I posted this over at peoriaspeaks.com’s forums:

Based on the tax information from this page, plus the highest prices at the pump or per barrel, I’ve made this little worksheet:

Quote

$147 highest price per barrel
$4.30 highest average price per gallon

total gas tax:  $0.405
sales tax percentage:  8%

minus gas tax: $3.895
minus sales tax where 1% is $0.03895 and 8% sales tax is $0.3116: $3.5834

Current price per barrel:  $97
Price percentage drop from $147ppb where 1% = $1.47: 34%

Current price per gallon:  $3.95
Minus gas tax:  $3.545
Minus sales tax where 1% is $0.03545 and 8% sales tax is $0.2836:  $3.2614

Old gas price after taxes:  $4.30 per gallon
New gas price after taxes:  $3.95 per gallon

Old gas price before taxes:  $3.8950
New gas price before taxes:  $3.2614

What gas prices should be before taxes:  $2.5707
What gas prices should be after sales tax, where 1% = 0.25707 and 8% = $0.205656:  $2.776356
If we’re going by the market, gas prices should be, including taxes, around $3.20 per gallon.  That would more accurately reflect a 34% drop in market prices.

Basically, what I did was worked based on the $4.30 per gallon/147 per barrel price. First I took our $0.405 gas tax out of the picture, then took the 8% sales tax out of the remainder. I deducted 34% from the total of that price, then added 8% and $0.405 to that.

My exact figure was $3.23 per gallon.

Now, the math isn’t perfect, since I took the percentages based on the after-tax price.  The problem with that is, for instance, if you take 8% out of 100, you end up with 92.  But if you take 8% of 92, then add it back to 92, you don’t end up with 100, but pretty darn close.  It’s off, but the difference is not chaos-theory scale.  I’d say the margin of error for my total is no more than 10 cents.

Ollie, wanna check this?  I did do pretty shitty on my math placement test.

What I didn’t know is that my co-worker was running the same calculation as to what the price *should* be based on entirely different numbers.  Instead of starting with peak prices and working backwards (like I did), what he did was take the wholesale price, which includes crude costs and refining costs, then added the cost of distribution and delivery.  Onto that total he added taxes and ended up with:  $3.21 per gallon.

Prices today were $3.95 per gallon. Doesn’t take a math whiz to figure out something’s wrong.

Supply hasn’t been impacted nearly enough by hurricanes to justify the recent spike in prices, and demand, as far as anyone can tell, has remained steady.  So c’mon Conservatives:  what gives?  Crooks.

==============================  UPDATE!

BJ Stone mentioned something that made me wonder:  what were prices like the last time crude was selling for $97/barrel?  I decided to look.

According to MSN,  crude oil hit $97 per barrel on 11/6/2007.   According to the Department of Energy, the average retail price of a gallon of gasoline was around $2.90 during the same time.  They put it in this nice little chart:

The cost approaches the numbers I reached when you factor in the higher cost the Midwest seems to suffer regularly, plus the potential impact of taxes.  Dirty, gouging bastards.

Headline: Fed bails out AIG in $85B deal

This officially sinks the long-held Conservative belief that the god-like “invisible hand” of the market is perfect.  What happened to keeping everything privatized?  Where did all your arguments for smaller government go?  Lying fuckin’ bastards.

Seriously, guys.  $85,000,000,000.00 on this, but we can only spare $59B on education?  Keep the population stupid, is that our plan now?

From the Associated Press:

White House defends takeover of AIG

By BEN FELLER – 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Wednesday defended the extraordinary federal takeover of sinking insurance giant American International Group Inc., framing it as another move to protect the economy and save people from further harm.

A White House spokeswoman did not rule out further bailouts.

In the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve, the government stepped in Tuesday to rescue American International Group Inc. with an $85 billion injection of taxpayer money. The government will get almost an 80 percent stake in the company.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said that given AIG’s scope, the possible failure of the company posed a greater risk than the $85 billion loan. She said that taxpayers would be paid back first, but when asked whether taxpayers may not get their money back at all, she said, “That is true.”

“You have a government that is willing to lead, act where appropriate, and govern to make sure that we limit broader financial harm to the economy,” she said.

President Bush approved the loan for AIG at the White House on Tuesday after being presented with a recommendation from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during a meeting of economic advisers.

Perino said she understands why Americans would be confused that the government would be willing to put taxpayer money at risk for some companies and not others. “We are dealing with very challenging times,” she said, indicating that additional help to unstable companies will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Perino said that according to the nation’s top economic officials, the U.S. economy has the strength to “deal with these shocks.”

Guess it’s okay to help the rich when the market is in trouble, but fuck you if you think about raising taxes to help the poor.  Lost your house?  That’s your fault.  You shouldn’t have taken that high-risk loan we hid by calling it “sub-prime.”  We’re not bailing you out of this, even though it was the market’s irresponsible loaning which caused it all.  Lost your pension?  Fuck you, the CEOs of that company deserve a 30-million-dollar golden parachute while you starve.

You’re on your own.  Instead, let’s spend everyone else’s money bailing out our fellow billionaires.  Jesus Christ, those guys are just barely scraping by!

How the hell do you people sleep at night?

(Thanks to Mahkno for pointing this out)

Mere hours ago, the U.S. Embassy in Yemen was attacked with gunfire and explosions, leaving 16 dead, including six attackers.  Yemen has been the scene of a string of terrorist incidents starting with the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.  According to the AFP, there are 3 weapons to every citizen and the country has been a hotbed of terrorist activity, especially Al Qaeda.  Let’s just say it’s not the kind of place you’d want to vacation.

The AFP refers to it as,”a major focus of the US “war against terror”,”  but with zero American military involvement.  Seriously, guys, when was the last time you remember seeing “The War in Yemen” plastered all over the media?  It has never happened.

Because the Republican Party has positioned itself as the one and only authority on all things “Terror,” (how ironically true!) they’re sure to blame this attack on Democrats.  Just you wait.  I’ll be tuning into Rush Limbaugh later today, and I’ll be damned if I don’t hear that retarded piece of shit blame Democrats for it.

That’s right.  They will be blamed for a terrorist attack against a U.S. Embassy… which are unpredictable by their very nature… in a severely hostile country… even though Republicans have been calling the shots both domestically and especially in foreign affairs for the past 8 years.  Oh, just wait.  The Dems will be pounded on foreign policy and homeland security–even though this happened in Yemen–and will be painted as weak and unpatriotic.

The Republicans, delusional cretins they are, will fancy themselves as the champions of the Global War On Terror™, even though their brutal and simplistic foreign policies failed to prevent it.  Even though Yemen has been cited as a major target in such a war, they attacked a country that by now all can agree posed no threat to us.

Don’t be surprised when I say I told you so.

——-

Let me take a moment to slap our collective consciousness here back into reality by addressing the Global War On Terror™  and the Bush Doctrine which right-wing foreign affairs guru Sarah Palin couldn’t begin to identify.

A “pre-emptive war” is a misnomer.  There is nothing “pre-emptive” about attacking another country which hasn’t attacked you.  When a child knocks down another child on the playground just in case the other child was going to push them first, we would call that child aggressive.  If the child did it based on what some older kids said because they thought they’d get some entertainment out of it, we’d say the child was manipulated.  Naivety is not an excuse for aggression when the child very well knows the difference between self-defense and outright socking another.

It’s disheartening that I feel it necessary to use a schoolyard playground as an example so certain people will understand.

I reiterate, there is nothing pre-emptive about attacking someone who hasn’t attacked you.  It is called aggression.  Afghanistan, despite our unwillingness to work with the ruling party prior to the war, was at least justifiable.  Iraq did nothing to us, period, let alone something that would warrant an unprovoked attack for the purposes of regime change, something which the International Criminal Court identifies as a war crime.

I think it’s pretty obvious by now there were myriad ulterior motives behind those who led us into this war.  While correlation does not imply causation and just because someone benefits from a situation doesn’t mean they caused it, this certainly paved the way for a very small amount of associated people to gain a whole lot of money.   One does not simply stand in the shadow of reasonable doubt and evidence to the contrary, then knowingly choose to ignore it unless they’ve something to gain by doing so. Think tobacco industry “medical experts.”

Conspiracy theory?  Maybe.  As long as you wingnuts admit the only reason you’re unwilling to consider it is because of your political affiliation.

So I sent in my first paper for my philosophy class.  We’re supposed to write six papers throughout the semester, and I apparently missed the announcement that it was due this week, so I ended up having to scramble to get it turned in.  At any rate, I don’t think it turned out too horribly.  Enjoy:

This essay is in response to the The Wager by Blaise Pascal, in which the author attempts to make the case for the rationality of belief in God.  While his argument does assert God exists, he does not seek to prove it, but only to make the claim that God’s existence is possible in the abstract though not empirically provable.  Once this is established, the author contends belief is more rational than disbelief in that one has an infinite prize to be won and comparatively superficial, finite thing to lose by choosing to believe in God—but places nothing infinite at risk.  In contrast, by choosing to disbelieve one has nothing to lose or gain if God doesn’t exist, but risks losing an infinite prize if God does exist.

 

Supporting the claim, Pascal correctly states that we must necessarily make this wager.  The core tenet of his argument rests in the odds of winning versus the cost of losing.  According to Pascal,”if you win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing.”  He asserts that since we must play anyway, we’re better off placing our bets on the outcome which may yield positive results.  Indeed, he goes even further in saying it is foolish not to bet on even a small reward if we have nothing to lose in a game we’ve no choice but to play.

 

Overall, I think he made his points well.  It is reasonable to argue that if given a choice between A and B, in which A has the potential for a positive outcome whereas B does not, A becomes the rational choice.  This is made even more rational when B is not only devoid of the possibility of a positive outcome, but carries the potential for a negative, undesirable result.  This is especially true of the Christian religion (from which perspective Pascal is arguing), where belief in God yields eternal rewards while disbelief results in eternal punishment, and no neutral result is possible.  In essence, it very effectively manipulates the fear of punishment as an incentive for belief. 

 

I do not agree with the conclusions of The Wager.  The principal flaw in the argument is that it is far too specific.  While hedging your bets against eternal damnation might seem like a good idea to many Christians, Zeus, Brahman, Odin, Thor and Allah might not share the same perspective.  Even if we were to apply the argument to a different religion, Indian followers of Vishnu are in for more than a bit of a surprise if they die and find out the real god is the Christian God, and he commands no other gods be worshipped.  The bet loses its nothing-to-lose appeal once other religions are factored in.  How might he have explained this, given the fact that the vast majority of religious beliefs occur only as an accident of birth (that is to say, it is unlikely one would be a devout Christian had he been born in, for example, an Islamic nation, or into a family with such beliefs and vice versa)?   My second objection to the argument is that I cannot force myself to believe anything whether it is logical to believe or whether I truly desire to believe.  I think it would be wonderful if genies existed to grant my wishes, but no matter how much I want it to be true, I cannot bring myself to actually believe in it.  While I cannot technically disprove the existence of magic genie lamps, I find it highly unlikely they exist.  What Pascal’s Wager is encouraging is to feign belief, something a deity with the powers commonly attributed to the Judeo-Christian god would most certainly not be fooled by.

If you were watching Larry King tonight, I’m sorry and I feel your pain.   Just about every one of the McCain campaign’s lies came up and instead of simply admitting “yeah, these aren’t true,” the Republican bottom-feeders on the program defended it and changed the subject every single time.

Ollie, you’re right–the gloves are coming off.  Jesus F. Christ, where do I begin?

Claim:  Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig - FALSE

What did Obama say?

“Let’s just list this for a second. John McCain says he’s about change, too. Except — and so I guess his whole angle is, “Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.” That’s not change. That’s just calling some — the same thing, something different. But you know, you can — you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”

“Lipstick on a pig.”

A 2004 entry on urbandictionary.com describes the phrase as:

A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people. Car salesmen are generally good at “putting lipstick on a pig” because they are always selling unroadworthy buckets of shit and try and hide their shitfulness by tarting them up.   The dude in that car yard just put a body kit on that piece of shit. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig

Gee whiz, this phrase was around in 2004?  Somebody tell Sean Hannity’s fans!

Actually, the phrase is much, much older.  Older than anyone running, that’s for sure.  The only reason Republicans are pretending to be offended is because Sarah Palin described herself as a “pit bull with lipstick,” and, being Republicans and therefor ignorant of the world outside of their narrow, delusional vision of reality, were immediately certain the remark meant Obama is a sexist and was calling her a pig.  Mind you, that’s from the “how do we beat the bitch” party.

Claim:  Sarah Palin is a reformer who is tough on wasteful spending - FALSE

Palin isn’t a pig, she’s a lying idiot.  There’s an interesting article in USA Today about pork barrel spending.  To Senator McCain’s credit, Arizona ranks last on the list.  According to the same article, Alaska ranks first:

Arizona, the second fastest growing state in the nation, will receive just $18.70 per capita in federal earmarks this fiscal year. By comparison, Alaska — with roughly a tenth of Arizona’s population — is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks.

Holy shit!  For being the 47th most populous state, they sure are receiving the big bucks, aren’t they?  This completely debunks the claims that A) as governor, Sarah Palin was responsible about this type of spending and actively fought against it (if at all); and B) Senator Obama is corrupt and irresponsible when it comes to earmarks.  Speaking of that, why don’t we check to see what Illinois’ per-capita spending is?

Per the Associated Press:

Obama hasn’t asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident.

In my neck of the woods, we’d call her a lying sack of shit.  Republicans, before you say it, the USA Today article wasn’t a Palin hit-piece.  Look at the date:  March, 2008.  This has been known for awhile, and in today’s world, with all our means of getting information, you have absolutely no excuse to remain this ignorant.

Claim:  Obama’s only accomplishment is making schools teach comprehensive sex-ed to kindergarteners - FALSE.

This is what pissed me off on Larry King tonight.  Like the others, this isn’t even open to interpretation:  it’s a flat-out lie.  CBS News has the truth:

The bill, introduced in the Illinois legislature, never became law. It called for non-mandatory sex education for grades K-12 that was “age and developmentally appropriate.” For kindergarteners, that included, among other things, “how to say no to unwanted sexual advances.”

Obama voted for the bill in committee and says he supports similar laws in other states. He said the point was to help parents teach their children how to deal with sexual predators.

Apparently, the pederast lobby is very influential in the Republican party.

The ad itself pisses me off, sure, but the Republicans on the show wouldn’t even concede on principle.  They just kept repeating “it’s not factually incorrect.”  Yes, you fucking lowlife, it is.

As I mentioned on a previous post, the Republicans would be so much more respectable if they’d just admit when they’re being shady bastards.

——-

The new McCain line of reasoning seems to be,”John McCain is the best candidate because he was bold and chose this bumpkin from Alaska who happens to be popular with our lowest common denominator (the Republican voting base), whereas Barack Obama is a typical politician who chose a seasoned statesman as his running mate.”  That was what one amazingly dull apologist said on Anderson Cooper tonight.  I turned off the TV afterwards because I was about to karate chop it into two half-televisions.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  being a viable political maneuver does not make one qualified to be the Vice President of the United States.   How tacky.

——-

EDIT–I just checked Ollie’s blog, and he apparently hit two of these points already.  Even used the same CBS link, it looks like.  Whoops.

MMMmmm!  Doesn’t that just make you hungry?  Estonians sure do know how to advertise.  Yep.

EDIT — This just made me laugh:

Palin won’t back off bridge claim, despite criticism

26 minutes ago

LANCASTER, Pennsylvania (AFP) — Sarah Palin refused Tuesday to back off claims that she blocked the much-derided “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, despite mounting criticism that the Republican vice presidential hopeful is exaggerating her history of slashing wasteful spending.

The Alaskan governor has made her rejection of the federally-funded bridge project, which would have linked a handful of Alaskans to an airport at vast expense, a key part of her stump speech, and repeated the line again Tuesday at rallies in Lebanon, Ohio and Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

“I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere up in Alaska. If our state wanted a bridge we were going to build it ourselves,” Palin told the cheering crowds.

Rival Barack Obama’s campaign immediately shot back with an email to reporters highlighting articles in publications such as The Wall Street Journal disputing Palin’s claim of full responsibility for canceling the project, which she initially supported, and noting that she never sent the money back to Washington but instead spent it on other projects.

“On the same day that dozens of news organizations have exposed Governor Palin’s phony bridge to nowhere claim as a ‘naked lie,’ she and John McCain continue to repeat the claim in their stump speeches. Maybe tomorrow she’ll tell us she sold it on eBay,” Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said in the statement.

McCain and his running mate have also come under fire for saying that Palin sold the governor’s private jet on eBay and made a profit. She did try to sell it on eBay but ended up getting rid of it through other channels and at a loss.

Palin continues to tell crowds that she put the jet on eBay when outlining measures she took to cut costs, including firing the personal chef at the governor’s mansion and driving herself to work.

She also fired back at Obama for daring to attack her record on special funding requests.

“Considering his record or earmark spending I was surprised he’d raise the subject. Didn’t think he’d want to go there,” Palin said in Pennsylvania.

“In just three years our opponent has requested nearly one billion dollars in earmarks. That’s nearly a million dollars for every working day” in the Senate, she said as the crowd in Ohio booed.

“So as we reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state, our opponent was requesting nearly a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege, as I was vetoing nearly half a billion as an executive responsibility.”

Special funding requests, known as earmarks, are often for projects like roads or hospitals. The money is popular where it is awarded, but the projects have become a hot-button national campaign issue as voters become increasingly frustrated with government spending amid a worsening economy.

While Palin has cut by more than half the amount of special funding Alaska requested from the federal government, Alaska nonetheless still asks for more money per capita than any other state in the nation, according to an analysis in the Anchorage Daily News.

The paper reported that Palin has requested nearly 750 million dollars in earmarks in the two years she has been governor, which equates to about 1,100 dollars per person.

She also hired a lobbyist and travelled to Washington annually while acting as mayor of tiny Wasilla and brought 27 million dollars in earmarks to the town of 8,700, the paper reported.

Obama’s requests total about 932 million in his three years as an Illinois senator, or around 76 dollars per Illinois resident, according to figures his office disclosed.

BJStone is right–just admit you’re lying hypocrites.  We’ll all get along better once you just fess up and admit your scumbaggery… no, really, this is a sincere request. Frankly, I’m starting to feel sorry for you people on the right because the more you deny your sleazy nature, the worse you look.

How about it, Conservatives?

A few weeks ago I posted my composition assignment which was a Letter to the Editor in response to this article.  I didn’t get much of a response, which worried me about the kind of reception I’d get from the instructor.  One tends to tread lightly when dealing with the topic of atheism.  As you’ve probably come to expect, I didn’t.

I was especially freaking out about it because I wasn’t going to get any feedback for at least two weeks due to Labor Day.   That feeling was compounded as the instructor proceeded through the articles with commentary one-by-one and mine didn’t come up (which was almost sort of a relief–class doesn’t afford me the anonymity this blog provides), though I was positive every criticism she had was somehow directed at me (especially when she used the word “ranting”).  Just when I was beginning to think I was off the hook (because no mention is better than admonishment), I hear this:

“Who wrote the paper on atheism?”

Sheepishly, I raise my finger in ownership, knowing I was about to be kicked in the ass.  I guess we’re always our own worst critic.

She friggin’ loved it!  She had nothing but great things to say about it.  She even read parts of it aloud to share with the class.  Hell, two other students actually approached me to ask me about the paper.  I was floored.

In her remarks in the margins, the instructor concurred religion and ethics don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand, and also approved of my assertion that the author of the article I responded to would be fired if he had used any of his arguments against, say, Muslims instead of Atheists.

The only criticism she had was one I’m rather familiar with:  too long.  Specifically, it was just a bit too long for the type of writing it was supposed to be, but that the points made, the presentation and the “craftsmanship,” (yes, friggin craftsmanship) were excellent.  She also said this could be the beginning to a great final paper.  Holy shit.

After all was said and done, I scored 75 out of 75 possible points, and I was awarded an extra 10 points for awesomeness, apparently.

One thing that the instructor (is it conventional to call them instructor or professor at the 2-year college level?) said which surprised me–but at the same time didn’t–was how she’d never received a paper about the subject.  So now I have to present this topic for my final paper.  I have a chance to leave a lasting impression and hey, there’s no shortage of examples I can use.

This deserves a w00t!

To C.J. Summers and Diane Vespa:  This is what we’re upset about.  Please stop trying to spin the issue.

Hat tip: blueollie.

The turkey made me late for work again today.  This time, I have pictures.

Here’s señor Turquía blocking my path:

Here he is peering through the passenger window again:

I need to take another route or something, but I can already see where that will lead me.  Chances are, I’ll run into a bellicose  mallard quacking “NONE SHALL PASS!”