Robin Weirauch running for vacated seat in Congress

Robin Weirauch has made her announcement to run for the Congressional seat that was vacated by the passing of Paul Gillmor. Gillmor was a well respected leader but Robin made a heavy dent in her 2006 campaign where she garnered 43% of the vote. Here is a copy of her canidacy announcement for this special election.

National Update-- 11 Congress Members now support Impeachment of Cheney and Bush

Wildman presidential canidate Dennis Kucinich now has 11 co-sponsors who have signed his bill filing articles of impeachment on Mr. President (aka. captain commute) and Mr. VP (aka. captain "Go F*^% Yourself").

The title link goes to Jim McDermott's site for his Congressional House seat. The link has an actual transcript and a video of the speech he gave on the House Floor.

Getting verey interesting...

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.

Social Security and Congress--Your thoughts?

I received the below message via email and though I’m sure it isn’t the first time it has been said, I thought it might be interesting to see what would come from it on the blog. Please offer your comments: Though we, as the people, are not able to start a bill, we are able to start petitions, use the internet to get our dissatisfaction out, and use our voices to put pressure on Congress to deal with this situation. How should we move forward in presenting this information and drawing people together around its message?

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and members of Congress do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it.After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments...

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White, and their wives, may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.Younger Dignitaries, who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA..! ZILCH...

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK". From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen.
Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
Then sit back.....
And see how fast they would fix it.