November 10, 2005
So the oil companies made a huge increase in earnings?
ConocoPhilips earned $3.8 billion in the third quarter, an 89 percent increase over a year earlier. But Mulva (exec for ConocoPhilips) said that represents only a 7.7 percent profit margin.***”
*** Emphasis mine.
If I did my math correctly, that is a profit margin of $292.6 million dollars. Good for them and their stockholders! Since when is it wrong to make a profit in America? I thought that was the point of our society, the ability to work hard and make money. There are accusations that there was price gauging after Katrina and Rita to make this money. The companies are claiming they raised the prices to help reduce the length of time and the severity of oil shortages. I believe it was a little bit of both. I can picture an oil exec wondering what to do with the impending shortage of oil and deciding to raise the price. When the American public continued to pay the inflated prices, they just continued to let it sore.
Over the last two and a half months, I’ve had people ask me about my nonchalant attitude towards gas prices. While others where up in arms complaining about it, I just sat back and rolled with it. When others would complain how much it cost them to fill their tanks, I would think about my next oil change. How can I be like that? Simple, if I can’t afford to pay $3.75 a gallon, then I don’t drive… as much. Remember people, my vehicle gets 12 miles to the gallon. I thought about the gas mileage when I purchased it and said to myself, “If I can’t afford the maintenance/upkeep on this vehicle, then I can’t afford to buy it.” I knew what I was walking into. Okay, I didn’t know gas would rocket over $3.00 a gallon. Not everyone thinks like that? Tough. The poor didn’t buy a new car, right, but they didn’t need that 8-cylinder gas-guzzler either.
If the gas companies can get Americans to purchase gas at $3.75 a gallon, then I say let them charge $3.80! When the price of gas rises above what a reasonable person is willing to pay, the amount of gas purchased will drop. It’s supply and demand in action. Someone needs to explain to me why this is wrong other then, “The poor can’t afford to drive.” Hey, I’m not exactly rich, both my wife and I work to eek out a living. If they can’t afford gas, then maybe they need to look into cutting expenses elsewhere, cut back on driving or maybe start carpooling.
This leads me right into the next issue I have with this whole thing:
”Some Republican and Democratic lawmakers have suggested that oil companies should funnel some of their earnings to supplement a federal program that helps low-income*** households pay heating bills”
*** Once again emphasis mine
What you talking about Willis?! First off, if the government did decide to step in and prove that capitalism is bad, instead of doing something that benefits everyone, they are going to do something that benefits only a portion of the public. ItÂ’s nice to know that the lawmakers are thinking about all of the American public. Why is it that I highly doubt that most of the profits these oil companies made came from low-income households? Actually, IÂ’m pretty sure that itÂ’s those of us that have the bigger vehicles or do a lot of driving, and continued to do so after the prices rose, that those profits stemmed from.
This is bullshit! I am taxed to pay for welfare, Medicare, social programs, and social security. Then IÂ’m basically forced to donate to charities at work. This is on top of my actually donating money freely to numerous charity organizations of my own free will. Yet, now they want to take the money that they say was wrongfully taken from me by the oil companies and instead of giving it back to me, they want to give it to someone else?
What the hell kind of restitution is that? That would be like having someone break into my house, steal my stuff and instead of my insurance paying me, they give it to the family down the street where dad hasn’t held a job for more then 3 weeks over the last 10 years. Why would they do that? “Because I have a job and can afford to buy new stuff and he is underprivileged.” That is essentially what the government is telling those that don’t qualify for these programs.
If the feds actually feel the need to do something about the oil companies, why not do something that would benefit everyone? Maybe instead of fining oil companies they should have them reduce the price at the pumps by so much over a period of time. This way those that actually paid for the profits can receive some of their “stolen” money back.
Some of you might think I’m being insensitive to the underprivileged. To those of you that believe that; I say, “Gum nudge my left testicle.” I worked hard to go to college, get an education and work my way up in a company that doesn’t appreciate anything I do… yet pays me decently. Others can do the same… and should have.
So what do you think about this whole thing? Discuss this over lunch and get back to me.
Posted by: Contagion at
12:38 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1003 words, total size 6 kb.
November 08, 2005
How stringent is this ban? Check this out:
“Initiative 901 would ban smoking in bars, restaurants and other indoor public sites and workplaces throughout Washington. It also would prohibit smoking within 25 feet of doors, windows or air vents of public places."
***Emphasis mine
ItÂ’s bad enough you want to take smoking away in barsÂ… but to make these poor people exercise walk what could end up being blocks in a city is just mean!
25 Feet from a door, window or air vent?!?!?! WTF? Maybe you donÂ’t smoke, but maybe you have a friend who does. You all go out for a night on the town. After a couple of drinks, your friend decides he wants a cigarette. WaitÂ… He canÂ’t smoke in here because of the law. They head outside, only to be reminded they canÂ’t just stand outside the door. They have to be 25 feet away from doors, windows (open IÂ’m assuming or it makes this scenario even worse) or air vents. Now your friend goes walking looking for somewhere to grab a cigarette. Everywhere he turns, there is a door, window or air vent. After thirty minutes, he gets irritated and lights up anyway, only to get a fine/ticket/arrested for smoking. Hopefully by now you are wondering where the hell your friend is and go to find him. Both of you end up losing a good hour out of your night because of this BS.
Maybe you’re a non-smoker and your saying: “Contagion, he should just quit smoking. This will help motivate him to quit.” To which I respond, “Why don’t you get off your high horse and quit thinking your better then other people.” Why should he have to quit? He likes smoking, he knows the risk, (Hell since the 80’s everyone knows smoking is bad for you.) why should he have to quit? Because you don’t like second hand smoke… Ahhh, well now I understand. Since you can’t stay the hell out of a bar or restaurant that allows smokers, the smokers should be punished. Got it… dumbass.
Okay, IÂ’m a smoker. I know itÂ’s bad for me, I know it is slowly killing me. I donÂ’t care. ItÂ’s my choice. Maybe I want to drink, eat red meat, smoke and die a slow happy death. I know the risks and IÂ’m a big boy, let me make the decision for myself. When other people try to take away peoples ability to smoke, it makes me want to smoke even moreÂ… Just because I know it pisses someone off!
Hey, IÂ’m afraid every time a loved one or I gets behind the wheel of a car they will be in a horrible maiming accident caused my a reckless driver. Maybe I should lobby to have cars outlawed since IÂ’m worried someone might hurt my family or me. I can disguise it as a bill to help the environment and promote safety. Okay, IÂ’m going to extremes, but I rank both scenarios as being on the same page.
I always felt it should be up to the individual business to determine if they allow smoking or not. It should not be the government dictating to the business not to allow people to smoke there. If JoeÂ’s bar doesnÂ’t allow smoking, then I donÂ’t go there, IÂ’ll go to JohnÂ’s bar that allows it. For people that donÂ’t smoke, they can go to JoeÂ’s bar. If a non-smoker wants to hang out with the smoker, one will have to compromise.
Posted as part of Breakfast.
Posted by: Contagion at
07:47 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 647 words, total size 4 kb.
November 07, 2005
Guys, how many times have we heard a woman say she doesn’t like it when a guy is looking at their chest or behind? It seems to be a common complaint, and I agree that when talking to a woman one should look her in the eye. Some women don’t like to be “checked out” at all. They get upset if they find some guy giving them the once over.
Fine, that is their right. IÂ’m not going to tell you not to wear clothing that compliments the shape of your body. It doesnÂ’t matter because people will look anyway even if you wear a baggy t-shirt and frumpy sweat pants. Women are catty and guys just check everything out. Guys, you can deny it, but you know itÂ’s true.
Just donÂ’t wear something that forces the human eye to look at your chest or backside.If IÂ’m not talking about figure enhancing cloths, then what am I talking about? Simple, shirts and pants with words on it. Over the last 6 months, IÂ’ve noticed the trend of females wearing shirts that have phrases or logos right across their chest. They also wear pants that have logos right across their butts (usually sweat pants/shorts). If you donÂ’t want people looking at your chest or ass, donÂ’t wear items like that.
The human eye naturally is drawn to lettering to read it. ItÂ’s like a sign. I know personally IÂ’ll see someone with a t-shirt that has writing on it, and with out thinking, I just start reading what it says. This gives the appearance that I am staring at their chest. No, IÂ’m reading their shirt. When walking through the mall I see a girl wearing shorts that says something written across their butt. Before I can even think about it, IÂ’ve read what was written, and to be honest in some cases I wish I hadnÂ’t.
Not just guys do this either, women read what is front of them as well. Just the other morning I was at a restaurant with my wife. A girl came in wearing a white sweat suit. (BTW, what ever happened to proper dress when leaving the house? A sweat suit is not appropriate to go to a sit down restaurant.). After she walks by Ktreva says to me, “One should not wear turquoise underwear with a white pants.” I had no idea what she was talking about, so I reply with a “huh?” She tells me that the girl that walked by is wearing turquoise underwear under her white sweat suit.
Now here I am thinking my wife is displaying some lesbian traits and is checking out girls as they walk by. Fantasy time! Smirking, I ask her how she knows. She responds that as the girl walked by she looked up and she had “Abercrombie” across her butt, when she read it she could see the underwear. Fantasy denied! But it enforced the fact that if there is writing, humans will read it.
The manufacturers of these clothes know and understand that. They put the lettering and logos in those places for a reason, to help draw the eye there. This is fine if you accept and don’t mind people staring at our chest or bottom. If you mind, don’t wear clothes that have it. If you do mind and wear clothes like that, don’t get mad at me if I “read” what you are advertising. In addition, don’t wear the shirt that says, “Don’t look at my chest”, by the time everyone is done reading it, it’s too late.
Posted by: Contagion at
12:49 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 650 words, total size 4 kb.
November 03, 2005
I just want to know, does that mean its okay to refer to a white democrat/liberal as a cracker?
Posted by: Contagion at
01:08 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.
Why do people that claim to be using their freedom of speech get so bloody upset when you voice a dissenting opinion and claim censorship? The best example I can give that most people will remember is when the Dixie Chics made their comments about G. W. Bush about 4 years ago. They spoke their oppinions; they had every right to do so. I donÂ’t agree with what they did/said but it is their constitutional right to do so. Where they pissed me off was when their fans and radio stations disagreed with what they said and spoke out against them.
When the public voiced their dissention of what the Dixie Chics had said, these “freedom of speech” fighters claimed that people where trying to censor them. BULLSHITE! Those people were exercising their freedom of speech to say they disagree or to tell the Dixie Chics they where wrong. Why is it when they said something against what the President was doing it was freedom of speech, but when their fans said something against what they did it was censorship? Isn’t that a huge double standard? I believe it is. If burning the American flag is covered by the first amendment as freedom of expression, then bulldozing thousands of the Dixie Chic’s CD’s is also a freedom of expression covered by the first amendment. This however is old news.
There have been a couple of incidents in the last month that really set my blood boiling. I feel people have the right to preach/evangelicalize/”spread the word” about their religion. This is part of freedom of speech. But when you start preaching at me and I tell you I’m not interested, and then you persist to preach at me; you are starting to cross freedom of speech into harassment. When I tell you to get off my property and not come back because I think your religion is nothing more then a glorified cult, that is NOT censorship. Just like you have the right to tell me that I’m going to hell if I don’t follow Jehovah, I have the same right to tell you that you’re a nut job and to get off of my property. It’s all covered under freedom of speech.
People that have political beliefs have the right to stand out in front of stores to promote their beliefs and hand out fliers. (If the store approves, it is private property) The other day walking into a local store some hippy love child… well I don’t know he was a love child, but he looked (i.e. smelled) like a neo hippy. He was handing out fliers trying to get people to join an anti-Bush protest rally in Rockford, IL. He was also trying to promote some local vast left wing conspiracy newspaper. (To be honest, I always thought it was the right wing that are the conspiracy theorists. j/k) He had the right to stand in front of the store smelling like patchouli and body odor to spread his message. I had the right to tell him I’m not interested and walk right past him with out hearing another word. Freedom of speech/expression does not necessarily mean words have to be involved. By my ignoring his presence, I “spoke” volumes. This is not censorship. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to sit there and hammer me with a barrage of words in which I don't want to hear. Freedom of speech gives you the right to talk to an audience, it does not mandate that the audience has to stick around and listen to the message.
There is a Green Bay Packer flag hanging off my truck antenna. It is my freedom of speech to support my team proudly. Living in Illinois, this does come with some ribbing. Freedom of speech gives the local Bear fans the right to do so. See, that is how it works. I’m promoting my team, which is my freedom of speech. A Bear fan gives me a hard time for living in Illinois and not supporting the Bears, that is his freedom of speech. Now when the militant Bear fan tells me I should take that flag down because “the Packers suck” and I remind him the Bears haven’t exactly been a stellar team over the last two decades, I’m still using my freedom of speech.
To be honest this cretin didnÂ’t say I was trying to censor him, but he did verbalize a hostile retort about doing something unpleasant with that flag and my lower digestive tract. But, it helps to explain my point. Now we had a whole freedom of speech back and forth there, until he threatened physical harmÂ… or I guess in Illinois that would be considered Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault. Then you get into other legal issues that have nothing to do with freedom of speech.
My whole point to this convoluted post is that if you are going to exercise your freedom of speech, donÂ’t be surprised if someone else exercises their freedom of speech with an opposing response. That is their right. They are NOT trying to censor you.
Posted by: Contagion at
12:45 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 901 words, total size 5 kb.
65 queries taking 0.0502 seconds, 168 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
