But, by far, the best speaker – the most inspirational for me – was an immigrant to our country from Columbia. Katharine Moreno shared her personal story and love of America with us from that special point of view. She told us that in Columbia, if you are born poor that you will die poor. There is no liberty or possibility of upward mobility. She and her mother came to this country, learned English, and became citizens without taking the personal disability of welfare. She has raised a daughter and become a professional accountant and felt a great need to tell the crowd, that allowing the Federal Government to make us all subservient to the power-grabbing nanny state mentality enveloping us now, will ruin the best nation in the history of the world. Plainly spoken and abundantly clear, I heard the words and could not help thinking that our president is doing us a monumental disservice by apologizing and bowing to misogynist Arab leaders and otherwise kow-towing to European socialist low brows posing as intellectuals.

            I had only my mobile phone with which to take pictures. And I saw many signs worth photographing. So, instead of forcing the reader to bear out-of-focus and over-pixelled snapshots, I will just recall the best ones I saw. “Liberty is the only stimulus we need.” Obamanomics – chains we can believe in.” And my personal favorite, “The USA needs Texas more than Texas needs the USA.” In fact, at the rally, it was said that 70% of the new jobs created in the US in 2008 were created here in Texas. I could not find a citation for that but I did find – from the Milken Institute – a Top 5 Metropolitan and Small Metro ranking. (The mix was mostly noted for the lack of Blue State representation; but I digress.) In 2008, the Top 5 Metro areas in Texas were: Austin/Round Rock - #5, McAllen - #7, Killen/Temple/Ft. Hood - #13, San Antonio - #15, Houston - #16. And the list for the Top 5 Small Metro areas in the Lone Star State was: Midland - #1, Longview - #7, Odessa - #10, Tyler - # 26, and Waco - #27. The rankings are nationally rated and the lists are the Top 100 noted and pretty impressive, if I do say so myself.

            As one could expect the additional parking for 15,000 folks was in downtown San Antonio was at a premium tonight and I was pressed to take public transport from my lot to the Alamo park where the rally was in progress as I arrived. On the journey, I met a family that already been to a tea Party in their town of Fredericksburg and had travelled an additional 100 miles to come to San Antonio to be part of this one. They told me that, of the town of roughly 5,000 that 4,000 were at the rally there. I also made the acquaintance of a young man from Phoenix, Arizona; recently unemployed and looking for work in Texas. I recognized him as a smart fellow right away. He intimated that he owned a home in Arizona that was now worth$200,000 less than what he owed – he was upside down, as the modern saying goes and ready to bail on the property. Since he was a young man, I tried to counsel defense and implored him to avail himself of the trend to throw oneself at the mercy of the financial institution holding the note, but he insisted that Wells Fargo would not negotiate even in a small way. I left him, praying to myself that, when WF realizes how much money they were about to lose that they would find it in their corporate heart to help this young man. But, since Turbo Tax Cheat Geithner has bailed out Wells Fargo to the tune of some $25 billion dollars - like all the others that are becoming part of the New Order, thug-twizzle of Chicago style politics being played out on the national stage - they do not have to actually about the little people, as their losses will be covered by the federal government – that’s right, you and I will be paying the interest on their greed for decades. OK: I’m starting to rant. But, before I stop, let me relate the story of a woman from Canada that attended the Tea Party, because she wished to opine to a willing audience that we (the United States) should not allow the travesty of universal health care to devastate our own system, though, while flawed, is still the best on the planet. I also walked away with a renewed vigor for more sustained political activism. Here are a few links, if you are so inclined to follow through as well.

www.Heritage.org

www.theythinkyouarestupid.org

www.TEXASturf.org

www.campaignforLiberty.org

www.americansforprosperity.org

            But, by far, the most important thing I can encourage all people to do is REGISTER TO VOTE – do it now and follow through. Remember, we got to this revolutionary stance because 70 million Americans did not vote in the last election. In 2010 we shall need every conservative-minded citizen to throw the Democrats away. And discard republicans who show they are worsening the conservative movement too! We here in the Republic of Texas have eyes that shall stay upon you and encourage all we can to avoid the travesty of our children’s chance for prosperity disappear before they have even grown up and gotten their first job. Our liberty to define our own path in life is at stake. Before the power grabbing, money hungry politicos become so entrenched that we lose hope of ever restoring the country to a semblance of fiscal integrity or responsibility – we MUST write, call, email, and fax our elected official NOW to tell them we want them to vote no on this 1.4 trillion dollar budget and force it to be re-written. Do not allow populist sentiment to replace the Constitution with a socialist agenda and a debt carried by the Chinese and Russia. Our freedom to be the master of our own destiny demands your patriotism and courage today. Do not waver in your attention to detail. Do not be dismayed at the Left Wing bias and race-baiting, school-boy taunts. They are wrong – we are strong and we will surround them. I am compelled to leave you with my last thought after leaving the Tea Party this evening; the Alamo is still a good place to make a stand.

Oil, gas, airwaves:

Cow farts not withstanding now.

They don’t work for us.

The death of a thousand cuts.

Born fee- taxed to death.

Transparency in Government

(or: What Are They Afraid of?)

My confidence in the government to do anything right is beginning to overwhelm me. I could just scream.

From On the Money. National Public Radio, November 14, 2008. (This is an interview: please see full text at http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/11/14/01)

Show Me the Money

After months of asking The Federal Reserve to disclose the details of two trillion dollars in government loans to troubled financial institutions, Bloomberg News is suing The Fed under the Freedom of Information Act. Bloomberg News editor in chief Matt Winkler says taxpayers should know where their money is going.

So, thanks again to Mr. Barney frank, we the people still don’t know where our money went. I feel it pales in comparison to the recent 700 billion dollar “stimulus” Why don’t they just divide the money into 300,000 and send us a check Let’s see how that divides out: hmmm. That should be a $233,000 check for every citizen. Bring it! We can fix the economy ourselves!! Who needs Congress?

And from BloggingStocks visit: http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/10/the-feds-dirty-little-2-trillion-secret/)

The Fed's dirty little $2 trillion secret

                     Posted Nov 10th 2008 12:42PM by Peter Cohan

The Federal Reserve has lent out $2 trillion worth of your money -- but it refuses to say who got it or on what terms. We already know that $29 billion worth went to JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) -- to shift the worst junk on Bear Stearns' balance sheet to the Fed's back in March. And it's safe to assume that the $2 trillion the Fed lent out is being exchanged for similarly junky assets.

Why is the Fed keeping this information secret? I can only guess at three reasons. Is such secrecy appropriate for the U.S., which is supposedly a democracy? I don't think so. My guess is that the Fed is keeping all this secret because it believes that such secrecy will keep the world from losing whatever shred of confidence it still has in the global financial system. That's because the loan recipients probably include every major financial institution.

The second reason may be that the Fed does not want us to know just how much risk it has taken on. But it should be pretty obvious that the Fed's balance sheet, which used to have $800 billion in relatively safe Treasury securities, is now weighted down with all the toxic waste that banks took on to boost executives bonuses during the last several years. And the key question is how big a loss that the Fed will end up taking on these assets.

The final reason for the secrecy may be a reluctance to give the market useful insights into what the Fed thinks these assets are really worth. Such pricing information would likely lead to far bigger asset write-downs. And the bigger write-downs would require an increase in the amount that the financial institutions would need to raise in order to comply with minimum capital requirements.

Ultimately, the truth will come out. Perhaps, the current administration wants his successor to reveal the Fed's dirty little secret.

Peter Cohan is President ofPeter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in JPMorgan securities

From AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/106443/why_won't_the_federal_reserve_say_who_they_gave_$2_trillion_to/)

Why Won't the Federal Reserve Say Who They Gave $2 Trillion To?

Posted by Ian Welsh, Firedoglake at 5:06 AM on November 11, 2008.

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans.

Apparently Bernanke, that wonderful bipartisan soul who is so competent and wonderful that everyone in the village thinks Obama should leave him in charge is refusing to identify who got almost 2 trillion dollars of Fed cash. Bloomberg News is suing to find out. Personally I really, really, really want to know. What exactly is Bernanke hiding? Who got the money he doesn't want us to know got the money?

This is money that was loaned in exchange for "collateral", by which we mean "trash no one else but the Fed would buy for anything but cents on the dollar." Barney Frank, embarrassing himself yet again, claims the Fed should keep its clap shut because if people know how bad it is, well, there might be a run. I think Barney's missing the point, as long as people don't know how bad it is, they won't trust anyone who might be borrowing large amounts of money from the Fed with crap collateral, because they don't know how bad it is and they suspect it's really really really bad. As in 10 cents on the dollar bad.

More to the point, that 2 trillion is taxpayer money, and taxpayers have a right to know what sweetheart deals Bernanke's been giving out, and who's been getting what. This whole "this information is too scary for citizens to know" schtick is so Bush regime. I thought we were moving into a new era of openness? Perhaps Barney should get with the program?

As for Bernanke, this is yet another reason why Bernanke, a central banker so incompetent he lost complete control of LIBOR, his most basic job, should lose his position. Sure, his mandate runs for another year, but if Obama asks him to step down, I can't imagine he wouldn't. The idea that a central bank that has screwed up as badly as the Fed has under both Greenspan and Bernanke is so much better off independent than with the public having some control is ridiculous and fundamentally anti-democratic. Central bank independence has just led to a huge financial bubble and economic collapse, while Bernanke and Greenspan both acted as if they were virtual dictators.

Bernanke needs to go, and either before or after he goes, the Fed needs to come clean about who it has given 2 trillion in loans to, and what the collateral is.

Vote

Federalist or Marxist?

Who shall we elect to stand between us and liberal democrats; a Federalist or a Marxist? I can only speak for myself and I am but one vote but the creeping socialist agenda has me spooked. I hate, like the devil, to hear judges interpreting the Constitution as if their ideological agenda trumps common sense. If I hear of one more Democrat calling him/her-self a fiscal conservative, I think my head will explode. If I see a Socialist Democrat in the White House with the strings of the House and Senate pulled by unbridled egos, I will know for certain that the liberal takeover of our schools will be complete.

Reply to Mrs. Kilkenny

Let me apologize for the grammar issues left in from the author’s original text. Some I cleaned up but left the rest alone because Mrs. Kilkenny is obviously more than just “not a statistician; she must not have gotten far educationally beyond high school. She must have composed the essay she did for pedestrian, vernacular reasons. - Slowpoke the Cruiser

Mrs. Kilkenny,

           I actually cannot believe the purported reason for writing your email because it only suggests the truth as you see it; and that vision is obviously muddied. I think that your letter shows that, perhaps, you lost your place on the High School basketball team and have never gotten over it. We, as a nation, have listened to the steady drumbeat of hateful vitriol from Democrats for eight years and I shall hear no more without responding: hopefully, not in kind.

           A population change of nearly 100% is remarkable. The likes of which, if accomplished in San Antonio, TX where I reside, would be overwhelming. City Services would require tax changes, whether residents were happy about it or not. However, business opportunity and personal growth opportunity apparently is abundant and I fail see to the reasoning behind your hateful email. A vengeful waste of time is all I can guess. My best suggestion for you would be to never put anything in an email that you would not want to see on a highway billboard.

           In the September 6-7, 2008 edition of the Saturday/Sunday edition of the Wall Street Journal, essayist Michael M. Phillips cracked the ceiling that you, Mrs. Kilkenny would not breach. In the article Palin’s Hockey Rink Leads to Legal Trouble in Town She Led, it is clear to me now that the Fairbanks real estate investor – Mr. Gary Lundgren – and the vaulted Nature Conservatory conspired to bilk Wasilla of 5 five times the original costs of the Hockey Rink. So, the real question turns out to be; where is the actual document showing the offer from Mr. Lundgren to the city of Wasilla to give to the city these “disconnected parking lots” you mentioned? Another good question is: how does the Nature Conservatory get off playing two buyers so unethically? The courts are dealing with the issues and you should not be disparaging public officials publicly for trying to do their jobs (and doing them correctly, I can add). The article is proof positive to me that small minded activists can ruin a frozen dream. The former city finance chief at the time, one Mr. Leonard, said, “At the time, with the information she had, (Ms. Palin) made the right decision. You may have to forgive me, Madame, for taking a professional’s word over your uneducated or informed opinion.

           If you have anything further to add, by all means, please do so. You will have my email address with this posting and may post a response to my blog.

Regards,

Slowpoke the Cruiser, San Antonio, TX

Thanks,
Anne

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe". (Among the college campus admirers of Obama, there is also an illiterate consensus that they will vote for B.H.O. because he’s “cool”. I will submit this comment is without real merit.)

 It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months. (And just how would Mrs. Kilkenny know that? Just throwing it out there is not good enough when, from your PC, one is trying 6to influence the course of an election.)

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit. (Citation, please, Ms. Kilkenny!) Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. (No one said it was! This whole letter is starting to sound like professional b*******.) Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. (“Turned over to an administrator” is another name for City Manager.)She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign. (Sorry you do not like it but that’s what the Boss gets to do.)

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents. (Chairman Mao could not have said it better! Do you or anyone you know – like the new residents of Wasilla ever shop at those stores?)

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? (Perhaps the designers think the existing sewage treatment rules and responsibilities are adequate. Wasilla does have rules & regulations.) Or a new library? (It is a digital world. How many Libraries do you really need?) No. $1m for a park. (You live in a park – not like Wasilla is in New York City,)$15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later—to the delight of the lawyers involved! (Got done though, did it not?) The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing. (I wish San Antonio would do the same, I think waiting “5-7 years’” to repair roads is unconscionable. Perhaps Wasilla residents would prefer toll roads?)

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once. (Maybe it needed it: twice.)

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city. (And you have some very small minds there too. America is too big for small dreams.)

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska . Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state. (Then return your check and quit ranting about it!) In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs. (Just in case you had not noticed, that is the way government helps individual prosper.)

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them. (If a known and latent Ron Paul supporter an ideal, I would disavow his opinion too! (Until, at least, it was proven worthy of consideration. Some people just don’t realize what a system of law is for.)

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day. (Is this list published? No? I could not find it. Please, accommodate us with a copy. I have found that, in fact, no books were removed from the Wasilla library.)

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys".(You may have heard this before, but I feel compelled to reiterate:”Out with the old and in with the new” ) Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. (The Boss gets to do that. Don’t like? Start your own country.) At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal—loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below). As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska 's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. (This would be the same trooper that tasered his own son? Yes? I think he should have been tasered himself and then jailed (for a long time), but firstly, fired. He is luck that his butt was not filled with buckshot!) Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. (This the Tort Bar at its worst. A familiar process for the aggrieved that have no other moral ground upon which to perch.)

 She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support. (I know; let’s vet you for public office and how many untoward things we can bring forth from your life!)

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. (Why? Citation, please – getting’ tired, I am, of pressing this point.)She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness. (Everyone; altogether now – Waaaahhhhhh!) Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her. (And you would know this how?)

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. (Hate to break this to you; 100% of politically appointed executives do not have experience in their Commissions either. There were issues with her about the then-governors choice to supervise her Commission – got him fines and terminated: right?)

Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. (This is an issue with you?) I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, and the work. (Again, “hearsay” is not acceptable. Maybe you could land a job with the New York Times.)

 Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated ( This just sounds mean and vindictive. In fact, she quit the Oil and Gas comittee over ethical issues - somethin I am sure Ms. Kilkeeny would never have the nerve to do.) and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined). (Remember, you just said that she hated this job – which is it now?)

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to. (This would from the clout of your “100 or so” friends, yes?)

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects—which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance—but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork". (Hiss, bite, scratch!)

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative. (Ohhhhh, that’s why she has an 80% approval rating! I wondered about that.)

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. (That song, by Queen was played at the RNC – must be a source of pride.)

When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her. (Maybe she was un-endorsable.) 

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum. (I say, “Good girl!”)

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. (So do I!) She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiative that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to. (Sometimes, Madame, legislation has amendments that are not only unpalatable but are budget-busting. The Boss gets to work their priorities and, if you don’t like it, get your own soapbox and get yourself elected.

 She has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species. (There are more polar bears alive now than at any other time in researchable American history. So there really is no need to list a species as endangered when they are clearly not.)

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she. (Millions? Really? It’s too late now to put their name into nomination. You would like Ron Paul, yes? Maybe a Democrat?)

However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

 CLAIM VS FACT

- "Hockey mom": true for a few years
- " PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
- "NRA supporter": absolutely true
- social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconstitutional). (Maybe it is.)
- pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
- "Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
- "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska . No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
- political maverick: not at all
- gutsy: absolutely!
- open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
- has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
-"a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland (Oh stop – you’re breaking my heart! I don’t believe this for a minute!)of bigbox stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR. (Good girl – let’s get busy.)
- fiscal conservative: not by my definition! (Exactly what is that definition?)
- pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20^th century standards.
- pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
- pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla's history.
- pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. (Does not make her anti-union either. I am OK with unions but – see next comment.) I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union. (If you mean that she does not like unionists politicizing their grievances, neither am I.)

(Every single one of these “claims” and your rejoinders sound vindictive, in the extreme, I had, at first, responded to every one of them but this essay is becoming tedious. Generally speaking, I believe activists of your kind are entitled to their opinion but tripe foisted upon us with no evidence is just stupid.)

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. (The same place you get your un-cited information?) I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA /parent organizations. (These are not reasons – unless you are applying for a job with Code Pink.)

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings. (Then let’s see some citable comments, please, and fewer opinions.)

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that's life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996,(Maybe for good reasons too. But we’ll never know (or really care) because it is just your opinion.) when I was one of the 100 or so people (Let’s see 5400/100=.54%. Not exactly a huge crowd, eh?) who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship. (Like aforementioned – maybe it was good censorship. Some material you just have to provide at home, if you must.)

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable. (Everybody? Really? Are they part of the 80% who approve of her? Hmmmm, probably your Democrat slip is showing Madame.)

CAVEATS

I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall—they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.

Anne Kilkenny
(email deleted)
August 31, 2008

Research

1)      Wasilla, AK

                Wikipedia – the Free Encyclopedia

                Retrieved 09/06/2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasilla,_Alaska

a.       As of the 2000 census, its population was 5,469, but the 2007 estimate gives a population of 9,780.^[1] However, the city itself gives a figure (as of 2008) of only 7,025 residents.

b.      The median income for a household in the city was $48,226, and the median income for a family was $53,792. Males had a median income of $41,332 versus $29,119 for females.

c.       The George Parks Highway, Glenn Highway and other roads connect the city to Anchorage, the remainder of the state and Canada. The Alaska Railroad serves Wasilla. A town airport, with a paved 3,700-foot (1,130 m) airstrip, provides scheduled commuter and air taxi services. Floatplanes land at Wasilla Lake, Jacobsen Lake and Lake Lucille. There are 10 additional private airstrips in the vicinity.

d.       The Wasilla City Council is made up of six members who are elected at-large by residents to designated seats. They serve a term of three years, unless appointed to fill a vacant seat. The Office of Mayor is elected separately. A run-off election will be held if no candidate for Mayor receives more than forty percent of the votes cast. Run-off elections are not held for City Council seats. All positions are served on a part-time basis.

2)      Wasilla Municipal Code

Wasilla Municipal Code

Retrieved 09/06/2008 from: http://www.codepublishing.com/ak/wasilla.html

a.       Except as provided in subsection (A)(2) of this section, the wastewater plumbing of any structure constructed after March 1, 1989, must be connected to the city public sewer system in accordance with the provisions of this chapter if the distance from the lot on which the structure is located to any portion of the sewer system is not more than one hundred fifty (150) feet measured in a straight line.

3)      Muliti-Use Sports Complex: Curtis C. Menard II Memorial Ice Arena

a.       Ice Arena

i.                     Curtis C. Menard II Memorial Ice Arena

ii.                   Public skating times: **Starting September2, 2008

b.      Meeting rooms, track, soccer, “Turf Court”

4)      Examiner.com – HOUSTON

Behind the Viral Email on Sarah Palin

Judah Freed – Political Issues Examiner

Retrieved 09/06/2008 from http://www.examiner.com/x-775-Political-Issues-Examiner~y2008m9d3-Behind-the-Viral-Email-on-Sarah-Palin

a.       Examiner provided link to the Washington Independent

b.      http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate

5)      The Washington Independent

The Reform Candidate?

Laura McGann 9/1/2008

Retrieved 09/06/2008 from: http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate

a.       In this role, Palin acted in a way that eerily foreshadows her recent actions while governor. Early in her tenure as mayor, the city council threatened to recall her over accusations that she fired the city’s police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, without warning. She accused them in a letter saying: “I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment …” (The Anchorage Daily News, via nexis)

Ultimately, Palin let the library director have her job back; though Stambaugh’s position was not returned. The police chief took the matter to court, where a judge sided with Palin, saying city law allows the mayor to fire the police chief without cause.

b.      The latest scandal has been percolating on national blogs for weeks and made the front-page of The Washington Post on Sunday. Palin stands accused of having fired Alaska’s public-safety commissioner because he would not dismiss her sister’s ex-husband, a state trooper, who the Palins have been feuding with since before she became governor. Though a full report from an independent investigator is due this fall, emails from Palin and a tape recording reveal that the governor at least pressured the commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law, after she previously denied having done so.

            In keeping with the spirit of the new digital age, America has become crazy for all things electronic. However, the author has found many things about the moral and ethical behavior of the business-as-usual crowd that bear redress. Old-fashioned values and mores have not been supplanted by information instilled at the speed of light, except for those whom have not yet lost a job because of a medical history, been denied medical insurance, or had evidence of a physiological issue thrown across the billboard of the internet. Of course, the firms that do not have the fear of litigation hovering like a Sword of Damocles over the boardroom, will not get the message until it is too late for them.

            The Healthcare industry has much to worry about when considering compromised patient records. According to a recent article in Biotech Week (Biotech Week, 2008), the industry’s concentration upon medical privacy and compliance has created significant and transparent data leakage.

"Healthcare facilities are complex environments where information is stored and shared in a number of ways that are critical to patient well-being," said Brian Lapidus, chief operating officer of Kroll Fraud Solutions. "Until healthcare organizations expand their data security measures to address the threat of data compromise as well as privacy and compliance, patients will continue to be at risk."

Patients alone do share all the risk that compromised data can bring to bear upon the disenfranchised victims of medical record fraud. It is clear; the institutions that bear the responsibility of keeping patient records safe are at great risk of litigation. In the professional journal Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing profession (Vol .15, 2007) A charge nurse’s employment was terminated because of a “….breach of confidentiality, co-workers’ emails, (and) charts.”  The journal noted that it was in violation of the institution’s policies protecting the confidentiality of colleagues email accounts and computer terminals.

            Public health records have become a prominent site upon the radar of the highest office in the land. President George W. Bush signed executive order #13410 mandating the development of interoperability standards. Those standards and issues regarding personal health records are discussed at length by Mike McBride when he stated, “…. privacy, security and interoperability are the primary issues facing health information exchange, which is the basis for regional health information networks” (The Other Side of EMR, 2007-11). The author firmly believes personal information should remain sacrosanct in the hands of the ones entrusted with the safekeeping. Personal medical history would show diabetes treatment for fifteen years, hypertensive care, and other maladies. That information could cost the acquisition of a new job, if an employer had easy access to it. That knowledge is against the law to use as reason for denying employment but, when known, has been used secretly to deny it. This has happened to me, as it was made known by third-party disclosure, and it can happen to you.

References

1. Breach of Confidentiality, Journal: Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession, Vol. 15, Issue 11, p 8(1). (December 1, 2007)
2. The Other Side of EMR, McBride, Mike, Journal: Health Management Technology, Vol. 28, Issue 11, p. 6(0) (November, 2007)
3. Kroll Fraud Solutions; Gaps in Hospital Security Policies Put Patient Data at Risk, According to New Report, Biotech Week via NewsRx.com.  (April 24, 2008)

            The movement for comparable worth policies has been an ongoing issue since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963. Ongoing because unionized workers and modern feminists claimed then – and continue to claim to this day – that the legislation is not enough. The concept that demands women and men should receive equal pay for equal work (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. 1986) notes only jobs of comparable skill and responsibility are to be acted upon. On the face of it and perhaps on a bumper sticker, the ethic sounds unassailable. However, when differences such as education, full or part-time status, experience, number of children, or consecutive years in the workforce is taken into account, the disparity vanishes.

            The question of how much less do equally qualified women earn than men is perplexing, because political pundits and economists are at odds over how to do the math. No academic study says that equally qualified women make only seventy-four cents on a man’s dollar. Contrarily, reports speak to wages adjusted for experience and education; and when that is in the equation, economists such as Columbia's Jane Waldfogel, Baruch College's June O'Neill, the University of Michigan's Charles Brown, and the New York Federal Reserve's Erica Groshen, find the average pay gap decreases to pennies on the dollar. After all, how can a man or women with a B.A. in Math possibly be compared to a person with a B.A. in English?  With no regard to education or type of work, one may as well equate secretaries to loggers, bookkeepers with mine drillers, and Senate legislators with people who have to meet a payroll (Comparable Worth Policies Are Not Beneficial to Women. Furchtgott, Diana, Journal: Opposing Viewpoints: Work, 2005).  

            The premise behind comparable worth paycheck fairness is that female-dominated jobs are paid less than male-dominated jobs only because they are in female-dominated industries. Those same advocates would argue that government action is needed to eliminate the inequities caused by historical and ongoing sexual discrimination. From the perspective high upon an ivory tower, the comparable worth proponents think that businesses do not pay employees in these “female-dominated” industries what they are actually worth and that experts appointed by law must tell the people responsible for meeting the payroll what “worth” actually means. Former Socialist Chairman Mao could not have said it better himself. Proof that legislating morality does not work exists in real-world government applications of comparable worth. In Minnesota, nursing job shortages happened after passage of this legislation because many evaluation systems determined that nurses were paid more than they were “worth.” Professional nurse shortages already existed at the time but the problem was exacerbated because, in a true supply and demand economy, this situation would decry a need to increase wages. Therefore, as a direct result of government intervention, nurses left the state and the existing need for more nurses only grew more acute (Comparable Worth Policies Do Not Promote Social Justice. Journal: Opposing Viewpoints: Social Justice. Thacker, Rebecca A. and Hall, Joshua, 2005).

            Despite the fabulous gains made by women under our free enterprise system, politicians continue to re-introduce comparable worth legislation. In an effort to fix a problem that does not exist, political ineptitude will not only fail to accomplish the liberal-minded agenda of equal pay for equal work, it may very well cost everyone more than its stated worth. The stickers upon one’s automobile may reflect an admirable ethic but the practical application is elusive and un-workable in a free market system.  After all, why else would Red China still hate the United States?

References

1.                  Comparable Worth Policies Are Not Beneficial to Women, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Greenhaven Press Journal: Opposing viewpoints: Work, 2002.

2. Comparable Worth Policies Do Not Promote Social Justice, Rebecca A. Thatcher

& Joshua C. Hall, Greenhaven Press Journal: Opposing Viewpoints: Social       Justice, 2005.

3.                  “Comparable worth”, Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, 1996. Retrieved April 26, 2008 from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/5174194comparable worth.

Oh, yes; that pesky experience thing. I have heard the Democrat knuckleheads begin to harp already that, because Sarah Palin is now McCain’s choice for Vice-President running mate, somehow the voices of those re-iterating the total lack of experience of B.H.O.’s executive, leadership, and payroll responsibility have thrown from the table the ‘experience card.’ No, not even a little bit, I say.

                Let me begin with stating B.H.O.’s chief executive experience. Including the not-for-profit work alongside convicted terrorist Bill Ayers as co-heads of the Annenburg Challenge in Chicago he has next to zero knowledge or skill. Not-for-profit means – for those illiterate folks too lazy to consult a dictionary – No Payroll Responsibility. B.H.O. has never been a Boy Scout (in fact, he supports the A.C.L.U.’s litigation of them). B.H.O. has only used the nations’ taxpayer dollars to give to his Chicago-machine, gangster styled friends.

                Sarah Palin, by comparison, has successfully run a home, a PTA, a city and then a state government. One must agree with Kevin McCullough – an essayist writing for Twonhall.com – that this experience is more than Obama, Biden, and Hillary combined! Mrs. Palin had to deal with international issues (Canadian and Russian), she commanded the Alaska National Guard, stood up to corruption in her own political party, refused Federal money earmarked for building a bridge-to-nowhere, and returned money to the people of the state from oil company tax revenue! This is the kind of change I want and believe in. 

Social Investing: Trend or True Investment Philosophy, Investors speak out.

            Before beginning the research for this essay, I was among the disingenuous crowd that would believe that the movement toward socially responsible investment was, indeed, only a trend. Now I know I could not have possibly been more wrong; wanting to put one’s hard-earned money into funds that parallel moral and ethical concerns (Dictionary.com, 2008) is not a fad; the phenomena is an extension of a modern civilized and global culture event.

            The owner of a San Antonio wet cleaner’s called Clothesline Cleaners, Derba Mills, promotes itself as a ‘green cleaner’. I asked her why she chose to build a dry cleaning business around a technology that was more expensive to operate than the rest of the industry she competes with. Her answer surprised me. Ms. Mills said that she wanted to correct an imbalance. You see, dry cleaners traditionally use very toxic and dangerous chemistry to effectively clean textiles and she wants to correct past mistakes. She knows other small business owners that have told her that they would set up a store anywhere but next to a dry cleaner: because it was so smelly. So, when Derba started her business, there was no way that she was going to offend people by watching them gasp for air when they entered her plant (D. Mills, personal interview, August 10, 2008).

            I did not have to go far for my second interview. My wife is Diana Ackerman, the Threadbender; a successful vintage wedding gown seamstress. Her work with vintage textiles was an easy choice for her as her she happens to be a third generation tailor. When I asked Diana why ‘being green’ is such an important aspect of her work, she replied that when she does an alteration or modification to a family heirloom, she feels compelled to use the same textiles from the era the gown was first made to transform a wedding gown, veil, or garter to fit a modern bride’s vision but using only the techniques and materials of the era when first made. So, in that way, she does not further harm the planet by using new components with plastic combs, or made-in-China lace (D. L. Ackerman-Herschel, personal interview, August 8, 2008).

            The first concessions to ethical behavior, as relates to this thesis, came from two interviews of small business owners speaking to a moral understanding of their place in society first and their juxtaposition in the world second. Could this possibly be a trend; one that would go away eventually, like the hula-hoop? I don’t think so.

            And I am not the only one either. In 1980, a stockbroker named Amy Domini noticed that some of her clients were not pleased to invest in companies in industries with which they disagreed: like defense contractors and tobacco companies. She heard those investors question if it were possible to follow their investment objectives without contravening their conscience. In the 1980’s, this was a difficult thing to do. But it made sense to Amy to see a new way of ethically investing was emerging. Moral personalities with a social conscience were beginning to demand the investment trades work the way they wished and not the way they had always done business. In 1984 she authored the book Ethical Investing in an effort to understand how this type of socially cognitive strategy could complement each other. It was finally in 1989 that she partnered with Peter Kinder and Steve Lydenburg to compose the Domini 400 Social Index; an index of 400 primarily large-cap U.S. corporations that are selected on a basis of a wide range of social and environmental standards. A year later they introduced the Domini Social Equity Fund to trace the index fund. Domini believes now that social investors use three fundamental tools to achieve their financial objective: application of social and environmental standards, shareholder advocacy, and community investing (Domini Social Investments, 1997-2007). This is not a trend, it’s a movement.

            And the movement has tentacles that reach to public broadcasting giant Fox News and the Bill O’Reilly news program The O’Reilly Factor. According to Human Events essayist W. Thomas Smith Jr., published in an article titled Doing Business with the Devil, he explains perfectly Bill’s position on the matter. According to O’Reilly, “GE has about $50 million on the table in business dealings with Iran. Doing the math, that means $250 million could have been derived since Iran began killing Americans in Iraq about five years ago. (Smith Jr., 2008).” Mr. Smith reports on a statement by GE’s director of financial communications saying that GE is down to two contracts with global oil and gas companies only and that those contracts would be expired at the end of June 2008.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission queried GE in the summer of 2006 and the company duly disclosed that it not only doing business with private firms in Iran but directly with the Iranian government (Smith Jr., 2008). Fast forward to June 12, 2008: in an article published in the Wall Street Journal and reported on by Mssrs. Benoit Faucon and Roshanak Taghavi titled Oil Majors Say US Restrictions Delay Iran Project, that the impact of delayed GE equipment – due to American  restrictions on selling technology or equipment – are forcing natural gas companies Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF to not sign an agreement worth $10 billion dollars with Iran because of the delay in implementing a later phase of the project. Quoting directly Shell Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer at a May 20 shareholders meeting, "Due to American sanctions, we can't apply American technology or equipment (and) will need longer for the preparation of the project." The ramifications of the delayed investment are said to be significant (Faucon & Taghavi, 2008). GE is not the only company to face socially responsive, moral, and ethical concerns. Responding to trepidation in investments from a New York fireman pension fund, the U.S. firm of Halliburton disclosed $50 million dollars of Iran revenue for 2003. We, as the general public, would have never known if not for the conscience of a group of fireman in New York. So, did all the fuss Bill O’Reilly made for GE have an impact on the corporate mettle of an industry giant? We shall likely never know for certain, but I, for one, would certainly like to think so.

            Should there be any doubt in one’s mind that the reasoning behind and the actuation of well-conceived socially responsible investing is here to stay as a new tool for the global community to snip at the hindquarters of the CEO’s in the ivory towers of commerce, allow me to offer one more piece of information gleaned from the Social Investment Forum of the Advocacy and Public Policy forum of Washington, D.C. This groups’ sole stated purpose is to make communication between its associates easier, provide a stage to coordinate public policy decisions, make research funds available, and allow for “members and colleagues to share information and collaborate on shareholder proposals, social investing and corporate social responsibility issues (Social Investment Forum, 2007).” Among the group’s accomplishments is a 2003 litigation victory that requires registered mutual funds and registered investment advisors to disclose their proxy voting guidelines and the votes actually cast on behalf of their clients. This group conducts seminars, public education campaigns, and seeks to create occasions for socially responsible investing (Social Investment Forum, 2007).

            These are stories and testimonies that have touched me immeasurably. Remarkable and aggressive activists are in the world now and are determined to make a difference in the future we leave our children. These are the type of forward-looking campaigners I can place hope for change into. This leaves me with only one question; where’s a bold stand of oak when I need one? I need to hug one.

References

Dictionary.com. (2008). social investing. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from

             Dictionary.com:

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social%20investing

Domini Social Investments. (1997-2007). The Domini Story. Retrieved

            August 10, 2008, from Domini Social Investments:

             http://www.domini.com/about-domini/index.htm

Ebert, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2007). Business Essentials, Sixth Edition.

            Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Faucon, B., & Taghavi, R. (2008, June 12). Oil Majors Say US

            Restrictions Delay Iran Projects. Retrieved from

            Yale Global Online:

            http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10940

Smith Jr., W. T. (2008, June 2). Doing Business with the Devil. Retrieved

            August 10, 2008, from Human Events:

            http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26767

Social Investment Forum. (2007). Advocacy and Public Policy.

            Retrieved August 10, 2008, from Social Investment Forum:

            http://www.socialinvest.org/projects/advocacy/

 She called all of her neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
“Not I,” said the cow.
“Not I,” said the duck.
“Not I,” said the pig.
“Not I,” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen, and so she did.

The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
“Who will help me reap my wheat,” asked the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the duck..
“Outside of my classification,” said the pig.
“I'd lose my seniority,” said the cow.
“I'd lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.
”Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.
“Who will help me bake the bread,” asked the little red hen.
“That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.
“I'd lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.
“I'm a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.
“If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,” said the goose.
“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see.

They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share.

But the little red hen said, “No, I shall eat all five loaves.”
“Excess profits!” cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
“Greedy capitalist leech,” screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
“I demand equal rights!” yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
“The pig just grunted in disdain.” (Ted Kennedy)
 And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, “You must not be so greedy.”
“But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.
“Exactly,” said Barack the farmer. “That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.”

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, “I am grateful, for now I truly understand.”

 But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread after she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled for

'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.

 EPILOGUE
Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.
Hillary got $8 million for hers.
That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?

From the manger’s point of view, the recklessness of sexual harassment activity is unforgivable. The contemporary aspects are well known, defined, and not debatable. The thesis of this essay will be to outline the legal obligations of the company as a whole for the scenarios outlined for an Individual Project; a brief discussion of which will follow in the next paragraph.

Mary, a young female sales professional, is confronted by Frank, a corporate sales supervisor “known for flirting.” Frank intimates to Mary that her expense receipts will not be approved unless she has dinner with him that evening. The scenario ends with Mary contacting Human Resources immediately. The story line being that Frank is known for flirtatious behavior, I am going to assume that this is not the first time that he has demonstrated explicit and unwelcome sexual advances to a junior employee and that the firm’s HR department has heard this same story from other employees in the past. 

The story is at once the classic definition of Quid Pro Quo and only lacks the actual words to detail what sexual favors he desires; that they are entirely understood to be so related, one can be assured. Mary’s sad tale to her HR manger must be something like this, “He told me that if I did something for him that he would do something for me.” And that, for job related matters, is unlawful (Ebert & Griffin, 2007, pp. 306-307). If the incidences of harassment have been documented in the past then the next step to be taken must be the termination of Frank’s employment. No modern U.S. firm can willingly permit credible evidence to go forward without a severe course of action to follow. But if the rumors to Frank’s promiscuity are not documented, then a different course should be considered. I would give him a chance to publicly apologize to Mary. Failing doing that, I would expect his work load to become so overwhelming that he would be forced to resign. Sorry, Frank, but it’s time to update the old resume and find another place to work.

New research has shown a more harmful effect on employees that sexual harassment, however. I have uncovered an article by Jane Kim that provided details of business researchers from the University of Manitoba and the Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada that reviewed 111 cases of workplace social dynamics. They found that as compared to employees who had been sexually harassed, that victims of bullying report feeling angrier and more stressed out; and were more likely to quit their job. The essay by Ms. Kim also quoted statistics provided by the Workplace Bullying Institute, a non-profit organization advocate for victim’s rights, and saw 37 percent of U.S. employees had been bullied on the job as compared to 8 to 10 percent that had been sexually harassed. This cowardly kind of assault comes as: ostracizing co-workers, making office gossip, insulting people about a job performance, or private life. The director of WBI, Psychologist Gary Namie, regards the lack of legal consequences as one reason why the actions cause more harm than sexual harassment does; the victims suffer with little help or sympathy (Kim, 2008). Personally, I have witnessed such aggression passed off or marginalized as ‘personality conflicts’; the objects of ridicule feel delegitimized. One can see the defeat in their faces.

It has come to my intention, because of the research I am doing for this essay, to learn that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has published data to reveal that law suits brought to them by women have steadily declined over the last eight years and allegations filed by men has doubled between 1990 and 2007. This tidbit of information was not the only startling revelation I learned from an article entitled Women Harassing Men. Gretchen Voss reiterated three instances – litigated by the EEOC – to show her point that men are not raised to think of themselves as victims. Now that the times have changed and women have more power in the workplace than they have traditionally garnered, the so-called gentler sex has become predator versus prey (Voss, 2008-06). The amounts of money awarded by juries and the discretely settled out-of-court costs should be enough to warrant corporate attention. So, since complaints about female bosses preying on men have doubled since 1990 it is fair to ask, “What’s going on out there?”

What is going on, in my judgment, is proof positive of the adage that ‘Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ This phrase from the historian and moralist John Acton, further noted that “Great men are almost always bad men.” (Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely, 2008) It seems fair to note now that, whether the injustice of sexual harassment is from men or women, the responsibility of management to mitigate and correct is the same.

References

Ebert, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2007). Business Essentials, Sixth Edition.

            Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kim, J. N. (2008). The cubicle bully. Scientific American Mind, 13.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. (2008).

            Retrieved July 6, 2008, from The Phrase Finder:

            http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html

Voss, G. (2008-06). Women harassing men. Marie Claire (US), 96(4).

Jason J. Churchill, October 25, 2000
Revised and submitted November 13, 2000  

Retrieved 052805 from http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html

Oil Consumption in North America

Outline

1. Oil Consumption in North America
2. U.S. Oil Production
3. Oil Reserves
4. Importing
5. Misconceptions about Fossil Fuel Resources

Oil Consumption in North America

Currently, the United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of oil, which is more than 25% of the world's total..  As a result, the U.S produces one fourth of the world's carbon emissions.  Despite predictions that the U.S. will exhaust it's supply of oil in as little as forty years, the demand is on the increase, and is predicted to continue increasing, because of the ever increasing population.  Increase in resource consumption is caused by three factors: population growth, new uses found for a resource, and increase in demand for a resource to increase living standards.  The rate of consumption for oil is increasing at a rate of about 2% yearly. 

U.S. Oil Production

The United States produced enough oil to supply its own demand until 1970, (Youngquist paragraph 6). In that year the U.S. had to start importing oil to meet the demand.  The oil production for 2000 is expected to average 5.8 million barrels per day of crude oil.  The production for 1999 was 5.9 million barrels per day.  After the oil price collapse of 1985/1986, U.S. oil production declined dramatically.  Oil production in 2000 is down by 24% from 1985. However, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), oil production is expected to increase by 70,000 barrels per day, or 1.1% in 2001.  There is little to no chance of discovering any significant new onshore oil fields in the U.S.  There is a good possibility of discovering major deposits of oil offshore, but offshore drilling has been banned in many areas.  There are several good prospects far offshore that are open to exploration, but these are usually in very deep waters, and are extremely expensive to drill. The U.S. produces 12% of the world's oil, and this production is concentrated onshore, and offshore along the Texas Louisiana Gulf Coast, extending inland through west Texas, Oklahoma, and eastern Kansas. There are also significant oil fields in Alaska along the central North Slope.

Oil Reserves

According to the EIA, the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000.  The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year.  That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries.  84% of the reserves are concentrated in four states.  Texas has 25%, both onshore, and offshore.  Alaska has 24%, California has 21%, and Louisiana has 14% onshore, and offshore.  Since 1990, U.S. oil reserves have dropped about 20%.  New oil discoveries made in 1999 were made almost entirely in the Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. (321 million barrels).  All other discoveries were extensions of existing oil fields, or new reservoirs discovered in old fields. (404 million barrels).

Importing

The demand for oil in the United States is increasing slightly every year but domestic oil production is decreasing.  The U.S. is expected to consume an average of 19.6 million barrels per day of oil in 2000.  It is estimated that the U.S. imported 10.9 million barrels per day of oil in the first eight months of 2000, (E.I.A. Paragraph 9).  At this rate, the U.S. is currently importing about 57% of the oil that is being consumed.  The main suppliers of oil to the U.S. at this time are; Canada (1.68 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.49 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.46 million barrels per day), and Mexico (1.35 million barrels per day).  The U.S. has energy sanctions against Iran, Iraq, and Libya, all major oil producers that prohibit U.S. companies from doing business with them.

Misconceptions about Fossil Fuel Resources

With few exceptions, 16,000 feet is the maximum depth at which oil is found.  Below that depth, only gas exists, because of the temperature of the earth.  The United States has large areas of oil shale deposits, which are sometimes misconstrued as being a readily available resource. However, oil shale deposits are not the same thing as conventional oil fields.  There are no effective methods for extracting crude oil, from oil shale.  A variety of processes have been tried, and all have failed.  Oilsands, which is another kind of oil deposit, are found in large quantities in Canada.  It has been estimated that the oilsands contain 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, but this oil cannot be recovered by standard methods of well drilling, and has to be strip mined.  After it is dug up, the oil is removed by a water flotation process.  Then, the waste sand has to be safely disposed.  The strip mining process now being used takes the energy equivalent of two barrels of oil to produce one barrel.  In other words, the price to produce it is double the price for which it can be sold.  Another problem with the oilsands, is that much of it is too deep to be reached by strip mining.  Other methods of removing the deeper oil are being experimented with, but they are all very costly.  Canada's oilsands will probably not be produced in large amounts until the world's supply of conventional oil is nearly depleted.

Conclusion

If the natural resources of the world continue to be exploited at such a staggering rate, there will be nothing left to exploit. Conservation strategies have been implemented, especially at times when an energy shortage has occurred, but these strategies are all but forgotten when the shortage passes.  Unfortunately, conserving resources at this point will only temporarily postpone the inevitable, which is total energy resource exhaustion. Unless the lifestyles, and transportation habits, of the ever-increasing population that demand more, and more resources are dramatically changed, or new energy sources are discovered, conserving won't save us.
 
 

Bibliography:
deBlij, H.J., and  Peter O.Muller.
     Geography Realms, Regions, and Concepts. 9th Edition

Rowntree, Lewis, Price, Wyckoff. Diversity Amid Globalization.
     Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Wheeler, Jesse H. Jr., and Trenton J. Kostbade.
     World Regional Geography

 GeoDestinies. Myths and Realities of Mineral Resources. Youngquist, Walter Ph.D..
     National Book Company. 1997. <http://dieoff.org/page132.htm>.

 Energy Information Administration, (EIA).
     <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html#OIL>.

 Oil & Gas Journal Online - petroleum, energy news.
     <http://ogj.pennnet.com>.

Jason J. Churchill, October 25, 2000
Revised and submitted November 13, 2000

Retrieved 052808 from http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5666

Oil Consumption Continues Slow Growth

by Joe Monfort

Global demand for oil reached 85.7 million barrels per day in 2007, a modest 1-percent increase over the 84.9 million barrels consumed daily in 2006.¹ (See Figure 1.) This marked the third straight year in which oil demand grew at an annual rate of less than 2 percent.² Despite the slow growth in demand, oil prices rose from just above $50 in January to near $100 at year’s end—close to the all-time inflation-adjusted price record that was reached in the early 1980s.³

The United States continued unchallenged as the world’s single largest oil-consuming nation in 2007, using almost one fourth of the global total at a rate of 20.7 million barrels daily.⁴ But U.S. oil consumption was virtually unchanged for the third year in a row, as rising oil prices discouraged demand despite three years of steady economic growth.⁵

China increased its petroleum consumption by 5.5 percent in 2007, up from 7.3 million barrels per day in 2006 to 7.7 million barrels.⁶ It now accounts for nearly 9 percent of the world’s total oil use.⁷ Over the past decade China has nearly doubled its oil consumption, and the share of global oil used by all nations that do not belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has increased from 37 percent in 1997 to almost 43 percent in 2007.⁸ Other top consumers in 2007 were OECD-Europe at 15.4 million barrels and Japan at 5 million barrels daily.⁹ (See Figure 2.)

The crude oil spot price in the United States averaged $72 per barrel in 2007, a 9.5-percent increase over the 2006 average of $66 and nearly triple the average price in 2002.¹⁰ The price of oil averaged over $90 a barrel in the final two months of 2007 and the first two months of 2008, nearing real dollar prices not seen since April 1980. On March 3rd, prices closed at $102.42, having set a new inflation-adjusted record high earlier during intra-day trading.¹¹ (See Figure 3.) The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects an average of $87 a barrel for 2008 as a whole.¹²

These high prices in the face of slowing demand growth have contributed to increasing recognition that limited spare oil production capacity has fundamentally changed world oil markets over the last several years.¹³ World crude oil production (without the natural gas liquids included in the consumption figures cited earlier) actually fell from 73.8 million barrels per day in 2005 to 73.2 million barrels a day in the first 10 months of 2007, according to EIA.¹⁴ This makes 2005 the peak year for world oil production so far, though it is too early to know if this will turn out to be the all-time high.¹⁵

In 2007, crude oil production declined in some of the world’s largest producers—including Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela—due to a combina­tion of geological and political factors.¹⁶ Saudi oil production continued to fall in 2007—a voluntary pullback to accommodate a softening market, according to Saudi officials.¹⁷ By late 2007, however, Saudi production was 8 percent below the peak level reached in 2005, despite the fact that oil prices had risen roughly $20 per barrel since then.¹⁸ Uncertainty over the condition of Saudi oil fields and their ability to increase or perhaps even sustain current pro­duc­tion levels is the single largest unknown facing world oil markets.

Meanwhile, crude oil production rose in 2007 in Angola, Brazil, Canada (mainly from tar sands), China, and Russia, which surpassed Saudi Arabia to become the largest producer.¹⁹ But production growth continues to slow in Russia, an ominous sign since that nation has been the most important source of production gains over the past decade.²⁰

The fact that the world is having a hard time expanding oil supply fast enough to keep up with even modest growth in demand is begin­ning to be accepted in some corners of the oil industry. The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell and the U.S. industry–dominated National Petroleum Council have both stated that supply con­straints are likely to put continued pressure on world oil markets in the years ahead.²¹ Although the dreaded phrase “peak oil” is still used mainly by oil industry mavericks like Matthew Simmons and T. Boone Pickens when discussing what lies ahead, their views—if not their language—do appear to be spreading to the mainstream.²²

Political instability contributed to supply disruptions and price volatility throughout many of the world’s oil-producing regions in 2007. Iraq reached its highest level of oil production since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, but this still remains below prewar production levels.²³ In 2007, Iraq raised its production 5 percent over the 2006 figure, with gains in the latter half of the year coinciding with the 2007 “troop surge.”²⁴ Overall, though, tensions in the Middle East remain highly charged and continue to factor heavily into world supply and price activity.

In Nigeria, despite a ceasefire signed by the government and eight rebel groups in Decem­ber, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta and other factions continue to wreak havoc on oil operations in the oil-rich southern delta.²⁵ As a result of pipeline sabo­tage, kidnappings of foreign workers, and other risks, Nigerian oil production has decreased 15 percent from its summer 2005 peak to an average production of 2.1 million barrels per day in 2007.²⁶ In Algeria, terrorist attacks targeting, among other sites, a United Nations office have also affected world markets and sparked con­cern among foreign oil companies operating in North Africa—a region considered crucial to future oil production.²⁷

Thanks to skyrocketing oil prices, many oil companies again enjoyed record profits in 2007. Chevron Corporation posted a company-best $18.7 billion in profit, while Royal Dutch Shell PLC reported a near-best $31.3 billion.²⁸ Exxon­Mobil Corporation, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, posted a 2007 net income of $40.6 billion, the single largest annual profit in U.S. corporate history.²⁹

The long-term future of oil companies may not be so bright, however. ExxonMobil reported a decline in oil and natural gas production in 2007, and many companies are finding it hard to replace their reserves.³⁰ Not only have the largest oil fields already been developed, most of the promising prospect areas are controlled by state-owned oil companies, which hold 80 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.³¹