Ladies and Gentlemen, I asked someone familiar to us all to grace us with a reply to the recent email message I received entitled: "Don't Pump Gas on May 15th," the text of which you may have via a little interpolation, or, if you prefer, at your request. Mr. Hargis has indeed honored my request with his latest Guest Contribution to this forum. So I withhold from you no longer, and without further ado, Mr. Hargis:
There was an email fwd travelling around the internet exhorting Americans to stay away from the gas pumps on 15 May 2007 in an effort to stick it to Big Oil and the Middle Eastern oil industry. Some questionable numbers were used to show that such a boycott would rob those greedheads of a little over $2 billion. Seems like a good idea, right? Let's look at it a little closer, shall we?
If I see a house for sale and I don't buy it, have I taken anything from the owners? The correct answer is no. If I spend $100 per week on groceries at Save-A-Lot, that doesn't deplete Kroger's bank account at all. Millions of people don't buy Chevrolet Corvettes for all kinds of reasons. The effect is the same as if they'd boycotted them, yet Chevrolet still sells every 'Vette they make. See where I'm going? Not buying a thing isn't the same as taking something away from the seller.
I will be the first to admit that $2 billion is a big chunk of change...but not compared to $500 billion. I don't know what the total yearly revenues of the oil industry amount to, but I'm guessing it's closer to the latter than the former, and probably a lot higher. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of that $2 billion goes to the oil companies, say 25 cents per gallon. It may even be less than that considering the millions of people involved in drilling, transporting, refining, etc., over which all that money is spread. $2 billion dollars divided by $3 per gallon equals about 670,000,000 gallons of gas. Multiply that by 25 cents and you get $167,500,000. A lot of money, but a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on the world's oil market. So if 73,000,000 Americans (the email's number) refused to buy gas for one day, the only people who would notice would be those 73,000,000 Americans. It isn't as though the gas won't get sold: Every gallon of gas you don't buy is a gallon freed up for someone else. By the way, if my figure of 25 cents doesn't seem right, feel free to use your own figure.
So, the point is that if you want to stay away from the gas pumps for a day as a symbolic gesture, fine. But don't fool yourself into thinking that your action is going to force some oil company executive to have to fire his maid and start cleaning his own swimming pool. The world oil market is simply too big for you, or even 73,000,000 of you to do that.
-Mike Hargis
Showing posts with label Guest Blogs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guest Blogs. Show all posts
Monday, May 21, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
In Loco Parentis
Update: The legislation never got referred to the committee and as a result must be re-introduced next session. Unfortunately, Rep Kestell is retiring and Sen Leibham is running for Congress, so both of my legislators, who acted as sponsors for this legislation, are likely to be gone(although I will grant that Mr. Leibham will have stiff competition for Rep Petri's seat in Sen Grothman.) I own to some disappointment. You may see the latest update here.
By now, any regular here knows Mom (Call Me Mom to be exact). Mom's had an open invitation to guest post here, and she dazzles with the following. Sit back, relax and enjoy.
"Where to begin? The topic is one that is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of all parents. It is but a portion of the topic of parental rights. There have been some judicial rulings made in the last 10-20 years which were meant to streamline the disciplinary process in our schools, but, instead they have stripped us of our parental rights during the time when our child is attending school. They have also left our children open to the most tyrannical interrogatory procedures I have ever heard of in these United States . I hope that you, gentle reader, will be motivated by the information presented here, to contact your own legislators and take back your parental rights.
To start, I shall inform you that you and the courts have granted school officials the status of “in loco parentis” for the hours that your children attend school. “In loco parentis” means nothing more or less than that the school is acting “in the place of a parent”. This is necessary for a number of reasons and is generally a reasonable thing. If your child is passing notes or being disruptive, this means that the teacher or principal can administer reasonable consequences within the parameters of school board policy and stated procedures.
We have a problem when the school official, while acting in loco parentis, is also acting as an agent of law enforcement. If little Johnny or Susie is passing notes or making a ruckus, it is reasonable for them to be sent to the office and disciplined by school officials. If, however, little Johnny or Susie are called into the office to be disciplined for or questioned about something that can be used to charge them in a criminal proceeding, what then is the school official’s proper role?
In my state, the association of school boards says only that school officials have the right to question a child about a crime because that is a violation of the school’s rules and as the “acting parent” they have to investigate to determine the level of discipline that is necessary. There is no conflict of interest, they say, because “that’s the current law of the land.” (May I say that the comments which immediately clamored for expression at this point in our conversation are best kept to myself.)
In case you don’t understand the ramifications of this, let me educate you. This means that as long as it is school hours, if your child is implicated in a crime, school officials can accuse your child of the crime, search their belongings, and interrogate your child until the end of the school day, without contacting you. They do not have to inform your child of his/her rights. They do not have to tell your child that they may have you or a lawyer present during this questioning. The school officials may lie to your child in order to coerce a confession.
To me, this is a huge conflict of interest. At this point the school official is clearly acting as an agent of law enforcement. (Unless you think a judge will believe your child‘s testimony over that of the school official.)I believe this is a direct conflict of interest with the parental role they have been temporarily granted.
Just in case you do not see the conflict here, let me revisit the in loco parentis role in a different situation. Say little Johnny or Susie fell down the stairs and broke their arm. You would expect the school to call an ambulance and then call you immediately. You do not expect them to try to set the arm themselves and send your child back to class without notifying you. School officials understand that this situation involves more than their temporary status of “in loco parentis” covers. They do not attempt to insert themselves into the role of medical practitioner without contacting you. Why then, should they think they can act as law enforcement without contacting you first? In an emergency medical situation, it is clearly understood by all that it is in the child’s best interests to have qualified medical help immediately. Why isn’t it understood that in a criminal law situation, a child’s best interests are served by having a parent and/or a lawyer present before questioning that child?
There has, unfortunately, been more than one case where students have been interrogated for hours and even unjustly expelled on the suspicion of committing serious crimes because someone told the office at school that they were talking about bombs, or explosions. (In case you don’t think that is serious let me assure you that it is. Making a false bomb threat is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $250,000.00 in fines. Juveniles are charged the same as adults and there is a zero tolerance policy. Do you think your child should be questioned on that kind of charge without someone informing you about it first?) Let me be clear, these children didn’t make bomb threats, someone else told school officials that they had been talking about bombs or explosions. These children were interrogated, had their belongings searched and in at least two cases they were expelled when they didn’t confess under questioning.
In the interest of protecting my child’s rights, I have contacted my state’s legislators to request that they draft legislation clearly stating that a parent (or in the case of an orphan- a sympathetic adult) must be present when school officials or police liaison officers to the school are questioning a student about a crime. I believe there will be an appropriate exception for hurry cases. (credible bomb threats, etc.)
I was informed such legislation had been discussed only to be dismissed due to logistical objections from law enforcement. I said I could understand that in a case where they pick some kid up off the street and he/she doesn’t want to divulge their name or perhaps they look old enough to know their rights already, but a school must have parental contact information. That is why the legislation I am requesting is limited to students and not minors in general. The fact that it had already been discussed tells me that this type of abuse of the “in loco parentis” status is more common than it should be.
Don’t wait until this happens to your child. Protect them now. Contact your school and ask what their policy is in these circumstances. If your child is vulnerable, first tell your school officials in writing that you rescind their right to act in loco parentis in this type of situation, and then contact your legislators and demand legislation to fix it. Then do what you can to support that legislation once it is introduced."
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: Thank you for the posting Mom. As a parent of two toddlers, I'm going to - when the time is right - remember to rescind the school's right to act as parent. If ever there was a cause that needed some grassroots activism, this sounds like it.
By now, any regular here knows Mom (Call Me Mom to be exact). Mom's had an open invitation to guest post here, and she dazzles with the following. Sit back, relax and enjoy.
"Where to begin? The topic is one that is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of all parents. It is but a portion of the topic of parental rights. There have been some judicial rulings made in the last 10-20 years which were meant to streamline the disciplinary process in our schools, but, instead they have stripped us of our parental rights during the time when our child is attending school. They have also left our children open to the most tyrannical interrogatory procedures I have ever heard of in these United States . I hope that you, gentle reader, will be motivated by the information presented here, to contact your own legislators and take back your parental rights.
To start, I shall inform you that you and the courts have granted school officials the status of “in loco parentis” for the hours that your children attend school. “In loco parentis” means nothing more or less than that the school is acting “in the place of a parent”. This is necessary for a number of reasons and is generally a reasonable thing. If your child is passing notes or being disruptive, this means that the teacher or principal can administer reasonable consequences within the parameters of school board policy and stated procedures.
We have a problem when the school official, while acting in loco parentis, is also acting as an agent of law enforcement. If little Johnny or Susie is passing notes or making a ruckus, it is reasonable for them to be sent to the office and disciplined by school officials. If, however, little Johnny or Susie are called into the office to be disciplined for or questioned about something that can be used to charge them in a criminal proceeding, what then is the school official’s proper role?
In my state, the association of school boards says only that school officials have the right to question a child about a crime because that is a violation of the school’s rules and as the “acting parent” they have to investigate to determine the level of discipline that is necessary. There is no conflict of interest, they say, because “that’s the current law of the land.” (May I say that the comments which immediately clamored for expression at this point in our conversation are best kept to myself.)
In case you don’t understand the ramifications of this, let me educate you. This means that as long as it is school hours, if your child is implicated in a crime, school officials can accuse your child of the crime, search their belongings, and interrogate your child until the end of the school day, without contacting you. They do not have to inform your child of his/her rights. They do not have to tell your child that they may have you or a lawyer present during this questioning. The school officials may lie to your child in order to coerce a confession.
To me, this is a huge conflict of interest. At this point the school official is clearly acting as an agent of law enforcement. (Unless you think a judge will believe your child‘s testimony over that of the school official.)I believe this is a direct conflict of interest with the parental role they have been temporarily granted.
Just in case you do not see the conflict here, let me revisit the in loco parentis role in a different situation. Say little Johnny or Susie fell down the stairs and broke their arm. You would expect the school to call an ambulance and then call you immediately. You do not expect them to try to set the arm themselves and send your child back to class without notifying you. School officials understand that this situation involves more than their temporary status of “in loco parentis” covers. They do not attempt to insert themselves into the role of medical practitioner without contacting you. Why then, should they think they can act as law enforcement without contacting you first? In an emergency medical situation, it is clearly understood by all that it is in the child’s best interests to have qualified medical help immediately. Why isn’t it understood that in a criminal law situation, a child’s best interests are served by having a parent and/or a lawyer present before questioning that child?
There has, unfortunately, been more than one case where students have been interrogated for hours and even unjustly expelled on the suspicion of committing serious crimes because someone told the office at school that they were talking about bombs, or explosions. (In case you don’t think that is serious let me assure you that it is. Making a false bomb threat is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $250,000.00 in fines. Juveniles are charged the same as adults and there is a zero tolerance policy. Do you think your child should be questioned on that kind of charge without someone informing you about it first?) Let me be clear, these children didn’t make bomb threats, someone else told school officials that they had been talking about bombs or explosions. These children were interrogated, had their belongings searched and in at least two cases they were expelled when they didn’t confess under questioning.
In the interest of protecting my child’s rights, I have contacted my state’s legislators to request that they draft legislation clearly stating that a parent (or in the case of an orphan- a sympathetic adult) must be present when school officials or police liaison officers to the school are questioning a student about a crime. I believe there will be an appropriate exception for hurry cases. (credible bomb threats, etc.)
I was informed such legislation had been discussed only to be dismissed due to logistical objections from law enforcement. I said I could understand that in a case where they pick some kid up off the street and he/she doesn’t want to divulge their name or perhaps they look old enough to know their rights already, but a school must have parental contact information. That is why the legislation I am requesting is limited to students and not minors in general. The fact that it had already been discussed tells me that this type of abuse of the “in loco parentis” status is more common than it should be.
Don’t wait until this happens to your child. Protect them now. Contact your school and ask what their policy is in these circumstances. If your child is vulnerable, first tell your school officials in writing that you rescind their right to act in loco parentis in this type of situation, and then contact your legislators and demand legislation to fix it. Then do what you can to support that legislation once it is introduced."
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: Thank you for the posting Mom. As a parent of two toddlers, I'm going to - when the time is right - remember to rescind the school's right to act as parent. If ever there was a cause that needed some grassroots activism, this sounds like it.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Encounter with Marxism
There is a gentleman out there for whom Mr. Webster, The Monarchist, and I hold in an esteem that few can match; and those that manage to usually need an oxygen tank and a sherpa. His name is Michael Hargis, and he has intimated to us that he has something to share with "you people" as our second guest writer. So, without further ado, here is Mr. Hargis to ... lay down some knowledge.
A few weeks ago I met a socialist. I don't mean an American-style liberal; I'm talking about a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool True Believer. This guy could quote Marx, Hegel, and Marcuse with the same facility which my hosts here quote the Founding Fathers. I was very excited and tried to engage him in debate about human nature and the moral superiority of liberty, but he was mostly interested in looking down his nose at me. I was unable to find any common ground with him whatsoever. My idea of liberty was nothing but a form of slavery to him; his notions of a scientifically planned society and economy were silliness and wishful thinking to me. I did gain some insight into how Marxism attracts followers, however, particularly the type of followers it attracts.
My socialist friend is an elitist, which may strike some as odd in light of the fact that Marxism is an anti-elitist philosophy, at least on its face. He isn't a social elite (Kennedy, Rockefeller), nor is he an economic elite (Gates, Soros), but rather an intellectual elite. To accept and believe in the idea that society can be "scientifically" planned in such a way as to benefit everyone, and even change human nature, requires a monstrous ego and an absolute faith in the human intellect. Marxism thus appeals to those who think they're smarter than the rest of us. Here's another little ray of light into Marxist thinking: My friend said (I paraphrase here) "Of course I think the evolution from feudalism to capitalism was a good thing. I just don't think the revolution is over." This was in response to my observation that socialist/communist societies in the 20th century have largely been economic failures, especially compared with countries that have been closer to the capitalism end of the economic spectrum. In other words, these actual failures aren't proof of any sort of theoretical failure. They are only imperfect first attempts. Think about that for a minute. If consistent failure can be dismissed by saying, "Oh, they just didn't do it right," then the socialist can never be proven wrong. Thomas Edison made thousands of unsuccessful attempts to create a light bulb before he hit upon the right combination of elements. Rather than consider these failures, he instead said that he'd learned thousands of different ways in which it wouldn't work. Marxists think exactly the same way. For these True Believers, hope always lies in the future.
In closing, allow me to direct your attention to Hong Kong. After World War II, Great Britain assigned John Cowperthwaite to direct Hong Kong's miserable financial affairs. He was so committed to a policy of non-interference that he refused to collect economic statistics for fear that they would provide incentive to meddle in private affairs. The result of this non-interference was that within a few decades Hong Kong was richer and freer by far than her colonizer, Great Britain. Hong Kong's current leader, Donald Tsang, has vowed to continue this policy, except in those areas where "there are obvious imperfections in the operation of the market mechanism."
Raise your glass to Hong Kong, because it will never be the same. There are True Believers everywhere, and for them the revolution is defintely not over.
Michael Hargis
A few weeks ago I met a socialist. I don't mean an American-style liberal; I'm talking about a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool True Believer. This guy could quote Marx, Hegel, and Marcuse with the same facility which my hosts here quote the Founding Fathers. I was very excited and tried to engage him in debate about human nature and the moral superiority of liberty, but he was mostly interested in looking down his nose at me. I was unable to find any common ground with him whatsoever. My idea of liberty was nothing but a form of slavery to him; his notions of a scientifically planned society and economy were silliness and wishful thinking to me. I did gain some insight into how Marxism attracts followers, however, particularly the type of followers it attracts.
My socialist friend is an elitist, which may strike some as odd in light of the fact that Marxism is an anti-elitist philosophy, at least on its face. He isn't a social elite (Kennedy, Rockefeller), nor is he an economic elite (Gates, Soros), but rather an intellectual elite. To accept and believe in the idea that society can be "scientifically" planned in such a way as to benefit everyone, and even change human nature, requires a monstrous ego and an absolute faith in the human intellect. Marxism thus appeals to those who think they're smarter than the rest of us. Here's another little ray of light into Marxist thinking: My friend said (I paraphrase here) "Of course I think the evolution from feudalism to capitalism was a good thing. I just don't think the revolution is over." This was in response to my observation that socialist/communist societies in the 20th century have largely been economic failures, especially compared with countries that have been closer to the capitalism end of the economic spectrum. In other words, these actual failures aren't proof of any sort of theoretical failure. They are only imperfect first attempts. Think about that for a minute. If consistent failure can be dismissed by saying, "Oh, they just didn't do it right," then the socialist can never be proven wrong. Thomas Edison made thousands of unsuccessful attempts to create a light bulb before he hit upon the right combination of elements. Rather than consider these failures, he instead said that he'd learned thousands of different ways in which it wouldn't work. Marxists think exactly the same way. For these True Believers, hope always lies in the future.
In closing, allow me to direct your attention to Hong Kong. After World War II, Great Britain assigned John Cowperthwaite to direct Hong Kong's miserable financial affairs. He was so committed to a policy of non-interference that he refused to collect economic statistics for fear that they would provide incentive to meddle in private affairs. The result of this non-interference was that within a few decades Hong Kong was richer and freer by far than her colonizer, Great Britain. Hong Kong's current leader, Donald Tsang, has vowed to continue this policy, except in those areas where "there are obvious imperfections in the operation of the market mechanism."
Raise your glass to Hong Kong, because it will never be the same. There are True Believers everywhere, and for them the revolution is defintely not over.
Michael Hargis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
