 |
|
|
| 5/3/2006 1:00:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article | Hairstyles, rising prices and big oil
 | Rob Crowe
Columnist
|
As a parent, it is always a challenge to administer a consistent set of rules for the kids. One rule that has served me well over the years is simply this: the kids can have any hairstyle they want as long as the hair isn’t covering the eyes.
Now, I had to endure some interesting hairstyles but the rule was generally respected. A little while ago, Management notified me that our 5-year-old Valeri was suddenly spending quite a bit of time in front of the mirror in the mornings combing her hair neatly to the side. Upon asking her about it, Valeri informed Management that she was growing her bangs out and was making sure her hair was “out of her eyes.”
I was privileged to watch the ritual this morning. She was tucked behind the master bedroom door in front of the full length mirror, spraying her hair with the kid’s hairspray squirt bottle and smoothing it neatly to the side. When it met her satisfaction, a priceless look of “I’m cute and I know it” came across her face and she darted out the door and down the stairs, ready to face the day.
It is also a challenge to employ consistent arguments in the political arena. With the recent rise in the cost of petroleum fuels, it has been interesting but predictable to see the reactions from some of the major players. The Democrats are giddy with the prospect of hanging the blame for rising prices on President Bush. Washington Post’s Milbank tells of a couple of the heavy hitters, Barbara Boxer and Chuck Shumer, driving their vehicles one whole block to an Exxon Station to highlight the prices and making statements like: “They (Bush and Cheney) are too cozy with the oil industry,” and “Get tough on big oil!”
It would be funny if it weren’t so pitiful. For years, the big guns of the Democratic party have been telling us we aren’t paying enough for gasoline, now when it rises in price they are telling us the opposite. It is also a case of Democrats engaging in tactics to ensure the price of fuel rises. Tactics like making it extremely difficult to build new refineries and doing everything to severely limit exploration and pumping of oil in very promising areas. Methinks they protest too much.
Not to be outdone, Exxon Mobil’s CEO Lee R. Raymond retired. An April 16, 2006, Washington Post.com article says he is taking with him a $69.7 million compensation package and $98 million pension payout. Also there: In this year’s proxy statement, Exxon defended the package by saying it rewards Raymond’s “outstanding leadership … and continuing progress toward achieving long-range strategic goals.” Must be pretty tough, Strategic Goal: Sell more oil at a higher price. Status: Achieved. Reward: Retire with ungodly amount of money.
Now, I know it’s not that simple and I do like to see someone do well, but let’s examine this one. This is a corporation, headquarters in Irving, Texas. It is responsible to its shareholders under the laws of the United States. Is this a responsible action taken by the board of directors to provide a golden parachute of this magnitude? Regardless of the size of the company, I think not. I’ve heard justification for similar actions by corporations on huge wage and retirement benefits saying: “We must attract the best person for the job and to do that we have to offer competitive compensation …” Perhaps so, but if the guy is that good, give him ten bucks as he goes out the door, he should be able to turn it into a couple of million before he gets home. Due to the size of the company, this tidy little sum will not appreciably affect you at the gas pump, but it is a case of Exxon Mobil figuratively giving itself a black eye.
Outrageous, Hysterical and Unsubstantiated
At least David Strand is consistent. I’ve looked through my back columns and have found no place that I have said that America has the world’s best health care system, unlike what he implies in his last column.
I’m sure that many things could be done to improve health care in the United States of America, the costs are high but simply changing to a “single payer universal system” does not guarantee the cost will go down as David so glibly implies. Maybe he is intending on slashing doctor’s and nurse’s wages to try to save the 600 billion, the column was long on scare stats and short on real solutions.
Also, his writing a list of sources two weeks later is not substantiating an argument. Except in the case of the ethically challenged David Satcher, I’m left wondering which statement to credit to which source. I guess I’ll just stick with outrageous, hysterical and unsubstantiated.
Rob Crowe chairs the Aitkin County Republicans and raises kids and cows on a farm near Hill City.
|
|
|
|
|
