Cognitive Dissonance

          This is the ugly feeling one gets when holding two dissimilar thoughts simultaneously. The dissonance increases exponentially with the importance the subject holds to the mind bearing the discordant intentions (or word association), how powerfully the dissonant thoughts conflict, or the inability to diminish the conflict (Syque, 2009). Examples that leap to mind are the belief that I am a good person even though I may have just done something I know to be wrong or the statement Vice-President Joe Biden made to an AARP town hall meeting that, unless the Democrat-supported health care becomes law, the nation would go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid it was to spend more money (Starr, 2009). Delusional and inane statements like that give rise to question about the Vice-President’s grip on the real world.

                   The July, 2009 U.S. Treasury Department monthly statement told a bleak tale of fiscal year deficits to date (U.S. Treasury Department, 2009):

§ U.S. deficit to date is $1.27 trillion (vs. $0.39 for the same period as last year.)

§ July deficit is $180.7 billion.

§ Receipts were $151.5 billion and outlays were $332.2 billion dollars. [Translation: The U.S. government spent $2.19 for every $1 of revenue (which are 5.6% less than a year ago, by the way.)

                   Today, August 25, 2009, as just released by Politico, the White House says the recession is ending and promises further deficit-cutting in next year's budget, as it announces a 10-year red ink estimate of $9.051 trillion that is elevated from the previously forecast deficit of $7 trillion (Politico, 2009). Are we now so jaded that a 28% error in hundreds of billions of dollars is couched with language of “further deficit-cutting in next year's budget” and is OK with us? This example of cognitive dissonance is mind boggling and one that only a Democrat in the modern United States of America could utter with a straight face. While President Obama is virtually playing a violin in Martha’s Vineyard while the (empty) Treasury Department is burning, the nation is confounded by the audacity of lies, deceit, and criminal behavior of his administration, because the sheer volume of distortion befalling us from every angle, every day.   

                   In January of 2009 President Obama pressed for an $800 billion economic stimulus package, in order to turn the economy around. Although the bill largely was chock full of liberal priorities, the President claimed it would ‘create or save’ 3 ½ million jobs. Obama also said that unemployment would rise to 9% if we did not pass the bill into law; if we did legislate it into existence, umemployment would remain below 8% (W, 2009). As of today, the White House projections (and the Congressional Budget Office’s slightly less concurrence) raise the bar 28% higher than the original estimate of the national debt to $9,000,000,000,000.00 and the unemployment rate is in excess of 10% and will remain there through 2010 (W, 2009). Adolf Hitler said,” "The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one (Hitler, 1925)."

                    Deception is the key to initiating and implementing Democrat-inspired agenda points held in check by bipartisan non-cooperation for forty years. The most poignant example of this was the great push for ‘Universal Health Care’ – a new entitlement that will have the effective cost of 18% (Agency For Healthcare Research And Quality, 2002) of the U.S. gross national product (GDP) – in less than two weeks time. No one read the bill. No one knew the cost or how it would be paid for. A great American ground swell of disbelief and outrage that the cost would be borne by cutting money spent for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration (Tax Day Tea Party, 2009). The Big Lie failed to work its magic; the new marketing ploy has changed the message to ‘Health Care Reform’ (White House, 2009). Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would now have us believe the government will save us all from the evil, capitalist pharmaceutical companies and the greedy insurance firms. And anyone who disagrees is a Nazi (Lewis, 2009) , un-American (Un-American Revolution, 2007) , or worse. But we informed citizens know that if a health care reform bill passes the House of representatives and Senate, it will require workers to pay more for the insurance they carry now and live to see rationed care for all, save the very wealthy who are not impacted by a change in income tax (Kishore, 2009) .             

          Criminal behavior is in the eye of the beholder. It did truly seem that any single thing the Bush administration did raise a liberal chorus of impeachment, liability, or litigation. Pick one; any one. OK: I will. The Bush administration fired eight Attorneys General. They had every right to do, as the lawyers worked at the President’s discretion and pleasure. The worst possible outcome for the attorney’s in case of point would have been that they would not automatically get jobs with a new administration that would likely be more palpable for their liberal opinions. Whereas, in the current administration, has discharged two Inspectors General: Gerald Walpin, IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps; and Judith Gwynn, IG for the International Trade Commission. Walpin was fired for doing his job; he ratted out an Obama appointee for misusing federal funds. Ms. Gwynn was fired because she had the audacity of hope to have her boss stand up for her after she wrote a report that that an agency employee had taken documents from her that she needed to do her job (Spiegel, 2009). Now that a liberal democrat is in the White House and actions are in line with the left wing Democrat usurping, socialist agenda, Obama can do no wrong. The risks for potential U.S. attorneys after the Walpin firing is trepidation of being fired after investigating organizations with close ties to the White House thus making them unable to perform their investigational duties (Spiegel, 2009).

                   It seems to me that the Obama administration and assorted lackey hangers-on would have trouble sleeping. No stories to collaborate this have been forthcoming, however, so one must conclude that cognitive dissonance is at work and we shall not see the manifest destiny of total loss of functional control of the Federal Reserve System, the State department, and the Executive Branch until the worst possible moment in national history. This day is rapidly approaching. Even the Communist Chinese are now reticent about buying more of our debt and have gone as far as coming to our shores to lecture us on being responsible capitalists (AP, 2009). How much more embarrassing can this possibly be, one must ask. I submit that the American Democrat Party and the radical left-wing agenda they aspire to bring to fruition will beget a real apocalypse that will reduce our fine, brave country to a third –world style banana republic. Pray for Republican and Independent legislator’s strength to oppose this change we can neither afford nor believe in.

References

Agency For Healthcare Research And Quality. (2002, September). Health Care Costs Fact Sheet. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.ahrq.gov/news/costsfact.htm

Associated press. (8). Clinto: Chinese Reassured on U.S. Financial health. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/08/clinton-chinese-reassured-financial-health/

Hitler, Adolf (1925). Mein Kampf. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from "The people will believe a big lie, but not a small lie." - Adolf Hitler

Kishore, Joe. (21). Six months of the Obama administration. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14483

Lewis, James. (8). Nancy's Nazis. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/nancys_nazis.html

Politico. (25). Politico.com. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.politico.com

Spiegal, Scott. (30). Hen Bish Does It, Its Criminal Behavior; When Obama Does It, Its Human Resources. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://conservativeoutpost.com/when_bush_does_it_it%E2%80%99s_criminal_behavior_when_obama_does_it_it%E2%80%99s_human_resources

Starr, Penny. (16). CNSNEWS.COM. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51162

Syque. (2002-2009). ChangingMinds.org. Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

Tax Day Tea Party. (2009). Tax Day Tea Party. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://taxdayteaparty.com/

Unamerican Revolution. (15). Harry reid, nancy pelosi and surveillance. Retrieved from http://unamericanrevolution.com/activism/harry-reid-nancy-pelosi-wireless-surveillance/

U.S. Treasury. (2009, July). Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/

W, AC. (3). News.gather.com. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977728269&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace

White House. (24). Health Care. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/

            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

            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.

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/

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