am motivated to write where I will attempt to make the point that "unreasonable" enforcement of safety regulations actually results in less safe trucking. My opinion is also only based upon my understanding of what the Department of Transportation is CURRENTLY trying to do, not what they might be forced to do by the courts. More on this in my separate piece which is forthcoming.***

I will concede that the new trucking regulations, and enforcement, do make it difficult to get freight in and out of certain areas. Most often these are the large urban areas where environmental regulations are extremely restrictive and property values are unreasonable. The problem is for a trucker to find a place to park at night before he makes delivery the next morning. In some areas, I have noted that some of the truckstop companies, those that currently are motivated to expand to increase their profits, have actually been selling their property so that malls and condos can be built where the truckstop once stood. Not only are new truckstops not opening, truckstops that are expanding elsewhere are retreating from these areas. Perhaps the most difficult nut to crack under this concern is the New England area.

Perhaps the New England area does offer an area for railroads to expand into. However the economics do not favor the railroads even here. Railroad expansion into New England would be extremely expensive. However there is nothing ailing the New England market that a few new, strategically located, truckstops would not cure. The big truckstop firms are itching to get into the New England market. Once freight rates climb into unreasonable levels, New England corporations, and the employees who's jobs depend on the corporations, are going to demand solutions. While part of the solution might be railroads, that solution is going to require unreasonable levels of capitol. Meanwhile to solve the trucking problem the cost of investment is rather cheap with only a few truckstops, that could be operated at a profit, required. Do you think the railroad companies are going to be willing to invest hundreds of millions into New England when all the trucking industry needs to do is open a few truckstops to steal their freight from them?

My advice to Warren Buffett? Get out of rail while the getting is good. If things get too crazy in the freight business, he will still be competing with the private entrepreneur who can always buy a truck, put his name on the side, and provide more reasonable levels of service at a more reasonable rate then can the rail companies. It might be expensive to get into rail, but the "American Way", based upon a hope and a dream, still fuels the trucking industry.

20070417

John McCain's Stock Drops With Me

I have been trying to watch Senator John McCain's campaign efforts as closely as possible as he attempts his run for President of the United States.

First off, Senator McCain has been losing ground recently. Evidently, in an effort to stem the tide, he has been tacking right in his positions in an attempt to bolster his support amongst the more conservative base in the Republican Party. I sometimes wonder if this does not perhaps explain his lagging support in his run. When he tacks hard right, he not only fails to gain conservative support, but he alienates the moderate, more independent minded members that was his "base" originally. I am going to point out what I understand to be the positions he has staked out on a number of issues and how these positions have resulted in a weakening of my own support for Senator McCain. Why should my opinion matter? Because I am amongst those who WAS (note past tense) a strong supporter of his and his tacking hard right has resulted in a lessening of my own support for him in his campaign.

First let's start with the hard core social issues. Now I am not totally a hot button social issue voter (think Republican speak "family values") however they are important enough to me that they do matter. The most telling of these issues are the positions on gay marriage and abortion. My own positions are that: on gay marriage, I seek a society that is tolerant of homosexuality but tolerant only. I do not support the "right" to marriage that some homosexuals seek and I am in favor of an amendment to the federal constitution that defends our traditional understanding of the term marriage and bars homosexuals from redefining the term. I do not think we can duck the issue and let each state determine whether or not it will allow homosexual marriage because the issue is going to end up in the federal courts, perhaps even the Supreme Court, when a homosexual couple married in one state relocates to another... or just as probable... a homosexual couple with children married in one state's marriage breaks up and one of the members of the couple seeks to bar any visitation rights to the other member by packing up and moving to another, more conservative, state that does not recognize homosexual marriage. Instead of "leaving it to the courts to decide" the public needs to decide on the issue in advance and I am in favor of deciding "no homosexual marriage" period. On abortion: I describe my position as "pro restricted choice". Specifically, I am in favor of a woman's right of unrestricted choice up till about the fourth month of pregnancy. After the fourth month I feel the woman should lose the right of "choice", or should I say that through inaction before the fourth month, the woman made her choice. After the fourth month I am in favor of only allowing an abortion where the woman's life (not just her health, particularly not her "mental" health) is endangered. Now where does Senator McCain stand on these issues? He's against an amendment to the federal constitution barring gay marriage and he wants to OVERTURN Roe vs Wade through appointing "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court. As far as I am concerned, Senator McCain gets it wrong on both of these issues.

2nd Amendment - gun rights: here Senator McCain stands firm in my camp. Now I do not personally own a gun, however I strongly support every citizen's right to own one (with only a few, not very onerous, exceptions) and I feel that "gun control" has gone far enough to restrict the rights guaranteed to citizens under the 2nd amendment. Senator McCain leaves little doubt as to where he stands when, as you can (see here) in a Washington Times piece that reports, in response to questions prompted by the horrific massacre at Virginia Tech he states:
“I do believe in the constitutional right that everyone has, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, to carry a weapon,” he said. “Obviously we have to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.”
Nothing wishy-washy in this statement. His mind is made up and if ever there was going to be an opportunity to waffle on his position, this would have given him the opportunity to do so.

Taxes and the budget deficit: Senator McCain is starting to alienate me on this issue. He's against pork barrel earmarks and runaway federal spending like I am, however the "recipe" he is coming up with to cure the federal budget deficit seems to come from the same old, tried and failed, menu Republicans have been feeding us for the last several years of tax cuts for the wealthy. (See here) where the Washington Times again reports:
In his first major economic speech since announcing his run for the presidency, Mr. McCain said he would extend President Bush's tax cuts and vowed to take on the vexing problems of reforming Social Security and Medicare.
When it comes to federal finances, Senator McCain is tacking hard right. He's strongly in favor of the Bush tax cuts which went mainly to the wealthy and which as far as I am concerned are chiefly responsible for the mushrooming national deficit spending. Since I am so critical of his stand on the federal budget, I doubt I would even care to hear about what he would come up with to "cure what ails" Social Security and Medicare. Perhaps even more telling of his support for mistakes of the past (the Dubyah Bush tax cuts) are his hints at plans for the future also reported about in the above linked Washington Times piece:

A day before national tax-filing day, he also said a commission should study how best to overhaul the "Byzantine code" that costs taxpayers "$140 billion in compliance and preparation costs each year $1,000 for every American family."

"Our job is to simplify the tax code as much as possible and have a debate on whether it should be fairer, or flat, or whatever it is. Estonia, a brand-new little country, they have a 22 percent tax, period. End of story. You can file your tax return on the Internet. That sounds very attractive to a lot of people," he said in a short question-and-answer session after his speech.

Have you got that? Senator McCain thinks we should consider a flat tax because Estonia adopted one. He thinks we should replace "the American Way" with "the Estonian Way" or something. Bullshit. I am FIRMLY in favor of a progressive tax code, something along the lines of what we had before the Dubyah Bush tax cuts where the lower class pays little or nothing, the middle class pays some, and the upper class pays more. Any efforts to impose more of the tax burden on the middle class and while lessening the burden on the upper class while sugar coating it with labels like "the Fair Tax" or something is more then I can stomach. I might be open to arguments to simplify our tax system, but when "plain and simple" this effort yields tax cuts for the wealthy along with tax increases for the middle class I am dead set against it and I refuse to compromise.

Let me also call attention to Senator McCain's exaggerated claims about how much it costs the average taxpayer to comply with our "Byzantine code" as it now exists. I am not sure where he comes up with the $1,000 per family figure, but if that figure is honest and accurate we sure have a lot of stupid people getting screwed by tax accountants that are charging too much. I will use myself as an example and I do not think my own example is very representative of the "average" American family. My filings are too complicated to be representative. Each year I file extremely complicated tax returns, with numerous schedules, and this includes corporate as well as personal returns. The total bill? About $350, a little more then a third of what Senator McCain claims. I doubt the "average" American family's filings include corporate returns either.

By the way, when I go into my accountant each year, it does not even take her an hour to complete my return while I sit in a chair opposite her desk. Of course, I come in prepared and I maintain fairly meticulous records all during the year so it is not that hard for me to give her the figures she needs to complete and fill out my returns.

I have already written previous articles about where I differ with John McCain on Iraq. On his stated stance on this issue, I might be willing to give him some time to shift his position from "stay the course" to becoming the candidate who can get us through the withdrawal from Iraq without our looking like a dog running with his tail tucked between its legs. It is my opinion that America is going to withdraw from Iraq one way or another. What I want to hear is specifics from the candidates on how they would go about doing it. I expect John McCain to be forced to come up with his own plan for withdrawal, unless Dubyah Bush's "surge" and further efforts yield fantastically positive results between now and election day. In the meantime, if another major terrorist attack were to happen on American soil before election day, Senator McCain has himself positioned as almost the sole "hard line" candidate who could "save us from the terrorists".

All in all, Senator McCain is starting to lose many aspects of what appealed to me about him in the first place. Instead of running as an independent minded moderate, he is starting to sound more and more like a retread of a George Dubyah Bush candidacy while he tries to win support from the conservative base of the Republican Party. Well his efforts to win over the conservatives have not been very successful and by doing so he has been alienating those like me who supported him in the first place.

20070414

Senator McCain Has 'No Plan B'

(See here) a New York Times piece that reports Senator John McCain is unwilling to even consider a fallback strategy in Iraq if George Dubyah Bush's "stay the course" strategy in Iraq fails.

The piece reports:
“I have no Plan B,” Mr. McCain said in an interview. “If I saw that doomsday scenario evolving, then I would try to come up with one. But I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now.”

Seems to me Senator McCain has a problem dealing with reality. American public opinion is already firmly in favor of withdrawal and what limited support there is for the war is steadily eroding. His position on this issue is not going to get him elected, and even if he managed to be elected for other reasons, he would not have the public support necessary to continue the war.

While I attempt to not be a one issue voter, this one issue tempts me to question whether or not Senator McCain possesses the qualities America needs for one whom we would select to serve as our President.

Now I am going to be truthful. For many reasons I really like Senator McCain, and thus far he is the ONLY Republican candidate for whom I would consider voting. However I am starting to consider registering as a Democrat so as to help pick out the best Democrat in the primaries. If Senator McCain does not have a "Plan B", then he is unrealistic.

Look, I agree with Senator McCain that withdrawal from Iraq is going to leave a great big mess behind in our wake. However public opinion is going to force our withdrawal. Senator McCain better start coming up with a plan for under what circumstances we withdraw and under what circumstances we will re-engage after withdrawal. It is not going to do him any good to point at the results in Iraq after he loses the election and tell the rest of us "See, I told you so!" America is going to withdraw from Iraq. If Senator McCain insists on a position that, if elected President, he will not withdraw, he is not going to be elected President.

In the next election, America is going to vote for a President who has a plan to get our ass out of Iraq. Will our next President have a wise plan? That I can not predict. I can only say with certainty that absent something like another major terrorist attack on American soil, our next President will have a plan to withdraw from Iraq even if it is a foolish one.

Perhaps that is what Senator McCain is banking on, before the next election there will be another major terrorist attack and that will leave him alone as the only hard line candidate?

Hey Osama, how about giving John McCain a hand. You, Osama, orchestrate a major terrorist attack upon American soil and then Senator McCain will be swept into office as the hard line candidate. John will arrange for an involuntary draft to fill the ranks in our armed services, convince the American public that Iran must be invaded to keep them from obtaining nuclear weapons and everyone will be happy. Think about it Osama! You'll have Sunnis and Shiites united against the "Great Satan" and we can witness unlimited bloodshed. Imagine all the gore. How lovely!

However there is still hope that Senator McCain might come around. As the NYTimes piece reports:
He said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq.

Heh heh, Senator McCain seems to be admitting he might need to bow to public pressure AFTER he was elected President. John seems to forget how things work. If he is going to be forced to deal with "plan B" after he is elected, we the voters want some hint of what the plan might be before we vote for him. No hidden secrets. Come on John, you do have a "plan B" don't you? Hey John, how about cutting the rest of us in on it before your chances for election completely tanks?

If Senator McCain continues to insist he does not have a "plan B", to me this will only serve to prove that his age is catching up with him. Age does matter. This was proven to the American voter during the latter years of the Ronald Reagan administration.

The Media and Trucking

I wish to point to how truck drivers and trucking companies are often painted in the media. It often seems that newspapers and newspaper reporters are motivated to sensationalize accidents involving large trucks in order to sell more newspapers.

(See here) a piece that appeared at the Washington Post website that could have been titled "Maniacs Behind the Wheel".

Now, I do not wish to attempt to absolve the truck driver of responsibility for the accident that is reported about. I could imagine a scenario where the driver was not at major fault, however this driver rear ended another vehicle and "most probably" was at fault and should be held accountable. Even if, as witnesses described, the three vehicles he ran into were "parked in the middle of the highway" this is not a real excuse. The truck driver should have been operating his vehicle in a manner and at a speed where he could have safely brought his truck to a stop in time to avoid such a collision. To me, it sounds like the vehicle backing up traffic (the one with its flashers on) was having mechanical difficulties and was trying to get to the next exit or something instead of just pulling off onto the shoulder. Perhaps this was not the wisest thing to do in the world, but this is not that unusual and the truck driver should have been ready for something like this.

However let us examine where the article goes "too far" in its reporting. Where the article seems to scream "maniacs behind the wheel". First, notice how the article points out how the truck driver was "cited" for speeding 11 times but only convicted 8 times. While a record of 8 times for being convicted for speeding is rather appalling, it is not fair to even mention every time the driver was cited but not convicted. The inference is that not only is the driver not "innocent until proven guilty" he is guilty once cited. The truck driver deserves the same considerations that every other driver deserves. If the judge found him not guilty, the not guilty finding should be respected and the verdict honored, they should not even have been mentioned.

However, in an effort to be fair, I am going to admit that the driver's record of 8 convictions for moving violations is pretty bad. It is my experience that most law enforcement officers are pretty tolerant of truck drivers when it comes to speeding. I have had officers flip on their lights to warn me to slow down without pulling me over. Officers get on the CB to warn me in no uncertain terms that I better slow down or he was going to give me a ticket. Officers have pulled me over and the only thing that kept me from getting a ticket was that he sized me up, examined my log book, took a look at my equipment and let me off with a verbal warning. In each case, the officer sized up my "offense" and decided my offense was not so great that he/she needed to cite me because my offense was not that great. My "offense" was not so great that he needed to threaten my livelihood but great enough to get my attention so as to attempt to change my behaviour. In my own defense I am going to state that every instance I was involved with, I was only attempting to maximize my fuel economy and limit wear on my brakes. I might have been a little bit slow coming down to the speed limit as I entered town as I let me truck coast down instead of getting on the brakes because I noticed the reduced speed limit a little bit late. Perhaps the reason my driving record is so clean is because the officers involved understood this.

Here's another example of sensationalizing: "Scofield racked up traffic citations in each of those states and convictions in at least two, court records show." If the truck driver was cited in "each of those states" without conviction, the citations should not have even been mentioned. Mentioning them when they did not result in a guilty verdict is an attempt to make the driver's awful record appear even worse then it is.

Yet another example of sensationalizing: "In Delaware, where Scofield had his commercial driver's license, court records show the license was suspended seven times between October 1988 and January 1999. Each time, his license was restored." This seems to be an obvious example of of erroneous suspension or something. Perhaps the driver's license was erroneously suspended seven times and in each case the driver was able to point out and convince someone the suspension was wrong. The reporter should have either explored the justification for the suspensions or not bothered to report on this at all. I will only point out that the piece reports "Each time, his license was restored." That this instance was even reported upon proves an effort to sensationalize or proves the reporter lacks common sense. You decide.

Most telling of the motivation on the part of the reporter and the editor who reviewed the piece is the inclusion of how so early the attorney who represents the injured party in the accident is allowed to express such a one sided opinion about it. The article reports:
"It's frightening to think that people like Scofield and others are out there,"said attorney Ron Karp, who filed a wrongful-death suit last week against the driver and his employer. "There are people behind the wheels of trucks that just shouldn't be, and it's becoming a national epidemic."

Notice how early in the article this attorney is allowed to present such a one sided statement. This attorney is not only motivated to try THIS case in the newspaper (and influence the jury pool ahead of time) he is seeking to try future traffic accidents involving trucks as well with the inflated statement that "it's becoming a national epidemic." My experience is that safety enforcement is already so extreme for big trucks that is extremely difficult for scofflaws to escape enforcement. It is already so extreme that enforcement efforts are an extreme burden for those who seek to drive safely and who are forced to endure the hardship of the extreme enforcement.

As for the citation the truck driver received for the "driving with defective brakes" violation, I am willing to hold the truck driver completely harmless. My experience is that Department of Transportation inspectors inspecting trucks for safety are motivated to nitpick trucks for safety violations in order to justify that their efforts deserve their being paid their salary or something. That on occasion these inspectors seem to be motivated to not only nitpick but actually cite trucks for safety violations that do not exist. To prove my point I am going to have to write a completely new article because this point demands consideration on its own.

Blogging About Trucking

In my blog, I have avoided discussing trucking for a number of reasons. Included in my reasoning was the experiences I have noted where other bloggers have blogged about their jobs. Another reason is that I have always considered myself as being too inexperienced to comment.

Well I have decided that it is now time for me to rethink this. I guess I had better still use some discretion in what I blog about so as not to ruin a relationship with a customer who would then be motivated to never allow me back on their premises. In other words, no "expose" type pieces that are unwarranted. I have still have to make a living and I make my living through trucking while blogging is only a "hobby".

However I think I can safely comment on many trucking issues without jeopardizing my living. I also think that now that I have 10 years of experience with about 1.3 million miles under my belt I can put forth my opinion as worthy of consideration. I am not going to claim to be an "expert", or that my opinion represents that of every truck driver on the road or anything. I will never claim that I am the safest or most skilled truck driver on the road. If you are looking for "safest" or "most skillful" you have to look elsewhere.

I do however think that my voice can represent at least "some" truck drivers. If anyone objects to even this description, OK, then I will settle for my voice represents then only one truck driver, myself. However I will point to my years of experience and the number of miles I have logged as making my voice and my personal opinion worthy of at least some consideration on the issues I choose to speak about.

Kurt Vonnegut Deceased

Kurt Vonnegut has passed away.

As a way of tribute, let me explain what Kurt Vonnegut meant to me personally.

During my youth, I was a bit of a book worm. Sometime during my early adolescence, I stumbled upon my first science fiction novel and I was immediately smitten. For a number of years, my reading was overwhelming limited to science fiction novels and stories. Kurt Vonnegut is the only science fiction writer I can recall, other then Isaac Asimov, who's works I sought out by author. I appreciated the efforts of other authors of the time, but I was not motivated to seek out everything they ever wrote (again other then Isaac Asimov) like I was to consume the works of Kurt Vonnegut. Actually, in further tribute to Kurt, I was motivated to pursue Isaac Asimov's works partially because he was the, accepted by everybody, king of science fiction writing of the time. Kurt Vonnegut I had discovered on my own.

To any fan of science fiction, I highly recommend Kurt's works. (See here) an MSN piece that contains a complete list of what Mr Vonnegut gave us.

Women Want "Manly" Men

I couldn't help but briefly comment on this puff piece that appears on the MSNBC website. It explains the obvious, that women prefer "manly" men to impregnate them.

But the piece also might explain something that has puzzled me for most of my life. How did I, a rather goofy looking male, get such a drop dead gorgeous young lady, as my wife was in her youth, to say yes when I asked her to marry me?

I'm not kidding you about my wife's looks in her youth. When my wife and I would go out in the evening, it was not unusual for me to be asked by complete strangers how I got such a gorgeous woman to become my wife. I understood why they asked. They were as puzzled as I was. She was that attractive and I am that goofy looking.

Well, now we know the answer. The study indicates that my bombshell wife was driven by her hormones to select a goofy looking guy for a husband because I would be "loyal" and stick around in a long term relationship.

Sigh. I guess there is no truth to the explanation I always whispered to the strangers in response to their question. I always explained that my wife had given me a go in bed in a "mercy fling" and that I had been so good that she kept coming back for more.

But I always had to whisper the story. If my wife overheard the explanation, she always ruined my fun.

Don Imus is Toast

(See here) in an Associated Press piece that appears on the MSNBC website that reports on radio and TV personality Don Imus being canned.

First let me state that Don Imus's description of the Rutgers' Women's Basketball Team as "nappy-headed hos" is wrong. It is language that I would never use in private let alone on the airwaves.

However, I sense a little bit of a double standard being used against Don Imus. Outrage over the use of the language? Why, we'll hold protests? Well where are the protests outside record companies that distribute the CD's of young, black, male rap stars that use similar and even more offensive language in their "music" to describe black women? Now that Al Sharpton has succeeded in getting Don Imus off the air waves, perhaps he can take his troupe of protesters over to the record company offices and protest there until rap stars, too, clean up their act. Or will young black rap stars be given a free pass apparently only because they are black?

I rarely listened to the Don Imus radio show. Occasionally I might listen in during his interviews of politicians, because these interviews often were really great. However I found it difficult to stomach the banter of his show during the long periods before and after the interviews, so I was not a regular listener. But if you could time your listening (or watching on MSNBC TV) to the interviews, normally these were worth your attention. For example, it was during a Don Imus interview with Senator Joseph Biden that I decided I would never, ever, vote for Senator Biden for President. It was during the interview that Senator Biden announced that the reason he had voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq was because he was trying to prevent a war! Don Imus, with his irreverent style of conducting interviews, had a way of getting politicians to let their hair down and catching them off guard.

I feel the firing of Don Imus was an over reaction. Please note that apparently I am not alone in feeling this way. (See here) an Indychannel piece that reports:
Rutgers' women's basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer announced Friday that the team has accepted the apology of fired radio host Don Imus.

Now, let me point out that it was the Rutgers' women's team that were the object of the offensive language. It was they who were offended. Don Imus met with the entire team to apologize and they accepted the apology. They chose their coach, C. Vivian Stringer as their spokesperson, not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

The Indychannel piece reported Coach Stringer stated:
At no time did the Rutgers womens' team call for his job.
Now let me beat this point to death. The Rutgers' women's team were the ones offended. They personally met with Don Imus so that he could apologize to them. They accepted his apology and they did not seek to have him fired.

I think Don Imus should be given his job back. If the ones offended can find the room in their hearts (they should be commended for having such large hearts - they were justified in being offended) to forgive him, then I think society should follow their example and forgive him as well.

And if this does not happen (Don Imus is not given his job back) I demand that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson stop being hypocrites; that they protest, demonstrate and do whatever is necessary to get the record companies to stop publishing and distributing the filth of rap stars that contains language that they also should be describing as offensive.