Obama

Is Ron Paul Still Running for President

I have not heard anything from our media about Ron Paul, since McCain was dubbed as the nominee, so I search the internet tubes to find that he is still going stong with his campaign. The title link goeas directly to his campaign updates. The video below is an interview he did with Glenn Beck where he talks about our economy, the housing crisis, Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. His message should be brought mainstream, but when will people listen? Of couse it ran on April 1st, so most people might just think he is kiddding, but he makes compelling arguments.

The May 15 Gas Out—Organizing for Real Change?

I have received at least three different emails talking about the Great Gas Out which is scheduled to take place on May 15, 2007. For your reference, one of them reads:
NO GAS...On May 15th 2007
Don't pump gas on May 15th
In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.

On May 15th 2007, all Internet users are being asked not to go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.

There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the Internet
Network and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies' pockets for just one day. Send this to all your contact list. With it saying, ''Don't pump gas on May 15th"

At S & G Endeavors, we are committed to change on all levels, whether it is using our strategic planning services to help create organizations with great ideas or using our media services to create media for a changing world. I, personally, am extremely committed to the Bill of Rights for this country, which provides us with the ability to organize in groups to protest those things that we feel unfair. Though I do not drive, I believe the gas prices to be a true injustice to those who do, and have held several conversations with friends, family members, and my business partner regarding the subject. I fully support the intentions of this protest, but my higher commitment to leading change is compelled to ask the following question:
Just how effective is this “protest” going to be, and what will be yielded to the consumer as a result of such efforts?

Before you get upset with my question and assume that I am just spouting off a negative attitude, I ask you to continue reading…

Emails like the one above have been in circulation on the Internet since 1999. The Urban Legend Reference Pages explain why:
This year's e-mails (proposing a one-day "gas out" in May 2007) is yet another recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999. All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness. A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little active participation and had no real effect on retail gasoline prices.
The premise behind all these messages is inherently flawed, because consumers' not buying gasoline on one particular day doesn't affect oil companies at all. The "gas out" scheme doesn't call upon people to use less gasoline, but simply to shift their date of purchase and buy gas a day earlier or later than they usually would. The very same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don't lose any money.
Further research yields similar statements—from CBS2Chicago.com:
Chances are the plan is more fantasy than feasible…"I think in theory it may have some effect. But in reality or practice it would have little or no effect at all," said Jason Toews, co-founder of gasbuddy.com, a gas price-tracking site that allows visitors to post and compare local gas prices. “Getting enough people to participate would probably be difficult,” he said, “as well as the fact that those participating would probably just fill up the day before or after the boycott.”
And in addition, we find the following written in the Post Tribune:
BP Amoco spokesman Scott Dean said a one-day strike wouldn't affect operations. "If suddenly, people no longer demand gasoline ever, certainly it would affect supply and therefore price," Dean said. "But for a single day? It doesn't change the picture for the month, the year or the decade."
And, finally, as reported on NJ.com—who featured the article from the Gloucester County Times:
It would take more than a one-day boycott to have an impact, said Eric DeGesero, executive vice president of the New Jersey Fuel Merchants Association. "They aren't going to have any long term impact until they change their behavior," DeGesero said.

And, there we have it! An email goes out; it motivates people to think they will make a great impact; and, all that happens is the people are portrayed by the media as a joke. Check out these headlines from previous similar efforts provided by The Urban Legend Reference Pages:
Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth.
Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic.
Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died. Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices.

This is not to say that a boycott does not send a message, but the research suggests that the effects are minimal at best. In addition, the only supporting comment I found when doing my research was, ironically, from a Democratic Congressman in Gary, Indiana, as reported in the Post Tribune:
"It sends a message that people have power," said state Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, who is trying to convince constituents to protest on May 15.
It takes all of my effort at this time to not pick up the phone, call the Congressman, and ask him why he is using his time encouraging his constituents to waste their time with a boycott that lacks effect instead of using his resources to advocate on their behalf. To me, his comment only demonstrates that he is good at deflecting his own responsibility for not addressing the issue. As a fellow democrat, I am disgusted at the spin control he is using on his own people.

My purpose in writing this post is not to discourage people from boycotting fuel; it is quite simply put, to demonstrate that we need to take a more aggressive strategy with our boycotting efforts. If we are going to use resources to bring the people together, why not bring the people together for a cause that will have a greater effect?

How can a greater effect be achieved by consumers?

According to the Urban Legend Reference Pages:
Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term.
Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.
And, from Break the Chain.org, we read:
In order to influence a reduction in prices, producers must either make more oil and refined fuel available, or consumers must reduce the demand for it. But this means a reduction in overall demand over a significant period of time. The United States is among the world's top consumers of gasoline. Fuel-efficiency on America's highways has not improved significantly over the last ten years and light trucks (including SUVs), which typically get the worst mileage, comprised nearly 55 percent of all new vehicles sold in 2003, and have accounted for more than half of all sales each year since at least 2000.
And from CBS2Chicago.com, we are told very simply:
"People just have to stop using their cars," Toews said. "They'd have to start using public transportation or carpooling. That's what it's going to take, not a 'gas out."

So, what do I propose?—to start the discussion, I feel it best to include another excerpt from Break the Chain.org:
The bottom line: If we want to save money at the pump, we must use less gas - slow down on the freeway, plan outings to get everything in one trip, walk more, ride a bicycle and trade in that gas-guzzling SUV for an economical compact or hybrid car for starters. Unfortunately, this has proven to be a very unpopular approach to the problem.

Leave your comments, please. Based on the information discussed in this post, what do you think we should do—should we protest for a day, or should we do something else? Should we pressure our Congress members to stop wasting our time with spin control and to do something about the problem like using our income tax to invest in public transit that we can use? Should we pressure our country’s leader to use his family connection to oil to begin to fix the problem? I’m looking forward to your comments.

Review of Kyle Sampson's testimony Before the Judicial Committee-Post 1

So, yesterday, John comes to me and says matter of fact, I want you to cover the testimony of Kyle Sampson for the blog tomorrow. I said, make sure you introduce the topic tomorrow, and yet…..Hmmmmmm….I see no topic this morning. Great!!!

Lol, I’m sure all of you who know John or me personally understand exactly why I had to write that joke as my opener. So, I thought how am I going to do this? Looking for a detour to sitting in front of the TV and watching the prelude to the event, I decided I should work out. As I finished my workout, I turned on the TV to watch. MSNBC, the more credible has the same old thing, strategists, who know everything that should be going on. I thought to myself, hmm…..good times to meet with local officials and provide there perspective on our upcoming IPTV Shows. Letting their knowledge flood my mind, I heard there thoughts on what we really know as the public, what was really going to be exposed today, and how much damage could be done by his testimony? It is all speculation of the worst, as is usual with the mainstream media. I wonder, could we balance the worst with the best. Or, could we just wait and see what he will tell us in his testimony, using this time to promote the groups of the local community and how they will be impacted by the testimony. Hmmm……Interesting thought for another time.

So, I come back in from the workout and talk with John’s wife a little. I turn on MSNBC again and they are still reviewing their own thoughts while we are waiting for the proceeding to begin.

While waiting, I did some research on Google about Mr. Sampson. From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — The former Justice Department official who orchestrated the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year plans to tell Congress today that such dismissals are appropriate when prosecutors prove ineffective from "a political perspective." In his first public remarks on the firings, D. Kyle Sampson says the process of identifying underperforming U.S. attorneys "was not scientific nor was it extensively documented," according to testimony prepared for delivery to the Senate Judiciary Committee.None of the prosecutors was asked to resign for "improper reasons," notes a copy of Sampson's statement obtained by The Times, but an unusually broad standard was used to decide on proper grounds for dismissing them
End of quotation from the LA Times...

He didn’t see a difference, it appeared, between firing someone for policy or political differences in any of his opening statement. In his opening remarks, he did make statements that things were mishandled—“poor judgments, word choices...” He talked of a “good faith attempt to carry-out management operations” and then one sentence later, admitted that actions have caused “misunderstandings and embarrassments”. He also indicated that he was not asked to resign, but instead chose to resign his post in an effort to hold himself accountable for what he “could have and should have done to prevent this”. He went on to assure the committee that he genuinely—“honestly and in good faith”—“never sought to conceal...facts...from anyone” within the department. Going far enough to state the “others in the department knew”. But, when discussing what happened in his opening statement, he simply stuck to the language already reflected in the LA Times excerpt above.

Reports from MSNBC say that he is currently being grilled on the language he has chosen to hear. But, they are not covering it live, and neither is CSPAN 1 AND CSPAN 2. I need to find a live feed to the proceeding and I will get our readers more. How does one get a press pass to this stuff, anyway?

Have any suggestions, email or call me.
Jeremy
(614) 519-3026

At first the article in this link pi$$e& me off...

At first I heard our President say:

"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honourable public servants,"


But then I read what Patrick Leahy said and felt a little better:

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," he said.
He said Mr Bush's offer "is not constructive and it is not helpful to be telling the Senate how to do our investigation, or to prejudge its outcome".

Thanks BBC

Then I saw this article and these few lines:

"Republicans forced a delay in a vote on Senate subpoenas a week ago, and it was not clear whether any of the GOP members of the panel were now prepared to support them."

and then this classic deal from Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania:

The Senior Republican on the panel, floated a compromise in which Rove and others would answer questions from selected lawmakers without being sworn in but with a transcription made.

But then Sen. Harry Reid had this to say in response:

"Anyone who would take that deal isn't playing with a full deck,"

and then I saw this article in which the first paragraph said:

A House panel authorized subpoenas Wednesday requiring Karl Rove and four other senior Bush administration officials to testify under oath in the inquiry into the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors.


Further down the article:

“I think the Democrats are overplaying their hand,” said Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi.

[Wow, thank you #2 guy in the Republican party! You are supposed to say that, but that doesn't make it true.]

Well, this can only get better,

Can You Tube Help Elect the next president

If you are a presidential canidate, you better have a you tube account for your campaign. It seems most of the "bigger name" hopefuls already have their videos up.

Let's look at some stats from the link:

McCain

Joined: 2 weeks ago Videos: 13 Viewed: 9,877

Edwards

Joined: 11 months ago Videos: 23 Viewed: 26,518

Biden

Joined: 1 month ago Videos: 15 Viewed: 6,069

Romney

Joined: 1 month ago Videos: 33 Viewed: 13,934

Clinton

Joined: 7 months ago Videos: 14 Viewed: 30,226

Guliani

Joined: 2 weeks ago Videos: 5 Viewed: 16,555

Richardson

Joined: 1 month ago Videos: 3 Viewed: 9,832

Kucinich

Joined: 2 weeks ago Videos: 4 Viewed: 7,340

Obama

Joined: 6 months ago Videos: 22 Viewed: 81,618


OBAMA, leader of the You Tube generation!