There Are No Moderates

Recently it has come in vogue especially within the Democratic Party to scream "There are no moderates" as progressives seek to gain their way in politics.

Sigh. Looks like we are going to have to repeat history or something. The liberals (progressives if you prefer) in the Democratic Party are unwilling to share power with moderates (or centrists if you prefer) and apparently they too (they being the liberals) are going to have to get a spanking in the political arena.

Please understand that it is my opinion that the reason people (like me) have been willing to vote Democratic recently is because we felt betrayed by the Republicans after we voted them into power. We were entranced as they spoke about "tax and spend" Democrats only to discover that perhaps they were even worse when their method of "fiscal responsibility" was to cut taxes, borrow the money, and keep on increasing the spending. I myself describe them as "borrow and spend" Republicans.

We grew tired of preachers quoting from the bible ("the bible says") to justify taxcuts for the wealthy (but even the poor must tithe to pay the preacher's salary) while the federal deficit mushroomed because nobody was willing to cut expenditures while we cut taxes.

Now instead of taking advantage of Republican (conservative) weakness, liberals (trying to repaint themselves as progressives) are offering us the same menu of choices that caused us to reject them and start voting Republican in the first place.

You do not have to always agree with me. But if progressives are unwilling to "reform" themselves so as to appeal to moderates, them I am willing to once again consider voting for the "new" Republican candidate.

If progressive Democrats are that cock sure of themselves, I dare them to nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader and watch as their Christmas stocking comes up empty. I am all to willing to consider the Republican candidate who might lurch towards me then consider the Democratic candidate who tacks towards you!

I am willing to share power with liberals. That I am willing to share this power with liberals is evidenced in my willingness to vote for Democrats for office. If by voting for the Democrat I witness an unwillingness of liberals (or even worse progressives) to share power with those whom I voted for, I am willing to shift my vote.

How unreasonable will the liberals be? The more unreasonable they become, the more enticing the Republican candidates such as Giuliani, Romney and Thompson become.

Are Democrats willing to share power with moderates? This is the test. If Democrats insist upon a strictly ultra left view in their candidates? Well then perhaps we moderates can reconsider and find more fertile soil in right wing soil. Perhaps Republicans have already learned their lesson.

I can not predict the future. One thing I can say with a great deal of certainty however is that the path for future political influence for "progressives" does not wind through strictly liberal territory. They must be willing to share power. If liberals are not willing to learn from the failures of conservatives, perhaps the conservatives have been taught a lesson?

Presidential Endorsements

(See here) a Newsmax piece that Al Gore has yet to endorse a Presidential candidate in their run for the presidency.

My question is this: Just how much is an Al Gore endorsement really worth?

Al Gore is apt to eventually come out in favor of whoever the Democratic nominee is anyway. It is not like we are going to be left hanging wondering whether Al Gore is going to endorse Newt Gingrich (should he be the Republican nominee) as opposed to endorsing "John Doe", the eventual Democratic nominee.

Al Gore, the Democrat, is going to endorse "John Doe" (or perhaps "Jane Doe") who leads the Democratic ticket.

I do not need a crystal ball or anything to predict this future outcome.

Personally, an Al Gore endorsement of any candidate right now would not be worth much of anything to me. But Jimmy Carter? If Jimmy Carter (who I love so deeply) came out in favor of a candidate with whom I was not in favor of, I would want to listen to what he had to say and try and understand the reasoning behind it.

My advice to Democratic hopefuls is that they make pilgrimages to Plains, GA in an effort to win Jimmy's endorsement as early as possible. The earlier he strikes the more valuable the endorsement. Every day of delay is a dilution of the endorsement.

I would hope that my candidate (that would be Hillary Clinton) seeks to camp out on the outskirts of Jimmy Carter's property and wear the man down. Look to the leadership of Cindy Sheehan for an example. Hold prayer vigils and seek to engage him in dialogue to win his endorsement. When you have won THAT man's endorsement this early in the election cycle you will have won something truly valuable. If that man endorses one of your opponents, I am going to reconsider my support for you based upon what he has to say.

I do not allow Jimmy Carter to make my mind up for me, but when that man speaks up I listen up!

Figuring the Fuel Surcharge

I have witnessed a number of hits to my blog related to searches for how to figure the fuel surcharge that is charged back to customers on freight hauled by truckers.

Now, I "receive" but do not directly "charge" a fuel surcharge. I am an owner operator who has his truck leased on with one of the large trucking companies, and it is they who do the figuring on billing for the fuel surcharge that I end up receiving. But I am aware of how they go about doing it, and as a public service I will attempt to explain it.

Different trucking companies figure out the fuel surcharge they bill for in different ways. To quote from the Energy Information Administration:

Fuel surcharges are negotiated privately by the shipper and the trucking company.

However if you are in business for yourself, you will want what you charge to generally be competitive with others in the industry, so let me educate you on how some of the big boys go about figuring it out.

Some of the "big boys" charge by regions, but for sake of simplicity most of them still just pay based on the national average price for highway diesel. Where do they get this average price from? From the government. You can get this information (at this website) from the Energy Information Administration.

Now after you have the average price you must have a "reasonable" formula for figuring out what you are going to charge. Most companies seem to have a price of about $1.15 a gallon for being the "reasonable price" from which they figure out how much to charge for a fuel surcharge. How did they come to settle on $1.15 a gallon? Because that is about what the price had been for diesel just prior to fuel surcharges first being assessed.

One other factor that needs to be identified is the fuel economy of the truck involved. Most companies seem to use an industry average of about 6 miles per gallon, however I have heard of some companies that use 6 1/2 MPG. You can probably safely use 6 without being accused of being unreasonable. You might be able to justify an even lesser fuel economy if you are hauling time critical freight (like produce or something) and your delivery schedule requires you to drive at higher speeds (never, ever violating the speed limit of course) resulting in your truck getting lesser miles per gallon. However if you are going to use a lesser figure, you had probably best discuss it with the customer involved ahead of time so that there are no misunderstandings.

You will also need to come up with an accurate method of determining the "standard" number of miles required to make delivery. Some companies charge by the Household Movers Guide mileage while others charge practical route miles. I have even heard of a few that charge by actual hub miles, but it might be a little difficult to get a customer to agree to pay what you charge if you keep insisting on taking the longer scenic route. You're probably better off sticking with at least practical route miles.

So here's the formula: Average diesel price minus $1.15, divided by 6 MPG (and rounded down), then multiplied by the number of miles between shipper and consignee.

Let's go through an example and let's use the most recent week for which, as I write this, the Energy Information Administration has released the average fuel price. For the week of
09/03/07 the government says the national average was $2.893. $2.893 minus 1.15 leaves 1.743, 1.743 divided by 6 MPG equals 0.2905 which we round down to 0.29 or 29 cents per mile. Let's say the length of haul is 1,000 miles, 1,000 times 0.29 yields $290.00 we would bill the customer for fuel surcharge.

Now the company I am leased to always charges by what the latest weekly average was on the day the freight was picked up, not on the day it is delivered. This means that when fuel prices are on their way up, and you pick up late in the week, the fuel surcharge might lag by a penny or two. However when fuel prices are dropping you might be a penny or so to the good.

I have heard of where some sole proprietors and smaller companies seem to have negotiated almost unbelievable fuel surcharges from their customers that would seem to cover their complete cost of fuel. I do not know whether to chalk this up as just another "tall tale" you hear on the CB or whether these claims are factual. I guess anything is possible, since, as I earlier quoted "Fuel surcharges are negotiated privately by the shipper and the trucking company." So if you are a good negotiator or your customer is desperate and you have them over the barrel you might be able to get an extra sweet deal... however you might not then get much return business either.

Michael Vick and the Minefield

I am going to attempt to wade into the minefield of race relations and the Michael Vick killing dogs issue.

I am going to put myself firmly in the center of the minefield and do some lecturing (preaching) on the subject. I will walk with confidence knowing ahead of time where all the mines exist. With as much confidence, I can stand there with a clear path out of the minefield without any harm to myself from having been there.

Michael Vick needs to be held accountable for his actions. We, the American People, will not stand by while he escapes unscathed for some form of accountability being enacted for what he has done.

Now anyone who tries to explain that Michael Vick should be excused for his actions because he is black or something needs to get a spanking. If Michael Vick is excused BECAUSE he is black it sets back the cause for black Americans in their pursuit of equality and empowers white racists who have no problem saying "nigger" in their conversations (instead of saying "N-word").

Michael Vick gets no special consideration ONLY because he is black on this issue.

In my mind, Michael Vick's conduct is completely indefensible. Perhaps some argument could be made about "sport" and allowing dogs to compete against one another in a manner they were "naturally" inclined to do by putting them in a ring and allowing them to attempt to kill their opponent. It is my belief this argument would have been weak, but it could have been made and it could have convinced some.

But Michael Vick did not stop there. If the dog that lost was not killed in the ring, he executed them. If they were unfortunate to not have had their throats torn out in the ring, but yielded to their opponent by tucking their tails or something, like they instinctively do when they are beat by the superior dog, he executed them for having done so.

Michael Vick did not just put these dogs to sleep by putting a gun to their head because they were worthless or "put them to sleep" by injecting poison into their bloodstream, he killed them through especially cruel methods. He either drowned them or hung them. Both of these methods are especially cruel and involve unneeded suffering.

What did Michael Vick do? Did he gather all his "gladiator" dogs that had not yet fought and teach them a lesson? Did he put them in a circle to watch as he executed the losers to motivate them to never give up because death in the ring was preferable to death at his hands if they happened to lose?

Michael Vick does not seem to understand that in the society he lives in dogs receive special protection. Most of us nod our heads in agreement when someone describes dogs as being "man's best friend" (although we will get some argument about even this from cat lovers).

Michael Vick's conduct needs to be punished. That man was rewarded with a multi-million dollar salary for playing a game because he was gifted with extraordinary abilities from God to play that game. What did he do with the gifts given to him by God? Did he only selfishly indulge himself in his great fortune? Nope, if that had been the case I could have lived with that. He would have not been any worse then the average white guy. Most of them do that.

Now I am willing to be reasonable. Let Michael Vick serve no more time in prison (only because he is black) then anyone else who has engaged in similar activity. But Michael Vick is special. Whether he likes it or not, as quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, he serves as a role model for many of our children. As role model, he needs to serve as the role model that improper behaviour results in punishment. If he is unwilling to serve in this role, I guess he should have decided to become a politician or something. "Becoming wealthy beyond your wildest dreams" is not an excuse for evil behaviour. I will point to Albert Pujols (another minority athlete) as proof that untrained wealth does not automatically yield improper behaviour.

If Michael Vick had been white instead of black I would expect that he be punished. I am unwilling to excuse him only because he is black. I have met too many black people that knew how to live their lives in an acceptable fashion for me to excuse Michael Vick for his conduct only because his skin color is a little darker then mine.

I want to hold Michael Vick accountable to the same standard that I hold Paris Hilton.

I think Michael Vick should be put in jail for at least a couple of months. I think the Atlanta Falcons should take the 22 million in bonuses Michael Vick would have received and donate them to the SPCA or PETA (let's spread the wealth) or something. Then after Michael Vick has been taught a lesson, let him return to the arena and entertain us.