Last Friday night I was listening to a local radio talk show. The discussion was about torturing terrorists in order to gain information about future attacks & terrorist activities.
I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.
Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!
Wow. That's just plain scary.
When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.
Great. Give him a trial and prove it.
That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!
What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!
Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.
When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.
Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.
That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.
Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'
Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.
Not so.
Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
What's the alternative?
Recently an older gentleman struck up a conversation with me outside in a parking lot. He told me that he had had a car accident and now his insurance company was stringing him along and not paying for all of his medical care.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
'Illegal' Immigration
Regarding 'illegal' immigration, I used to be of the mindset that those who were against it were probably bigoted in some sense. After all, no one's complaining about immigrants from Canada, right? It's the immigration from Mexico that's causing a stir.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Eye of the Beholder
Recently a friend of mine that I work with made this comment: 'PC's are better than Macs.'
This made my ears perk up because along with a PC, I also own a Mac. The other reason it got my attention is that it was one person's opinion rather than fact, but stated as an absolute.
'PC's ARE BETTER than Macs.'
Really? Then why do so many people spend their money on something inferior when there is obviously a product that is better?
It's not uncommon to hear statements like that one. It could be that Coke is better than Pepsi, or an Izod shirt is better than a Polo shirt, etc. Many people get wrapped up into their OWN opinions and are quick dismiss anybody else's as a viable option.
What, their opinions don't count?!
Recently at my tv station I heard someone make a comment that we had a better lead story than another station's. I'm sure the other station felt they had the better lead story as well.
No one wins. No one loses. It really is in the eye of the beholder.
Making observations about something being better than another is a debate that can be argued until the cows come home because it's never going to be proven. One side can come up with 100 reasons as to why one product is better than another, but someone else can refute those claims and come up with their reasons as to why the other thing is better.
It's like trying to get rid of sand at the beach.
Next time you hear a comment about something being better than another, even if you happen to agree with it, CHALLENGE IT and ask them to PROVE IT. It gets people thinking about what they said and what they believe.
This made my ears perk up because along with a PC, I also own a Mac. The other reason it got my attention is that it was one person's opinion rather than fact, but stated as an absolute.
'PC's ARE BETTER than Macs.'
Really? Then why do so many people spend their money on something inferior when there is obviously a product that is better?
It's not uncommon to hear statements like that one. It could be that Coke is better than Pepsi, or an Izod shirt is better than a Polo shirt, etc. Many people get wrapped up into their OWN opinions and are quick dismiss anybody else's as a viable option.
What, their opinions don't count?!
Recently at my tv station I heard someone make a comment that we had a better lead story than another station's. I'm sure the other station felt they had the better lead story as well.
No one wins. No one loses. It really is in the eye of the beholder.
Making observations about something being better than another is a debate that can be argued until the cows come home because it's never going to be proven. One side can come up with 100 reasons as to why one product is better than another, but someone else can refute those claims and come up with their reasons as to why the other thing is better.
It's like trying to get rid of sand at the beach.
Next time you hear a comment about something being better than another, even if you happen to agree with it, CHALLENGE IT and ask them to PROVE IT. It gets people thinking about what they said and what they believe.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Fred Hicks wears a Confederate cap.
Jackson County, Alabama is attempting to pass a 'junk law' that would get rid of 'illegal junkyards, abandoned vehicles, uninhabitable mobile homes' and other unsightly items (read article here). One has to wonder why a new law is needed to enforce something that's already illegal...
The Huntsville Times has been covering this issue and David Prather recently wrote for the editorial board that 'some people will view all of this as government intrusion upon a sacred right. It's not.'
I am proud to be one of those 'some people.' I believe that I have a right to what is mine and can do with it as I please as long as it does not violate your rights. Private property IS the most sacred of rights.
Prather continues: 'It's an acknowledgment that we live in a civilized society in which we don't harm the property of others by lowering property values and allowing unsanitary conditions.'
Yes, living next door to a trash heap will probably lower your property values. But that's not property being harmed! No one gets their roof replaced or their walls repainted because their next door neighbor doesn't cut their grass or has a car that doesn't run parked in the front yard.
'Well shoot. Ted's '83 Mustang hasn't been running for three weeks now. And now our roof is leaking. It can't be a coincidence!'
Do we have a right to higher property values? Do we get to decide how our neighbors live, look and maintain what is THEIRS? Of course not! If you can justify a law that allows government to dictate how we maintain our property by using the 'property value' argument, then there is no limit on how many laws government can pass continuing to do so. It's not a slippery slope. It's a free-fall.
The real kicker in all this is the elitist, 'I know what's best,' holier-than-thou attitude. If you aren't FOR a law like this, you must be uncivilized! After all, 'in a civilized society, we don't harm the property of others,' etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise? Not civilized.
It's an editorial. That's Prather's personal opinion. So no harm, no foul... as long as it doesn't seep into their news coverage.
And in my opinion, it does. If you read the previously linked to article, you read about a man opposed to the passing of this proposed junk law. His name is Fred Hicks and he thinks we have enough laws.
But The Times made an effort to really identify Fred Hicks. Although you can't see him in a newspaper article, be rest assured that he's wearing a Confederate cap.
Anyone wearing a Confederate cap in 2007 must be a backwoods hillbilly, believing the South is going to rise again! Oh, they must also be uncivilzed!
I wonder if The Times would have felt compelled to bring up Mr. Hicks' cap had it been a Nike one instead.
The Huntsville Times has been covering this issue and David Prather recently wrote for the editorial board that 'some people will view all of this as government intrusion upon a sacred right. It's not.'
I am proud to be one of those 'some people.' I believe that I have a right to what is mine and can do with it as I please as long as it does not violate your rights. Private property IS the most sacred of rights.
Prather continues: 'It's an acknowledgment that we live in a civilized society in which we don't harm the property of others by lowering property values and allowing unsanitary conditions.'
Yes, living next door to a trash heap will probably lower your property values. But that's not property being harmed! No one gets their roof replaced or their walls repainted because their next door neighbor doesn't cut their grass or has a car that doesn't run parked in the front yard.
'Well shoot. Ted's '83 Mustang hasn't been running for three weeks now. And now our roof is leaking. It can't be a coincidence!'
Do we have a right to higher property values? Do we get to decide how our neighbors live, look and maintain what is THEIRS? Of course not! If you can justify a law that allows government to dictate how we maintain our property by using the 'property value' argument, then there is no limit on how many laws government can pass continuing to do so. It's not a slippery slope. It's a free-fall.
The real kicker in all this is the elitist, 'I know what's best,' holier-than-thou attitude. If you aren't FOR a law like this, you must be uncivilized! After all, 'in a civilized society, we don't harm the property of others,' etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise? Not civilized.
It's an editorial. That's Prather's personal opinion. So no harm, no foul... as long as it doesn't seep into their news coverage.
And in my opinion, it does. If you read the previously linked to article, you read about a man opposed to the passing of this proposed junk law. His name is Fred Hicks and he thinks we have enough laws.
But The Times made an effort to really identify Fred Hicks. Although you can't see him in a newspaper article, be rest assured that he's wearing a Confederate cap.
Anyone wearing a Confederate cap in 2007 must be a backwoods hillbilly, believing the South is going to rise again! Oh, they must also be uncivilzed!
I wonder if The Times would have felt compelled to bring up Mr. Hicks' cap had it been a Nike one instead.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Defining 'Help'
Before coming to work at WHNT (for the 3rd time), I worked at another station in Huntsville. My job title there was 'Assignment Manager/Editor.' I was responsible for sending news crews out on stories, knowing what and where the stories were and fielding calls from viewers who gave us stories. I was on the phone A LOT.
When a viewer would call us with an idea for a story, it was my job to make sure that it was actually a legitimate story. For example, people would call complaining that the car they just bought from a used car auto lot was a lemon (not a story), or that the jail conditions were filthy (ya think?!). TV stations get at least 10 of those 'stories' a week, sometimes more. Those are fairly easy to dismiss (although not always).
Sometimes when a viewer called and explained their situation, it would sound like a good, legitimate story that we could cover. But that was only scratching the surface. Sounding good doesn't mean it was a story. I had to ask the caller questions that were at times invasive and personal and would put them on the hot seat.
One morning I got a call from a lady saying that her daughter's landlord flat-out REFUSED to fix the bathtub in her apartment. It was backed up and very dirty.
Sounded good so far. 'Slumlord refuses to fix bathtub!' Could make for a good headline, huh? But I had lots of questions to ask first to determine if this story was worth sending a crew out to cover.
For example, why was SHE the one calling us and not her daughter? If her daughter, a grown woman, was that desperate, why didn't she call seeing if her story could be covered? That alone isn't a deal-breaker to say we won't cover the story. But it does raise some flags.
My next line of questions were about her daughter and where she lived, what she did, etc. She lived in some sort of public assisted housing (I think). Her rent: $50 a month. That's 1.66 a day.
The kicker: She was about 2 months behind on her rent and would probably soon be facing eviction.
Now imagine you're a landlord and you have someone who is 2 months behind on rent. What would you do? Would you spend your own money to fix a bathtub for a tenant who isn't paying you?
Me neither.
If I recall, the daughter wasn't working either. I knew for an absolute fact we weren't going to cover this story, so I laid it out there for this lady:
'Ma'am.... your daughter is a bum.'
She didn't get angry. She didn't curse me or yell at me. She just listened.
'Your daughter is a bum. She doesn't work. She's TWO months behind on rent... and you're trying to fix her problems for her. You're enabling her to continue living like this.'
After a brief moment of silence, she finallysaid two words: 'You're right.'
It may have seemed harsh, but I told this woman what she NEEDED to hear. Her heart was in the right place and she was trying to get her daughter some help. But before someone gets helped, you have to first define what 'help' really is.
Is help solving someone's problems for them? Will that really fix things? Or is help hitting rock-bottom and changing your lifestyle on your own?
The woman thanked me for what I said. About two weeks later she called me for another story idea.
I don't know what ever happened with this lady or her daughter, but I hope they are both doing well.
When a viewer would call us with an idea for a story, it was my job to make sure that it was actually a legitimate story. For example, people would call complaining that the car they just bought from a used car auto lot was a lemon (not a story), or that the jail conditions were filthy (ya think?!). TV stations get at least 10 of those 'stories' a week, sometimes more. Those are fairly easy to dismiss (although not always).
Sometimes when a viewer called and explained their situation, it would sound like a good, legitimate story that we could cover. But that was only scratching the surface. Sounding good doesn't mean it was a story. I had to ask the caller questions that were at times invasive and personal and would put them on the hot seat.
One morning I got a call from a lady saying that her daughter's landlord flat-out REFUSED to fix the bathtub in her apartment. It was backed up and very dirty.
Sounded good so far. 'Slumlord refuses to fix bathtub!' Could make for a good headline, huh? But I had lots of questions to ask first to determine if this story was worth sending a crew out to cover.
For example, why was SHE the one calling us and not her daughter? If her daughter, a grown woman, was that desperate, why didn't she call seeing if her story could be covered? That alone isn't a deal-breaker to say we won't cover the story. But it does raise some flags.
My next line of questions were about her daughter and where she lived, what she did, etc. She lived in some sort of public assisted housing (I think). Her rent: $50 a month. That's 1.66 a day.
The kicker: She was about 2 months behind on her rent and would probably soon be facing eviction.
Now imagine you're a landlord and you have someone who is 2 months behind on rent. What would you do? Would you spend your own money to fix a bathtub for a tenant who isn't paying you?
Me neither.
If I recall, the daughter wasn't working either. I knew for an absolute fact we weren't going to cover this story, so I laid it out there for this lady:
'Ma'am.... your daughter is a bum.'
She didn't get angry. She didn't curse me or yell at me. She just listened.
'Your daughter is a bum. She doesn't work. She's TWO months behind on rent... and you're trying to fix her problems for her. You're enabling her to continue living like this.'
After a brief moment of silence, she finallysaid two words: 'You're right.'
It may have seemed harsh, but I told this woman what she NEEDED to hear. Her heart was in the right place and she was trying to get her daughter some help. But before someone gets helped, you have to first define what 'help' really is.
Is help solving someone's problems for them? Will that really fix things? Or is help hitting rock-bottom and changing your lifestyle on your own?
The woman thanked me for what I said. About two weeks later she called me for another story idea.
I don't know what ever happened with this lady or her daughter, but I hope they are both doing well.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Gas Prices
Congress has just passed a bill that would make price gouging a federal crime.
Some of you will think that's great and hoot and holler that our government is finally helping 'the little guy' 'stick it to the man.'
And if that's you... you are just ignorant on how prices work.
But don't feel bad. If you have more than 12 working brain cells, I'm going to make you a bit smarter and enlighten you on this subject.
But... if you're absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prices are 'high' because George Bush wants them that way and 'big oil' is in his back pocket and they're just plain greedy... do me a favor and yourself a favor and please quit reading and go turn on Air America (if you can find it) or go help Jimmy Carter build a house.
Still here?
Good.
First of all... what IS price gouging? I'll bet your definition is something along the lines of charging too much for something. So let's go with that. Let's say I'm going to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. Would you buy it?
Me neither.
Was it a case of price gouging? No, that was me just being stupid and greedy in hopes of trying to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. You didn't buy it and I'm stuck with my pencils.
(By the way, the trusty government defines gouging as prices that are "unconscionably excessive" or "indicate(s) that the seller is taking unfair advantage of unusual market conditions." Best of luck in deciphering that.)
You might try to define price gouging as charging too much for something people NEED. (Who NEEDS a box of pencils?!) Bottled water for $10 bucks a pop like during Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Let's look at that.
Big, bad natural disaster. People need things. Like water. So you take time off from your job, go buy 2,000 cases of bottled water at Costco, rent a big U-Haul truck and drive 13 hours to the disaster site.
How much will you sell your water for? A buck a bottle? If you do, best of luck making enough money to make it worth your while. And are you really going to drive back home and do it all over again and come back with more water to sell for a whopping buck? I didn't think so. And since you aren't... what about the OTHER people who need water? Since you aren't coming back, what are they to do?
No, you'll sell your bottled water at 5 bucks a pop or more. When the money comes pouring in (hopefully), you can go back home, buy MORE water, then return and sell MORE WATER to MORE PEOPLE.
What's better? Selling your water to 100 people or 500 people? (Forget the emotional aspect... what IS BETTER? 100 people having water or 500?)
'Price gouging' has another advantage. Yeah, you heard me. AN ADVANTAGE. If you were to sell the water for a whole buck a bottle, you're likely to get someone to come in and clean house and buy everything you got.
Which leaves no water for anybody else.
Get the picture?
Here's another example: Hotel rooms. A room that goes for $50 a night might bump up to $200 a night when a disaster strikes.
Now imagine... mom, dad and 2 kids, going elsewhere to leave a disaster decide to go get a hotel room. Usually they get TWO rooms. One for them, one for the kids. But since the room rates are now 400% higher at 200 bucks, they decide to 'rough it' and get ONE room instead.
So now there's another room available for whoever needs it. If the prices had stayed at 50 bucks, the happy family may have gotten two rooms, leaving our nameless, faceless person to sleep in the car instead of a nice, warm hotel room.
I know what you're thinking: 'Yeah, but what about the POOR people who can't afford a 200 dollar room or 10 bucks for bottled water?'
That's secondary. Getting people help first is primary and that's being done. You are more than welcome to dip into your own pocket or take some bottled water to the disaster scene and help. And profits come into play here as well. If you're making a killing on bottled water, you may then be able to AFFORD to give some away to those who can't afford it!
So how does all this translate to what's going on with gasoline prices? Are we really being gouged? Let's look at what goes into setting the price of a gallon of gas.
The oil has to be sucked up from the Earth (expensive process), then refined to make gasoline (another expensive process) and then shipped all over the country to your local gas station (not a cheap process). If you think you can do all that yourself and do it for LESS than three bucks a gallon right, by all means, get to it!
Don't forget that taxes make up a good chunk of the price of gas as well. But don't expect Congress to lower the taxes. Instead, they look to demonize the one's actually making it POSSIBLE to get you gas in the first place: The evil 'big oil' companies.
Now you may hear that 'big oil' makes huge profits every month (or day or hour). True... but at around 10 cents profit (or so) per gallon, you're going to have to pump a lot of gas for them to make that kind of money.
And you are. So essentially... it's YOUR FAULT they make money.
But don't feel bad. I'll gladly share in that blame as well! I'd rather drive my own car than take a bus somewhere or sit at home. Just like you. We're willing to pay that price to drive our own way.
If you think you're getting screwed at the pump now... just imagine what it would be like if 'big oil' decided, 'Screw it. We've made enough. We're outta here.'
Forget that! I'll gladly pay 3.10 a gallon for gas. It sure as heck beats the alternative.
Some of you will think that's great and hoot and holler that our government is finally helping 'the little guy' 'stick it to the man.'
And if that's you... you are just ignorant on how prices work.
But don't feel bad. If you have more than 12 working brain cells, I'm going to make you a bit smarter and enlighten you on this subject.
But... if you're absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prices are 'high' because George Bush wants them that way and 'big oil' is in his back pocket and they're just plain greedy... do me a favor and yourself a favor and please quit reading and go turn on Air America (if you can find it) or go help Jimmy Carter build a house.
Still here?
Good.
First of all... what IS price gouging? I'll bet your definition is something along the lines of charging too much for something. So let's go with that. Let's say I'm going to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. Would you buy it?
Me neither.
Was it a case of price gouging? No, that was me just being stupid and greedy in hopes of trying to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. You didn't buy it and I'm stuck with my pencils.
(By the way, the trusty government defines gouging as prices that are "unconscionably excessive" or "indicate(s) that the seller is taking unfair advantage of unusual market conditions." Best of luck in deciphering that.)
You might try to define price gouging as charging too much for something people NEED. (Who NEEDS a box of pencils?!) Bottled water for $10 bucks a pop like during Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Let's look at that.
Big, bad natural disaster. People need things. Like water. So you take time off from your job, go buy 2,000 cases of bottled water at Costco, rent a big U-Haul truck and drive 13 hours to the disaster site.
How much will you sell your water for? A buck a bottle? If you do, best of luck making enough money to make it worth your while. And are you really going to drive back home and do it all over again and come back with more water to sell for a whopping buck? I didn't think so. And since you aren't... what about the OTHER people who need water? Since you aren't coming back, what are they to do?
No, you'll sell your bottled water at 5 bucks a pop or more. When the money comes pouring in (hopefully), you can go back home, buy MORE water, then return and sell MORE WATER to MORE PEOPLE.
What's better? Selling your water to 100 people or 500 people? (Forget the emotional aspect... what IS BETTER? 100 people having water or 500?)
'Price gouging' has another advantage. Yeah, you heard me. AN ADVANTAGE. If you were to sell the water for a whole buck a bottle, you're likely to get someone to come in and clean house and buy everything you got.
Which leaves no water for anybody else.
Get the picture?
Here's another example: Hotel rooms. A room that goes for $50 a night might bump up to $200 a night when a disaster strikes.
Now imagine... mom, dad and 2 kids, going elsewhere to leave a disaster decide to go get a hotel room. Usually they get TWO rooms. One for them, one for the kids. But since the room rates are now 400% higher at 200 bucks, they decide to 'rough it' and get ONE room instead.
So now there's another room available for whoever needs it. If the prices had stayed at 50 bucks, the happy family may have gotten two rooms, leaving our nameless, faceless person to sleep in the car instead of a nice, warm hotel room.
I know what you're thinking: 'Yeah, but what about the POOR people who can't afford a 200 dollar room or 10 bucks for bottled water?'
That's secondary. Getting people help first is primary and that's being done. You are more than welcome to dip into your own pocket or take some bottled water to the disaster scene and help. And profits come into play here as well. If you're making a killing on bottled water, you may then be able to AFFORD to give some away to those who can't afford it!
So how does all this translate to what's going on with gasoline prices? Are we really being gouged? Let's look at what goes into setting the price of a gallon of gas.
The oil has to be sucked up from the Earth (expensive process), then refined to make gasoline (another expensive process) and then shipped all over the country to your local gas station (not a cheap process). If you think you can do all that yourself and do it for LESS than three bucks a gallon right, by all means, get to it!
Don't forget that taxes make up a good chunk of the price of gas as well. But don't expect Congress to lower the taxes. Instead, they look to demonize the one's actually making it POSSIBLE to get you gas in the first place: The evil 'big oil' companies.
Now you may hear that 'big oil' makes huge profits every month (or day or hour). True... but at around 10 cents profit (or so) per gallon, you're going to have to pump a lot of gas for them to make that kind of money.
And you are. So essentially... it's YOUR FAULT they make money.
But don't feel bad. I'll gladly share in that blame as well! I'd rather drive my own car than take a bus somewhere or sit at home. Just like you. We're willing to pay that price to drive our own way.
If you think you're getting screwed at the pump now... just imagine what it would be like if 'big oil' decided, 'Screw it. We've made enough. We're outta here.'
Forget that! I'll gladly pay 3.10 a gallon for gas. It sure as heck beats the alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)