When we face problems in the United States, we often rely on what it is we have learned over the years to combat similar problems. These lessons largely get lumped into the world of something people like to call "Common Sense." The thing is, common sense is not so common.
Let me elaborate.
As Americans, we sometimes pay the least qualified to do the most important jobs. We set up rules and regulations that make sense to us, personally, and unleash them on the general public. As Americans in 2011, we have to recognize one thing. We're stupid. We're selfish. We're whiny. We're impatient. If you cannot admit those things about Americans, then you are living under a rock.
In light of those idiosyncrasies, we have to admit that coming up with a common sense solution is like asking a dog to perform neurosurgery. It just isn't going to happen. A common sense solution is one that we all generally understand, isn't it? Obviously, this isn't the case in America anymore. Just because it makes perfect sense to you does not mean it will make sense to your neighbor. We will all disagree on the solution and because we disagree, it is not common. The commonness is simply not there. When we expect it to be, we are simply fooling ourselves.
Politicians like to fall back on the "Common Sense" buzzword in their stump speeches. We really need to stop invoking the "Common Sense" crap on that leve because it does not exist. We cannot employ that which does not exist.
In essence, what I'm saying is, we are our own worst enemy. Our nuclear waste is facing a fire risk and we are complacent about it. Our water company employees, gas company employees, cable tv employees, and electric company employees have no idea where the lines for their individual services run. On the flip side, tech support, whether online or over the phone is so robotic, useless, and utterly mundane and frustrating that those of us who need help cannot get it, but the algorithms in place are there because our fellow citizens are clueless.
We suffer at our own hand, folks. It is because we are stupid that these solutions that we find deplorable and stupid must exist. The next time you invoke "Common Sense," make sure you understand your opposition first. Then, it all might actually start to make sense. Until then, you're just one more selfish mouse in a maze after your own block of cheese, and that selfish behavior I cannot condone.
Until you know what common senes actually means, you'll just be spewing more useless information into the vacuum of space. A solution is just that, another alternative to a current problem. There is no right or wrong. There is only trial and error. Humans are prone to error, so don't expect us to be mistake-free. We cannot escape our own stupidity.
Quality craftsmanship...dead.
Pride in your work...dead.
Desire to achieve great things...dead.
Admiration for higher education...dead.
Honest employees...dead.
The customer is no longer right.
What did you expect to happen under these circumstances?
Showing posts with label consumers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumers. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Flood/Drought solution
We have thousands of miles of pipe funneling a valuable resource into a system that feeds our hunger. These pipes don't funnel precious water. No. These pipes were designed for oil. We have similar pipes running natural gas across our cities. Why is it, then, that we cannot do the same with water?
There likely isn't any money in it. That's the reason for everything, right?
We are looking at disastrous flooding in the Midwest right now, but at the same time, Texas is facing a severe drought. Either way you cut it, entire crops are being lost. Our food supply suffers at the hand of Mother Nature.
Why can't we manipulate Mother Nature a little?
While it would involve a major undertaking across state lines, millions of dollars, and a lot of faith, ever since I've lived in the Midwest, I thought the idea that we could run pipes from that region to the South and Southwest to fill reservoirs and water crops was within our capabilities.
We have an excess of water in one part of the country and a shortage of this valuable resource in others. In the past, before many of our major cities were even in existence, we accomplished this feat using long canals. This concept is not a new one, so why we haven't implemented something on this grand of a scale baffles me. I realize there are some restrictions related to diverting water, but a state could easily allow an exception for when certain bodies of water rise above flood stage, for example. Sounds pretty simple.
The problem is money. For those who argue the government should not fund this, state or federal, I'm all for some private company installing these systems. Oil is a private venture and the same concepts can be applied. All it would take is some leadership. There is money to be made in a crop shortage, so I suspect the supply and demand system prevents us from advancing this far, but when water is admittedly becoming a valuable natural resource, there is certainly money to be made in this idea.
Do it. Try it. Help farmers. Help large cities. Help America.
There likely isn't any money in it. That's the reason for everything, right?
We are looking at disastrous flooding in the Midwest right now, but at the same time, Texas is facing a severe drought. Either way you cut it, entire crops are being lost. Our food supply suffers at the hand of Mother Nature.
Why can't we manipulate Mother Nature a little?
While it would involve a major undertaking across state lines, millions of dollars, and a lot of faith, ever since I've lived in the Midwest, I thought the idea that we could run pipes from that region to the South and Southwest to fill reservoirs and water crops was within our capabilities.
We have an excess of water in one part of the country and a shortage of this valuable resource in others. In the past, before many of our major cities were even in existence, we accomplished this feat using long canals. This concept is not a new one, so why we haven't implemented something on this grand of a scale baffles me. I realize there are some restrictions related to diverting water, but a state could easily allow an exception for when certain bodies of water rise above flood stage, for example. Sounds pretty simple.
The problem is money. For those who argue the government should not fund this, state or federal, I'm all for some private company installing these systems. Oil is a private venture and the same concepts can be applied. All it would take is some leadership. There is money to be made in a crop shortage, so I suspect the supply and demand system prevents us from advancing this far, but when water is admittedly becoming a valuable natural resource, there is certainly money to be made in this idea.
Do it. Try it. Help farmers. Help large cities. Help America.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
On Distracted Driving Legislation
The legislation related to "Distracted Driving" currently sits in committee. I'm primarily writing this post to first voice my opposition to such legislation, but also to make it clear both Democrats and Republicans are cosponsoring the proposed legislation.
While I understand the risk for having an accident has been shown to be increased while texting or talking on a cell phone, I, like many others, find serious faults in the rationale of the group spearheading the movement. One cannot use drunk driving as a direct comparison to advance the cause. A call on a cell phone may impair, but not always. Alcohol most definitely will impair someone's ability. Proponents speaking out on national television also assume that a vehicle is a deadly weapon when, in a legal sense, a vehicle really isn't viewed as a deadly weapon until AFTER something has happened.
Another problem with this push rests in enforcement of the law. Targeting cell phone use, while admittedly a difficult task by officers, is still a form of selective enforcement. Those eating, singing to music, audiobooks, or podcasts, fiddling with the radio, mp3 player, GPS, child, or any other distraction in the vehicle will not be included, yet all will increase the risk of having an accident. The inevitable question to ask is "Where does it end?"
A third problem with this push involves enforcement via GPS. An idea has been proposed to allow GPS based systems to prevent drivers from making or receiving calls while driving. While this will indeed cut down on phone usage while driving, the rights of passengers to make a call or text falls under question. This GPS system would undoubtedly prevent anyone else in the vehicle from making a call or sending a text message. They aren't driving. They can behave as distracted as they please. Having a passenger make the call or send the text is a responsible alternative. You also infringe on the freedoms of a passenger whose phone call or text probably has very little to do with matters of conveyance.
Proponents of limiting mobile phone use while driving claim no phone call is worth someone's life. I would argue that there have been times when I needed to contact someone who was driving over matters of both life and death as well as patient care. I've also had circumstances where an immediate decision was required and I did not have the information necessary to make that decision without the input from a third party who was on the road. While not life or death, it was a situation requiring an urgent answer that could not wait until the person stopped driving. It leaves me wondering if there are calls that should be allowed. We cannot legislate or enforce anything of that scale.
Lastly, as an advocate of technological advancement, legislation like this will impede development of communication technologies as we know it. The drive for better mobile networks, interactive electronics, and technological integration into our lives in part, comes from those devices we use in our vehicles.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't condone unsafe driving behavior. I am willing to support legislation prohibiting texting while driving. Calling is a whole different can of worms. Texting just hasn't taken hold like it has in other countries. That being said, I'd love to find some stats on driving and mobile phone use in England, for example, where texting caught on faster than it did here. Where do you think I learned to text in the first place?
The second point to make I direct towards conservatives who assume that this is some sort of liberal attempt to cram something down our throats. There are Republicans cosponsoring the legislation sitting in committee.
Senate: Distracted Driving Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1938
Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]
Cosponsors:
Robert Casey [D-PA]
Kay Hutchison [R-TX]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Bill Nelson [D-FL]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
John Thune [R-SD]
David Vitter [R-LA]
Mark Warner [D-VA]
House: Distracted Driving Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3994
Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY17]
Cosponsors:
Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
While I understand the risk for having an accident has been shown to be increased while texting or talking on a cell phone, I, like many others, find serious faults in the rationale of the group spearheading the movement. One cannot use drunk driving as a direct comparison to advance the cause. A call on a cell phone may impair, but not always. Alcohol most definitely will impair someone's ability. Proponents speaking out on national television also assume that a vehicle is a deadly weapon when, in a legal sense, a vehicle really isn't viewed as a deadly weapon until AFTER something has happened.
Another problem with this push rests in enforcement of the law. Targeting cell phone use, while admittedly a difficult task by officers, is still a form of selective enforcement. Those eating, singing to music, audiobooks, or podcasts, fiddling with the radio, mp3 player, GPS, child, or any other distraction in the vehicle will not be included, yet all will increase the risk of having an accident. The inevitable question to ask is "Where does it end?"
A third problem with this push involves enforcement via GPS. An idea has been proposed to allow GPS based systems to prevent drivers from making or receiving calls while driving. While this will indeed cut down on phone usage while driving, the rights of passengers to make a call or text falls under question. This GPS system would undoubtedly prevent anyone else in the vehicle from making a call or sending a text message. They aren't driving. They can behave as distracted as they please. Having a passenger make the call or send the text is a responsible alternative. You also infringe on the freedoms of a passenger whose phone call or text probably has very little to do with matters of conveyance.
Proponents of limiting mobile phone use while driving claim no phone call is worth someone's life. I would argue that there have been times when I needed to contact someone who was driving over matters of both life and death as well as patient care. I've also had circumstances where an immediate decision was required and I did not have the information necessary to make that decision without the input from a third party who was on the road. While not life or death, it was a situation requiring an urgent answer that could not wait until the person stopped driving. It leaves me wondering if there are calls that should be allowed. We cannot legislate or enforce anything of that scale.
Lastly, as an advocate of technological advancement, legislation like this will impede development of communication technologies as we know it. The drive for better mobile networks, interactive electronics, and technological integration into our lives in part, comes from those devices we use in our vehicles.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't condone unsafe driving behavior. I am willing to support legislation prohibiting texting while driving. Calling is a whole different can of worms. Texting just hasn't taken hold like it has in other countries. That being said, I'd love to find some stats on driving and mobile phone use in England, for example, where texting caught on faster than it did here. Where do you think I learned to text in the first place?
The second point to make I direct towards conservatives who assume that this is some sort of liberal attempt to cram something down our throats. There are Republicans cosponsoring the legislation sitting in committee.
Senate: Distracted Driving Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1938
Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]
Cosponsors:
Robert Casey [D-PA]
Kay Hutchison [R-TX]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Bill Nelson [D-FL]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
John Thune [R-SD]
David Vitter [R-LA]
Mark Warner [D-VA]
House: Distracted Driving Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3994
Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY17]
Cosponsors:
Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Shipping Business Sucks From Start To Finish
If you are a consumer like me, you buy lots of things online, especially if you live in a rural area or a small city. Local businesses just don't have the selection I want most of the time. It forces people like me to hop online and make purchases.
But that's where the real fun begins. Shipping. It's a bitch these days.
The shipping process has many levels starting with the order and ending with delivery. Everything in between is a painful experience no matter where you shop, it seems. It starts with the order, moves on to order processing, the item ships out the door, then travels via the shipping service, and finally ends with the delivery.
Let's start at the top. Once you place your order, you are given shipping options ranging from ground service to expedited air. The cost alone has gone up from around $5 to $6 to closer to $10. Fuel costs have probably affected these prices, so I can't complain about that too much. The thing is, I never get my money's worth. A 3-day is not really a 3-day. Overnight shipping is more like 3-day delivery. I'm glad some places still offer free shipping, but at a lot of sites, you still have to pay an arm and a leg to qualify for that free shipping. If you want overnight shipping, expect to pay $40 or more. The catch with overnight and 3-day shipping is a sly one on the part of retailers. The clock doesn't start until the package is out the door. They can take their sweet time "processing" an item.
So once you've made your selection, your order has been placed and you get the receipt in your inbox. A blurb in that message might suggest shipping info will arrive in your inbox shortly, including a tracking number. At this point, you're already screwed. At least I usually am. First, the item takes forever to ship, even if you place your order before 3pm, noon, or whatever time the site says for same-day processing. You won't get same day. Your item will probably take 2 days to process before it actually ships. Like I said, the clock does not start until the package hits the pavement. Countless major retailers sit on their hands while I wait for shipping info in my inbox.
To give you an example, I placed two orders on Sunday afternoon. It's now Tuesday and neither company has shipped either package. That stinks. My $10 worth of shipping costs (each order) were just wasted by both companies. That's $20 vanishing into thin air. I received an email yesterday from one stating shipping info was on the way. I have yet to receive that information.
In the past, I was frequently faced with options with regard to the company shipping my precious cargo. Now, I'd be lucky if FedEx or DHL were listed. UPS has a stranglehold on the shipping business. I can't remember the last time I received anything via DHL or FedEx. The USPS even has a leg up on FedEx and DHL.
Sometimes I never receive any shipping info, especially if the item I ordered is coming via USPS. Some sites will give you the USPS or UPS tracking number. That number may or may not work. You see, in order for you to track a package, the middle-men need to scan it. In addition to knowing when your packaged was shipped and where it is located at any particular point in time, you also get a delivery date. That's assuming the package can be tracked. Let's just say that if you have a tracking number, all it tells you is how painfully slow it is moving across the country. UPS is better at tracking that the USPS, which rarely has the information readily available. UPS tracking information online lags behind the scanning process. There's nothing you can do about it either.
While your item is moving its way across the country, it gets handled by a number of individuals. These employees don't seem to care about how fragile a package might be. They might as well be working for the airport tossing luggage as far as I'm concerned, especially if they work for UPS. FedEx is certainly no angel with regard to package handling, but compared to UPS which is a nightmare, other options are far better. But remember, you frequently are not given those options. The USPS carriers are somewhat better with regard to package handling too, but there are other issues with the USPS I'll get to in a moment.
Assuming your package survives the trip, two or three days after you expected the package, it gets delivered. Oh, the delivery. Here's another mess I have to discuss. Let me share my experiences. The time of delivery varies from company to company. Regardless of whether or not your package requires a signature, you'll likely spend the entire day being held hostage by the delivery guy or gal. UPS tends to make an evening run where I live. If I know the delivery date and UPS is the carrier, I can expect the package to arrive between 4pm and 6:30pm, but that's still no guarantee. Some carriers have left packages at the wrong house. Others have been known to drop it at the end of the driveway, not at my doorstep. The USPS carriers can be moody and may be on a power trip. USPS packages typically require a signature, so if you're not home, you get a nice slip of paper in your mailbox telling you to pick it up at your post office the next day. Here's the kicker. My carrier has been known to leave the box at the post office and toss the slip in the mailbox anyway. Yes, even if I'm home, if a box is coming via USPS and it requires a signature, there is a good chance I'll have to drive to pick it up. Again, the shipping fee I paid is meaningless if I have to be the one driving to pick it up. FedEx has what I like to call morning people. They're awesome. Between 8am and 11am, the FedEx truck or van will pull up and drop off the package. It's guaranteed. Never had any problems with FedEx or DHL in this department.
I wish I could give you all a few tips, but we are at the mercy of the delivery trucks and the packaging folks. I try to place orders on a Friday or on week ends so that the clock starts ticking on Monday, not Tuesday, but as you can see from my most recent expenditures, that did not help a single bit.
If you are a retailer, here's some advice. Ship no later than 24 hours after the order was placed. If there are multiple items to assemble in a package, it's understood that processing will take longer. No big deal. One item should not take more than 24 hours to go from point A to B. Give your customers more options too. I know UPS probably cuts you a deal. Pickup services probably suck on your end no matter what, but trust me, your customers will love you for giving them options. I love using FedEx if at all possible. Add them to your list please. Get tracking numbers for your customers, even if it's through the USPS. You might want to institute a survey of sorts evaluating the shipping experience so your customers can identify weak spots for you.
I'm seconds away from mentioning companies by name. You don't want to be on that list. Service is at an all time low people. I don't know what's wrong with workers these days. I can't get anything done. In my line of work, it's my ass if I'm not punctual and on top of my game. Lives are on the line in my line of work.
But that's where the real fun begins. Shipping. It's a bitch these days.
The shipping process has many levels starting with the order and ending with delivery. Everything in between is a painful experience no matter where you shop, it seems. It starts with the order, moves on to order processing, the item ships out the door, then travels via the shipping service, and finally ends with the delivery.
Let's start at the top. Once you place your order, you are given shipping options ranging from ground service to expedited air. The cost alone has gone up from around $5 to $6 to closer to $10. Fuel costs have probably affected these prices, so I can't complain about that too much. The thing is, I never get my money's worth. A 3-day is not really a 3-day. Overnight shipping is more like 3-day delivery. I'm glad some places still offer free shipping, but at a lot of sites, you still have to pay an arm and a leg to qualify for that free shipping. If you want overnight shipping, expect to pay $40 or more. The catch with overnight and 3-day shipping is a sly one on the part of retailers. The clock doesn't start until the package is out the door. They can take their sweet time "processing" an item.
So once you've made your selection, your order has been placed and you get the receipt in your inbox. A blurb in that message might suggest shipping info will arrive in your inbox shortly, including a tracking number. At this point, you're already screwed. At least I usually am. First, the item takes forever to ship, even if you place your order before 3pm, noon, or whatever time the site says for same-day processing. You won't get same day. Your item will probably take 2 days to process before it actually ships. Like I said, the clock does not start until the package hits the pavement. Countless major retailers sit on their hands while I wait for shipping info in my inbox.
To give you an example, I placed two orders on Sunday afternoon. It's now Tuesday and neither company has shipped either package. That stinks. My $10 worth of shipping costs (each order) were just wasted by both companies. That's $20 vanishing into thin air. I received an email yesterday from one stating shipping info was on the way. I have yet to receive that information.
In the past, I was frequently faced with options with regard to the company shipping my precious cargo. Now, I'd be lucky if FedEx or DHL were listed. UPS has a stranglehold on the shipping business. I can't remember the last time I received anything via DHL or FedEx. The USPS even has a leg up on FedEx and DHL.
Sometimes I never receive any shipping info, especially if the item I ordered is coming via USPS. Some sites will give you the USPS or UPS tracking number. That number may or may not work. You see, in order for you to track a package, the middle-men need to scan it. In addition to knowing when your packaged was shipped and where it is located at any particular point in time, you also get a delivery date. That's assuming the package can be tracked. Let's just say that if you have a tracking number, all it tells you is how painfully slow it is moving across the country. UPS is better at tracking that the USPS, which rarely has the information readily available. UPS tracking information online lags behind the scanning process. There's nothing you can do about it either.
While your item is moving its way across the country, it gets handled by a number of individuals. These employees don't seem to care about how fragile a package might be. They might as well be working for the airport tossing luggage as far as I'm concerned, especially if they work for UPS. FedEx is certainly no angel with regard to package handling, but compared to UPS which is a nightmare, other options are far better. But remember, you frequently are not given those options. The USPS carriers are somewhat better with regard to package handling too, but there are other issues with the USPS I'll get to in a moment.
Assuming your package survives the trip, two or three days after you expected the package, it gets delivered. Oh, the delivery. Here's another mess I have to discuss. Let me share my experiences. The time of delivery varies from company to company. Regardless of whether or not your package requires a signature, you'll likely spend the entire day being held hostage by the delivery guy or gal. UPS tends to make an evening run where I live. If I know the delivery date and UPS is the carrier, I can expect the package to arrive between 4pm and 6:30pm, but that's still no guarantee. Some carriers have left packages at the wrong house. Others have been known to drop it at the end of the driveway, not at my doorstep. The USPS carriers can be moody and may be on a power trip. USPS packages typically require a signature, so if you're not home, you get a nice slip of paper in your mailbox telling you to pick it up at your post office the next day. Here's the kicker. My carrier has been known to leave the box at the post office and toss the slip in the mailbox anyway. Yes, even if I'm home, if a box is coming via USPS and it requires a signature, there is a good chance I'll have to drive to pick it up. Again, the shipping fee I paid is meaningless if I have to be the one driving to pick it up. FedEx has what I like to call morning people. They're awesome. Between 8am and 11am, the FedEx truck or van will pull up and drop off the package. It's guaranteed. Never had any problems with FedEx or DHL in this department.
I wish I could give you all a few tips, but we are at the mercy of the delivery trucks and the packaging folks. I try to place orders on a Friday or on week ends so that the clock starts ticking on Monday, not Tuesday, but as you can see from my most recent expenditures, that did not help a single bit.
If you are a retailer, here's some advice. Ship no later than 24 hours after the order was placed. If there are multiple items to assemble in a package, it's understood that processing will take longer. No big deal. One item should not take more than 24 hours to go from point A to B. Give your customers more options too. I know UPS probably cuts you a deal. Pickup services probably suck on your end no matter what, but trust me, your customers will love you for giving them options. I love using FedEx if at all possible. Add them to your list please. Get tracking numbers for your customers, even if it's through the USPS. You might want to institute a survey of sorts evaluating the shipping experience so your customers can identify weak spots for you.
I'm seconds away from mentioning companies by name. You don't want to be on that list. Service is at an all time low people. I don't know what's wrong with workers these days. I can't get anything done. In my line of work, it's my ass if I'm not punctual and on top of my game. Lives are on the line in my line of work.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thoughts on Legalizing Pot
Although I'm a big fan of Bill Maher, there is one issue I am in opposition with him on. That issue is the legalization of marijuana. Whenever he starts discussing anything medical, well, let's just say Bill gets a little ranty and extreme. In light of the present economic downturn, many have been suggesting we should legalize marijuana as a source of monetary gain. Let's explore that idea, shall we?
In my view, there are two schools of thought in favor of legalizing this substance. The first, and more legitimate proposal in my opinion, involves using marijuana for medicinal purposes. The second and more troubling proposal is legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Unfortunately, one group uses the other to advance their cause. I think you know which one.
Although marijuana when thought of as a pharmaceutical product has shown benefits in medical practice, smoking the drug does not come without its pitfalls. Some of the unwanted effects include short-term memory loss, impaired lung function comparable to that of cigarette smokers, cancer, decreased sperm count and motility, interference with ovulation and prenatal development, altered immune response, and may cause detrimental effects on heart function. The well known amotivational syndrome has become the source of humor and represents the common image of the run of the mill stoner. This syndrome is a rather serious consequence of substance abuse and is not entirely desirable, nor funny. Let's not forget the association this drug has with schizophrenia.
So given that background information, smoking this particular product does not appear to be the ideal method of administration. These effects alone are enough to convince physicians that its use as a recreational drug is simply not a good idea. In the world of medicine, physicians will be geared towards getting you to quit whether the drug is legal or not.
Let's look at marijuana as a cash crop at this point in time. It is grown in foreign countries and smuggled across borders. Anyone with seeds can start up their own crop. The number of varieties out there resemble coffee and tea selections.
Now let's legalize it and examine the market as a recreational drug.
What are the proposed benefits?
Monetary gain
Stimulation of the economy
Decriminalization and reduced strain on the judicial system
Reduced border security issues
Reduced funding of criminals abroad
Let's look at the problems from a business perspective.
It will have to become centralized through a company here in the US. Why? A better infrastructure for growing and handling this crop is already in place in other countries. Smuggling will turn into importing and that money will go abroad, not stay at home. Remind me again where the "good stuff" comes from. Why wouldn't a centralized company work? Anyone can grow the stuff. A licensing system will have to be put into place. Consider it similar to having a liquor license. What company would want to grow a crop easily grown by regular people?
There's just no money in it once you legalize the stuff, unless of course, you're the government taxing it.
Ah taxes. That is your proposal, isn't it? The current proposal for economic growth does stem from government taxation. Proponents preach how pot will help reduce the national debt, etc, etc. Yep. Let's tax the substance. You already know how well taxes have gone with tobacco smokers. How much are you paying for a carton these days because of taxes? Do you really want to start paying more for your pot? I didn't think so. Dealers won't like the idea either. They'll have to start paying the IRS for the money they make. Keep it illegal, and all that money stays under the table.
The proposal to legalize marijuana as a recreational drug is nothing more than a notion that if major drug companies are allowed to push their substances, we ought to be able to have our pot too. The problem is, it's not a viable business proposal.
You think it will result in decriminalization? If you do anything under the influence, you will still be treated as a criminal. Possessing it will not be criminal, but daily activities performed under the influence most certainly will. I doubt you'll be able to have the stuff out in the open in your car. Underage possession will still be criminal as well. Places of employment are still going to piss test you. They still don't have to hire you if you test positive. Could be a bigger bureaucratic nightmare than it already is.
So if you want to legalize marijuana for recreational use, show me a business model that works. If anyone can grow it, I'm not sure how profitable marijuana will be as a crop. I just don't see it guys.
In my view, there are two schools of thought in favor of legalizing this substance. The first, and more legitimate proposal in my opinion, involves using marijuana for medicinal purposes. The second and more troubling proposal is legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Unfortunately, one group uses the other to advance their cause. I think you know which one.
Although marijuana when thought of as a pharmaceutical product has shown benefits in medical practice, smoking the drug does not come without its pitfalls. Some of the unwanted effects include short-term memory loss, impaired lung function comparable to that of cigarette smokers, cancer, decreased sperm count and motility, interference with ovulation and prenatal development, altered immune response, and may cause detrimental effects on heart function. The well known amotivational syndrome has become the source of humor and represents the common image of the run of the mill stoner. This syndrome is a rather serious consequence of substance abuse and is not entirely desirable, nor funny. Let's not forget the association this drug has with schizophrenia.
So given that background information, smoking this particular product does not appear to be the ideal method of administration. These effects alone are enough to convince physicians that its use as a recreational drug is simply not a good idea. In the world of medicine, physicians will be geared towards getting you to quit whether the drug is legal or not.
Let's look at marijuana as a cash crop at this point in time. It is grown in foreign countries and smuggled across borders. Anyone with seeds can start up their own crop. The number of varieties out there resemble coffee and tea selections.
Now let's legalize it and examine the market as a recreational drug.
What are the proposed benefits?
Monetary gain
Stimulation of the economy
Decriminalization and reduced strain on the judicial system
Reduced border security issues
Reduced funding of criminals abroad
Let's look at the problems from a business perspective.
It will have to become centralized through a company here in the US. Why? A better infrastructure for growing and handling this crop is already in place in other countries. Smuggling will turn into importing and that money will go abroad, not stay at home. Remind me again where the "good stuff" comes from. Why wouldn't a centralized company work? Anyone can grow the stuff. A licensing system will have to be put into place. Consider it similar to having a liquor license. What company would want to grow a crop easily grown by regular people?
There's just no money in it once you legalize the stuff, unless of course, you're the government taxing it.
Ah taxes. That is your proposal, isn't it? The current proposal for economic growth does stem from government taxation. Proponents preach how pot will help reduce the national debt, etc, etc. Yep. Let's tax the substance. You already know how well taxes have gone with tobacco smokers. How much are you paying for a carton these days because of taxes? Do you really want to start paying more for your pot? I didn't think so. Dealers won't like the idea either. They'll have to start paying the IRS for the money they make. Keep it illegal, and all that money stays under the table.
The proposal to legalize marijuana as a recreational drug is nothing more than a notion that if major drug companies are allowed to push their substances, we ought to be able to have our pot too. The problem is, it's not a viable business proposal.
You think it will result in decriminalization? If you do anything under the influence, you will still be treated as a criminal. Possessing it will not be criminal, but daily activities performed under the influence most certainly will. I doubt you'll be able to have the stuff out in the open in your car. Underage possession will still be criminal as well. Places of employment are still going to piss test you. They still don't have to hire you if you test positive. Could be a bigger bureaucratic nightmare than it already is.
So if you want to legalize marijuana for recreational use, show me a business model that works. If anyone can grow it, I'm not sure how profitable marijuana will be as a crop. I just don't see it guys.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Black Friday Sales Must Come To An End
Black Friday sales are going to have to come to an end. The reports I have heard so far say that one has been killed by shoppers entering a Walmart and two other people were shot outside of a Toys 'R' Us.
Are you kidding me? You want something so bad that you're willing to push and shove your way into a store and trample another human being? Surely stores can come up with an organized way of allowing customers access during these sales.
The good side of Black Friday has to come to an end folks. I know stores rely on these sales to put them into the black financially, but it's not worth someone's life. How many more people need to get trampled before we figure out how to shop like civilized human beings? Why in the world would anyone want to carry a gun to go shopping at a Toys 'R' Us? A lawyer could arguably see that as a form of premeditation. What message are we sending?
Greed is making our nation fall apart on every level. It's time you took a good hard look at your life. Decide what is important. We shouldn't be hearing these stories every year. Want to be thankful for something? Be glad you stayed home and avoided these kinds of shoppers. In other countries, people stampede out of fear. Apparently in America, we trample people to buy useless crap.
We all seem to be on our own little trip of self importance.
I am publicly calling for a moratorium on the Black Friday sales.
Are you kidding me? You want something so bad that you're willing to push and shove your way into a store and trample another human being? Surely stores can come up with an organized way of allowing customers access during these sales.
The good side of Black Friday has to come to an end folks. I know stores rely on these sales to put them into the black financially, but it's not worth someone's life. How many more people need to get trampled before we figure out how to shop like civilized human beings? Why in the world would anyone want to carry a gun to go shopping at a Toys 'R' Us? A lawyer could arguably see that as a form of premeditation. What message are we sending?
Greed is making our nation fall apart on every level. It's time you took a good hard look at your life. Decide what is important. We shouldn't be hearing these stories every year. Want to be thankful for something? Be glad you stayed home and avoided these kinds of shoppers. In other countries, people stampede out of fear. Apparently in America, we trample people to buy useless crap.
We all seem to be on our own little trip of self importance.
I am publicly calling for a moratorium on the Black Friday sales.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Off Shore Drilling and Consumerism
Look, the bottom line is that any off shore drilling isn't going to make any bit of difference in the current gas price debacle. It won't even impact the prices in the near future. There is one argument worth hearing with regard to off shore drilling. If the time comes where we should need it, starting now would ensure that there is an infrastructure in place ready to go at it. A lot is required to set up before any drilling actually begins.
I'm not big on oil tycoons. Personally I think they're a bunch of crooked SOB's just like any other major company has. I heard T. Boone Pickens on BBC America the other day and he actually sounded more on the level than the piece of crap CEO that showed up on Larry King Live to answer questions. Pickens is on the track towards alternative fuels. It's about time the rest of the oil industry jumped aboard. Like he said, we've been drifting far too long on oil alone.
Now let's play some hypotheticals for a brief moment. I heard someone the other day ask why the democrats are against off shore drilling. It goes without saying that the person in question is a staunch conservative, but I'll mention it anyway so it's perfectly clear that we are talking about someone who thinks in terms of black and white (simplistic as I've stated before in my blog). Let's say we could start drilling tomorrow. Lots of oil, right? How would that drive prices down? Demand would stay the same or go up. We as consumers would hear that there's oil out there and we'd toss out the thoughts on conservation in a heartbeat. We'd drive and then we'd drive some more. Guzzle guzzgle guzzle. Prices would definitely not fall. The current democrats understand that. Bush Sr. understood that and he's a republican. It's not a partisan issue, but I see many love to make it one. It is just another way to play politics and avoid any serious discussion.
Pickens agrees that the way this market works is that demand goes up, prices soon follow, leading to penny pinching and decreased demand, and in turn a drop in prices. Once the price drops, the consumer is going to start buying again which will drive demand up one more time. It's a cycle we need to get out of.
We've learned that biofuel botched things up. The stuff drove the price of corn up. I'm sure big time farmers don't mind that, but it still doesn't help the situation. We've made the produce market suffer as a result. Add that to already high fuel costs and the produce industry will be in a world of hurt with the rest of us.
We're going to have to start making sacrifices my fellow Americans. If you're living outside of your means, don't just cut back just a little. Cut back a lot. You're going to get hammered in the months and years to come if you don't start sacrificing some of your toys. NASCAR would be a great group to lead and set an example. Imagine giving up or completely redesigning your trade as a NASCAR driver to stand up for alternative energy and fuel conservation. They won't do that of course. Fuel costs are going to get them anyway. Better be realistic sooner than later. Ignoring it won't make life any better. Still, they'd be a great group to stand up and get the right wing rednecks thinking about responsible energy plans in this country.
Right now, I think most Americans would rather bitch about it than do anything that might change the way they consume everything within an arms reach. It's a real shame, isn't it? I know people are going to scoff at the idea, but we should have listened to Carter when we had the chance. Eventually, you're going to have to come around to the idea that we cannot drill our way out of this.
Some people like to say Bush has been telling us we need to break our dependency on foreign oil over the last five or six years. No. He hasn't. He's said it publicly over the last year and a half or so and that's only because of his drop in approval ratings. He has no intention of breaking our dependency on foreign oil. He'll say anything to make himself look good in the eyes of his base, but he won't put his money where his mouth is when the rest of America (roughly 70%) needs him to. The dems don't have a true majority in Congress, so you can't bring up checks & balances. The so called majority is so narrow you'd be lucky to get a piece of paper to slide between them. Let's face it. Bush is an oil man. His family is tied to the Saudis and let's not forget Texas. The reality is he's saying one thing and doing another. That's been how he ran both of his campaigns. It's how his administration has behaved. It's how the current conservative movement behaves. The dems may be doing things half assed and cowardly, but at least they aren't two faced. Don't you ever put W in a good light with regard to dependency on foreign oil. It's a sure sign that you've been suckered by a two faced liar. Yeah I know you don't like to admit you've been suckered, but you might as well man up and take your licks for your naive thoughts. His drill off shore and drill Alaska plans are just fluff statements for the public to hear so he doesn't have to come up with any original plan. He can sit back and let us argue over whether or not we should. Hold his ass accountable and quit kissing it.
I'm not big on oil tycoons. Personally I think they're a bunch of crooked SOB's just like any other major company has. I heard T. Boone Pickens on BBC America the other day and he actually sounded more on the level than the piece of crap CEO that showed up on Larry King Live to answer questions. Pickens is on the track towards alternative fuels. It's about time the rest of the oil industry jumped aboard. Like he said, we've been drifting far too long on oil alone.
Now let's play some hypotheticals for a brief moment. I heard someone the other day ask why the democrats are against off shore drilling. It goes without saying that the person in question is a staunch conservative, but I'll mention it anyway so it's perfectly clear that we are talking about someone who thinks in terms of black and white (simplistic as I've stated before in my blog). Let's say we could start drilling tomorrow. Lots of oil, right? How would that drive prices down? Demand would stay the same or go up. We as consumers would hear that there's oil out there and we'd toss out the thoughts on conservation in a heartbeat. We'd drive and then we'd drive some more. Guzzle guzzgle guzzle. Prices would definitely not fall. The current democrats understand that. Bush Sr. understood that and he's a republican. It's not a partisan issue, but I see many love to make it one. It is just another way to play politics and avoid any serious discussion.
Pickens agrees that the way this market works is that demand goes up, prices soon follow, leading to penny pinching and decreased demand, and in turn a drop in prices. Once the price drops, the consumer is going to start buying again which will drive demand up one more time. It's a cycle we need to get out of.
We've learned that biofuel botched things up. The stuff drove the price of corn up. I'm sure big time farmers don't mind that, but it still doesn't help the situation. We've made the produce market suffer as a result. Add that to already high fuel costs and the produce industry will be in a world of hurt with the rest of us.
We're going to have to start making sacrifices my fellow Americans. If you're living outside of your means, don't just cut back just a little. Cut back a lot. You're going to get hammered in the months and years to come if you don't start sacrificing some of your toys. NASCAR would be a great group to lead and set an example. Imagine giving up or completely redesigning your trade as a NASCAR driver to stand up for alternative energy and fuel conservation. They won't do that of course. Fuel costs are going to get them anyway. Better be realistic sooner than later. Ignoring it won't make life any better. Still, they'd be a great group to stand up and get the right wing rednecks thinking about responsible energy plans in this country.
Right now, I think most Americans would rather bitch about it than do anything that might change the way they consume everything within an arms reach. It's a real shame, isn't it? I know people are going to scoff at the idea, but we should have listened to Carter when we had the chance. Eventually, you're going to have to come around to the idea that we cannot drill our way out of this.
Some people like to say Bush has been telling us we need to break our dependency on foreign oil over the last five or six years. No. He hasn't. He's said it publicly over the last year and a half or so and that's only because of his drop in approval ratings. He has no intention of breaking our dependency on foreign oil. He'll say anything to make himself look good in the eyes of his base, but he won't put his money where his mouth is when the rest of America (roughly 70%) needs him to. The dems don't have a true majority in Congress, so you can't bring up checks & balances. The so called majority is so narrow you'd be lucky to get a piece of paper to slide between them. Let's face it. Bush is an oil man. His family is tied to the Saudis and let's not forget Texas. The reality is he's saying one thing and doing another. That's been how he ran both of his campaigns. It's how his administration has behaved. It's how the current conservative movement behaves. The dems may be doing things half assed and cowardly, but at least they aren't two faced. Don't you ever put W in a good light with regard to dependency on foreign oil. It's a sure sign that you've been suckered by a two faced liar. Yeah I know you don't like to admit you've been suckered, but you might as well man up and take your licks for your naive thoughts. His drill off shore and drill Alaska plans are just fluff statements for the public to hear so he doesn't have to come up with any original plan. He can sit back and let us argue over whether or not we should. Hold his ass accountable and quit kissing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)