There has been a debate going on among trucking companies for several years over whether hair follicle drug testing should be adapted industry wide instead of the usual urine testing.  Some companies such as Schneider and CREngland have adapted hair follicle testing as pre-employment and random testing policy.

Hair follicle testing allows testing for drug use for up to a year previously though the trucking industry says it will only test back 90 days.  To do the test, anyone trained to do so may take 50 to 120 strands of hair, preferably from the head but other body hair will work also, and then seal those hairs into an envelope and send it to the laboratory for testing.  The follicle test is thought of as more accurate than urine testing being able to detect substances dating back 1 month for every 1/2 inch of hair tested.  Drugs tested for by federal mandate are Cocaine (Cocaine and Benzoylecgonine), Marijuana, Opiates (Codeine, Morphine and 6-Monacteyl Morphine), Methamphetamine (Methamphetamine/Amphetamine & Ecstasy), and Phencyclidine (PCP).  These five drug classes are mandated for testing by the Federal Government.

A few of the reasons stated for adapting hair follicle testing over the common urine testing are that the company can see drug use further back in a person’s history, the hair can be collected at the business instead of an employee going to the clinic thereby saving time and productivity, and increased highway safety.  A few people are concerned about urine testing due to hygiene concerns where they may urinate on their hands while using the cup and not able to wash their hands until they return to the lab.

In June of 2011, Gordon Klemp, president of the National Transportation Institute (NTI) said that carriers who have adopted hair follicle testing have had a 10% increase in applicants failing the hair follicle test though they passed the urine test.  Klemp went on to say that in his opinion, hair follicle testing would also lead to a further driver shortage.  “Roughly 25 percent of the driver work force has exited the industry during the past 10 years as a result of demographic and health issues, Klemp said.  The NTI, which Klemp founded 16 years ago, conducts periodic studies of truck driver availability, compensation, and turnover, among other topics.”  Urine testing for drugs costs approximately $40 a test, hair follicle testing costs approximately $150.00.

There are drawbacks to hair follicle testing.  If a root is attached to the hair collected, DNA on the person may be obtained.  According to DrugTestingNetwork.com, hair tests provide “nearly twice the number of positives as urine testing,” but they are not infallible because “after a drug is used, it takes about 7-10 days for the hair containing the drug to grow out of the scalp enough to be cut.  Therefore, the hair test will not include drugs used in the week prior to the test.”

False returns can occur, According to a U.S. Army study, the amount of secondhand cannabis smoke needed to cause a false positive result (failure) is quite large indeed, and would require being sealed in an unventilated car or small room filled with marijuana smokers for several hours.  Hair testing however is a different matter, particularly with passive exposure to crack/cocaine, which can deposit onto hair and be readily incorporated into it.  Though for cannabis, typically only metabolites (produced by the body and thus not found in smoke) are tested rather than THC, so failure is unlikely to result from non-extreme passive exposure.

From EHow.com: “Medical research described in the publication titled “Drug Testing In Hair” reveals a potential bias that appears to be inherent in hair-follicle testing.  According to these findings, hair belonging to people of Caucasian ancestry, particularly blond hair, does not retain drug metabolites as well as that belonging to people of other ancestries.  Such findings open the possibility of future litigation as the previous drug practices of non-Caucasians would be detectable and punishable for longer periods of time.”

While drug testing has been around since Ronald Reagan enacted drug testing in the workplace laws for safety related employees such as airline pilots and truck drivers and will continue to be done in pre-employment and random scenarios, drug testing has spread throughout industry and business.  Many feel that drug testing is invasive and goes into a person’s private lives too far.  It is a moot point, illegal drug use is just that, illegal, it does not matter how a person is found out; though I would rather pee in a cup rather than lose 50 to 120 strands of hair each time my name came up.

When the United States first conquered the American Indians, they first used military tactics to do so, then they used ‘paternalism’ to totally subjugate them.  What is paternalism; freedictionary.com defines it as “the attitude or policy of a government or other authority that manages the affairs of a country, company, community, etc., in the manner of a father, especially in usurping individual responsibility and the liberty of choice.”

Using paternalistic tactics, the United States government herded the Indians into reservations, took away the Indian’s means of farming or hunting to provide for themselves, forced the children into government run schools to be Americanized and provided the food for the Indians on the reservations.  This demoralized the Indian people and made them completely dependent on the Great White Fathers in Washington to survive.  It was also the testing ground of tactics for the government to use against the rest of the American population if necessary to exert control over them.

Up to around 1870, America was still primarily an agricultural society, but with the technological age coming to the fore, people had more leisure time to become aware of what the government was doing thru increased media exposure, more and more people started to protest what the government was doing.  In addition, more people were living in cities where overcrowding, lack of jobs, racial tensions and political graft were prevalent leading to rioting.  The government, by the early 1900s had to do something; the nanny state was born.

The first real nanny law was enacted in 1920 when the Prohibition Act was put in force.  Banning the sale and use of alcohol was the focus of this law, but it was also thought to enhance morals.  During the length of this law until its repeal in 1933, the exact opposite occurred.  Many young women raised their skirt hems, cut their hair and became sexually active without the benefit of marriage.  Criminal activity increased substantially with the growth of liquor drinking, smuggling and manufacturing in secret; this led to the growth of gangster activity culminating during the depression when bank robbing increased exponentially. The Volstead Act was said by Herbert Hoover, “the great social and economic experiment, noble in motive and far reaching in purpose did not work.”

The government looked at how they had enacted the Volstead Act and learned from their mistakes.  If something were completely banned, people would actually increase their usage or finds ways to get around the ban.  The government realized that instead of banning a specific habit or action, for the supposed good of the population, it was better to indoctrinate people to the so-called risks of said habits or actions. The government started using false studies and sensationalism and then passed laws incrementally to change behavior to benefit the government and control the population, of course always saying that the government only has the best interests of the people in mind.

This became standard procedure and perfected as seen in the smoking issue.  Tobacco use started in the Americas and spread throughout the world during the 1700s.  Tobacco farming was a staple in the Midwestern/central east coast agricultural economy for two hundred years.  In the late 1950’s, it was noticed that there was an increase in lung disease in people who smoked.  Other factors at the time were not considered and the government started out with a notice on cigarettes that they might be hazardous to one’s health.  Then the government started their anti-smoking campaign recognizing that revenue could be generated from smokers through increased taxes on the product.  Study after study was done, paid for by the government and special interest groups, and lawyers fought in court intensifying the sensationalistic attention given to the issue culminating in turning many people against people who smoke; this even to the extent that children turned against their parents over smoking.

The government now has their tactics down pat.  American citizens would fall for anything if promoted and sensationalized right.  Law after law has now been passed ‘for the good of the people’ when in actuality the people’s rights and freedoms have been eroded.  From the All American Blogger.com “Do you see how one law, written for our own good, can lead to others written for our own good that, instead of protecting our rights, infringe on our rights?  Again, going back to the comment from…, he shows how one law leads to another.  We already have seat belt laws, so why not have helmet laws?  We already have laws against trans-fat, so why not outlaw fried food?  We already have laws against pot, so why not alcohol?”

This quote found at AllAmericanBlogger.com says it all, “…when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed ”then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people.  It substitutes the will of the legislators for their own wills, the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives.  When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, and to plan ahead, the law does all this for them.  Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property…anonymous.”

Therein lays the rub, the removal of Americans’ liberty and freedom.  As the Indians found to their dismay, The Great White Fathers in Washington D.C. are abusive parents and do not have the people’s best interests at heart.  Instead, they only have their own agendas at heart, the removal of freedom and the control and of the American People.  The Great White Fathers speak with forked tongue.

Through calculated moves, the government has taken a proud country with a proud productive population and turned the country into close to a third world country and the once proud productive people into sheeple.  A sheeple is someone who is like a sheep who follows the bell ewe over the cliff while bleating BAaa BAaa BAaa ineffectively to their doom.

This situation did not occur overnight or under the current administration, it started back in the 50’s when innovations came into being and people wanted the appliances and devices to make their lives easier.  Things such as bigger T.V.s, dishwashers, washers and dryers and other appliances and technology were desired and bought on time instead of with cash.  People wanted bigger houses, fancier cars and more leisure toys.  This created more leisure time for some folks and a bigger demand for higher wages to pay for the luxuries which caused prices to go up.  People began to live above their means.

During the 60’s, sustenance farmers, who grew enough to raise their families with a little left over to sell, started finding themselves losing money farming and had to find local jobs to supplement their farms and incomes.  In the 70’s, these farmers began to disappear and the corporate farms came into being.  Huge acreages farmed with huge equipment and huge feedlots took the place of the small family farms.

Today, it is difficult to find even canned goods filled with American grown products much less American meat.  Farmland lays fallow here while overseas, under less than perfect conditions, food is grown and imported to the USA.  Meat grown here is sent overseas while meat is imported into the USA from foreign countries.  The huge produce fields in California lay dusty and barren because of the concern of the government and a bunch of environmentalists about a minnow which is not even native to the state…yet, the state is bankrupt and people not only are out of work, but going hungry.

Trickle down economics enacted by Ronald Reagan and those who followed did not do much for the American people either.  While Reagan is almost worshipped by a great many of those same people, his trickle down policy to spur the economy did not work as Americans are experiencing now.   Any economic policy beyond war related takes 20-30 years for the full effects to be felt.  The outcome of this policy is that many companies took their tax breaks and went overseas to increase their bottom lines through labor savings thus causing increased transportation costs and loss of jobs right here in America.  Of course, Nafta only helped them do so not burdening them with tariffs to bring the goods back here to sell to American consumers.

Then there is the mass immigration to the United States both legal and illegal of people looking for work and the American dream.  President after president and congress after congress have allowed these foreign folks to come here and take American jobs; why, because they will work better and cheaper than Americans that got stuck in the mire of having more than they can afford.  Of course, the Americans had help getting there.

Banks made credit available to anyone who wanted to buy a house; of course, the government told them to do that.  Credit cards came out of the woodwork in droves to those same people who could not afford to buy all the innovations and technology they wanted without charging them.  Banks loaned money to contractors and encouraged them to build houses that no one in their right mind needed or could afford instead of homes they could afford…and they were not alone.  The government got into the deal too and provided loans to people who had no business, according to both their credit and their income, in trying to buy a house.

Then the biggie happened, 9/11.  Whether it was known about by our government beforehand or not is a moot point, what the government did to the American people after it was criminal in effect; they instilled terror into American lives and used that terror to take away American’s rights.  The Patriot Act was instituted with weeks of 9/11 and who was punished, Americans.  Did Americans stand up in mass to protest this?  No, by the time of 9/11, Americans had been indoctrinated to believe that the government only had their best interests to heart, that America was under attack and  that war was the only answer.  Americans thought that even if they spoke up no one would listen and that it was ok to give up freedom and their rights for an illusion of security.

Now the country is in debt to other countries to the tune of trillions of dollars; and Americans are without work, have lost their houses and are without hope of anything changing.  Yes, some are bleating a little louder but as long as the government keeps doing the same thing the same way, bleating is not going to change anything.  What needs to occur is that the bell ewe needs to go to slaughter and the sheeple need to stop BAaaaaaing, start standing on their own two feet and shouting ‘HELL NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’  Until that happens, Americans are just sheep being led to their doom…and it is their own danged fault.

Many might not know that truckers do much more than just drive that truck.  Truckers are involved in charitable work throughout the world.  Here in the USA, truckers work to raise money for Special Olympics, research for a cure for breast cancer, Make a Wish foundation and Trucker Buddy Program to name a few.  Two years ago, a new charitable organization was started called Trucking Santas.

Trucking Santas was founded by Heather Pontruff and her fiancé Louis (Lou) Obadal through their website Trucker’s Voice.  Heather and Lou heard of families who were not going to be able to afford any sort of Christmas for their children and made the decision to do something to help.  Since then, Heather and Lou have identified 38 to date families that live in poverty, have terminally ill children, or who are out of work due to the economy.  In addition to the 38 families, Trucking Santas will be assisting 65 people who are in a cerebral palsy home.  Heather says, “Many of the said families have had tragedy, including kids that are terminally ill.  In one family, the father was paralyzed in an accident this year; the stories make one sad to hear.  Some of these families have never had presents under the tree.  In addition to being able to assist others, we are assisting truckers too by showing that truckers do care about those outside of the industry.”

Each family receives 4 outfits, 1 pair of shoes, and new bedding for every person in the family. The children get gifts. If the families have a need for pots and pans, dishes, towels, etc., they also get them.  One lady at the cerebral palsy home teaches Bible study to the others, her Bible was worn out, plans are in place to get her a new one along with an audio Bible set and other materials to assist her in her ministry.  Others at the facilty have asked for special bedding, they will get it.  Heather reports that these folks are ‘amazing!’

Trucking Santas has no corporate sponsors but do have some companies and many truckers involved in making Christmas special for their adopted families and folks.  They have yet to gain their non-for profit certification, hopefully that will occur within the next year according to Heather.  Some of the truckers involved had this to say why they are involved in Trucking Santas and how they can afford to do so in this economy.

Vern Lampman: “Melissa and I wanted to reach out and help a family in need. We were blessed several years ago when families in our town helped us at Christmas when my income was cut in half after leaving the Air Force.  God has blessed us financially and we want to share blessings!”

Tullina Jones Wambold:  “I feel like even though I may not be in the best position myself, I know there are MANY others who have it a lot worse. I feel blessed with what I do have so I want to do my best to help someone else.”

Becca Burke Allison: “ I believe we need to help each other in this world; love your neighbor for real. Any of us can fall on hard times. All of us are pretty much clueless as to how we got here and what we should be doing. Helping others makes the most sense. Besides, it’s fun!”

Rebecca ‘Queenbee’ Lee:  “What comes around goes around.  Growing up my dad was the chief of police in a small town in Minnesota, every Thanksgiving and Christmas my dad bought a case of turkeys and all the fixings for a holiday meals for 6 families in our area.  By me being part of this, I feel I am following those family footsteps. Granted times are tough, but a little bit of love goes a long ways on a holiday.  It brings great joy to me.”

Thomas Heatherman:  “Why did I do it, it’s hard to explain.  I have seen enough death and destruction so it’s nice to do something good.  Besides Christmas is a time of year that kids look forward to.  There’s nothing like the smiles on a child’s face when they see the presents; I may not see the faces but I know I helped make their Christmas.  From the time I said yes to Trucking Santas I started setting money aside for my adopted family.”

The adopted families are grateful for Trucking Santas as stated by Amanda Sargis, “I am the wife of a independent trucker and with the cost of fuel and operation and maintaining the truck we wouldn’t of had the Christmas that we had, and seeing the generosity that folks had helped raise my spirits and prove yet once again that humanity does still exist in the world. I am still struggling today living hand to mouth but continue to carry last year’s Christmas in my heart knowing that my kids will always see that as their best Christmas ever and I must thank all involved.”

One does not have to be big and jolly or wear a red suit to be a Trucking Santa, one just has to have a big heart and any amount of money to assist.  Heather says, “While direct money donations are not accepted, we always need card senders and adopters. If you help adopt a family, you will be given a wish list from an online store. The families name and address are automatically imprinted into there. The Trucking Santa shops for the gifts and directly ships it or takes it to the family themselves.  Some Trucking Santas cannot afford to do a whole list, they can do part of it or just one item.  Cards are appreciated almost as much as the gifts because it shows someone cares.  The family in turn sends me pictures of them opening their gifts, and I post them for all Trucking Santas to see.”

If you are interested in becoming involved in Trucking Santas and bring a merry ho ho ho to a needy family or person, Heather says, “Anyone interested In helping out can contact me anytime via facebook (www.facebook.com/theoneandonlytv), email (trkrsvoice@thetruckersvoice.net), or twitter (@trkingsantas).“

Before the above though, and sadly after, truckers seem not able to agree as a whole to anything, strikes are spoken of, but die due to lack of interest and of course the legal ramifications of striking are great.    Comment sections on proposed rule makings by the FMCSA remain thinly used other than by special interest groups and a few die-hard activists in the industry.  Truckers mainly do not think about how a new rule or regulation will affect their brother or sister drivers only about how it will affect them.  At OOIDA, who is the only lobbying association for American truck drivers, member numbers remain stagnant because people cannot see the bigger picture that OOIDA has and is working for and truckers remain divided by their niche in the industry and their personal opinions and agendas. 

Politicians depend on the diversity of truckers and their lack of cohesiveness to pass regulation after regulation to tamp down the ability of the American trucker to survive.  The politicians know that truckers for the most part go about their isolated lives and rarely do more than bitch and moan about a new rule or regulation.  The politicians both state and federal also know that more regulations means more money from the cash cow of trucking for their state or the federal coffers either by fines or by being able to grow the size of government and get more money from special interest groups.  Furthermore, by supporting special interest groups by regulating the trucking industry with their bad image, politicians gain favor in the public’s eyes that are taught to fear truckers and be re-elected to office.

There are roughly 3.5 million commercial drivers in America; the noise that they could make would wake the wicked witch of the west from the dead if they all spoke together against the injustice dealt them in overwhelming regulations and company policies that are unhealthy, unsafe, or detrimental to the driver.  The deck is stacked against a strike being allowed to happen and history shows strikes ineffective, but there are other ways to garner the attention of the powers that be.

Learn to look at any issue with an open mind and consider how it will affect all drivers, not just you.

Register to vote if you are not already and then vote.

Join OOIDA, the dues are only $25.00 for the first year and $45.00 after that.  With membership, you receive some good benefits; easily keep up with political issues that affect you as a driver and you can add your voice to others’ to be heard clearly in Washington D.C.  There is power in numbers.

Put in your comments to proposed rule making during the comments time.  The FMCSA does not make this easy, if you do not understand how to do this, OOIDA or any number of trucker activists can assist you.

Write, call, or email your representatives about any issue concerning trucking.  Be pleasant and civil, precise in your writing and clear in your position.  Always mention that you are a voter, include your full name, address and contact information.  (You do not have to be a published author to be effective in contacting you representatives, just talk to them as you would want them to talk to you and be clear.)

Educate yourself about the facts of an issue, leave the sensationalism out and then help educate other drivers; stick to the facts and encourage the other drivers to become involved.

The rusty squeaky tin man got oiled, Dorothy conquered the wicked witch to reach the Wizard and went home, the lion roared and truckers can get things done to stop the madness of overwhelming regulations if they stick together and speak out clearly and loudly.  It worked once it can work again; truckers just have to squeak loudly enough.

A news report tells of Baylor Health Systems who is going to start testing volunteers and new hires for nicotine and not hire anyone who uses it even to the extent of nicotine patches or gum.  While Baylor of course, can hire whom they choose, few who read this article saw beyond the inherent health benefits or how they hate smoking.   They did not see that anyone was being discriminated against for participating in a legal activity.  People have been indoctrinated to dislike smokers to the extent of thinking them stupid or addicted.

Most people are not aware that they have been indoctrinated. Indoctrination starts young, in school when a child is taught that the government is always good, to believe on faith what they read or hear from reporters, science is never wrong and of course, that Superman can really fly.  If you take any two or more races of young children together, they play well with each other.  When the child gets older, they may not due to being indoctrinated by the adults around them that the races are different or that one should hate another race…bigotry starts at home.

Advertisements by both business and political people repeatedly send out the message they want someone to believe…buy a certain soap, pill or believe in strictly divided political lines…and of course, one party or the other only has YOUR concerns that they will address.

Scientists do research funded by whatever corporation or government entity that is funding them…and 95% of the time find the exact results the funder is wanting.  Then that corporation or government entity touts the findings from the rooftops repeatedly, and the people, who are not aware of indoctrination techniques, believes the findings as gospel.  It must be true if they keep repeating it, right?

climate change study offer  This link talks about two things, first scientists being offered big money to deny climate change and secondly the global warming ideal.  Anyone who can think and do a little research knows that scientists are often led to the money trail.  Furthermore, anyone who has done a little studying that global warming for the most part is just what it is, the earth being at the end of an ice age and is warming up naturally.  Yet, due to indoctrination, millions of people bought into the global warming fiasco resulting in hundreds of regulations and in making the EPA what it is today…a monster.

Indoctrination has led to bigotry, discrimination and outright hate in some people; of course, racism is the most commonly thought of source of bigotry, but think about the Baylor story, smokers are disliked and discriminated against because while any thinking person knows it is most likely unhealthy, it is still a legal activity.  This is due to slanted studies and there are studies that are slanted the other way…of course funded by the tobacco industry.  People have been taught that everyone no matter what, should be in a certain size range.  Studies say so after all, funded by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies and of course, the billion dollar a year diet industry.

Why are there so many people who are indoctrinated to certain issues and so called facts?  The founding fathers had it right when they said ‘united we stand, divided we fall’.  While they were talking about the revolution, it holds true today.  If the government can keep people indoctrinated to the point that they only look out for their own interests and not their fellow citizens, they create divisions that keep people apart…it is another form of control of the population and creates hostility on one hand, and apathy on the other.

It takes courage to take a hard look at one’s self to identify areas where you may be indoctrinated in.  It takes courage to think outside of the box to end personal indoctrination.  It takes courage to think about another’s rights outside of your own interests and preferences.  It takes courage to shed the artificial bigotry and selfishness created by indoctrination.  There is no Wizard of Oz to give you a medal of courage to assist you in this, just yourself and the willingness to do the right thing for others.

In the trucking industry, about 35-40 years ago, the systematic destruction of the trucker’s image started.  People went in droves to see movies like Smokey and the Bandit (1977) and stayed home to watch B.J. and the Bear (1978-1981).  Both the movie and the T.V. show depicted truckers as outlaws who drank, drove crazily and fought the law.  This culminated during those years in ABC doing a 20/20 story called Killer Truck Drivers.  The reporters went out and interviewed truckers who were laid over for the weekend and partying, needless to say, it was an ugly report.

During the late 1970’s and 80’s continuing to today, study after study has blackened the truck driver’s image.  Driving while fatigued, wanting to hurt other drivers of cars, taking drugs, drinking while driving, excessive body mass, being a driver with disabilities, being unhealthy and being serial killers are attributed to truck drivers.  Of course, the American truck driver is very unsafe too.  Media reports rarely point out that it was a pickup truck that caused an accident, they use the generic ‘truck’ instead, misleading people into thinking it was a semi involved. 

The agencies who regulate trucking, and some associations, too are to blame for the destruction of trucker’s images and brainwashing the public.  The people at the agency who have little or no actual trucking experience and no understanding of the job, sit in their offices and listen to people who have been taught to be afraid of truckers then make unreasonable rules and regulations.  Or in the case of some associations, the association back rules and regulations which favor them to increase their bottom line.

People outside of the industry have eaten up this sensationalistic nonsense and have become brainwashed to the realities.  Sadly, many people who have entered the industry in the last 20 years or so too have listened to and read the stories, bought into the sensationalism and have become brainwashed.  Both truckers and non-truckers support more and more regulations concerning the trucking industry because they will not be affected, they think, so they back the regulation to get those ‘bad truckers’ off of the road.

The latest shot across the bow of truck drivers was the NTSB’s suggestion that cell phone use in any fashion while driving be banned.  While at this time, this is just a suggestion, the second one since 2006, with the current trend to punish all truckers for the actions of a very small minority, and the director of the DOT Ray LaHood supporting the ban of distracted driving for truckers, the FMCSA will most likely act upon it.  Even though the study done at the bequest of the DOT by Virginia Tech shows that cell phone use is not the risk it is made out to be, many people including truckers are all for supporting the ban.

The same scenario played out during the flack over body mass index.  People have been brainwashed by decades of diet industry propaganda into thinking that heavy people are lazy, unhealthy and should be thin like models shown in newspapers and other media.  Playing on this brainwashing, and funding from the diet industry and the medical manufacturing sector, people supported forced dieting, sleep studies and even not allowing truckers to drive without using a machine that may or may not be necessary…and then there are the companies who chose to use BMI as a reason not to hire someone.

The types of brainwashing cited above are not as innocuous as the opening paragraph where a mark is only taken for his/her money at a carnival.  The latter examples are insidious and border on bigotry by artificially dividing people for obscure or governmental reasons and causing hate for others only to further restrict another person.  These tactics are a form of control and used to dominate a population eventually; Hitler used brainwashing to great effect, as do others such as communist countries.

Are you brainwashed?  Everyone is to some extent; one buys a certain soap because of an advertisement or asks a doctor for some specific medicine because of being told it will cure what ails them.  Are you brainwashed to the extent of believing exactly what you read or hear and using what you supposedly have learned to take away rights for others who have done nothing illegal?  If so, remember Pastor Niemoller and what he had to say after WWII…

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

At some point, something will come up that WILL affect you directly; you had better hope that someone stands up for you who is not brainwashed against you and who believes in the rights of others.

The September 13^th announcement of the NTSB’s latest recommendation that cell phone use of any kind by commercial drivers be banned was the latest in a long list of regulations, recommended regulations and proposed regulations that have become overwhelmingly burdensome to truckers.  This in a governmental atmosphere of backing off on regulations to spur the economy, a quote from President Obama highlights this: “At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover,” he said. 

What about the trucking industry? 

Just this summer, against the wishes of the majority of people in the country, the government decided to go ahead and open the Mexican border to Mexican trucks that will have the potential of putting thousands of American truckers out of work.

New Hours of Service regulations propose to cut trucker’s work hours to 10 in a 24-hour period and extend the 34-hour restart to potentially 57 hours off including the midnight thru midnight section.  This will not only cut a driver’s wages, but increase the need for more drivers, more trucks and add to the congestion already caused by the old new hours of service.  In many truckers’ opinions, this will lead to bringing in more foreign drivers who will not only work cheaper, but who may not be as safe as American drivers due to the so-called driver shortage.

Almost all truckers agree that the ban on texting while driving for truckers was a good move, but most do not agree with the need for more ‘nanny laws’ and all agree that the fine for texting while driving, up to $2700.00 for a first offence and the possibility of losing one’s license, are too stringent.

More states, cities and counties are instituting anti-idling laws while some companies have decided, because of the economy, not to add apu units on their trucks.  If a driver cannot sleep safely and comfortably, the driver risks accumulative fatigue, this while the FMCSA and lobbying groups are citing driver fatigue as a major contributing factor to accidents against statistical evidence to the contrary.

Drivers now are ticketed for mechanical failures that may occur after the pre-trip or where the driver is told by their employers to bring the truck to the nearest shop or terminal for repair.  Furthermore, if a law enforcement officer feels that only a warning ticket needs be issued for minor infractions, it will still show up on a driver’s and their company’s safety scores to the detriment of both.

Now the proposed ban on cell phone usage rears its head.  In 2009, Ray LaHood head of the Federal DOT, conducted the first ‘safety summit’ where it was cited that the most problems were with young drivers 24 and under who texted while driving.  In the report of this summit, it stated that the NTSB had recommended a full ban on cell phone usage three years before.

A study done for the FMCSA by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute that addressed the prevalence of driver distraction in CMV safety-critical events (defined as ‘crashes, near-crashes, crash-relevant conflicts and unintentional lane deviations’), shows that talking or listening on a hand-held cell phone in real world driving conditions does NOT create ANY increased risk of such safety-critical events for CMV drivers.  (Olson, Hanowski, Hickman & Bocanegra, Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations, Doc. No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042 (VITI Distraction Study) see Fed. Reg. at 80020-80021 & Table 1.)  (This information from OOIDA’s February, 2011 response to the FMCSA proposed rule against texting.)  In OOIDA’s response, it also stated that the FMCSA did not take into consideration hands-free cell phones.

LaHood has cited several areas of distracted driving that needs to be addressed beyond texting and has set up a government website detailing this and focusing on the victims of distracted driving.  One must wonder that if the FMCSA takes the NTSB recommendation seriously what will be next that truckers are not allowed to do.

As has been seen in recommendation after recommendation for more stringent regulations, the FMCSA, the NTSB and the Federal DOT has taken study after study and twisted the information to fit their own agenda; that of over-regulating the trucking industry.  Working with the emotionally driven ‘victim’s’ groups such as PATT, CRASH, Concerned Citizens, et al, the governmental agencies that regulate the trucking industry are responding to the emotional, not the sensible, in their bid to put trucking behind other forms of commercial transportation.

You may never have heard of Rev. Graham, but chances are that you’ll be familiar with his dieting invention: the Graham cracker. Perhaps the first diet food, the Graham cracker was made from flour that was unsifted and didn’t have additives (refined white bread was becoming popular with the middle-classes during the 19th century, who could afford to buy it). Graham saw white bread as nutritionally poor, and he and his followers, the Grahamites, eschewed it – again, we can see the roots of modern diet advice back in the 19th century.  Graham believed in a strict vegetarian and teetotal diet, and saw diet primarily as a means to control sexual urges.

William Banting, by contrast, was interested in diet for the same reason as most dieters today are: he wanted to lose weight. In 1863, he wrote a pamphlet, Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public. His diet plan, based on advice given to him by a doctor, featured:

Four meals a day, consisting of protein, greens, fruits, and dry wine.

Avoiding starch and sugars.

Milk, butter and meat were all permitted.”

Since then the diet industry has grown into a multi-billion dollar business.  Reports abound about the so-called USA’s obesity epidemic, one can follow the money trail.  From News Medical .com:  “ Xavier Pi-Sunyer, who has also received significant funding from the makers of anti-obesity drugs and is currently promoting anti-obesity drug Acomplia made by Sanofi, chaired a key National Institutes of Health obesity panel, which in 1998 instantly cast 30 million Americans into the “overweight” category by changing the government’s definition. That group includes presently “overweight” stars like Will Smith, Pierce Brosnan, Tom Brady, Kobe Bryant, and even (former)President Bush.”

It has become common for obese people to be stereotyped as lazy, lacking will, unhealthy and other slurs to their character.  In reality, there are many causes for obesity from genetic/heredity to other medical conditions such as stress and depression. 

From DrShop.com: “There does appear to be at least an association between heredity and obesity. In a well-known study regarding this issue, adults who were adopted as children were found to have body weights closer to those of their biological parents than their adoptive parents, suggesting that their genetic makeup had more influence on their body weight (and the incidence of obesity) compared to the environment in their adoptive family’s home.

A person’s risk of developing morbid obesity is often heavily influenced by psychological factors. Boredom, depression, anxiety, stress, trauma (whether as an adult or child), and feelings of low self-esteem are examples of psychological factors that could result in an individual’s overeating and under-exercising. Although the psychological aspect of morbid obesity can be difficult to overcome, it is not impossible. Merely identifying the psychological problems can help an individual greatly in his or her understanding of the basis of overeating.

Illnesses can also lead to morbid obesity. Some of these include hypothyroidism, Cushing’s syndrome, depression, and other neurological problems. The use of steroids and certain antidepressants can also lead to weight gain.”

Another aspect of the current trend to think of people as obese is the examples found in the media.  From Usatoday.com: “It’s not surprising that women want to be slender and beautiful, because as a society “we know more about women who look good than we know about women who do good,” says Audrey Brashich, a former teen model and author of All Made Up: A Girl’s Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity Hype and Celebrating Real Beauty…As a culture, we are on a first-name basis with women like Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie,” she says. “The most celebrated, recognizable women today are famous primarily for being thin and pretty, while women who are actually changing the world remain comparatively invisible. Most of us have a harder time naming women of other accomplishments.” The idolizing of models, stars and other celebrities is not going to change “until pop culture changes the women it celebrates and focuses on.”

As far as an obese person being thought lazy, this is patently a false assumption.  For example, look at the adult Amish women who work from dawn to dusk doing manual, physical chores.  Almost all of them are considered medically obese yet work hard. 

In relation to trucking, it is seen in the above that there are many job related factors such as boredom, stress, anxiety and low self-esteem that can enter into a driver not meeting the artificial insurance height weight charts.  Add in long hours, little support from friends and/or peers, constant worry about regulations that might unfairly affect them; a driver might tend to overeat or have a metabolism that promotes his/her body into turning even healthy food into fat.

In no way can any successful driver be thought of as lazy.  The average miles per year for a solo driver are over 125,000 miles a year and if a driver does not produce, they do not last long as a driver.   By stereotyping a driver, or anyone else for that matter, who may be overweight, as lazy, unhealthy or not having will power does not do anything but buy into the prevalent and sometimes erroneous media, governmental and diet industry propaganda.  It is not helping the actual obese person; it is hurting them by adding to their stress levels and perhaps low self-esteem.

Houghton Mifflin defines professional as: ADJECTIVE:  Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.  Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.

NOUN:  A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.  One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house. A skilled practitioner; an expert.

ADVERB: Professionalism

Different areas of occupation have different standards of professionalism.  Teachers have different standards of professionalism than do lawyers; doctors have different standards than plumbers; secretaries have different standards than CEO’s, etc.  In trucking the standard of professionalism is fairly static especially for drivers, a driver is safe in his/her driving skills, picks up and delivers on time, takes care of the equipment, communicates adequately with his/her shippers/receivers/dispatchers/brokers and is civil within the scope of their job, when possible, with those they come in contact with.  Many expect much more out of drivers though; ambiguity enters in when different professions cross paths.

A person who comes into trucking from another field such as nursing has a different idea of what professionalism is than a truck driver.  They perhaps are used to being called Ms, Mrs., or Mr. when spoken to by others.  When they interact with other drivers, brokers or dispatchers and are not called any longer by the honorific title, they can feel like they are not being treated ‘professionally’. 

A person who has a high level of education or a high intelligence, who can write and speak well and who may have been a teacher or executive decides to enter trucking.  In trucking, drivers come from many different levels of education, intelligence, and past work in different levels of other professions.  When they cross paths in any fashion, the new person might feel that drivers who do not speak or write as well as they do are less intelligent or are not writing or speaking ‘professionally’ and discount what the other driver has to say. 

Even regional differences can enter in to one’s perception of ‘professionalism’.  A worker in a hospital in North Carolina relates the following example.  “Down here in the south, it has always been that we comfort patients when interacting with them by presenting a friendly attitude.  We might call them hon or sugar, or in the case of an elderly person, Miss Mary for instance. To a southerner, this language usage is courteous and civil.  The  hospital was bought by a huge corporation, it was not long before we were told that the way we were speaking to our patients was ‘unprofessional’ and we were to only call them by surname and use the honorific Mrs., Mr., or Ms.; even the children.”

This idea of regional professionalism shows up in trucking also.  It is common in certain areas of the country for men to use supposed endearments when speaking to women.  In parts of Michigan, the men might call a woman ‘sweetheart’ or ‘sweety’, in the New England states ‘dear’ is used, in southern states a plethora of names might be used by both genders; ‘honey’, ‘sweetheart’, ‘baby’, ‘darlin’ to name a few.  While in most cases nothing bad is meant in those words being used, people who are not used to being called those names, or who are untraveled, when they interact with people from those areas, think that this word usage denotes ‘unprofessionalism’ if not worse.

In reality, being professional comes down to civility and in doing one’s job well; civility because in being civil, one does not use vulgar language or hateful words to get one’s point across or to interact with others.  When one is civil, one portrays a ‘professional’ aspect to what they do whether it is work related, political or in friendship, they do nothing that will offend others.  In doing one’s job well or to the best of one’s ability a person can take pride in what they do whether it is writing a letter or article, doing the job, or interacting with others; by definition, they are professionals.

The next time that anyone uses the words professional, professionalism or professionally, that person really needs to think about what they are referring to and make sure that they are not applying professional standards above and beyond to the current situation.  One person’s professional standards may not be what another’s are.