“Can you read that back to me?”

Some of the funniest slips of the tongue, mistatements, and outright mistakes, happen in open court, or during a deposition of a witness, when a lawyer is either unprepared, or trying to get too cute when questioning a witness. I’ve collected excerpts from transcripts over the years that, if nothing else, are just enough to give even the greatest litigator a reason to pause. Here are just a few.


Q. Do you remember everything that happened that night?

A. No, I don’t remember at all.

Q. What part don’t you remember about what happened that night?

*****

Q. You say this woman shot her husband with his pistol at close range.

A. Yes, sir, that’s right.

Q. Any powder marks on his body?

A. Yes, sir, that’s why she shot him.

*****

Q. What is your date of birth?

A. October 1910.

Q. Do you remember the day?

A. No, but I’ve been told about it.

*****

Q. You told her what before the surgery?

A. I said we could probably save the toes, but I don’t know about the foot.

*****

Q. Did the perpetrator have facial hair?

A. Yes. Eyebrows.

*****

Q. Have you ever been accused of taking anything from your employer that you were not entitled to?

A. Do you mean other than my paycheck?

*****

Q. Did you blow your horn or anything?

A. After the accident?

Q. Before the accident.

A. Sure. I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.

Flag on the Play: 15 Yards for Roughing the Language

I’m feeling particularly irritable today, so its time for a bit of a rant.

As you might guess from the mere fact that I have this blog, I love to write. I like words and I enjoy turning a phrase. I also love to read a well-crafted story, or a well-written blog. I have a few blogs that I particularly enjoy simply because of the way they are written. One of my favorite websites -- Television Without Pity -- combines my appreciation for people who write with wit, intellect, and humor with reviews of some of the more interesting television shows out there.

But this isn’t about that. This is about those among us who butcher the language in ways that are particularly grating. Here are some of the abuses of language that simply set my teeth on edge. This list is by no means exclusive. These are just the instances that hit me today. I’m sure I’ll add more.

“Supposably.” This one rears its ugly head time and time again. I put this one first because it was recently thrust upon the nation in the current edition of the reality show, Survivor. The use of this non-word is bad enough in day-to-day dealings. But to give it a national platform on broadcast TV? My teeth hurt just hearing it. People: the word is “supposedly.” It’s an adverb. It’s used to describe how something was “supposedly done,” or what someone “supposedly believed,” as a way to indicate that something may not actually be the case.

“Irregardless.” I know, I know. This one has gained acceptance over the years (which is my growing fear for “supposably,” by the way). But just because everyone uses it doesn’t make it right. The word you’re looking for is “regardless.” If you want to be creative, try “irrespective.” But regardless of the fact that irrespective is the word folks should probably use, they insist on saying “irregardless,” without any regard to the consequences of their continued misuse of the language.

“Its” versus “it’s.” When the dog is going to visit its mother, it does so without the apostrophe. When it is too hot outside for the dog, it’s too hot outside. The first is the possessive (which is what screws people up, because when Joe is going to visit Joe’s mother, he takes the apostrophe with him). The second is a contraction of it + is, where you always need your apostrophe. It’s really not that hard, folks.

“Confidant.” This is not about a non-word; it is about a mispronunciation, and this is directed more at the news media types. It’s bad enough that someone mispronounces a word. However, the news media should know better than to broadcast an interview with someone who refers to the crime victim’s friend as a “con-FI-dent,” with a long “i” sound and the accent on the middle syllable. The person you entrust your secrets to is a “CON-fuh-dahnt.”

“Epitome.” Another mispronunciation, thankfully not in wide use, but it’s stuck with me since I first heard William Shatner asked if the role of Captain Kirk was the “EH-pih-tome” of his career. Shatner paused, acknowledged that it was, and then, without missing a beat, said that it was also the “eh-PIH-tuh-me” of his career as well. The comment was lost on the interviewer. My suggestion: either look up the word first, or use an alternate -- like “embodiment” or even “perfect example.”

“Accessory.” Yet another mispronunciation that, unfortunately, is increasingly insinuating itself into the language, thanks to commercials on television. I first encountered this mispronunciation years ago when someone I was working with attempted to do a voice-over for a radio commercial by describing a sale on “assessories.” I had to break out the dictionary to show that the store was actually selling “ack-SESS-uh-reez,” and even then I was met with resistance. However, sales on “assessories” are now becoming the new hot thing. I know, because I’ve heard about them in TV commercials for a variety of local and national department stores. Here’s the problem. An assessor makes assessments, as in the case of the tax assessor. The assessor may do things in an assessorial way, and I expect that the assessor may use his assessing accessories when working. But, until someone creates an assessory (perhaps where an assessor might be trained), there are no such things.

“Valentime’s Day.” It is not a time for valens. It is a day named after Saint Valentine. We don’t receive valentimes on this day. We receive valentines. Think “fork,” as in “tines on a,” and you’ll be alright.

I’ll be adding to this list, I’m sure. These are the ones that tick me off today. Please feel free to add your own.

Finally, just to lighten things up a bit, here are some colorfully mixed metaphors that have made me laugh:

“People are dying like hotcakes.”

“He’s a little green behind the ears.”

“She took to it like a duck out of water.”

“We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.”

“Life isn’t always a bowl of chili.”

And, perhaps my favorite:

“Our relief pitching was damned good, great,” said manager Whitey Herzog, who violated a sacred cow for the second time in a week and got away with it. (Now doesn’t that present an interesting mental picture?)

An Open Response to Michael Moore's Letter Regarding George Bush

My wife forwarded to me an email sent out by Michael Moore containing his latest complaints about the President. For those who haven't seen it, I will attach it here as a comment. After having read it, I felt compelled to respond. Here is what I sent to Mr. Moore.

Dear Mr. Moore,

I just received your open letter to “All Who Voted for George W. Bush,” and I find it to be very interesting -- though far from objective -- reading. I do not object to the content of the letter, despite the fact that I am a registered Republican and despite the fact that I do, generally, support the President and, more importantly, the Presidency.

I do, however, object to the fact that you paint with such a wide brush and with such broad strokes that you color everyone whom you deem to be “the enemy” with the same shade of ugly. Not everyone who is a Republican, or who is a Bush supporter, is evil, heartless or intellectually challenged, despite the conclusions upon which your letter appears to be premised.

I will be happy to engage you in an intelligent discussion of ideas if you believe that you can put aside your self-affixed labels of Democrat/liberal/fill-in-your-choice-of-left-wing-buzz-words-here. I am not, however, willing to engage in an exchange of ad hominem attacks.

That’s the problem with political debate in this country these days. Too many people instantly pigeon-hole “Republicans” in one slot and “Democrats” in another. The fact is that those pigeon-holes do not come close to describing the people who actually call themselves Republicans and Democrats.

At the risk of stating the obvious, Republicans, just like Democrats, are human beings. I mention this only because your incessant attacks on Republicans seem bent on dehumanizing them. But Republicans and conservatives, just like Democrats and liberals, have families, feelings, and beliefs. They also have ideas and opinions that they are convinced are true. Their beliefs and ideas may differ from yours, but that doesn’t mean that they are wrong and you are right. It just means that their opinions are different from yours.

With that in mind, I want to address the questions and concerns you raise in your letter. Before I do so, however, let me give you a little background about me so that you can, perhaps, understand my frame of reference.

I am a Republican. I am also pro-choice. Were I to run for office, I would run on the Republican ticket but would also fight to remove the plank in the Republican platform that advocates abolishing a woman’s right to choose.

I believe in God, and in Jesus, but I don’t believe in forcing my beliefs down other people’s throats. I subscribe to George Carlin’s philosophy that religion is like a lift in your shoe. You should use it if it makes you feel better, but you shouldn’t try to nail your lifts to the natives’ feet.

I favor stem cell research and I back Federal funding of appropriate projects in this area. I also believe that the Federal government should spend more on AIDS research and less on building highways in the wilderness.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe in gun control. If I want to own a Luger, I should be able to do so. However, I should also be required to have appropriate safety devices on that gun and I should be required to have a license and to pass an annual test in its use and handling. I should not, however, be free to own an AK-47 simply because I want one.

I believe in a human being’s ability to make a better life for himself or herself without having to rely on the government for a handout. I also accept the fact that there are instances and circumstances in which the government should step in and help those who cannot help themselves. The government -- both state and Federal -- must be in a position to provide such things as unemployment benefits, disability benefits, and health care benefits for those who need them.

I also believe that certain programs, such as unemployment benefits, must have conditions and time limits on them such that those who receive the benefits are nevertheless encouraged to get off the public dole. There is no honor in collecting unemployment benefits. I do not believe that it is the government’s role to pay those who simply do not want to work (and, let’s be honest -- there are people out there who fit this description. In your heart of hearts, you certainly must realize that there are actually some people who collect government benefits because they don’t want to work. I know, because I’ve met them. I’m not saying it’s the majority of people; I’m just pointing out that there are some people who actually do believe this.)

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 because it was the appropriate response to what happened to this country on September 11, 2001. I was initially non-committal on the subsequent invasion of Iraq because, even with the intelligence that the administration claimed to have at the time, I was skeptical about the notion that Iraq posed an active and immediate threat to the United States. Nevertheless, once the troops went in, I was behind them because there should never be a repeat in this country of what happened to our soldiers who served in Viet Nam.

Was it the right thing to send the troops into Iraq? At the time, I was willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. However, I believed at the time (and still believe) that a better use of the troops we sent into Iraq would have been to put them all on the ground in Afghanistan in order to capture bin Laden in an attempt to behead the al Qaeda monster once and for all. Now, I am convinced that going into Iraq was, and has been, an exercise in futility and a waste of time and resources.

That, however, does not change my support for Bush, because I am not convinced that Gore would have been the right man for the job after September 11, and I do not believe that Kerry had any exit strategy that would clean up the mess in Iraq. (As an aside, had Kerry actually posed a viable exit strategy for Iraq, it might have won him the election.) Yes, I do acknowledge that Iraq is a mess and that we should be out of there as soon as possible, especially in light of recent events in this country. I cannot support continuing to spend millions of dollars to rebuild Iraq when that money would be better spent rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

With all that being said, let’s get to your letter. You raise legitimate concerns about Michael Brown, the FEMA director (who has already resigned). But let’s not pretend (as you seem to do) that Brown was the first political hack appointed to a position based more on who he knew than what he knew. Brown is only one of many such appointees in this administration. And let’s be candid: Clinton did it. Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt -- they all did it too. These political appointments are rewards for folks who helped, in one way or another, get the President elected and, 99 times out of 100, these appointments simply fly under the radar because they are “business-as-usual.”

Were it not for Katrina, Brown’s appointment would have flown under the radar as well, just as most of the political appointments that came before it did. It’s a disgrace that such appointments happen. It’s also a fact of life that this is the way our system works. If you have a solution to this particular problem that would cover all political appointments by either party, I would be happy to hear it.

You raise concerns about Michael Chertoff, alleging that he has “little experience in national security.” The problem with your complaint is that there is no way to assess the appropriate experience level for the Director of Homeland Security. Where does one gain experience in dealing with terror cells and preparing for and thwarting an endless variety of threats to our borders? As you well know, the Department of Homeland Security is less than four years old. It would seem to me that the best qualifications for the Director of this nascent department would be intelligence, an ability to think on one’s feet, and a willingness and ability to adapt to an ever-changing environment. Chertoff, a former US Attorney and judge, would seem to have these qualities. I would, however, be happy to hear what you believe are the necessary qualifications for the Director.

You claim that we are “the laughing stock of the world[.]” I am curious as to your source for this claim. My wife works for an international company and, while there is some curiosity on the part of her colleagues from overseas about the choices this country makes, I do not get the impression that the United States is seen as a “laughing stock” by anyone.

The danger of your use of the inflammatory phrase “laughing stock” (apart from the fact that it has no factual support), is that those who accept your word at face value will believe it to be gospel. It is one thing to make a point and support it with facts. It is entirely different to make a statement, claim it is a fact, and invite people to rely on it without supporting the statement with any evidence of its truth. It is your kind of “argument” that has reduced the political discourse in this country to the war of unsubstantiated sound bites it has become.

You attack the President and McCain and “their rich pals” for “stuffing themselves with cake” when the hurricane hit. I’m not sure what your point in this particular attack is, except as a fairly weak attempt to analogize the President to Marie Antoinette. I absolutely agree that the President should have been far more responsive. I’ll direct you to my own blog for my thoughts on this, and I’d like you to notice the difference between your complaints and mine. I actually propose workable solutions that could have, and should have, been employed. You do nothing but rail against the President without posing a single answer to the problems of which you complain. Surely you are familiar with the old adage that it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

You complain about “horrible poverty,” a poor education system and a lack of health care benefits for millions, yet you fail to present a single suggestion to help remedy the situation or to pose a single solution to any problem. Worse, you disingenously attempt to pin the blame for all of these problems on Bush when you surely know that there is no causal relationship between Bush in the White House and the existence of the problems you highlight. Certainly you realize that much of the problem with our education system lies at the feet of the local boards of education, many of which believe that something as basic as memorizing the multiplication tables is no longer necessary and that phonetic spelling is an acceptable alternative to learning the rules of the English language.

In addition, poverty and the problems with our health care system have existed in this country for decades. Don’t forget that during President Clinton’s first two years in office, with a Democratic controlled Congress, poverty did not end and the health care crisis worsened. In fact, the biggest change resulting from Clinton’s first two year’s in office was the return of a Republican majority to both the House and the Senate. Volumes have been written on why this happened, but the point is this -- poverty continued to exist and the health care system continued to deteriorate despite the presence of a person whom I am sure you would consider a “good man” in the White House. While it would be nice if the President could wave a wand to cure all of our social ills, we both know that solutions to these problems are far beyond the ability of any one man, or one woman, to solve on his or her own.

I don’t pretend to have solutions to all of these problems. However, I also don’t pretend that the cause of all of these problems is “Democrats” or some other target at which I may wish to spew bile. Demonizing the President does not solve them, nor does assessing blame without posing solutions.

You ask if I “really feel safe.” My answer is: “yes.” I feel safe, albeit not because of any particular thing that the President has or has not done. I feel safe because of the fact that we, as a people, are more fully aware now that there are active and very real threats to us out there, and that those threats know no border. Knowledge is, after all, power. I also feel safer because I believe that the government is aware of those threats and is better prepared -- although far from fully prepared -- to deal with them.

Does Katrina show that we are unprepared for such threats? Not at all. Katrina shows that the administration dropped the ball when it came to preparing for and responding to a natural disaster the likes of which had never before been seen in this country. It is a horrible tragedy that the disaster occurred at all, and it is shameful that the Federal government (as well as the state and local governments) obviously botched the response. The Federal government’s painfully slow response, however, is not an indictment of this country’s overall level of preparedness to face threats from beyond its borders, or of its ability to right itself and recover from a disaster.

Is George W. Bush the greatest president we’ve ever had? Not even close. Let’s just say he’s among the twenty-two presidents that make the top twenty possible. But, given the choices we’ve had over the past two elections, I’m glad that he was the president on September 11, 2001 (the seven-minute delay notwithstanding) because I believe that the initial response and focus of this country in the wake of those attacks was correct and appropriate, and he was the architect and voice of that initial response.

You claim that Bush was not “up for the job.” I’m not certain that any person would have been up for the job that confronted the Presidency after September 11, 2001. While I part ways with the President on many things, given the choices we had, I cannot say that I would rather have anyone else in the White House, either on September 11, 2001 or today.

You say in your letter that you “have an idea” on how to fix things. I look forward to hearing it.

Very truly yours,


David P. Kendall

Message to the President: You need to do something.

The President needs to do something in Lousiana.

Anything.

There’s no reason not to.

And there’s plenty of things he can do. We have the power, the resources, and the ability to help our fellow citizens out, and we should do so. After all, if we can put 100,000 boots on the ground in Iraq, there’s no reason why we can’t put at least 10,000 boots on the ground in New Orleans.

And no, I’m not suggesting we invade New Orleans. Let’s not get crazy here; I’m not advocating that we conduct a military coup in order to overthrow the Mayor’s administration and take over the city.

But we have resources available that can be used on a moment’s notice in hot spots around the world. Is there any hotter spot, from a purely American standpoint, than New Orleans and the Gulf Coast?

The Marines have always been the President’s 911 force. In case of emergency, the President calls the Marines, and they go in and put out the fires. That call should have been made no later than Monday night. The Marines have ready response units that can deploy in 12 hours or less. Had that call been made, the first Marines could have been on the ground Tuesday morning.

Imagine Marines on the ground by sunrise Tuesday. They could have been building pontoon bridges to get people in and out. They could have started bringing supplies into and out of New Orleans -- things like water, food, and even something as mundane as porta-potties.

The Marines could have landed amphibious units within hours to help maintain order. (Again, I’m not advocating usurping civilian authority in favor of military control. But this was -- and remains -- a unique situation that continues to spiral out of control.) The Marines could have been patrolling the streets -- strictly in a “support-the-police” kind of way -- helping them round up the thugs and looters who are taking pot shots at the authorities and stealing those all-important televisions and digital cameras.

I know that many of the prisons and jails in the area have been emptied due to flooding. However, I hear there’s a prison down in Guantanamo Bay that’s been receiving some use lately. The Marines could have loaded up a C-130 transport plane with some prisoners to hold them at Gitmo -- just temporarily, of course. They could have made a drop of a plane-load at Gitmo and been back for another pick-up in less time than it takes to process a prisoner in the local precinct house.

People are still without homes and without shelters in the streets and on the overpasses around New Orleans. Even now, the Marines could erect a tent city or two and use jeeps, humvees, transport trucks, and whatever other vehicles they have, to bring people to safety. Of course no one wants to live in a tent city for any length of time. But I’m thinking that would beat living on a freeway overpass, at least for the short term.

The Army could be brought it with some MASH units to administer to the folks who need aid, and the Navy, which, last I heard, still has a boat or two, could pull a couple of ships out of service -- even if they pull them out of mothballs -- just to have some more temporary lodging. New Orleans is, after all, a port. I figure there’s a place to park a ship or two.

I’m not saying it would be easy. But we managed to get to Baghdad in 72 hours, through hostile territory, 10,000 miles away. I’m thinking we could have gotten to New Orleans in less time, and would have received a far warmer response.

I can hear the naysayers now. “Once we start bringing the military in, aren’t we blurring the lines between our democratic, civilian-controlled government and a dictatorship?” “Don’t we run a risk by letting one man have too much control over too much power, letting him just send the troops in whenever he wants?” “There’s no constitutional provision for this. How can we allow it?” Please.

I’m not suggesting that we shred the constitution. But there’s no disaster handbook that anyone can go to for instructions on how to handle this kind of thing. Katrina is a once-in-a-lifetime event. It created a unique situation that required an inspired and -- most importantly -- a rapid response. September 11th was horrendous and terrifying, but the breadth and the scope of the devastation on that day did not approach what happened -- and is ongoing -- in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. These people -- these Americans -- need help, protection, and assurances from their Government.

Once order is restored, and our people at least have some sort of protection and some semblance of a return to normalcy, we can have the troops stand down. But in the meantime, we should be helping our own people at least as much as we’re out there trying to help others.

Scenes From a Disaster Give Us a Reason to Help

A family of four, carrying everything they own in three bags and a shopping cart, leaves a shelter in favor of the streets because they don’t feel safe in the shelter.

Dozens of people camped out on a freeway overpass on I-10 because it was the highest point around. One woman, nine months pregnant, is feeling labor pains. Another woman points to a body on the highway below and explains that it was someone who jumped from the overpass because his despair was so overwhelming. A third shows us her mother, suffering from Alzheimers’, who has no idea what’s going on, or where she is.

Looters ransacking stores. They’re taking food, water, and juice. Inexplicably, they’re also taking televisions, electronics and guns -- and smiling for the cameras as they do it.

State and federal officials attempt to evacuate the Superdome, and they are greeted with gunfire.

Hundreds of adults (just like you and me) going into Day Three without having had access to a bathroom -- or any running water of any kind -- for over 72 hours.

Parents have to re-use disposable diapers for their babies because they have no clean ones to use.

People are advised that certain areas of the city aren’t safe because the city emptied its jails when the flood waters started to rise, so there’s no telling who you might run into, or what they might try to do.

A TV reporter is told by police not to open a bottle of water because he might attract the wrong kind of attention.

Dead bodies float by, in places that were once streets.

Officials speculate that there may still be a significant increase in the death toll, but they cannot yet tell because too many houses, apartments and buildings remain completely submerged. They worry publicly about what they may find in the attics of those buildings.

People are talking seriously about abandoning a city. Not some old silver-mining town in the plains of the southwest that dried up shortly after the silver ran out. No, this is a full-blown City in the United States of America that has simply ceased to be, and that some experts say may never be again.

The devastation is total. The misery is only just beginning. But I cannot believe that New Orleans will not be back, or that we -- as a country, and as a people -- will not overcome this disaster. Even now, people from all over the United States are mobilizing, ready to bring with them to the Crescent City food, drink, generators, supplies, and their skills in searching, rescuing, and rebuilding. Millions of dollars are pouring in to the Red Cross to aid the victims. Sites like Stormaid.com have been designed to funnel money directly to where it is needed most, so that those of us who are in a position to do so can help those of us who need it.

We are resilient in this country. We do not give up. We get up, we dust ourselves off, and we get going again. Let’s not forget that, after 9/11, they were predicting that it would take years to clear Ground Zero, and that life would not be the same for a long, long time. But hot-dog carts and street vendors plied their wares on the street within weeks of the disaster, the site of the World Trade Center was cleared in months, not years, and the entire area is now the subject of the usual squabbling amoung warring political factions, each with its own agenda, and none of which actually remember the feelings, or heed the wishes, of the families who lost so many that day.

Katrina will never be forgotten, and neither will the disaster area she left behind. But we, as a nation, will help our fellow citizens overcome the destruction she brought because that’s what we do. Houston has volunteered the Astrodome as a temporary home for the displaced thousands from New Orleans. Why? Because it’s what we do. Within a thirty minute span, people in the New York metropolitan area donated over three million dollars (that’s a rate of $100,000 a minute) to a local telethon that was raising money to aid the Red Cross in its rescue efforts. Why? Because it’s what we do.

It is so incredibly sad to see what folks are going through in New Orleans, in Biloxi, and all along the Gulf Coast. But the disaster is not a cue to throw up our hands and surrender to the fates. It just means that we, as a nation, have to roll up our collective sleeves and pitch in to help each other get through yet another one. It’s a big one, to be sure. But we can do it. We’ve done it before, and we’ll do it again because we take that word “United” pretty damn seriously.

I’m doing what I can to help. I hope you will too.

Red Cross: 1-800-HELP-NOW, or www.redcross.org.

www.stormaid.com

Gouging

A sign of the times:




Gouging: That’s the nicest word I can come up with when talking about what the gasoline stations are doing to us now. Robbery works, too. “License to steal” is nicely descriptive. “Thieving weasels” has a nice ring to it. However you describe it, what’s happening is just not right.

Now, don’t go off on the “we’ve got to wean ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil” tangent, and don’t get all “electric powered cars” on me, either. I don’t disagree with any of that, in a big picture kind of way. But that’s not what this rant is about.

This is about me leaving my house at 8:20 this morning with mid-grade gas costing $2.59 a gallon, and coming home at lunch with the same gas costing $3.21 a gallon. And it wasn’t just one station. It was across the board, a 60 to 75 cent per gallon increase, at almost every station I passed. The one station that was still below three bucks a gallon was changing their prices as I sat there getting the last of their $2.75 a gallon petrol.

That’s ridiculous. We all know there’s no justification for that kind of jump. Even with Katrina, any purported effects could not possible have reached the pumps in less than 48 hours. I know that there’s been a disruption of service – I get that. But the gulf provides no more than 25% (some say as little as 7%) of the oil used by the US. Even if the entire gulf shuts down, does that justify this spike in a single afternoon? And even with the loss of the Port of New Orleans as a delivery point, does that mean that no gas is getting through anymore? I don’t think so. (And don’t get me started on the fact that, as I understand it, OPEC produces a barrel of oil for roughly 4 bucks each. Where is this 70 dollar price coming from, if not from pure speculation?)

What we have here is a systematic case of price gouging -- pure and simple. Sure, everyone talks about the “razor thin” profit margins of gas station owners, and how they’ve got to account for every increase in oil prices. But what basis is there for a 60 cent per gallon bump in the span of four hours? Is it to offset a projected future cost? Is it a jump out of fear? Even with nine refineries going off-line (which is the last number I heard) how does that result in a 60 cent increase in a single afternoon? More importantly, even if all of these things happen, how is it that every single gas station around, owned by several different oil companies and numerous independent franchisees, all felt the need, on exactly the same day and at roughly the same time, to increase gas prices by more than 20% per gallon? (Cue the “X-Files” conspiracy music, please). (I should note that, to there credit, out of the dozens of gas stations around us, one Hess station and one Mobile station had not raised their prices above the $3.00 per gallon mark as of 6:00 p.m. EDT. Let’s see how long that lasts.)

The worst part is that there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it. Nothing. You can’t boycott one station, because they’re all doing it You can’t pull out your steam-powered car because -- oh yeah, no one makes them. Most of us can’t bike the double-digit mileage to our offices (and in 90 degree heat with 90 percent humidity, who’d want to?). We’re stuck, and it aggravates the hell out of me.

What to do? I wish I knew. I work in an office of four, and we all come from four different directions, so car-pooling is not feasible. I travel to various locations for my work, so I’ve got to drive. (I’d consider a horse, but I’m not certain where I’d hook my EZ pass.)

Seriously, I blame the oil companies, and I blame the gas station owners. But you know what? Someone else shares the blame as well. The media. Yes, the media is always an easy target. However, I have very clear recollections of the media trumpeting -- over and over, in multiple reports -- how Katrina may impact oil production in the gulf. May. Not will. May.

No one knows exactly what happened to oil production in the gulf yet. No matter. "May" equals "will" in this world of ours. Oil futures jump. Speculators speculate. People panic. And it now costs me $40 to get half-a-tank of gas.