We, the PEOPLE!!

Click HERE for the latest on this fiasco!

You might remember the saga of U.S. senator Larry Craig, republican from Idaho, who was arrested last summer in the men’s room at Minneapolis Airport for soliciting sex in a men’s room (frequented by men, you realize). Craig pleaded no contest to charges and paid a fine. You can read more about this incident HERE.

You might also remember U.S. senator David Vitter, republican from Louisiana, who has admitted to consorting with prostitutes over a long time frame. You can read more about this “pillar of integrity” HERE.

Just this week, a group of ten right-wing republican senators reintroduced the “Federal Marriage Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which proposes, in pertinent part:

“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

These two aforementioned bastions of hypocrisy were among the ten who cosponsored the proposed constitutional amendment. You can read multiple articles about this HERE.

You will notice in bold that the proposed amendment includes a prohibition of civil unions, meaning that same-sex couples living together, but not allowed in their state to marry, could not even access joint health or beneficiary benefits, or a thousand other benefits presently legally available to both married couples and folks in legal civil unions today.

Thankfully, this stupid amendment, which attempts to inject certain religious beliefs about marriage and civil unions into the U.S. Constitution, has no hope of passage, or even having a hearing scheduled in the U.S. Senate. But it does raise issues that need to be addressed.

First, marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense are two totally distinct entities. From a legal point of view, which the “state” clearly administers, it is essentially a legal financial contract between two people. Many laws at multiple levels come into play for and between two legally married people, which primarily impact real and personal property, assets and benefits. If children are involved, the state has legal jurisdiction over their fate should the married partners not agree, most commonly during and/or after a divorce, just as it has legal authority over disposition of property and assets.

Marriage in the religious sense, while touching on the above, has no legal standing in the United States or other western industrialized nations. Religious marriage is often considered to be permanent and has its roots in ancient history. The teachings of Judeo-Christian religions make clear that marriage is a union between people of opposite sex because of a primary religiously mandated marital function, which is procreation. This, placed against the property and children disposition of legal marriage, is a huge distinction between religious and legal marriage.

Additionally, religious marriage is defined differently depending upon whether one follows Catholic, Jewish, mainstream Protestant or fundamentalist Protestant teachings. Catholics and some fundamentalists do not accept divorce.

Clearly, the state does accept divorce and exercises considerable control over the procedure.

Thus, to accept a religious-oriented view of marriage into the U.S. Constitution would clearly violate the First Amendment protections (with subsequent Supreme Court case law) which states in pertinent part: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” .

But the most amazing issue to surface out of this marriage amendment debacle is that Larry Craig and David Vitter co-sponsored this legislation. Clearly, these two guys think they are fooling their constituents, and now the rest of the American people.

Craig and Vitter obviously subscribe to the “Do as I say, not as I do!” philosophy that so many of history’s hypocrites before them have followed. Besides not having any integrity, or the good sense to remain quiet and invisible for the rest of their tainted terms, they also seem to be incredibly stupid. That doesn’t say much for the folks that elected them in the first place, either.

If the republicans can’t find a way to move away from these two guys, and others like them, then they deserve the pounding that they seem likely to get this November.

As far as same sex marriage is concerned, as long as it (or anything else) doesn’t cause the price of gas to go up, people should mind their own business. After all, there are a LOT of heterosexual marriages out there that totally suck.

Shouldn’t these “do as I say” folks be concentrating on fixing those marriages, as well as their own, FIRST?

In this waiting time between the end of the spring primary season and the startup of party conventions in late summer and early fall, the presumptive candidates, Obama and McCain, are doing what they can for the American people to maintain interest in their respective campaigns. One might even call it is “silly season”, when one considers some of the topics they are battling over. Still, the polls seem to be trending slowly but steadily toward a slight but increasing lead by Obama among likely voters.

Ultra-conservatives are in a quandary about McCain, because they perceive him as too liberal for their tastes. But they will either vote for him anyway, or in rare cases vote for the libertarian candidate Bob Barr, or they’ll simply stay home.

More moderate and traditional conservatives and independents are seemingly the groups that McCain is having some trouble with, albeit for different reasons. The true conservatives see McCain as more of that same GOP that has abandoned traditional republican goals of smaller government and states rights. Independents, while sharing the same concerns as the traditional conservatives, see McCain as another Bush, and as someone who they are unsure of regarding where he stands on issues, since McCain’s stand on issues seems to tilt slightly toward the audience he addressing at the moment.

One might say that McCain is suffering from overexposure of his little-understood, often conflicting philosophies, or perhaps his unexciting way of talking to people and the press. Which tends to occur with 71-year-old people. He could probably benefit from a little pizzazz in his campaign to shake things up. Additionally, to distance himself a bit further from GW Bush could only help him, since Bush’s average approval ratings of the five most recent national polls give him an approval rating of 27.6%. You can read the polls HERE.

The solution for McCain is simple: Select a woman as your vice-presidential running mate! And make the selection before Obama announces his!

The benefits of this strategy are enormous. First, it would shock everyone, forcing them to take a new look at McCain. Second, it would demonstrate that he really does want change in the GOP as well as the nation. Third, it would get everyone’s eyes off Cindy McCain whenever she accompanies her husband on a campaign trip.

Depending upon whom he selects, other benefits come on line as well. Here are some suggestions and their associated perks:

1. Laura Ingram: McCain would have a built-in lawyer in Laura, and as a radio and TV talk show host, she can tell him what to say and how to say it, and when. Plus, she’s attractive to look at, and thus she would improve the visual when McCain is present. She also flew in a Navy jet once, so she and McCain can talk avionics. Read about her HERE.

2. Phyllis Schlafly: Very conservative author and anti-feminist, she opposed the Equal Rights amendment in the 1970’s. Her membership in the John Birch Society will warm the hearts of the most extreme right-winger out there. Because she is 84 years old, she will make McCain look like a spring chicken. More about her HERE.

3. Ann Coulter: A very attractive woman who will enhance McCain’s stature, and get everyone’s eye off of Cindy. Ann is a near-fascist-sounding conservative author, lecturer, and commentator with anyone who will give her the microphone. She has made a fortune warning America of the evils of all democrats. Known for her quick wit and scathing commentary, she is also a huge Grateful Dead fan. Couple that with McCain’s love for ABBA’s song “Take a Chance on Me!”, and folks will be happily humming all the way to the voting booth. Read more about Ann HERE.

Of course, the one woman who could provide the most benefit to McCain’s campaign has yet to be mentioned:

Hillary Clinton.

Hillary would provide experience, power, knowledge, and give McCain the opportunity to prove that he truly is for change and for working with people from the other political party. He has already worked with Hillary in the senate, so he knows her capabilities. It would be the perfect marriage of republican and democrat, conservative (sort of) and liberal (sort of), and at the age of 60, she still looks good enough to enhance the visual when Cindy is not around.

But best of all would be when Hillary declines the offer. McCain can then say, “Hey, look, I offered, right?”

Not only that, but the Obama camp would then have a clear reason not to offer the same thing to Clinton. After all, didn’t she just show the world that she’s not interested in the vice-presidency? Why would they ask someone who has already declined?

Hillary’s supporters would then flock to McCain since he offered and Obama didn’t.

See? The perfect strategy for McCain’s lackluster campaign.

Sometimes the perfect solution is just waiting for someone to spit it into the sunshine.

Dedicated to George Carlin

If someone came to you today and told you the gas station on the corner was selling regular gas for US$3.29 gallon, wouldn’t you consider that a bargain?  Just a bit over two months ago, We the PEOPLE!! lamented the fact that regular gas had reached $3.29 a gallon.  You can read that article HERE.

With the price of regular gas in the USA at now at $4.10 a gallon and still rising, people are realizing the  truth of real economic trouble.  After all, it is gas (or diesel for trucks, or a kerosene derivative for jet aircraft) that fuels commerce in this country and the rest of the world.  With the price of transport and heating/cooling going up, inflation is already with us and has every opportunity to get worse. 

This situation is strangely reminiscent of the 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo which shook the western world and made a fragile economy suffering from the remnants of the Vietnam War endure double-digit inflation.  Those who lived through it remember the gas lines and sporadic wildcat gas rationing by gas station owners.  The price of a gallon doubled in a year, and the US government, first under Nixon and then under Ford promised to make the USA safe from any future control by a foreign entity where our energy needs were concerned.  In other words, the USA was going to be energy independent.

Nixon made everyone in the USA crawl along the superhighways at 55 miles per hour and Ford pushed through legislation granting minor tax credits for people who bought heat pumps, insulation, and alternate energy producers, such as they existed in 1974 and 1975.  People abandoned their large gas-guzzling American cars for foreign sub-compact automobiles just large enough to seat four people, a box lunch, and a citizens band radio.

And both the government and private industry promised advances in alternate energy that would guarantee energy independence for the USA.

Fast-forward to 2008:  Thirty-four years later, Bush and his syndicate of oil-company- friendly administration officials are at the end of a long line of administrations, two of which were democratic and five of which were republican, that failed to deliver on the alternate energy promise. 

Certainly, technical advances have occurred with ethanol, solar and wind power, fuel cells and hydrogen, but not one of them has translated into a solution against the huge importation of foreign oil that occurs daily in the USA.

Instead of pushing the envelope on alternate energy, the Bush administration continues to push the envelope on increased oil drilling in places on the continental shelf and in the Alaska National Wildlife Preserve (ANWP) that have been off-limits to the oil companies for many years because of environmental concerns.  Bush claims that allowing his buddies to drill for oil there will “bring enormous benefits to the American People”.

This, of course, is spoken by a man who distinguished himself as the owner of an oil company whose sole accomplishment was digging dry holes into the earth.  Bush’s own Department of Energy refutes his claim, stating that drilling in Alaska would do little to reduce the price of oil.  Furthermore, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would have no impact on the price of oil before the year 2025, fully sixteen years from now.  Even then, it might just shave $2.25 off a barrel of oil which stands at $140 today.  The effect on the price of gas would be minimal.  You can read more about it HERE

But the worst part of all of this is that the oil companies already own leases on an enormous amount of federal land and offshore areas that are not being developed by the oil companies.  Of the over 90 million acres of federal land and off-shore areas leased by the oil companies, fully 68 million acres is not being developed by them for energy production.  Put another way, over 75% of the land and off-shore areas leased by oil companies is undeveloped.  And yet, they want more land and off-shore areas while their friend Bush is still in office (which mercifully ends in seven months).  You can read more HERE.

And even if the oil companies could somehow explore, drill, refine and distribute more domestic oil, they would only be prolonging their ability to rake in the enormous profits they are making at the expense of research and development into the alternate energy sources this country and the rest of the world desperately need as soon as possible.  Brazil, considered by some to be an inferior country to the USA, realized this in the 1970’s when it decided to do something as a nation about foreign oil dependence:  It developed ethanol as its primary transportation fuel, and grew both sugar cane and infrastructure.  Today, Brazil in energy independent, and all of its cars can run on ethanol.  And it exports excess energy!

In 1961 President John F. Kennedy made a USA commitment to send men to the moon and return them safely to Earth before the end of the 1960’s.  Merely eight years later, humans walked on the moon and returned safely home.  They derived their energy from fuel cells, which combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water.  They did this almost 40 years ago!!  With 1960’s technology!! 

So… how come we still don’t have mass-produced fuel cells powering our vehicles and warming/cooling our homes and factories?  How come we don’t have wind-turbines and solar panels on every home in America?

Most importantly, how come the oil companies want more acreage when they’re not developing three quarters of what they already have?

Because guys like Bush (and now McCain) believe that drilling is good for us.  Kind of like when he was a Texas oil company owner drilling dry holes in the ground.  It was good for him.  It set him up to be president of the USA…the worst in history.

One of the mantas purported to have been heard leading up to the famous historical Boston Tea Party of 1773 was “No Taxation Without Representation!”  This basic premise defines the barest of rights under democracy, i.e., that in order for a government to operate in a proper manner, it must have the consent of the governed, particularly in the case of taking money from the governed for whatever purpose.

Conversely, an entity operating a business under this “no taxation without representation” premise may, under certain not-for-profit conditions, be relieved from paying taxes.  This applies even though the entity may benefit from some of the programs that taxes are paying for.  And, of course, anytime one entity does not pay its fair share of taxes, someone else must pay more to pick up the slack.

Most citizens who pay taxes would agree that these not-for-profit non-taxpaying entities are acceptable in that they operate essentially unheard and unobtrusive in the modern environment.  The Red Cross is an organization which comes to mind under these criteria.

But what about organizations that seem to be making profits by, for instance, owning large mansions which are rented out for large social gatherings or that are holders of   obscenely expensive real estate which continuously increases in value and yet they pay no property taxes. 

What about organizations which, perhaps in addition to the above, engage in the political process by endorsing one candidate over another, or preaching against one political party over another, or direct people to vote in certain ways?  Shouldn’t political influence peddling be a pay-as-you-go activity?

Both republicans and democrats have had to deal with certain religious leaders whom just can’t stay out of the political arena.  These religious folks just have to get involved in the political process of selecting and electing our representatives.  And if one believes in the first amendment, one would have to agree that these religious leaders, as embarrassing as they might be to the political candidates they claim to support, have the right to express their views.

But if they use a church pulpit to do so, and particularly if that church owns property and other money-producing holdings, the money of which is supporting the speech-making activity of the pulpit speaker attempting to influence the political process for or against a political candidate, doesn’t that fly in the face of the tax-exempt status of those churches (and any other religious or otherwise tax-protected organizations)?

The answer is yes, it flies in the face of the tax-exempt status.  The Internal Revenue Service has specific regulations about this activity.

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3). In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.  You can read more about it HERE.

Of course, under the Bush administration’s war on science, religious organizations have had free reign to violate these regulations without threat of enforcement action.  This has led to increasing political influence peddling on the part of some religious leaders such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Chicago Catholic Priest Father Michael Pfleger. 

This doesn’t even begin to address the massive real estate holdings, and the money coming in as a result, of certain religious entities throughout the USA.  Clergy abuse accusations have been fought for years by high-priced lawyers in high-prices legal venues by certain church organizations, and the awards and settlements have often been paid by the selling of expensive real estate on which no taxes of any kind were paid, including sales tax.

The US Constitution’s Bill of Right Amendment One states, in pertinent part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…  You can read the entire amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights HERE.

There can be no question that everyone in the USA is free to practice the religion of their choice, and every religious leader is free to express their views as they see fit. 

But when those selfsame religious leaders and or organizations cross the line and enter the political arena with their views and influence, the rest of us should not have to take up the financial slack with increased taxes while these “pundits on the pulpit” get a free ride.

Last night June 3, 2008 Senator Barack Obama made American history by securing enough pledged delegates and super-delegates to achieve the democratic nomination for president of the USA. As a result of this tremendous accomplishment, the National Democratic Convention will formally name him their nominee in August to face republican John McCain in the general election in November.

For her part, Hillary Clinton also made history by becoming to first woman in the USA to make it as far as she did during the primary season. By most counts and criteria she achieved more primary popular votes than anyone in history, including Obama. This is possible because of the weirdly diverse way different American states conduct their primaries or caucuses, or both as in the case of Texas.

The same is true when it comes to votes for president: One can win the popular vote, as Al Gore did in 2000, but lose the election because of the archaic, but still constitutionally mandated Electoral College system utilized in the USA.

Nonetheless, the fact is that both Obama and Clinton each earned approximately 18,000,000 votes each during the primary season. This incredible vote tally broke all previous records for primary election voting in the USA.

Significantly, in varying percentages during exit polling, voters stated that they might not support the candidate they did not vote for, should that opposing candidate become the democratic nominee. In the case of Clinton voters, surprising numbers of voters stated during exit polling in numerous states that they would either vote for McCain or simply stay home if Obama became the party’s nominee. Depending upon the state, the percentage of Clinton supporters who stated they would not support McCain in the general election in November ranged from 30% to in excess of 60%. This was particularly true in states such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, and Ohio and Pennsylvania to a lesser extent.

The reasons for this are varied but are primarily based upon the perception that Obama is more liberal and elitist than Clinton among what used to be called “Reagan democrats”. These are white, blue-collar workers whom generally are not college graduates. This demographic cannot be ignored if a liberal democratic candidate wants to win a swing state that otherwise might go for a more conservative candidate, as these states did in 1980 for Reagan. Ergo the phrase “Reagan democrat”.

There are those who abhor Clinton for a variety of reasons, none of which is the subject of this blog. Those folks claim that other potential vice-presidential candidates, such as state governors who supported Clinton, can achieve the party unity and required Clinton supporter-vote salvaging in these swing states by drawing the Clinton supporters over to Obama. Their thought process is flawed. After all, who would go to a Madonna concert if her cousin was going to replace her in the show?

Thus, their desire to keep Clinton off the ticket at all costs, though, could well cost Obama the election.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton should be on Obama’s ticket as the vice-presidential candidate. Eighteen million people voted for her, and if even 35% of them voted for McCain instead of Obama, or stayed home and didn’t vote, we could be looking at Bush’s third term of criminal abandon of the Constitution, criminal violation of federal law, four more years of a useless war sacrificing our country’s finest soldiers, and incomprehensible incompetence in mishandling the economy.

Those who fear that Clinton would be unmanageable for Obama need to get a grip. The vice-president has very specific (and few) roles to play in the American constitution, and Obama can easily control when and for how long she has his attention. He, and only he, can assign her tasks as he sees fit. And if Bill Clinton is a concern, know that he would probably want to spend his time playing golf, unless he is tapped for a role in Obama’s administration, such as ambassador to Sweden or some such.

But seriously, folks.

This election is far too important to allow for a personal vendetta to cause the wrong person to be elected. Obama made history last night, and he deserves his time in the sun and to bask in the glory of the moment.

But he has the ability to win over countless voters who did not support him by making even MORE history: Being the first ever African-America presidential nominee teamed with the first ever female presidential candidate to reach almost as far as he did during the primary elections, running as the vice-presidential nominee, together winning office and forever erasing the scourge of the most backward, corrupt, criminal, incompetent, constitution-stomping administration in the history of the USA.

Or we could have four more years of the McSame.

We, the PEOPLE!! often quotes the US Constitution, adopted in 1787, and perhaps the finest example on Earth of a charter by which people govern themselves.  This blog obviously takes its title from the opening remarks of that document:

“We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…”  You can read more about the US Constitution HERE.

Far less perfect, but by no mean less influential upon history is the US Declaration of Independence, written prior to the Constitution in 1776, and which contains this famous passage:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  You can read more about this document HERE.

For over one hundred and thirty years, based partly upon the wording of the Declaration of Independence, most states within the USA did not allow woman the right to vote.  Hillary Clinton’s mother, in fact, was born before women in the USA had the right to vote in every state.  Under those conditions, a woman running for president of the USA would have been laughed out of existence in those days.  After all, women were supposed to stay home, stay pregnant, raise kids, cook, clean, sew and perform all the other tasks that Judeo-Christian tradition demanded.

The only problem with that was that women were citizens of the country that claimed to be the beacon of liberty to the world (just not to its own female citizens).  It took a women’s movement known as Suffrage (read more about it HERE). 

The Suffrage Movement women fought to achieve the right for women to vote, and there were numerous organizations at the time that opposed them.  It was not unusual for a Suffragette to be verbally abused, and told to drop out of the movement and “get back into the kitchen where she belonged”.

Nonetheless, in the face of abuse and scorn, this movement and its women were able force a change to this unfair practice in 1920 with the passage and implementation of the nineteenth amendment to the US Constitution.  This amendment gave American women the right to vote.

Since then, there have been women throughout recent history who claimed to be running for president of the USA, such as Shirley Chisholm in 1972, but these attempts were more political statements than true efforts to win a serious party nomination.  It was not until 1984 when Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro as his vice-presidential running mate that a woman was seriously considered for high elected executive office within the US government.  And as history would have it, Mondale and Ferraro were seriously defeated in a huge landslide re-election victory for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

All of this history underscores the extraordinary events of the democratic presidential primary campaign of 2008.  For the very first time in history, a woman has had a real run at the nomination for president of the USA of one of the two major political parties in the USA.  And while Hillary has made some mistakes, so has her opponent, Obama, whom, it must be stated, is making history of his own (a subject to be covered at “We, the PEOPLE!!”), the fact of her running and reaching as far as she has to date is history in the making.

Hillary Clinton has achieved a milestone that a short year ago would probably have been considered impossible for a woman (or an African-American) to achieve:  She has won approximately half of all the votes cast in the democratic primaries within the USA to date, and stands to achieve an even higher percentage with a predicted sizable win in the Puerto Rico primary this Sunday, June 1, 2008. 

And while it appears almost certain that Obama will outrace her to the democratic nomination for president in 2008, even he has publicly acknowledged Clinton’s historic accomplishment this primary season, and how his own daughters will benefit from Clinton’s efforts.

So why are there so many folks (one suspects mostly men, but that is unproven) demanding that she abandon her historic quest now, with three primaries still to be held, that she simply drop out of the race because her chances of winning seem so remote?

One wonders if these same “Liberty and Justice for all” Americans that are demanding Clinton cease and desist might also be standing short of the finish line at the Boston Marathon, demanding that all runners after the winner “drop out of the Marathon, since they can’t win”.

Obviously, these folks seem to be motivated by something other than democratic ideals.  They are either Hillary-haters, oblivious to history, or are so impatient about the race that they will hang on anything and everything, including Clinton’s misspoken statement about RFK’s assassination (for which she has apologized and the apology accepted by the Kennedys and Obama himself), as justification to have that “shrill-sounding bitch” get out of the race (and back into the kitchen, perhaps?)?

Whether one is a Clinton, Obama, or McCain supporter, one must acknowledge the obvious historical reality of these times.  Clinton has accomplished something that no woman in history has ever done:  She has come exceedingly close to winning the democratic nomination for president of the United States of America.  She has broken down barrier after barrier against women being accepted as strong and competent competitors for national office of the most powerful nation on earth.  And she has irreversibly opened the door for other women to seriously run for president of the USA in the near future.

Those who continue to demand her withdrawal from history should hang their heads in shame.

Over the past few days the world had learned that a great American and champion of the “little people” has been diagnosed with a terminal malignant brain tumor.

The news alone is devastating for those of us who know Senator Edward M. Kennedy, recognized throughout the world as Ted Kennedy, who is the last surviving brother of his generation.

The Kennedy family, which has contributed so very much to the American political scene and to the benefit of working and disadvantaged Americans, has suffered unimaginable loss, more than any family should ever have to endure.

Ted Kennedy’s oldest brother, Joe, was a bomber pilot killed in action over the English Channel in World War Two. His next brother, John F. Kennedy, was the youngest, and perhaps the brightest president the United States has known, but was assassinated in Dallas, Texas in 1963. The following brother, Robert (Bobby) Kennedy, was well on his way to winning the democratic nomination for president in June 1968, when he was assassinated in Los Angeles, California.

Ted Kennedy’s son had his leg amputated due to cancer. His nephew, John F. Kennedy Jr., died in 1996 when his plane crashed just short of Martha’s Vineyard.

And, of course, Ted Kennedy himself was involved in the tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969, which is perhaps the real reason that he didn’t run for president in 1972 and 1976. You can read more about Ted Kennedy’s life HERE.

During his forty-six years in the US Senate, Kennedy staunchly and faithfully defended the working men and women of America, as well as its poor and disadvantaged. Ted Kennedy continually gets reelected to his senate seat term after term by huge majorities, which wouldn’t happen if the folks he represents were unhappy with his performance.

He is known as a solid liberal on issues, and for good reason. But he also is something of a miracle worker when it came to building bi-partisan support for issues and legislation in the senate. He worked with the republican Bush Administration to pass the “No Child Left Behind” law. He worked with republican John McCain to co-author comprehensive immigration reform. And there is an endless list of people-friendly legislation that he was instrumental in getting passed in the senate throughout the years.

Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for the democratic nomination for president against Hillary Clinton. Despite that, before the entire nation on network television, Clinton last night complimented Ted Kennedy and wished him the very best in his battle with this horrible disease.

The cancerous tumor Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with is a malignant glioma, which is considered to be the most lethal form of brain tumor. Survival generally is from six months of diagnosis to a year, possibly up to three years. There is no cure, and treatment with radiation and chemotherapy generally serves to slightly delay the inevitable.

When one considers that perhaps $600 billion that has been spent so far on the pointless war in Iraq could have possibly been spent finding a cure for cancer, it is hard to be proud of the present direction of this country.

On the other hand, it is certain that there are those whom couldn’t be happier that the “devil-incarnate” from Massachusetts is going to be gone soon. But this family has seen that kind of sub-human hatred before. After JFK was assassinated in 1963, folks in certain southern states were heard on party lines (still in use in some places back then) to be celebrating, saying things such as “So that n_____ lover got shot dead, huh? It’s about time!”

If you are a person of that sentiment, I forcefully request that you stop reading this blog and never return.

If, on the other hand, you are an intelligent and thoughtful person whom, respectfully agreeing or disagreeing with Ted Kennedy’s politics, you understand the incredible loss that this icon of democracy would be for the United States, then please keep him and his family in your thoughts, and consider sending him a well-wishing message HERE.

In 1980, at the democratic national convention, Ted Kennedy conceded defeat for the democratic presidential nomination he had unsuccessfully sought against incumbent president Jimmy Carter. Kennedy subsequently gave what many believe was the speech of his life. You can read (or listen to) that speech HERE.

At the end of that speech, Ted Kennedy made a statement that probably epitomizes who he is and what he believes in when he said,

“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

Ted Kennedy, may you beat the odds, fight off this horrible malady, and rise to fight to improve the human condition yet another day.

At four dollars a gallon (US$4), gasoline costs one dollar a quart or fifty cents a pint. Bottled water, on the other hand, can cost from $1.25 to over $2.00 a pint, depending upon where you purchase it. From this perspective, gas, which requires drilling, extracting and refining at a minimum, is two and a half to four times cheaper than bottled water, which primarily requires filling, labeling, and capping a bottle.

Hey, gas is still much cheaper than bottled water, right? So what’s the big deal?

Armed with this ugly fact, people struggling with the rising price of gas might wonder what the point of the comparison is. After all, we revel in our ability to bash the oil companies, the oil commodities speculators, and the U.S. government in the form of the executive branch, GW Bush present proprietor. But who is really to blame, and what can we do about it?

Back in the fall and winter of 1973, after the conclusion of the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur war, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting States (OPEC), decided to punish the USA and its citizens for America’s support of Israel. OPEC embargoed its oil, and the USA had to depend upon its own reserves, as well as whatever it could import from friendly non-OPEC countries.

Those old enough will remember the long lines at the gas pump in the dead of winter, gasoline prices doubling almost overnight from thirty-five cents a gallon to over seventy cents a gallon to a dollar, and frequent rationing at the pump by the gas station owner, who was simply trying to service as many customers as possible. Home heating oil went up as well, making it difficult to impossible for some to heat their homes during the 1973-1974 winter.

And if you were around then, you’ll remember as well the promises of alternate fuel development potential and  the promises of universal relief from imported oil back in that same timeframe. You’ll also remember that the US Strategic Petroleum (STP) Reserve was initiated during that time to insure that the US would have a supply of oil to draw from in time of war or other national emergency.

Fast forward to 2008. That alternate energy potential and promise didn’t work too well, did it?

America today is even more dependent on foreign oil than it ever was. The only alternate energy product in any kind of nationwide use is ethanol, and then only as an additive to gasoline as a replacement for that nasty, cancer-causing MTBE chemical additive. The White House is occupied by a president whom, along with a similar vice-president, has the strongest possible ties to the rulers of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, you see, are owners of Earth’s largest petroleum deposits, and control OPEC to a large extent.

With the price of regular gas approaching an average of US$4 or more a gallon in the USA, inflation is rearing its ugly head, just as it did during the Arab oil embargo. After all, if the costs of manufacturing and transportation go up, so will consumer prices on EVERYTHING.

The incoming gasoline supply still seems to be adequate, because there are no long lines of folks waiting to get their rationed gas at stations. The only thing presently limiting the amount of gas you can personally buy is your ability to pay for it.

However, it is a fact of the present free market that oil speculators bid on oil based upon what they think the price will be in the future. This, in turn, is based, among other factors, on supply and demand. That is one part of this equation that the administration could easily address, i.e. if we can increase the supply of oil by suspending the deposit of 70,000 barrels a day of petroleum into the STP reserve, and instead divert that oil into the US marketplace, the price might begin to at least stabilize and perhaps begin to go down. The STP reserve, by the way, is presently 97% full.

In other words, Bush could simply order a suspension of deposits into the STP. But Bush’s friends in OPEC and the big oil companies might not like the idea of interference with their enormous obscene profits. So Bush has done nothing except watch his oil stock profits go up while the American quality of life goes down.

One can almost hear them in the White House: “Hey, gas is still MUCH cheaper that bottled water, right? So what’s the big deal?”

The US congress wasn’t buying it. Yesterday, May 13, 2008 both houses of congress, including many republicans, decided to take matters their own respective hands. By a vote of 97 to 1, the senate voted to suspend deposits into the STP. The House of Representatives followed suit with a 385-25 vote. Bush, whose main activity these days seems to be vetoing everything, has promised to veto this as well. You can read all about it HERE.

The veto may not be effective in stopping this action. Both votes are veto-proof, meaning that they are more than enough to override his veto.

But what does it say about an administration that so blatantly turns its back on its own citizens, and its own faltering economy?

If you are in any way paying attention to the news lately, you know that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an agency under the direct control of the Bush executive branch of government, has committed the epitome of mismanagement and corruption of what was, before Bush, the safest and proudest aviation system in the world.

The press has reported the cozy relationship between the FAA, which is chartered by federal law to regulate the aviation system of the USA, and Southwest Airlines (SWA). The FAA inspectors allowed SWA to delay required inspections of its fleet of Boeing 737 aircraft (B737) with a wink-wink-nod-nod, potentially putting hundreds of thousands of passengers at risk.

As a result of getting caught with its hands (and other body parts) in the cookie jar, FAA reversed itself. SWA, after getting caught, and other airlines, including American and Delta, cancelled hundreds of flights to quickly get their aircraft into compliance with the “FAA airworthiness directive” requirements, many of which are the result of analysis of previous airline crashes, intended to insure the highest levels of safety in the American aviation system.

Today, May 8, 2008, it was reported that an FAA inspector received thousands of dollars worth of flight training in a B737at SWA, to the point that he became fully certified to fly the B737…for free. You can read about it HERE. And if it weren’t for the press, no one at FAA would care.

The agency known as FAA used to be a proud agency of a proud US government. It has been historically charged with protecting the highest level of safety and integrity of the airways, passenger safety, and system quality. Not so anymore.

In the seven and a half years of the Bush syndicate, the failed war in Iraq has taken financial center stage. The money necessary to wage that useless war has decimated budgets of the other agencies of federal government such as the FAA. Bush appointed Marion Blakey to be FAA Administrator for five years in 2002 and her marching orders were simple: Cut costs, at ALL costs, safety INCLUDED.

Blakey began the decimation of the FAA. Her five-year term is now over, but her hand-picked successor, acting-FAA administrator Robert Sturgell, continues her lunatic legacy. Even the senate refuses to confirm him as successor FAA administrator because of the repeated failings and incompetence demonstrated by the FAA in recent years. And as bad as all of this is…it’s actually worse!

The airplanes in the sky are controlled by the nation’s air traffic controllers (ATC’s). These folks, at high cost to their own health, keep the nation’s airplanes from hitting each other and other obstacles. These folks are permitted to retire at age 50 if they have 20 years of FAA ATC time, and must retire at age 56 because of the toll that the stress of the job extracts from them.

Most used to stay until age 56 to maximize their pensions. But now, they’re leaving in record numbers, not at age 56, but as soon as they can. Why? Because the FAA decided to lower the staffing at the air traffic control facilities to skeleton levels in an effort to save money.

And even where the FAA is hiring new trainees, it has cut the pay scale of new hires so that many of them, seeing the draconian working conditions that these guardians of the skies are forced to work under, are resigning before becoming fully qualified ATCs. It used to be that controllers would leave the military or small contract towers, to work for the FAA. Now these same folks are resigning from the FAA to go work for the military or small contract towers. Or they are simply leaving air traffic control completely, because they cannot accept the lower pay and bad working conditions.

The FAA, in its eminent stupidity and in compliance with Bush anti-labor initiatives, imposed jailhouse-like work rules upon the air traffic controller work force on September 3^rd, 2006. Since then, over fifteen hundred controllers have retired early rather than stay and work for an agency that treats them like slaves. This has left many ATC facilities at 50% staffing.

The result is a severely understaffed and overworked controller work force, watching the skies and trying to keep them as safe as they can. But these folks are extremely tired, worked forced overtime week after week after week, unable to get time off when they need that time, unable to stay home sick when they really are not up to work the enormous task of keeping YOUR airplane safe.

Think about a surgeon who must operate on you to save your life. Would you want that surgeon to be tired and disgruntled before cutting you open?

There are many who feel that a major mid-air collision between two airliners is just a matter of time. A prelude to that possibility is the incredible delays that are starting to surface and multiply at places such as New York, Newark, Dallas, Miami, and other airports.

So…If you’re traveling by air this summer, bring a book and a change of clothes in your carry-on. And buy lots of flight insurance. Your beneficiaries may just need it.

On April 22, 2008, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America”. Among other issues, she was asked about previous comments she had during the previous political debate with Barack Obama regarding “massive retaliation” against Iran should Iran attack Israel. You can watch the ABC Good Morning America interview HERE. When you listen to it, note that she specifically narrows the response to the scenario of Israel being attacked by Iran with nuclear weapons.

For those whom prefer to simply read the response, here it is:

QUESTION: …Does massive retaliation mean you would go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.

You can read it for yourself HERE.

A loyal reader of “We the PEOPLE!! send a link to an editorial in the Boston Globe dated April 27, 2008, which you can read HERE. The editorialist stated:

“AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that, if she were president, she would “totally obliterate” Iran if Iran attacked Israel.”

Now, that’s not the same thing, is it?

There is no question that some folks would attempt to make the most of any effort to twist facts against someone they do not support. Witness the mountain being made out of the molehill that is Reverend Jeremiah Wright vis a vis Barack Obama. Obama has repudiated the pastor’s comments in clear and unambiguous terms, and yet there are those that are still trying to spin the issue as reason to condemn Obama and hurl him to the Sodomites. It’s just plain wrong, but unfortunately it is also effective with those voters that don’t do their homework or view the larger pictures when these issues come up.

With that backdrop, go back to Hillary Clinton and her statement on Good Morning America regarding Iran.

What else would We, the PEOPLE!! have the president of the Untied States tell Iran regarding an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, which, by the way, is the USA’s only true and reliable ally in the middle east? That we would just stand by and propose sanctions against Iran should such an attack occur? That we would embargo Iran as we have Cuba for over 50 years? Or would we get some mileage out of letting Iran know, in no uncertain terms, that its use of nuclear weapons in an attack against another country would result in the absolute gravest of consequences for itself, i.e. it’s obliteration under a counter nuclear response from the country being attacked?

After all, this is the exact philosophy that guided both America and the Soviet Union every day from the 1950’s to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and as ugly as it was, it accomplished its clearly stated goal of ensuring that just because both countries had nuclear capability to destroy each other, that didn’t mean that either had to, or that either would benefit from a preemptive nuclear strike against the other. It worked, and our continued existence on earth is the ultimate proof of that.

It is also understandable that Clinton would send a clear, well-worded message to the lunatic leadership in Iran to let them know that just because she is a woman, doesn’t mean they can push her around the way they push their own women around.

It is a bit bothersome is that a reputable and world-respected newspaper like the Boston Globe would print an editorial which used incomplete facts and out-of-context comments as the basis for its argument. This editorial did not seem to be up to its usually high-quality standards.

But in the real global perspective of human events, it matters little. In the insane event that Iran chose to ignore every shred of logic and common sense in the universe and launch a nuclear attack on Israel, the Israelis themselves would response with a massive retaliatory nuclear counter-strike against Iran. The Persian country would cease to exist in any recognizable form, while the US was still dusting off its launch code documents.

After all, Israel has possessed nuclear weapons for over thirty years.

One wonders why the Boston Globe neglected to include that little fact.

In 1863, during the second year of the American Civil War, the confederacy was thought by the most informed people of the time to be winning the conflict. General Lee’s rebel army had won most of the battles up to that point. They had penetrated far north of their own territory and the confederate army was poised at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania early on July 1st of that year to defeat the union army and thus effectively win the war.

After three days of the bloodiest fighting of the American Civil War, the underdog United States union army was victorious, and the losses suffered by Lee and his army changed the course of the war. You can read more about this famous battle and historical turning point HERE and HERE.

One hundred and forty-five years later, another Pennsylvania battle with a surprising result may have again changed the direction of history that many thought was already practically written. However, this time it was fought not with firearms, but with votes. It was more familiarly called the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary.

In true underdog fashion, Hillary Clinton pulled out a remarkable victory against the presumed (by many) future nominee of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, by beating him 55% to 45%, or ten full percentage points.

While it is still too early to definitively know the ultimate winner of this presidential nomination race, it is interesting that the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg and the 2008 battle of “Gettysburg and everywhere else in Pennsylvania” shared some significant parallels. Some of these parallels, in fact, point to some basic factors in play in this election cycle which many people have avoided admitting to, or have even emphatically claimed do not exist.

One of those parallel factors is race. In 1863 the confederacy was fighting the northern states known as the union for, among other reasons, the so-called “right” to maintain slavery in the states that practiced such a heinous thing, and to ensure that new states entering the union would be allowed to practice slavery if they wished. These slaves, of course, had originated in Africa centuries before, having been brutally and inhumanly kidnapped from their homes and families by unprincipled, greed-motivated white slavers.

Many have been downplaying race during this primary season. But beginning in South Carolina earlier this year, Obama has been picking up an inordinate percentage of the African-American votes in contest after contest. In the ghost of Gettysburg known as the Pennsylvania primary, fully 92% of the African-American vote went to Obama, who is himself half-Black.

Obviously, African Americans understandably see a vindicator in Obama for the centuries of abuse they and their ancestors have suffered. But what this huge Black vote also indicates is that many, if not most of them are only looking at Obama’s skin color, and not necessarily at his credentials.

Conversely, Hillary Clinton picked up an inordinate percentage of the Catholic vote, the white vote, the senior citizen vote and the women’s votes, for perhaps no other reason than Obama’s association with a certain Protestant minister, and as a backlash to the high percentage of African-Americans who support Obama.

But back to the parallels…

The 1863 Battle of Gettysburg was the turning point for the union known as the Untied States. The tide finally turned for the north with that battle. In similar fashion, one has to wonder if the tide has turned for Clinton in the race for the democratic nomination for president against Obama. Though it is very early in that turning point of history, if it even is a turning point, Clinton raised $10 million in the twenty-four hours since her significant win last night in and around Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. That certainly is an auspicious beginning to this turn, if it even is a turn of events.

Less than two weeks from now, these two candidates will meet again in battle in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries. While Indiana is presently competitive, the North Carolina primary, with its large African-American population, appears be shaping up as another big win for Obama, in a seemingly African-American effort to elect one of their own people, regardless of any other consideration. That fact alone does not bode well for Clinton, who is almost certain to lose North Carolina by at least the same margin that she won the Pennsylvania primary.

But then, even as the remains of General Lee’s defeated army was limping its way back to Virginia after the pasting they took, and the union army was celebrating their victory in that bloody battle at Gettysburg, many folks still thought the South would ultimately win the Civil War.

Funny how history has a way of laughing at humanity when we least expect it.

As most of you already know, the twenty-second amendment to the US Constitution prohibits a president from running for a third term of office. You can read the amendment HERE.

Many folks believe that electing John McCain, the presumptive republican candidate for president of the US, would be akin to a third Bush term. While it is fair to believe that McCain is an honorable man, he gave a speech yesterday (April 15^th, 2008) at Carnegie Mellon University that truly raises the question about whether the republicans have learned anything from the failures of the last seven and a half years of the Bush Administration.

It is no secret that “We, the PEOPLE!!” favors a universal health care system. Adequately funded and correctly implemented, such a system would enhance longevity while reducing costs through wellness programs and the elimination of “middle-man” private profit-motivated insurance companies who tell patients which prescription drugs they can take, and which they can’t.

A few years ago, America took a very cautious step forward in passing legislation known as “Medicare Part ‘D’”. This plan, although inadequate, at least was a starting point for senior citizens to begin being able to buy affordable prescription drugs through private insurance companies.

The “Medicare Part ‘D”” plan is horribly flawed, in that private for-profit insurance companies are administering the program, with subsidies from the US government, which by law is NOT PERMITTED to negotiate for the lowest possible drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.

Interestingly, the Canadian government IS permitted to do so. This explains all of the offers anyone with email receives every day for Canadian-government-negotiated cheap drugs from Canada. And by the way, these drugs, for the most part, are imported into Canada from the American pharmaceutical industry. But that’s another story.

Enter McCain, who has proposed to limit and restrict Medicare Part D to only the poorest Americans. You can watch this HERE. The problem, of course, is that he doesn’t define who the poorest Americans are, or where the personal income line would be drawn. But if history is any teacher, it would probably be similar to the line drawn for folks who either qualify or not qualify for Medicaid, the government’s health care system which is only available in the US for the very poorest senior citizens.

If Medicare Part D matches the Medicaid income requirements, then only the poorest Senior citizens will qualify for it, effectively forcing millions of other seniors to pay full price to the pharmaceutical companies for their necessary medications. In other words, a further move AWAY from universal health care, which the Bush administration believes is the devil incarnate.

After all, Bush vetoed bills TWICE that would have continued the SCHIP program (State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which you can read about HERE), claiming that it would move health care in the US in the wrong direction, namely, toward universal health care and away from privately funded, profit-motivated, expensive private health care insurance, administered by the companies who profit from dictating your health care needs to you.

But back to the original subject: Medicare Part D. John McCain (McSame?) wants to roll back some of its eligibility, making sure that the pharmaceutical companies can sell their drugs to uncovered senior citizens at US (vs. Canada) retail price, enhancing their profits. Effectively, this moves away from universal health care, continuing a tenet of the Bush Syndicate. When one couples this with McCain’s (McBush’s?) embracing of making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent (when he originally opposed these cuts), one is left with the conclusion that McCain, by any name, represents more of the same: Bush’s policies.

If you are one of the 28% of Americans who still approves of the Bush presidency and its policies, then you have reason to be encouraged and cheered if McCain wins the presidency.

But if you’re one of the 65% to 70% of Americans who believe the Bush Administration has been nothing short of a disaster…then you have reason to be EXTREMELY concerned with a possible McCain victory in November.

And therefore, you have reason to support the democratic candidate of your choice, starting right now, and ultimately the democratic nominee for president.

To do any less could cost you dearly when you need help the most.

Think about that.

With only a little more than nine months left in his eight-year presidency, the time is ripe to begin organizing the events, accomplishments, successes and failures of the administration of the current president of the USA.  

After all, we have all lived through these past eight years and for better or worse, the events are history in the making. 

Legacies are best written and judged by people with an affinity for and knowledge base of history.  Legacies are meaningless unless they provide a frame of reference.  In the case of Bush, that frame of reference is the legacy of the other forty-one presidents whom have served the United States.  And who better to be able to compare all forty-two presidents than professional historians, such a professors and teachers of history?

The History News Network (HNN) recently commissioned a study of professional historians regarding the legacy and ranking of the GW Bush administration in comparison to the other forty-one presidents.  The article with the summary of the study can be found HERE. 

In a survey of one hundred nine professional historians, fully 61% of them rated Bush as the worst US president in history.  Some of the historians’ comments were what you might expect if you’ve been following the performance of the Bush presidency.

Another 35% ranked Bush within the ten worst presidents out of the 42 whom have served.  Some of those put him at number 41, just above James Buchanan.

One historian wrote, “No individual president can compare to the second Bush. Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill.  In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

Another wrote, “With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct.  When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point—rightly—to the Bush presidency.  Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

A third wrote that “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover” are what will make this presidency the lowest in history, akin to the bottomless pit of performance.

One has to believe that Bush is aware of all of this, since he does have the most expensive advisors that tax money can buy.  But ol’ GWB is a stubborn, arrogant man.  He thinks that history is on his side.  Nonetheless, as yet another historian noted, “Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”

After all, this is a man who, when questioned by the press about his legacy just two short months ago, replied, “As far as history goes and all of these quotes about people trying to guess what the history of the Bush administration is going to be, you know, I take great comfort in knowing that they don’t know what they are talking about, because history takes a long time for us to reach.” You can read the entire transcript HERE: George W. Bush, Fox News Sunday, Feb 10, 2008.

For the rest of the country, and the rest of the world for that matter, it seems more people will believe what yet two other historians noted:

“George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one, and

“Bush does only two things well. He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches.  His administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.” 

And you thought Nixon was bad!

There is a bright side to all of this, though:  whichever candidate wins the White House in November can’t help but absolutely sparkle brilliantly in comparison to his or her predecessor.

According to today’s CNN (4-2-08), the average price of regular gas in the USA is US$3.29 a gallon, up 60 cents from US$2.69 a gallon a year ago.  When you factor in the recession-like state of the US economy, it makes for miserable times for a lot of Americans, many of whom struggled this past winter just to heat their homes.

While many folks can tell that the price of oil products is outrageous, few actually know what the breakdown is of each dollar they spend for gasoline.  Again according to the news article referred to above , that breakdown is:

Gas station:  7-10 cents;
Transportation:  26 cents