Minimizing Choices

When dealing with complex issues, paradoxes become commonplace. In 1931, the federal government of the United States decided that minority construction companies were taking jobs away from white construction companies. The reason was that the minorities were willing to perform the work for less pay. The government's solution was to create legislation called the Davis-Bacon Act. It's purpose was to require the government to allow construction bids to contractors who pay "union wages". This allowed the white-run companies to reclaim many of the jobs they were losing. It didn't end there. The Davis-Bacon Act was successful at pricing minorities out of jobs, but it applied only to government contracts. Companies not under government contracts wanted in on this idea as well. They got there way and the minimum wage laws were enacted.

So, here's our paradox. We are always hearing arguments favoring hiking up minimum wage, whether it's on a national or state basis. The arguments always take the stand that raising minimum wage will aid low-end workers and minorities. Politicians, who want to be seen as the type who "looks out for the little guy" use minimum wage to perpetuate that persona. Yet, minimum wage was never there to help these low-end workers. Not only that, study after study has shown the following. This is from the Joint Economic Committee:

The minimum wage reduces employment.
Currie and Fallick (1993), Gallasch (1975), Gardner (1981), Peterson (1957), Peterson and Stewart (1969).

The minimum wage reduces employment more among teenagers than adults.
Adie (1973); Brown, Gilroy and Kohen (1981a, 1981b); Fleisher (1981); Hammermesh (1982); Meyer and Wise (1981, 1983a); Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981); Neumark and Wascher (1992); Ragan (1977); Vandenbrink (1987); Welch (1974, 1978); Welch and Cunningham (1978).

The minimum wage reduces employment most among black teenage males.
Al-Salam, Quester, and Welch (1981), Iden (1980), Mincer (1976), Moore (1971), Ragan (1977), Williams (1977a, 1977b).

The minimum wage helped South African whites at the expense of blacks.
Bauer (1959).

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally.
Behrman, Sickles and Taubman (1983); Linneman (1982).

The minimum wage hurts the unskilled.
Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers.
Brozen (1962), Cox and Oaxaca (1986), Gordon (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low wage workers particularly during cyclical downturns.
Kosters and Welch (1972), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage increases job turnover.
Hall (1982).

The minimum wage reduces average earnings of young workers.
Meyer and Wise (1983b).

The minimum wage drives workers into uncovered jobs, thus lowering wages in those sectors.
Brozen (1962), Tauchen (1981), Welch (1974).

The minimum wage reduces employment in low-wage industries, such as retailing.
Cotterman (1981), Douty (1960), Fleisher (1981), Hammermesh (1981), Peterson (1981).

The minimum wage hurts small businesses generally.
Kaun (1965).

The minimum wage causes employers to cut back on training.
Hashimoto (1981, 1982), Leighton and Mincer (1981), Ragan (1981).

The minimum wage has long-term effects on skills and lifetime earnings.
Brozen (1969), Feldstein (1973).

The minimum wage leads employers to cut back on fringe benefits.
McKenzie (1980), Wessels (1980).

The minimum wage encourages employers to install labor-saving devices.
Trapani and Moroney (1981).

The minimum wage hurts low-wage regions, such as the South and rural areas.
Colberg (1960, 1981), Krumm (1981).

The minimum wage increases the number of people on welfare.
Brandon (1995), Leffler (1978).

The minimum wage hurts the poor generally.
Stigler (1946).

The minimum wage does little to reduce poverty.
Bonilla (1992), Brown (1988), Johnson and Browning (1983), Kohen and Gilroy (1981), Parsons (1980), Smith and Vavrichek (1987).

The minimum wage helps upper income families.
Bell (1981), Datcher and Loury (1981), Johnson and Browning (1981), Kohen and Gilroy (1981).

The minimum wage helps unions.
Linneman (1982), Cox and Oaxaca (1982).

The minimum wage lowers the capital stock.
McCulloch (1981).

The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure.
Adams (1987), Brozen (1966), Gramlich (1976), Grossman (1983).

The minimum wage increases teenage crime rates.
Hashimoto (1987), Phillips (1981).

The minimum wage encourages employers to hire illegal aliens.
Beranek (1982).

Few workers are permanently stuck at the minimum wage.
Brozen (1969), Smith and Vavrichek (1992).

The minimum wage has had a massive impact on unemployment in Puerto Rico.
Freeman and Freeman (1991), Rottenberg (1981b).

The minimum wage has reduced employment in foreign countries.
Canada: Forrest (1982); Chile: Corbo (1981); Costa Rica: Gregory (1981); France: Rosa (1981).

Even the New York Times published an article in 1987 called “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00” Whenever minimum wage rises, employers are forced to evaluate the situation and make some hard decisions about cutting hours, cutting benefits, or just cutting out the workers altogether. In many low-wage situations, there are automation alternatives (i.e. computers or robotics) that are available. There is a threshold to the employer as to when it's time to replace humans with machines and that threshold is often dependent on the minimum wage.

Most politicians are aware of many of these studies, yet they continue to jabber on about how necessary the minimum wage is. Why would they do this? They are pandering to an American public they feel is too dumb to figure this stuff out. Paradoxes can be difficult to explain so they don't want to bother because they can appease more people quickly by just raising the minimum wage. This is similar to the way politicians deride "taxes for the rich". These taxes have helped our economy immensely but left-wing politicians refuse to accept that. It's another paradox that's easy to believe in the wrong choice.

Think of it this way. If you are making minimum wage, then your employer is only paying you what he is forced by the government to pay you. Therefore, you are overpaid.

#6

As college football season begins this week, I can't help but be stunned that the USC Trojans are ranked number 6 in the nation. This is a team that has lost a Heismann-winning quarterback and running back. Also, they lost one of the best power-running backs in the country. Last year, I felt coach Pete Carroll was the greatest coach in college football. He led a team that had lost virtually, an entire defense from the previous year including all-americans such as Tatupu, Patterson, Cody, and Udeze (who now all happen to be budding NFL stars). Despite these significant losses, USC almost won a third consecutive national title. If this Trojan team finishes in the top 10 this year, Carroll will have to be considered one of the greatest coaches in NCAA history.

Personally, I believe this is going to be somewhat of a down year and they'll finish around 8-4.

Something's Fishy

I commute by Metrolink train every weekday. On Monday morning, Aug 14, 2006, we were delayed 2 hours. Our destination of Union Station in Los Angeles was visible from the window. The conductor repeatedly apologized, but gave no explanation as to what was going on. That afternoon, I saw a news bulletin from Metrolinktrains.com. It stated the following:

SIGNAL MALFUNCTION DELAYS TRAINS BOUND FOR LOS ANGELES 08/15/2006

Many Metrolink trains bound for Los Angeles today encountered delays of between 30 and 75 minutes this morning due to a signal system malfunction at the entrance to Union Station. This malfunction prevented switches on the lead tracks at the entrance to the depot from being operated properly and greatly limited the number of trains that could enter and depart the station at any one time. In addition, the malfunction caused the cancellation of 7 other trains this morning.

An investigation into the situation has revealed that metal clips used during the installation of a new crossover switch at Union Station this weekend caused an electrical short in the signal system at that location as trains began to pass over early this morning. These clips help hold the metal rails to the ties underneath. The clips have been removed and the installation of replacement clips will take place shortly.

When I read this, it occurred to me that maybe this talk of metal clips causing problems with the switches was perhaps, not just a mere accident. Something seemed to have happened to the clips over the weekend. Was it vandalism or even terrorism? I didn't give my own conspiracy theory too much credit until the next day.

On Tuesday, I wanted to look at the news bulletin again. I went to http://www.metrolinktrains.com/news_update/detail.php?news_id=4b3922 and found that the bulletin I had read a day earlier was gone! Instead, a new bulletin, titled with the same name, had taken the other one's place.


SIGNAL MALFUNCTION DELAYS TRAINS BOUND FOR LOS ANGELES 08/15/2006

Metrolink would like to apologize again for the delayed and cancelled trains on the morning of August 14. The signal system malfunction that occurred at Union Station was resolved later that morning and trains operated on schedule into the depot today. Our staff is reviewing our procedures and will make any changes necessary to insure our passengers are not inconvenienced again.

Updated on 8/15/06

Now I really wonder if my little theory was right. Did someone perhaps, try to get some trains to collide coming into L.A. that morning? I doubt it would be anything like Al Queda, but I can definitely see some local degenerate behind such an action. I'll probably never know.

This is Why They Fail

I am still shaking my head over the recent Dodger trade. I shouldn't really because this has just become an annual event. Dodger management, which lately has turned over almost as often as the roster, decides it has to trade some key personnel for some rent-a-star. This year, it was Cesar Izturis for Greg Maddux. As a Dodger fan, this just makes no sense. Izturis is as good a defensive infielder in the game as anyone. He proved himself the past few years as a premier shortstop. This year, he showed he was equally amazing as a 3'rd baseman. His hitting improves every year. He is dedicated ballplayer who takes extra practice and prides himself on his defense. He is all upside.

I've been a fan of Greg Maddux for years. He has been the most consistently good pitcher in baseball for the past 20 years. While other hurlers make more press with no-hitters and lots of strikeouts, Maddux just wins and wins. But even great ones like Greg Maddux decline. His 9-11 record and 4.69 ERA are strong indications that he is not what he once was.

Are the Dodgers better now? It seems very doubtful to me. Maddux may win, what? 4 games between now and the end of the year? That's about as optimistic as I can get about this. Is that going to put the Dodgers in the playoffs? Right now, they are 51-55, in 3'rd place and 4 games out of the wild-card. I just don't see Maddux getting us over the hump. I haven't given up on this season, but if the Dodgers should get hot and overcome their deficit, I don't think anybody is going to see this trade as that turning point.

What really kills me, though, is what about next year? and the year after that? Maddux will likely be gone, and unfortunately, so is Izturis. General Manager Colletti should have done the brave thing and just said "no". Instead he did this trade so he can explain at the end of the season when the Dodgers have failed, yet again, that he tried.

Drunk Driving is Okay - Just Don't Be an Anti-Semite

I am going to talk about the recent Mel Gibson incident. First of all, I am not going to defend Mr. Gibson's actions in the slightest way. Drunk driving is despicable. There is no excuse for it. If you are an alcoholic, then at least be responsible enough to know you can't drive. This is a crime that I believe should have severe consequences, even for your first offense. I'll embellish that statement in an upcoming blog entry. I understand he had a blood-alcohol level around .25% That's 3 times the legal limit and its not his first offense. If someone goes out and drinks the 10 drinks or so it takes to get that much alcohol in his/her bloodstream, getting behind the wheel is the equivalent of taking a rifle and shooting it repeatedly in random directions. Someone might get injured or killed, maybe not. Gibson should be in prison for life.

I guess celebrity drunk driving just isn't a big issue. Patrick Kennedy got caught last month. It seems to be a fairly regular occurrence. It's apparently, not a very big deal. However, it is a big deal when Gibson goes on an anti-Semitic tirade. I'm not going to defend Gibson at all. On television, his remarks are everywhere. The drunk driving part of the story is just used as a framework around the focal point of his statements.

In his drunken state, Gibson's car was a deadly weapon. He could have killed or injured one or more people. Gibson's words are going to hurt him more than anyone in the Jewish community. Gibson threw the proverbial stone from his glass house. He works in Hollywood where rumor has it that there are a few Jews with a great deal of power there. Gibson is going to be subjected to boycotts and refusals by studios. In fact, I understand that ABC has already cancelled the work on his holocaust mini-series.

Gibson was compelled to apologize to the Jewish community for his remarks. I say Gibson should also apologize to the city of Malibu for putting its citizens in mortal danger.

All Class

Its getting close to August. I feel like I'm supposed to be concentrating on baseball and my beloved Dodgers. Unfortunately, they are letting me down again, in a big way. It's been two weeks since the All-Star break and the Dodgers have won 1 game. So, like most recent years, my attention, sports-wise starts to move on to football.

As a long-time devoted Rams fan, I am saddened that Marshall Faulk continues to have problems with his knees. He will miss the entire season and go through, yet another, in a long series, of knee surgeries. Faulk represents the epitome of class in the NFL. In a league known for it loud-mouthed showboats, Faulk, in his prime was a better player than the Terrell Owens and Keyshawn Johnsons out there. That's because he knew it was never about him, it was always about the team and about winning.

I remember the 2002 season, after the Rams went to the Superbowl, they were having a bad season. Bob Costas interviewed Faulk and began asking him what was wrong with this team that was heavily favored to go back to the Superbowl. Faulk began trying to answer the questions, but had to finally walk out of the interview, apologizing as he walked out "I'm sorry but I just can't do this." Costner later explained on his show that Faulk had told him that the Rams poor start that year (I believe they were 0-5 at the time) was just eating him alive.

In last year's off-season, there were speculations that the Rams would trade or even release Marshall Faulk. Instead, Faulk voluntarily took a cut in pay and demoted himself to the number 2 running back. Why? Because he knew his role had changed and he could best serve the team by being a mentor to the Ram's new running back, Stephen Jackson. Again, it was team first with him.

It is a shame if this marks the end of the playing career of Marshall Faulk. If it is the end, I am really hoping the Rams keep him on staff. He's going to be a great head coach someday.

Just trying to Clear my Good Name

"YOu on the right. That's you. You sick demented psychopaths...That's you"

"...take no responsibility for the current problems of the world. That's you!"

"And it's obvious you have never learned of the effects of a nuclear blast"

"Just also remember Robert being a conservative puts you in the same bed as Rush, O'Reilly etc. whether you agree with them or not."

Over the past year, Erik Weinberger and I have engaged in numerous debates. In this time, I've been directly called "demented", a "psychopath" and indirectly called ignorant. Erik, on numerous occasions has called me a "Republican" even though I've repeatedly told him I'm an Independent. So, that's even more disrespect. I soaked all this in. I didn't like it but I figured Erik was just lashing out his anger. Anyone who reads Erik's blog or the comments he has put on mine will realize that Erik holds a lot of hostility. Erik places the bulk of his anger conveniently on right-wingers, of whom, he obviously hates. I'm not a psychologist so my assessment ends here.

Yes, I took the abuse and I'm proud to say that I did not reciprocate. I looked at all my comments and postings and I can honestly say I never called Erik names or drew conclusions about him simply because of his political views. The most I ever did was call Erik childish, only because he was. Erik also accuses me of getting offended by his political views. I never have. I will take issue however, when he attacks me personally.

"It's funny how it's ok if you are a conservative how it's ok for you to be openly racist AS THEY ALL ARE"

I drew the line here. Now, I'm a racist? According to this remark, not only am I a racist, but so are many members of my family, many of my friends, and many people whom I've never met but have great respect for. When I got angry for this and asked for an apology, Erik said I have sour grapes and also said the following:

"I'm not apologizing for stating facts for what your party and your views stand for and that's what they stand for."

He not only indirectly calls me a Republican again, he reaffirms his earlier statement.

"I will not apologize for calling conservatives racists WHEN THEY ARE"

This was his own response on his own blog. So, not only does Erik not apologize for calling me (a long-time acquaintance and someone I believed was my friend), a racist, he has repeated the accusation twice.

This is a blow I am not going to sit and take. Calling someone racist, in my mind, is very serious. I take personal responsibility and strive for fairness at all times. I know too many good people who are not racists to let this slide.

Of course, the irony really is that Erik tagged an entire group of people with a negative label. That's the very basis of racism - applying a belief on an entire group of people based on what one perceives in one or a few. Erik's statement doesn't apply to people of a different skin color than his, but the principle is still there.

I am angry. His accusations are uncalled for and have no basis, whatsoever. I have deleted the link to his blog. I will no longer contribute to his site. If any readers want to see his narrow-minded blog, just click on his name in any of his comments. I just will not openly endorse him. This isn't about freedom of speech. I am not censoring anybody but I am attempting to clear my name.

And Erik, if I am a racist, that doesn't say much for you. After all, we did hang around together all those years.

Right Over Wrong

I have removed the link to Erik's site due to a particularly offensive, and ridiculous ad hominem remark he made today, July 20. 2006. He basically stated that all conservatives are racists. Speaking as one of the 99% of conservatives who aren't racists, I won't endorse or contribute to Erik's site until there is an apology to the vast majority of us conservatives who aren't racist.

What is an American Car?

It's funny how we are such creatures of habit. In the case of car brands, most of us tend to look at the industry in traditional ways even though it has gone through huge changes in the past decade or so. Ask most people what an American car is and you'll most likely get an answer of "GM, Ford, and Chrysler" or some mixture of their subsidiaries (Chevrolet, Mercury, Dodge, etc). Those who answer this way will most likely think of cars with the badges of Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Honda, and Mazda as Japanese and Mercedes, BMW, and Volkswagen as German.

As I already stated, the auto industry has changed. While the above answers would be fairly true had the question been asked in the 1980's, the answer today is much more muddled. The U.S. government began putting higher tariffs on imported vehicles in the 1980's. This led to foreign manufacturers to be incented to build their cars and trucks here in the United States. Meanwhile, the "Big 3" American automakers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) set up plants in Mexico and Canada to take advantage of cheap labor. So, paradoxically, manufacturers seen as foreign are building as many cars in America as the manufacturers thought of as American. In fact, the large pickup trucks made by Nissan and Toyota (the Titan and Tundra, respectively) were designed and are built and sold exclusively in North America. Orange County, California is now the automobile design capital of the world. Almost any modern car, SUV, or truck you see on the road today was designed in Irvine or somewhere close to it. The Honda Accord is sold world-wide but the Accord you see in the United States is not the same one the rest of the world has. The U.S. Accord is larger. If you want an Accord like the rest of the world, you can buy an Acura TSX.

If you are wondering what cars actually are manufactured in the United States. I've compiled a list (Thank you Autobytel). Most vehicles today are comprised of a certain percentage of foreign parts and this list does not cover that. Note that I include the parent companies and their subsidiaries. Many people aren't aware of how few actual companies there are. Also note that some vehicles by one manufacturer are built by another manufacturer. Such is the case where Dodge builds the Mitsubishi Raider pickup truck, which is, in fact, a modified Dodge Dakota.

BMW

• X5 - Spartanburg, South Carolina
• Z4 - Spartanburg, South Carolina

Daimler-Chrysler

• Sebring Convertible - Sterling Heights, Michigan
• Sebring Coupe - Normal, Illinois
• Sebring Sedan - Sterling Heights, Michigan
• Town & Country - St. Louis, Missouri

Daimler-Chrysler-Dodge

• Caravan - St. Louis, Missouri
• Dakota - Warren, Michigan
• Durango - Newark, Delaware
• Grand Caravan - St. Louis, Missouri
• Sprinter - Gaffney, South Carolina
• Stratus Coupe - Normal, Illinois
• Stratus Sedan - Sterling Heights, Michigan
• Ram - St. Louis, Missouri and Warren, Michigan
• Viper - Detroit, Michigan

Daimler-Chrysler-Jeep

• Commander - Detroit, Michigan
• Grand Cherokee - Detroit, Michigan
• Liberty - Toledo, Ohio
• Wrangler - Toledo, Ohio

Daimler-Mercedes Benz

• M-Class - Vance, Alabama
• R-Class - Vance, Alabama

Ford

• E-Series - Lorain, Ohio
• Escape - Kansas City, Missouri and Avon Lake, Ohio
• Excursion - Kansas City, Missouri
• Expedition - Wayne, Michigan
• Explorer - Louisville, Kentucky and Fenton, Missouri
• F-Series - Dearborn, Michigan; Wayne, Michigan; Kansas City, Missouri; Norfolk, Virginia
• Five Hundred - Chicago, Illinois
• Focus - Wayne, Michigan
• Freestyle - Chicago, Illinois
• GT - Wixom, Michigan
• Ranger - Minneapolis, Minnesota
• Taurus - Atlanta, Georgia
• Thunderbird - Wixom, Michigan

Ford - Lincoln

• Aviator - Fenton, Missouri
• LS - Wixom, Michigan
• Mark LT - Dearborn, Michigan
• Navigator - Wayne, Michigan
• Town Car - Wixom, Michigan

Ford - Mercury

• Mariner - Avon Lake, Ohio
• Montego - Chicago, Illinois
• Mountaineer - Louisville, Kentucky and Fenton, Missouri
• Sable - Atlanta, Georgia

General Motors - Cadillac

• CTS - Lansing, Michigan
• DeVille - Hamtramck, Michigan
• DTS - Hamtramck, Michigan
• Escalade - Arlington, Texas
• SRX - Lansing, Michigan
• STS - Lansing, Michigan
• XLR - Bowling Green, Kentucky

General Motors - Chevrolet

• Cobalt - Lordstown, Ohio
• Colorado - Shreveport, Louisiana
• Corvette - Bowling Green, Kentucky
• Express - Wentzville, Missouri
• Malibu - Kansas City, Missouri
• Malibu Maxx - Kansas City, Missouri
• Silverado - Flint, Michigan; Pontiac, Michigan; Ft. Wayne, Indiana
• SSR - Lansing, Michigan
• Suburban - Arlington, Texas and ; Janesville, Wisconsin
• Tahoe - Arlington, Texas and Janesville, Wisconsin
• TrailBlazer - Moraine, Ohio
• TrailBlazer EXT - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
• Uplander - Doraville, Georgia

General Motors - GMC

• Canyon - Shreveport, Louisiana
• Envoy - Moraine, Ohio
• Envoy XL - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
• Envoy XUV - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
• Savana - Wentzville, Missouri
• Sierra - Flint, Michigan; Pontiac, Michigan; Ft. Wayne, Indiana
• Yukon - Arlington, Texas and Janesville, Wisconsin
• Yukon XL - Arlington, Texas and Janesville, Wisconsin

General Motors - Hummer

• H1 - Mishawaka, Indiana
• H2 - Mishawaka, Indiana
• H3 - Shreveport, Louisiana

General Motors - Pontiac

• G6 - Orion Township, Michigan
• Grand Am - Lansing, Michigan
• Montana SV6 - Doraville, Georgia
• Solstice - Wilmington, Delaware
• Sunfire - Lordstown, Ohio
• Vibe - Fremont, California (by Toyota)

General Motors - Saab

• 9-7X - Moraine, Ohio

General Motors - Saturn

• Ion - Spring Hill, Tennessee
• L-Series - Wilmington, Delaware
• Relay - Doraville, Georgia
• Vue - Spring Hill, Tennessee

Honda

• Accord - Marysville, Ohio
• Civic - East Liberty, Ohio
• Element - East Liberty, Ohio
• Odyssey - Lincoln, Alabama
• Pilot - Lincoln, Alabama

Honda - Acura

• TL - Marysville, Ohio

Hyundai

• Sonata - Montgomery, Alabama
• Santa Fe - Montgomery, Alabama

Mazda

• 6 - Flat Rock, Michigan
• B-Series - Minneapolis, Minnesota (by Ford)
• Tribute - Kansas City, Missouri (by Ford)

Mitsubishi

• Eclipse - Normal, Illinois
• Endeavor - Normal, Illinois
• Galant - Normal, Illinois
• Raider - Warren, Michigan (by Dodge)

Nissan

• Altima - Smyrna, Tennessee and Canton, Mississippi
• Armada - Canton, Mississippi
• Frontier - Smyrna, Tennessee
• Maxima - Smyrna, Tennessee
• Pathfinder - Smyrna, Tennessee
• Quest - Canton, Mississippi
• Titan - Canton, Mississippi
• Xterra - Smyrna, Tennessee

Nissan - Infiniti

• QX56 - Canton, Mississippi

Subaru

• Baja - Lafayette, Indiana
• B9 Tribeca - Lafayette, Indiana
• Legacy - Lafayette, Indiana
• Outback - Lafayette, Indiana

Toyota

• Avalon - Georgetown, Kentucky
• Camry - Georgetown, Kentucky
• Corolla - Fremont, California
• Sequoia - Princeton, Indiana
• Sienna - Princeton, Indiana
• Tundra - Princeton, Indiana (Soon to be San Antonio, Tx)
• Tacoma - Fremont, California

You may be thinking that some vehicles are missing on this list. If you were looking for any of the following:

Chevrolet Equinox
Chevrolet HHR
Chevrolet Impala
Chevrolet Tahoe
Chrysler 300
Chrysler PT Cruiser
Dodge Charger
Ford Fusion
Ford Mustang

They aren't on the list because they are built in Mexico or Canada.

You may also have noticed that there are few imported luxury cars made in America. That's because these are high priced vehicles anyways and the tariffs don't represent as much a fraction of their sticker price.

Now, whether the vehicle you drive is American-made or not is a personal decision up to you. I, personally would hate to see virtually all of my car-buying dollars get converted to yen or euros. It's not the only factor for me though. I actually came close to buying a Japanese-built Toyota Rav4 this year. Instead, I ended up buying a U.S. built Jeep that is now of course, branded by a German company.

The 2.78% Solution

There's a terrific article in July's Car and Driver magazine titled Ethanol Promises. For the most part, this has been a one-sided argument where ethanol sounds like the holy grail of alternative fuel. I must admit, ethanol sounds very compelling as a fuel source. It's made from corn or soy. What better place in the whole world is there for growing acres upon acres of corn than in the huge corn and wheat belt of the United States (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, etc) ? It sure sounds better than importing smelly, pollution-causing oil from the world's trouble spots (and they are trouble spots mostly because of oil). Before we Americans get too convinced that ethanol is the salvation of all our transportation fuel issues, let's look at these "promises" of ethanol. (From Car and Driver)

• Ethanol will reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.
• Ethanol will cut out dependence on foreign oil.
• Ethanol will protect us from gas price shocks.
• Ethanol will clean up the air.
• Ethanol will save us from global warming.

Ethanol will reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.

This is very unlikely. First of all, the government is currently mandating that gasoline sold in the United States is to comprise of 2.78% ethanol. It's not to hard to figure out that our expanding car-driving population is consuming more gasoline every year, even in this age of hybrids and the return of the small econo-car (Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, and Honda Fit are the primary examples), and $3 plus gas prices, Americans are going to burn 5 to 10% more gasoline this year than last. Very simple math tells us that the 2.78% is not going to cover this increase. What's more is that it takes fossil fuels (mainly coal or natural gas) in order to produce ethanol. More on that further on.

Ethanol will cut out dependence on foreign oil.

The same arguments generally apply here. Car and Driver even states that if we devoted all our production of ethanol to replace foreign oil, we would reduce foreign oil imports by a mere 1.4%. That's assuming, of course, that our demand for energy stays the same, which is not happening. I know, I know, you're asking by now; "Why not produce a lot more ethanol, then?" Read further, I'll get to that.

Ethanol will protect us from gas price shocks.

The arguments shown above indicate why this is very unlikely to be true. Ethanol isn't that cheap to make. In fact, it is only because gasoline has gotten to the $3 mark that justifies even using ethanol.

Ethanol will clean up the air.

Nope. With ethanol, you're substituting one pollutant for another. Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide than gasoline. However ethanol produces a relatively large amount of acetaldehydes that quite harmful to the environment. Don't forget that coal and/or natural gas are required to make ethanol and they are capable of contributing plenty of CO (carbon monoxide) and other nasty stuff to the air.

Ethanol will save us from global warming.

Assuming that human-produced emissions really are significantly warming the planet (this is a highly contestable assertion that I will discuss another time), ethanol's carbon dioxide output is only about 4% less than gasoline's. If we assume that your gas tank is 3% ethanol, that means your car is outputting 4 percent of 3 percent which equals .12 percent less carbon dioxide. That's hardly a big deal.

What Car and Driver Didn't Say

Anyone who has ever studied thermodynamics knows the first rule of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred. Your car, for example, cannot generate enough electricity to run itself and it never will. It's totally impossible. This basic rule is why fossil fuels have such appeal. The amount of energy needed to extract and refine fossil fuels is minimal compared with the amount of energy yielded by the fuel. That's because the energy was already there, having been absorbed over millions of years of just sitting there. The problem with ethanol and most other alternative energy sources is we must use significant amounts of energy to get the energy we want.

Ethanol comes from corn. To make corn requires fertilizing soil. Let's think about that one for a minute. Fertilizer comes from manure. There is already a pollution issue in the nation's heartland from all the cows and pigs. When you concentrate these animals, as we have, you get a major source of methane and carbon dioxide, not to mention one hell of a stink. This has been a rising issue in the nation's corn production before ethanol came into the picture.

Ethanol doesn't just squeeze out of the corn. It has to be processed. This is similar to refining oil and here is where we need ovens powered by oil, natural gas, or coal. Wait! you say. Why not use ethanol-powered ovens? If you are thinking this, you've forgotten the first rule of thermodynamics shown above.

Ethanol is not as energy efficient as gasoline. You can expect a small mpg hit when using fuel that is laced with ethanol.

I have to wonder how big an incentive it will be for farmers to start producing corn for ethanol production. I suspect we will see a rise in food prices that will offset any savings (if any) we would get from ethanol.

So who benefits from increased use of ethanol? It appears to be the farmers and the politicians being lobbied. It's not likely to be most of us.

Another New Link

I've added Grendel's Lair to my list of links. Grendel (a.k.a. William Wilson) is my brother. Having known him most of my life, I know he has many worthwhile things to say. Contrary to Erik's insinuation in my previous post Godless, we are not a tag team. I know we will disagree on certain issues and agree on others.

The Godless Religion

I've never been a fan of Ann Coulter. She always has been a bit too sharp-tongued for my taste. I do not, however, put her in the same league with blowhards like Rush Limbaugh. Coulter is very intelligent, perceptive, and demonstrates personal integrity. I do admire her for these attributes. What I don't like about her is her need to lace her book titles and content with shock catchphrases. These phrases are obviously meant to anger liberals to such a point, that the inevitable retaliations give her the publicity she obviously craves. In this regard, Coulter is the 'Madonna' or Michael Jackson of political satire.

I feel a strong need to opine on the onslaught of anger that is being spewed at this insightful woman. The reason I want to comment on this is the backlash against Coulter's newest book Godless: The Church of Liberalism just seems to exemplify the whole liberal vs. conservative conflict.

The title alone obviously qualifies as a "shock" title. It is obviously intended to ruffle feathers and stir up controversy. The title implies that liberals don't believe in God and that the liberal philosophy is in itself, a religion. I haven't read the book although I intend to (I'll wait for it to come out on paperback.) but I have read of it and watched and listened to several interviews with the author. Here are some of the assertions she makes:

"No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion...To them, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate. "

"The thesis of 'Godless' is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)"

Liberals believe we shouldn't use DDT to save people in Africa because "that might kill birds"

"It's one thing if it's 'Tookie' but it's another thing when it's Marines, who are always guilty"

.. And of course, the now infamous

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

I could spend much more time than I care to if I was to address each one of these comments. It is the last one that I'm going to discuss because it is the uproar concerning this statement that reveals the gross amount of liberalism that permeates the media.

The statement strictly concerns four particular women, who lost their husbands on 9/11 and campaigned for John Kerry in 2004. Most of the reports I've seen on television, in the newspapers, and various web sites fail to mention this. They want people, who haven't read the book to believe that Coulter stated this about all 9/11 widows.

I now notice that most web sites omit the first half of the quote. A week ago, the quote in its entirety was spread all over the Internet. Now, you will usually see just: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Why is this? It's because the first half of the quote softens the blow as Coulter indicates how the widows have benefited from their celebrity.

Ann Coulter was interviewed on the Today show by Matt Lauer. I could swear that whenever an author is interviewed on a show, the topic is going to be about the author's just-released book. This is similar to how actor's are usually on Jay Leno or David Letterman to promote the movie they starred in that is opening. So, you'd think that Matt Lauer would allow Ms. Coulter to say some things about her book. Instead, he begins the interview by challenging her on why Republicans are focusing on gay marriage instead of Iraq and gas prices. He persists in this kind of questioning and just plain hounds Coulter on this. Coulter clearly gets exasperated with him. Lauer clearly doesn't want to be a gracious host and seems to want to use this interview to just simply attack his subject. Coulter manages to sneak in a plug for her book 2 and a half minutes into the interview as she reminds Lauer that "there's an important book that comes out today, Matt." Lauer pays no attention to her and continues on with more challenges about Bush's approval rating, immigration, and more Iraq. He finally decides to move on to Godless 3 minutes and 45 seconds into the interview. Of course, he just goes on to attack her there too, particularly about the "broads" quote.

I don't agree at all with Coulter's views on Darwinism. In fact, there's a lot of things she says I don't agree with. I do think she is cold dead on right on the "broads" quote.

The thing about Coulter is that she is all about satire. Unfortunately, many don't understand this and choose to take her completely literally. That's not what satire is about. It's a semi-comedic form of expressing viewpoints by being extreme. George Carlin does similar stuff from the left point of view. It is common in Carlin's monologues to suggest that killing Republicans would be a good thing. Somehow, he doesn't get smacked around for his comments. I wonder why? (Just kidding, and by the way, Carlin is one of my favorite comedians).

The real irony is that the more the Left attacks Coulter, the more attention she creates, and hence: the more books she sells. Godless: The Church of Liberalism has been a huge seller.

The Adult Side of Pixar

I have been a Pixar fan for quite some time. I remember being wowed by the Tin Toy short animation in the mid 1980's. In fact, Pixar's early work helped inspire me to get into 3D animation in the late 1980's. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 to me, represent the pinnacle of the art of combining great visuals with a great story. I thought A Bug's Life was pretty cute, but was a little too kid-oriented for my taste. The similarly-themed Antz from competing company Dreamworks, which came out that same year, was better in my opinion. I never bothered to see Monsters Inc. , Finding Nemo, or The Incredibles. I understand these are very entertaining movies. It's just that they seemed again, too kid-oriented, too focused on cute characters or on bratty kid characters. The beauty of the Toy Story movies is that they beautifully blended adult-oriented humor into simple stories that children would enjoy. While wild antics of Buzz Lightyear and Woody thrilled the kids, adults could enjoy the references, themes, and even the nostalgia of toys such as Mr. Potatohead and the army men.

Michelle and I saw Cars this past weekend. We truly enjoyed it. As always, the visuals alone were spectacularly done. As one who understands what it takes to create 3D imagery, I can truly appreciate the efforts and attention to the slightest detail in the movie. The story was very straightforward. It's about an individual who is too full of himself and his celebrity status. He learns some lessons in life and by the end, is a much more rounded individual. Of course the fact that all the characters are cars is what makes it fun. It is full of car and Route 66 references (The original title was going to be Route 66). The characters see gasoline as food, tires as shoes, and racing stripes as tattoos.

One thing I noticed though, is halfway through the film, the children in the audience (and there were many) were getting bored. I heard kids shouting across the theater to one another and a lot of general chatter among them. I could see why. All the car characters were adults. There was very little physical humor as most of the humor was in the dialogue. Most kids don't know or care what a carburetor or a gasket is, nor do they understand the "Route 66 culture" that prevails throughout the movie. There's a big racing scene at the end and I noticed the kids in the audience quieted down and regained their interest as the cars sped through the laps.

I highly recommend Cars. Just think twice about bringing young children to it. They aren't going to relate to it.

Sorry...

It has always been my intention to create at least one blog entry per week and I do have lots of stuff I want to cover. I do spend time on writing my posts - often hours of writing and re-writing before I eventually post them. That's just how I do things. I'll find the time this week even though I am working 10 hours a day this week and had to work this past weekend.

I do want to comment on Ann Coulter so that will be coming up later.

Since I feel I must say something here, let me just say that if you are looking for a job with real job security, I suggest that you look into becoming a Canon printer repairman.

Da Vinci

I used to go to the movies once a month, sometimes once a week. Last year, Michelle and I went to about 6 movies and most of them were bad. The bad ones included The Phantom of the Opera, The hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Good Night and Good Luck, and Syriana. To be fair, we both enjoyed Batman Begins and Revenge of the Sith. We both somewhat liked Shop Girl.

But last year's poor showing obviously influenced us as we hadn't even seen one film this year until last week when we decided to see The Da Vinci Code. This film is stirring up the pot of religious controversy, which is not a bad thing. So let me discuss what the Da Vinci Code is.

Warning! The following material reveals the Da Vinci Code. If you plan on seeing the movie or are offended by accounts of Jesus that are not in accordance with the Bible, read no further.

After the death of Jesus, followers of his teachings continually grew in number. These early Christians were the subject of much scorn and abuse by the Romans. Eventually, Christianity became the dominant religion of Rome. This forced the Roman government to incorporate Christianity over the then, current multi-god religion (Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc). This occurred in the 4th century. The Romans wanted to stay in control. They reviewed the scriptures and writings of the followers of Jesus and decided what to use and what to throw away. According to The Da Vinci Code, anything that humanized Jesus was tossed. Rome wanted Jesus to be a supernatural being, lest some lowly subject think they could rise to such heights as Jesus. Thus, the new testament of the Bible was created.

Now, if you believe in The Da Vinci Code, you'll believe that the tossed out scriptures were hidden in Egypt with the intention that they would never be found. These scriptures or gospels included the writings of Phillip and Mary Magdalene. They allegedly give accounts of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and being the father of the child she was pregnant with during the crucifixion.

The story alleges that it was Mary Magdalene who was supposed to found the church, not Peter. If the Romans had followed this, the Roman Catholic church would be a matriarchal religion, as opposed to a patriarchal one. This of course, is what the Pope and many Catholics would object to. The story goes on about how the bloodline of Jesus endured and still exists today. In fact, the holy grail or the vessel that contains the blood of Christ is actually Mary Magdalene, not the cup that captured Jesus' blood during the crucifixion.

Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci were supposedly members of a secret society that knew these secrets of the church. This society was (is) known as the Priory of Sion. Da Vinci supposedly hid this truth in his works of art, including The Last Supper and The Mona Lisa.

(End of Spoilers)

Do I believe all this? No, not really because it doesn't seem that there is any definitive account of history when you go back that far. Take the Declaration of Independence signing on July 4, 1776. There are so many journals and biographical material about this event that there is virtually no doubt that it occurred. When you go back 1,700 years ago, there just isn't enough collaborative writing. Historians often have to deal with just one or two accounts of an event. This doesn't mean I rule this stuff out either. I realize some people want to insist that the Bible is the absolute truth, the book that God wrote. These people are going to have a problem with the book and film.

I have a problem with the film. It just isn't that good. It's not terrible but Tom Hanks was mediocre. The film tries to be like an Indiana Jones film but the suspense and narrow escapes are weak compared with those films.

It's About Time

I'll bet you didn't know that the U.S. economy, for the past 5 years has seen incredible, almost unprecedented growth. Unemployment has been hovering at around a low 4 percent, inflation has been almost non-existant, most stocks are rising at healthy rate (not an artifical boom like in the 1990's), and the GNP (gross national product) of the U.S. is at record highs. Going further, home sales are way up and the percentage of Americans who own their own home is at record levels. Also, salaries are up at every level of the employment scale. Minority-owned businesses are seeing unprecedented levels of success.

Yet, as I stated above, I bet you didn't know that. Why do I say that? Because the American Research Group's latest monthly survey found 59 percent of Americans rate the economy as bad, very bad or terrible.

What we see in the news today regarding jobs are stories of how are jobs are being shipped to India. Newspeople are quick to report on rising gasoline prices and how that is going to financially hurt us. Yet, these same journalists are reluctant to report any good news. They don't report that we are better off with a great economy and $3.50 a gallon gas prices than with $2.25 a gallon prices with a lousy economy.

I never want to blame a president of the federal government too much for a bad economy. I also never want to give too much credit to them when the economy is good. But come on, let's give them some credit here. It's obvious to me that the reason the media is so reluctant to report good economic news is they don't like the current administration and they don't want to give any credibility to the fact that much of this economic success is attributed to Bush's tax cuts. After all, before the Iraq invasion, the tax cuts were the principle point of attack against the president by the left. Heaven forbid they admit to being at all wrong about them.

U.S. payrolls jumped by 243,000 in February

Job Growth, Wages Send Mixed Signals

I'm starting to see at least some reports of the good economy from mainstream media sources, that includes the normally very liberal L.A. Times. Even in the Times article, though, they caution that the economic boom may be temporary, which of course it is, but they had to put some negative spin in there.

Kudos

I just want to applaud my fellow co-workers. With 2 exceptions, I, being one of them, our company in downtown Los Angeles is comprised entirely of Latinos. I am pleased that every single one of them came in to work yesterday and did his/her job. I'd like to think they realized that they were fortunate to be in this country and not coming in to work would hurt the very company that is supporting their livelihood.

As for those who did not show up for work in order to use the day to protest, you should all be fired. If you are a student and decided to take advantage of the situation and not attend, you should be held back a grade.

The Threat

Author's Note: I originally intended to submit this 2 weeks ago. Sorry for the delay, it's been a hectic two weeks.

Rising gas prices, strong anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, fear of anhiliation from weapons of mass destruction. These sound like topics of today's headlines. Strangely, enough, they were also among the top stories of 1979. Leading the headlines of that eventful year was the Iran hostage crisis.

It is 27 years later and many Americans are too young or put the ugly incident behind them. Most Iranians, on the other hand, probably still hold the resentment towards the U.S. that stemmed from the 1970's Shah of Iran.

I remember discussions in my youth of the Cold War. I remember the fear and anxiety of nuclear war. The discussion was about the Soviets bombing us. Many of my classmates were really scared that one day, the Soviet Premier would just decide to push the button and launch a massive attack on the United States. I, and a few others, didn't hold so much fear because we believed that the Soviets would know they would lose as much as we would had such an event ever occurred. I remember pointing out that I didn't fear the Soviets. I was much more afraid of a country like Iran ever getting hold of nuclear weapons. I remember the chills that ran down our collective spines at such a thought.

Farewell Luuuuuuuc!

Luc Robitaille is retiring. Like many sports greats, he probably waited 1 or 2 years too long to do so. That, in no way, limits his greatness on and off the ice.

Robitaille had his rookie season for the Los Angeles Kings in 1986 and won the Calder trophy (rookie of the year) that season. In that time when I first heard him interviewed, I felt right then that he was special. He came across as a guy in awe of what he was doing. Unlike so many sports figures, he never seemed to feel he was entitled to any special treatment just because he played professional sports. "Lucky Luc" always played with exuberance and class. He played aggressively but rarely was in fights. He scored goals prolifically and was a major component of the finest era the Kings ever had, that being the Wayne Gretzky days of the late '80s and early '90s. I, and many other fans were heartbroken when the King's traded him to the Penguins after the '93-94 season.

I have many memories of some great plays he made and great goals he scored (a spectacular game-winning goal against Edmonton in the playoff's comes to mind.) I actually think Luc Robitaille's defining moment to L.A. King fans is when he helped the Detroit Red Wings win the Stanley Cup and arranged to show the famous trophy in Los Angeles. This was clearly Robitaille showing his appreciation to his long-time fans.

They called him "Lucky Luc" but it is us fans who should call ourselves lucky to have had the privilege to watch and enjoy him.

Who are these Guys?

Spring is in the air (well, sort of, it's actually raining right now). I usually have a little more bounce in my step this time of year. It's warmer, I can smell the flowers starting to bloom, and baseball season has started. Baseball is the greatest sport ever invented (sorry if it's seems slow and too cerebral to many of you, but it really is.) Opening day was almost like Christmas or my birthday. I would count the days and could hardly sleep the night before. Why am I not this excited any more?

One reason is that I now have a life/wife. :) There's no getting around that. Sports of any kind doesn't quite rule my life the way it once did. Yet, as my interest in sports has declined somewhat, baseball has been the biggest casualty in this decline. I can really only come up with one reason: FREE AGENCY! Yes, it exists in one form or another in every major professional sport but baseball has it big time.

I remember a Seinfeld episode where Jerry Seinfeld deduces that fans don't cheer players, they cheer the uniforms. Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this and I, personally just can't follow sports that way. On the other hand, many fans now resort to rooting for individual players and it doesn't matter what team they are on. People who don't give a hoot about the Green Bay Packers just love Brett Favre. Even worse, some "fans" only follow individual players because they belong to their own fantasy team. I am not of this ilk either.

Call me old fashioned but I want to root for a team. I used to live and die with the 1970's and 80's editions of the Dodgers. I rooted for Sutton, Lopes, Garvey, Smith, Yeager, Guerrero, Scoscia, and Valenzuela. When Bill Buckner was traded in 1977, I was saddened and felt like I'd lost a good friend. These teams weren't always the greatest but I felt they were my team and when they lost, it hurt me and when they won, it was so great. I care so much less for the current flavor of the Dodgers because there's no one on the team I can identify with. 75% of the roster seems to change every year. I realize a lot of this has to do with the fact the Dodgers haven't been very good for a while but it's out of control free agency that is turning rosters around all over Major League Baseball. Am I supposed to like Jeff Kent now? I hated him all of his career until last year when he was a member of those filthy, slimy, maggots known as the San Francisco Giants. It's probably okay, though, he'll likely belong to another club within a year or two because that is how baseball works now.

Let's look at his in another way:

Sandy Koufax: A Dodger who has legendary status in Los Angeles.

Randy Johnson: What team(s) did he play for? What city will remember him best, Seattle, Phoenix, New York, his next team?

Johnny Bench: A catcher who hit with power and drove in a lot of runs and will always be remembered in Cincinnati. A prominent member of the "Big Red Machine" of the 1970's. (Man, I hated him.)

Mike Piazza: A catcher who hit with power and drove in a lot of runs. He was great as a Dodger, he helped the Mets get to the World Series, he is now a Padre and was briefly, a Marlin. What uniform will he be wearing when he gets elected to the Hall of Fame?

For those who follow players, who is a fan of Reggie Sanders? He's a pretty good player who has played for the Reds, Padres, Braves, Diamondbacks, Giants, Pirates, Cardinals, and now the Royals. If you're a Reggie Sanders fan, does that mean you once rooted for all these teams?

Welcome!

Time to get topical for a change

To all those who have recently entered this country, I welcome you to the United States of America. You are in a land that has been graced by a huge variety of scenic beauty. You have entered a land of a variety of cultures. You should find this country more free and full of opportunity than any other place on Earth. Virtually all of us here are immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants so please feel right at home here. If you are willing to work hard and obey our laws, you should do well here.

I do want to point out a few ground rules though.

1. America is a land of opportunity, not entitlement. You should expect to be judged by your actions and words and likewise, you should judge others by their actions and words, not their race, culture, religion, or family name. We don't take kindly to those who claim that their ancestors used to have this land and it was taken away. All of mainland America has been the property of the United States for 100 years or more. I ask you to understand and accept this. I understand that even though I was born in the United States, that does not entitle me to say who can and cannot live in this country as well. It works both ways.
2. While you may certainly have loyalties for your old country, you need to remember you are now in the United States. You are expected to respect the constitution and all the local laws. You are allowed to question the laws and take peaceable action to try to change them if you desire but you must obey them. It is not okay to break a law simply because you feel it is unfair.
3. Please learn the English language. If I emigrated to another country, I would feel it is my responsibility to learn the common language of that nation. Sticking to your native language only creates barriers that lead to alienation and prejudice. It hurts both you and the rest of us if you refuse to learn to speak, read, and write the English language.
4. Don't expect a free ride or special treatment. It is not okay to expect money from our government or free education or free housing. It may be very difficult at first, but success can be achieved if you are ambitious and are willing to put in the time and work. Keep in mind, as I stated earlier, most of our forefathers and mothers had to pay the price to make it in America. It was very tough for them as well.
5. There are those who don't feel as I do. Some may feel you don't belong here. You and I may feel that's the wrong way of thinking but that doesn't mean it's okay to assume that everyone feels that way. Blaming others for you misfortune does not serve any useful purpose and it can only lead to mistrust and hatred. (To paraphrase Yoda) Once you lead down this path, it will dominate your destiny and you, and possibly your children, will live unfortunate lives of despair - always blaming others for your problems.
6. Since you're here already, I don't care what means you used to get here. I do want you to understand something, though. There are people in the world who want to take our opportunities and freedoms away. Unfortunately, these people are able to gain access to our country by sneaking across our borders. To secure our nation, it is becoming much more necessary to take measures to prevent people from crossing the border without security checks. Please don't take these measures as an attack on you. These measures are needed to protect all of us.
7. Finally, as you work up the ladder and become more successful in this country. Try to encourage others as I have tried to encourage you to do things right. Try to make America a better place in your time here.

New Link

I have placed a new link on my site. In perusing other blogs, I came across one that I feel is a real gem. It's Re-Imagineering. It is a blog created by some disillusioned Disney fans who have taken it upon themselves, to try to reinvigorate some of the spirit and passion that Walt Disney Corporation was once all about.

I've always been a huge Disney fan. I love most of the classic feature movie cartoons such as Pinnochio, Peter Pan, and the Jungle Book. I also love many of the old action movies such as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Old Yeller, The Shaggy Dog (original version), and Bedknobs and Broomsticks (which features live action with some animation mixed in.) Of course, I also love Disneyland and I even went to Disney World once in 1972 when it was less than a year old.

Like the authors of the blog, I, too have noticed a steady decline in Disney since the 1970's. Once upon a time, Disney seemed very focused on providing clean, imaginative, and high quality entertainment. Focusing on these values made Disney a household name and a symbol of an ideal way to conduct business. The company lasted for decades on these principles. This indicates to me that when you focus on quality, profits take care of themselves (Automakers take note).

Disney fell prey to the idea that if you cut a little bit of quality here and there, no one will notice and profits will increase. Unfortunately, many businesses fall into this trap and unfortunately, it seems to work for the short term. The initial success of cutting quality only leads to the notion that if it worked once, it will work again, and again, and again. At some point, the company's only focus seems to be on how much less it can spend in order to make a profit. Then, it becomes almost impossible to go back.

Disney is a special company to many people, myself included. I'd like to believe they are the exception to the rule and can go back to something like what they once were. Blogs like Re-Imagineering give me hope that maybe the executives at Disney will recognize that what made Disney great and how to recapture the magic.

AutoQuest VII - And the Winner is...

For me, car shopping is fun. I like doing the research. I like making comparisons. I even like going to the dealerships if they are reasonably honest with me. Unfortunately, I can't say that about 2 of the 3 dealerships I visited last weekend. As I left the Toyota dealer, the thought of the '05 Jeep Liberty at as "substantially" discounted price kept going through my mind. It was supposed to be a weekend to compare and reserve a decision for a later time. In fact, I had really planned on purchasing during model year closeouts in September. I also realized that maybe, there was a good opportunity here and I shouldn't pass it up.

I drove back to Southwest Chrysler/Jeep in Norco, the one dealership I had visited that treated me well. I vowed to myself that I wouldn't buy unless the price was really down and the vehicle was really good. When I got there, I found out they had sold 2 of the remaining 5 2005 Libertys left. To cut to the chase, I found a Limited (top of the line) model that I liked. What was amazing to me was that it was loaded and quite a bit nicer than the base Sport version I had driven the previous day. The Sport was a 2006 and was going to cost around $22,000. This 2005 Limited was listed at $26,500 but the dealer was willing to let it go for $19,000 because it was theoretically, a 1 year old car. The other cool thing was the 2005 had the 7 year warranty that Chrysler had reduced to 3 years for 2006. I was sold.

Here it is:

Anybody out there interested in a working and very drivable 1995 Dodge Stratus ES?

AutoQuest VI - Checking out the Rav4

Okay, so it's Sunday. I've got an early morning appointment at Cerritos Toyota. Time to check out the all new Rav4. The 2006 Rav4 replaces its predecessor and is supposed to be much roomier and, of course, now offers a V6 option. The Toyota V6 boasts 269 horsepower, which is a huge amount - probably more than anyone needs, especially for a vehicle like this. I already posted some of my concerns about modern cars having too much horsepower. You can read it here.

We drive up and park. I get the usual flock of salespeople making a beeline towards me. (It was early in the morning so there was only one, okay?) I tell him we have an appointment with Andrew New. He directs me in and I find out Andrew wasn't there but another salesperson can help me. He first tried to get me all excited. "The Rav4 is going to blow you away" he said. So he brings us out to the lot and shows us a model. The salesman points out the nifty features it has such as electric fold down seats, cupholders galore, and seats that move in 100 different directions. It was all very nice but when I looked at the sticker, I couldn't help but notice this was a 4 cylinder model. I bring this up and this is where they drop a bombshell. THEY HAVE NO 6 CYLINDER MODELS! Now, what really gets me is they called me and set up this appointment, specifically to test drive a V6 Rav4. This dealer is scum too!

I actually drove the 4 cylinder Rav4. The salesman, all the time, trying to convince me this was what I really wanted. I actually liked the car. I could find no fault with it. It was much more car-like than either the Liberty or the Tribute. It was very comfortable with good visibility. This certainly was a strong candidate. The dealership was definitely out.

They sat me down in the office and had the gall to put a credit application in front of me. They were ready to sell me a vehicle that I clearly didn't want. I finally just asked them when they would get V6 models in and what kind of price would I expect. I was told there was short supply on them and the ones they did get had every option and got top dollar, $27,000 and up. That's when I left.

Power Toyota of Cerritos will get no endorsements from me.

AutoQuest V - Those Evil Dealerships

If you are the Ned Flanders type, that is, if you keep a sunny disposition and perpetually have warm feelings towards your fellow man, you must have never dealt with car salespeople. They will make cynics out of anyone in a hurry.

I've shopped for cars before. I've done it for myself, my wife, and a few friends. I am familiar with the routines. Here are a few in fact:

• The stall: They know you picked this particular day to car shop. They will do everything they can to stall and keep you from visiting other dealers. They will offer you coffee, make lots of small talk, but most of all, they make you wait alone.
• Breaking you down: All the small talk and waiting is meant to accomplish something else. They want to lower your defenses. You become ansy, you even become slightly annoyed - not enough to leave, but enough where you start wanting to move things forward. This, of course, is where they have you. You're going to become more agreeable because you want to start driving your new vehicle, not wasting more time with these bozos.
• Good Guy/Bad Guy: The first person you talk to will be determined to be your best buddy. He/she spends time with you discussing and test driving the vehicle. He/she gets to know you and you develop a bit of rapport. He/she will discuss the price and financing you should be able to get. Then its time to sit down and start talking numbers. This is where a second person, whom you have not previously seen appears. This person will discuss numbers, not your needs or wants. The second person will tell you why you can't get the 0% financing, or qualify for the lease. Of course, person number 1 will fight for you. He/she is on your side and will go and talk with that ogre. So the two of them talk it out in another office leaving you waiting again (see above). When they return, person 1 will apologize that you can't get the deal you talked about earlier, but they will make a "special exception" for you and offer you something better than what person number 2 said, but not as good as the original numbers person 1 said.

Tomorrow, I'll talk about a real-life experience I had on Sunday.

AutoQuest IV - Next Test Drive

So, it's still Saturday. I'm driving home from Norco and I'm revising my thinking. My one car in my mind has been scratched. So, it's looking more like a small SUV is where I'm going. The other car I briefly considered was a Ford Mustang. I decided against it when I sat in one and thought the interior was made of cheap plastic that would be only suitable for young men under 25.

My next appointment is at Puente Hills Mazda. I'm going to try out a Tribute. Puente Hills is right near me so it was a quick scoot over there. Again, I had an appointment. This time it would be with Anthony. Michelle had to work so I'm alone this time. Anthony tells me he had no appointments today. I'm thinking to myself that that's a real odd tactic to pretend he didn't know I was coming or if he really didn't know, it didn't seem like a good idea to tell me. So it wasn't a good start. Anthony had me sit at his cubicle. It soon became apparent to me that his plan was to just sit and wheel and deal. When I told him I wanted to actually look at a vehicle, he sighed as if it was a meaningless formality. When I told him there was absolutely no chance I was purchasing a vehicle today, he really lost interest. Suddenly, he had "important" matters to tend to that he had "completely forgotten" about. So he assigned a lackey to assist me. At this point, I've already decided against doing any business with this dealership but I might as well see if I even like the Mazda.

They let me drive a fully loaded Tribute. This one had leather, airbags galore, a rearview mirror with about 88 different functions, and everything was black. Before I drove it, I sat in back and I was really surprised at the lack of headroom. This was an SUV with no sloping roof like a car. So why was the headroom so limited? Now, the front was pretty nice. I knew I wouldn't get the all black interior, it just wasn't for me. I did the two mile drive. It was okay but I noticed two things. I always do an abrupt turn in a test drive. While the Jeep, earlier had handled the turn nicely, I felt a slight sway in the Tribute. Neither handled like my car but it was obvious that the Tribute's limits were shorter than the Liberty's. The other thing was that when accelerating uphill on a freeway onramp, I realized I was flooring it and I wasn't getting much oomph. I don't think the 3.0 liter V6 lacked power, it just didn't downshift so I was trying to accelerate in 4th gear. Overall, it was competent, but not too exciting.

So the Tribute didn't thrill me. That doesn't look good for the Ford Escape or Mercury Mariner either. What I really hated though, is the snotty way I was treated. I just refuse to put up with salespeople who don't know anything about their product. I want someone passionate about the vehicles they sell. Anthony didn't know a Mazda from a Ferrari, it was all interest rates and financing options to him. Christina at Southwest Chrysler/Jeep claimed she owned a Grand Cherokee and was a major Jeep fan. So far, the Jeep Liberty and Southwest Chrysler/Jeep were in the lead.

AutoQuest III - First Test Drive

On Saturday, March 4, 2006, Michelle and I left the house early in the morning and headed for Norco. The Chrysler/Jeep dealership had contacted me and I had an early morning appointment with the Internet Fleet Manager. It seems that dealerships now have an appointed representative to handle people who contacted them through the Internet. Why that is, I don't know, but it seems to be the same for all the dealerships. As soon as I parked my car, We were immediately swarmed upon by eager sales people. I was armed and prepared for this, though and said "I have an appointment with the Internet Fleet Manager Christina." They reluctantly parted like the Red Sea and I was allowed to walk into the showroom to meet Christina.

Christina was friendly and helpful and willingly let me drive a few miles around in a 2006 Jeep Liberty. I liked it. It had controls and gauges that were similar to my Dodge's so it was very easy to adapt to it. I wasn't used to the tall, commanding view of the road. I realized why so many people like trucks and SUV's. I wasn't looking up at everybody on the road for a change. I was either looking down or straight across at my fellow drivers. My Stratus is a pretty low-slung car, even when compared to other sedans so this was very different. The Jeep felt strong and secure. It inspired a lot of confidence in the way it felt and handled. It wasn't as smooth a ride as a car, though. It's a body-on-frame design, where virtually all cars are unibody designs. Body-on-frame is better for strength, but vehicles with that type of design tend to jitter or shake more. It's a tradeoff and I found myself not minding it much.

After getting back to the dealership, Christina told me she had a few 2005 models left and she can discount them substantially. "How substantial?" I asked. "6 to 7 thousand less than sticker." was the reply. This interested me greatly. A 2005 model would already be, technically, a year old and have a year's worth of depreciation on it. This could be important if I only planned to keep the car a few years. If I decided to sell it after two years, I would be selling a three year old car with only two years of driving. It would be a bad deal for me. But I keep my vehicles until they're almost ready to drop. This wouldn't matter to me. I told her I would definitely consider this.

I had made it plain and clear that I was doing my comparison shopping. Christina was fine with this, which is unusual from my past experiences with car dealerships. I asked her for one small favor. I wanted to look at a Chrysler Crossfire. I can't afford a new Crossfire, so if that ended up being my choice, I would buy a used one. I felt it would be unfair to ask for a test drive, so I told her I just wanted to check one out.

There it was! On the showroom floor was a blue-steel beauty, a Crossfire, looking gorgeous as ever. It seemed funny that here was a car that was even lower than my Stratus. I would really be looking up at everyone in this thing. It was the anti-sport ute. It offered very little in the way of utility but had everything a driver could want. Speed, handling, exclusivity (how often do you ever see one of these on the road?), and not to mention, sex-appeal. I knew I wanted one and momentarily forgot all about the Liberty. I opened the door and saw a very cool interior. This vehicle looked just a good inside with nicely contoured seats and a chrome center console. I sat in it and realized my head was hitting the ceiling. "This shouldn't be a problem." I thought as I used the electric power seat switch and began lowering the seat. It hit bottom and I moved around a bit and found my head still hitting the ceiling whenever I moved. The seat lowered, but not enough. I began tilting the seat to find a comfortable position where my head wouldn't be so close to the top. No dice! I couldn't believe it. I just could not get comfortable in my dream car.

I guess I'll reluctantly have to scratch the Crossfire off my list. I'm truly disappointed.

AutoQuest II - Meet the Candidates

I had gone to cars.com and set up some appointments for the weekend. I wanted to look at and test drive the following vehicles:

Chrysler Crossfire: My guilty pleasure choice. I love the way they look. This is a two-seater that's pretty fast and is known for its razor-sharp handling and unlike some small two-seaters, it has a real trunk that actually holds stuff. It's essentially, a Mercedes-Benz SLK underneath with a Chrysler body. They are the coolest vehicles that hardly anybody has ever heard of. It costs $20,000 less than the comparable Mercedes model. I've seen some used ones reasonably priced around $20,000.

Jeep Liberty: My favorite of the smaller SUV's in terms of looks. I drove its big brother, a Jeep Grand Cherokee this past December for a week and I really liked it. The Grand Cherokee is too big for my needs but the Liberty may suit me.

Mazda Tribute: This is a highly rated semi-luxury vehicle that may suit me. I rode in one that a co-worker of mine drove and was pretty impressed with it.

Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner: These vehicles are essentially the same as the Tribute. The Ford lacks much of the luxury touches that are in the Mazda but it costs quite a bit less because of rebates that Ford is offering. I am strongly considering either of these models. It may depend on my impressions of the dealers as to whether I go Ford or Mercury.

Toyota Rav4: Toyota's reputation for durability may push me into going Japanese (Note: the Tribute is more a Ford than a Mazda). What allures me about this model is the V6 version has 269 horsepower and is rated at 24 mpg. That's pretty impressive. The Rav4 is more of a tall car than a true SUV. This appeals to me as well as I prefer the driving dynamics of cars and I'm not out to tow anything or go off-roading so this may be my winner.

Of the SUV's, I am going to look at and test the V6 models with 2-wheel drive. Again, I'm not an off-roader nor do I live in snow country. 4-wheel drive robs the vehicle of power and fuel economy. I believe in V6's however, therefore I have already ruled out several candidates such as the Honda CRV, which does not offer a V6.

AutoQuest I

I've owned three cars in my life. My first car was a 1981 Ford Escort that my parents helped me buy that I needed for my then job at Six Flags Magic Mountain. In 1986, someone decided to turn it from a 4 passenger vehicle into a 2 passenger vehicle by ramming its rear-end at high speed on Interstate 15. So, again with some help from my parents, I got a 1986 Ford Escort. That car lasted me until 1995. It was still running fairly well but I decided I wanted to get a new car all on my own. I was already becoming known amongst my friends as the "Escort guy". So I did my research and decided to take a bold chance and I bought a 1995 Dodge Stratus ES. It was loaded with a V6 engine, sport suspension, leather interior and I have been very proud to have such a vehicle since.

Now, after almost 11 years, I have decided it's time to get my fourth vehicle. My Stratus still runs well and I've had few problems with it these past 120,000 miles. Even though I feel it probably has some years and miles left in it, I'm not going to wait.

People who know me know that I'm pretty into cars. I'm not a mechanic but I have a pretty good general knowledge of what's out there in terms of cars and their differences and similarities. I decided to do something different this time and not get a sedan. I am considering something either in the sporty or small SUV genres. Tomorrow, I do my first serious looking and I'll report how that goes.

New Look

I actually liked my previous web template. The blue and gold was the color of two of my sports teams, the Lakers and Rams (and once upon a time, the LA Kings too.) It's just that it seemed to be almost everybody else's choice of blog template as well. (Does everyone like the same teams I do? :>) So, I changed it as I refuse to be part of the norm.

End of Faith

This past Christmas, my father in law informed me that he had recently read Sam Harris' The End of Faith. It was obvious to me that it impacted him greatly. So much, in fact, that he decided that the cure to most world-wide problems would be to simply destroy all religion of the world and force the entire human race to become atheists. He attempted to challenge me by asking me a question:

"Robert, you're a logical-minded guy. you don't believe in any of this faith stuff do you?"

I replied "Well, John, yes I do." John blanched, got very incredulous, and proceeded to try to convince me that any sane individual who can think would discredit the existence of God. So, in his mind, I and so many others have been brainwashed away from the truth.

I'll get around to reading the book eventually. I do occasionally read stuff that is contrary to my own beliefs. For example, political conservative that I am, I read Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them to gain some understanding of those who think differently than me.

So, while I will not talk about the book, per se today. I do want to share of my thoughts about the whole anti-religious movement that is going on. A common theme when it comes to politics and religion is that complicated as they can be, people want to simplify the whole argument by dividing it into just two sides. In this case, it seems to me that the anti-religion group wants to believe that people fall into two categories:

1. You are a religious nut. You reject science. Your life revolves around meaningless rituals and rules. You behave as you do because a grand reward awaits you after you die if you do what your spiritual leaders tell you is right. Therefore, if your spiritual leader tells you that strapping dynamite to your body and blowing yourself up in some bar is what your god is asking of you, then you had better do it.
2. You have seen the true light. You realize that religion is for the weak-minded. If humankind would embrace science and sensibility, the major problems of the world would be solved.

What my father in law and others don't seem to understand is that people like me can believe in creation and evolution. They really aren't mutually exclusive. It is for those who insist that every word in the Bible is the written word of God, himself, but I put people like that in the category of extremists.

So, I ponder...

Could God have started the Big Bang or perpetuated the Steady State? I ask this because I have to wonder how far and to what level science can explain the universe. If there was a Big Bang, how did it get there? If science reveals that the universe existed in some form before the Big Bang, then how did that get there?

A human being consists of a combination of chemicals put together in such a way that it moves about, breathes in oxygen, consumes proteins and carbohydrates, and has the ability to contemplate his/her own existence. A scientist can explain how it took billions of years for the process of evolution to mix the chemicals just right in order to make a man or a woman. As one of these human beings, I cannot help but wonder in the mysterious darkness and silence at night if that is really all I am. Did people before me create God to account for this or is a mysterious God really behind all this daring us not to believe in him?

Is religion a crutch? Is it an excuse, allowing us to justify bad behavior? In other words, does religion perpetuate evil? Would the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the 9/11 bombing have occurred if religion did not exist? If not, then it would seem that religion is the bane of the human race. This is what my father in law and many atheists believe.

Those of us with faith, however, believe in moral choice. An individual chooses his/her path, whether they have religious beliefs or not. If a terrorist claims he did some evil deed in the name of Allah, the evil resides in the individual, not Allah. That goes for God, Jehovah, Vishnu, et. al.

I have faith. I have a scientific mind. It's possible, really.

Steelers 21 Seahawks 10

Crow has a very bitter taste.

Fearless Prediction Time

Seattle! Definitely!

The Freeway Factor

Once upon a time, there was an ideal place to live called Southern California. What made it so ideal was it had two urban centers. One was Hollywood, the film capital of the world. It was full of producers, directors, actors, and myriad of crew people. The other was Los Angeles, a budding metropolitan city, chock full of bankers, lawyers, and various business people.
Separating these two towns and surrounding the entire area was a primarily rural landscape. Tree farms were dominant - mostly of the citrus and walnut variety.

Many of the executives of Hollywood and Los Angeles lived in the surrounding rural San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys. These well-to-do types liked the comforts and seclusion of country living. There was a problem, though. It took considerable time driving back and forth over windy canyon roads from home and work. So, they came up with a brilliant idea.

So, a couple of freeways were built. All was wonderful.


In fact, the executives figured out that real-estate values went way up. They decided to take advantage of the situation.


Arteries were constructed. Almost instantly, gas stations and restaurants were built where the arteries met the freeways. Gone were many of the orange groves. People moved near these arteries to take advantage of the superfast freeways.


Soon, the executives got a little concerned.



Eventually, Southern California became a big urban mess. It turns out, adding freeways only adds too many people and more congestion than before.

Of course, the executives moved to escape the concrete jungle to nice rural communities like Denver and Phoenix.

People can be really stupid.

Martin Luther King Day

I have a few comments about the holiday and the man many are celebrating today.

Friday, a co-worker of mine mentioned that the next Monday (today) was a holiday but he wasn't aware which one it was and whether we had the day off. I told him it was Martin Luther King Day. He subsequently looked at his hands and arms and then stated "Not my holiday". His skin isn't black (it's not white, either). Obviously, Dr. King's message hasn't gotten through to everybody.

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

For the entire "I have a Dream" speech, you can click here.

This rings very true today to me and I am often bewildered how such a sensible sentiment is ignored by so many of one race (whites) and mis-interpreted and twisted by so many of another race (blacks). Without going into too political a discussion, I just ask you to look at the quote above one more time and try to understand the simple but powerful message.

One more thing. We no longer have Columbus' Day. It is now Discovery Day. We no longer have Lincoln or Washington's Birthday. We have President's Day. That means we now have only two holidays that are about specific individuals. They would be Christmas, which celebrates Jesus and Martin Luther King Day. It does not seem fair to me that Dr. King is the only American with his own holiday. I say we should change this day to Civil Rights Day and honor all those in addition to Martin Luther King who fought and continue to fight for equality of opportunity for everyone.

Cars, Cars, Everywhere but Not a Road to Drive

I attend the L.A. Auto Show virtually every year (I missed it once in the past 21 years). The Ferraris, Maserattis, Lamborghini's, Lotus', and this year, the Bugatti Veyron attract big crowds. The auto show is a great place to take a good close look at these $100,000 plus vehicles that one rarely, if ever sees on American roads. Concept cars also draw great appeal. Most of the major manufacturers feature at least one. Concepts often never come to market and even when they do, the production version is usually only faintly similar to the vehicle originally shown. While this is all interesting stuff, I've always been more interested in cars I see on the road every day.

There is a lot of hubub of hybrid vehicles and emphsis on fuel economy these days. You'd think maybe that the 1970's would return where manufacturers try to outdo the competition. In the 70's, Toyota and Datsun (now Nissan) played a good game of one-upmanship. Corolla's and B-210's broke the 25, 30, 35 and even the 40 mpg marks over a span of just four to five years. Now, thirty years later, we have advanced fuel injection systems, lightweight materials, low-friction tires, and other technology. You'd think we'd be at the 60 or 70 mpg level by now. Why aren't we?

The answer is simple marketing. As with most environmental issues, people say they are in favor of better fuel economy and lower pollution levels, but their actions usually don't back that up. Witness the SUV craze of the 1990's that only seems to be slightly waning now. When it comes down to the crunch, most people will opt for size and power over economy. After the energy crisis of the '70's where cars got very small, cars have been getting larger and more powerful. Once upon a time, the Honda Accord was a very small subcompact car. The Honda Civic was smaller still. Over time, each vehicle got a little larger. Today's Accord is a rather large family sedan with the Civic being a compact sedan that is in fact, much larger than the original Accord. Toyota followed a similar path with the Camry and Corolla. Honda does not even produce a subcompact car for the American market anymore. Toyota has been making the Echo, which is being replaced by the new Yaris but the Echo, at least, was not a very strong seller. What sells for Toyota and Honda? The larger Camry and Accord. Both vehicles offer V6 engines with the Accord's producing 250 horsepower! That's much more power than the performance cars of the 1980's and 1990's. So, yes, Honda offers a hybrid Civic and Accord, but those vehicles still emphasize power. Imagine what a small Civic with a smaller output engine could produce in fuel economy. It might get that 70mpg but I bet that Honda figures nobody would buy a 80hp car in today's world.

What really gets me is why is all this power necessary? An 80hp car can get to 90 - 100mph, well above the legal speed limit. With all these 200+hp cars on the road, we can get more speeding tickets, get into more fatal accidents and pay more for gas but we're not getting to work any faster.

So, should we have horsepower limits on vehicles? I ask this because I have no idea where this is going to end.

White Christmas

Michelle and I enjoyed a snowy holiday in upstate New York. It was my first vacation in four years (since we bought our house) so I especially savored the time off. I purposely avoided watching news and browsing the Internet. It was vacation after all.

I did had some interesting political discussions with my father in-law John Lefever. I will discuss these in succeeding posts.

Summary

This was the third time I've landed at Newark airport and I still have the darndest time finding the freaking Garden State Parkway. This time, we drove 20 min in the dead of a cold night (it was around 2am EST) convinced we were on the right road, which, of course we weren't. Finally we sorted it out. Man, I hate driving in New Jersey. Every ten minutes, you've got to stop and pay $.35 toll. The travel guide tells us that this is a "convenience" to break up the monotony on the road. Yeah, sure! New York is much better, you only pay the toll when it's time to leave the thruway.

We finally arrived at my mother in-law's house in West Hurley at 4 am. Friday the 23'rd of December. We went to the Kingston mall and did all our Christmas shopping that day. We spent Christmas eve at the home of my brother in-law Dan and his wife Diane. Gifts were exchanged and we played a rousing game of Trivial Pursuit - Pop Culture Edition where we all proved how unhip we are because nobody did very well. There were way too many references to Jessica Simpson, Justin Timberlake, and reality TV - subjects I'm barely aware of.

Christmas day was spent in recovery and the evening was spent at a party of one of my mother in-law's many friends. My mother in-law, Edith Lefever is head of the Performing Arts of Woodstock (PAW) community theater group and is practically a celebrity of the Woodstock community.

Monday, the 26th, we got up early and drove 150 miles to Utica, home of my relatives. We spent the day with my Uncle and Aunt Vito and Mary Ernest. I met cousins of mine, Paul, Elizabeth, and Diane, whom I had not seen since 1972 (I was 9 then). My cousin Nick was also there. I had seen him as recently as 1979. My uncle gave us a tour of Utica. I don't think the entire town has a building newer than thirty years old. It is very run down and there is no development anywhere, it seemed. What a contrast to California and the rest of the west! We had a good dousing of snow that day. It came down hard all afternoon while Michelle and I had hot cocoa and looked at photo albums of my aunt and my mother when they were in their twenties and thirties. My Uncle Dick and Aunt Doris came and we were treated to a real italian dinner with home-made pasta, just like my mother used to make. I actually had to scrape snow off our rental vehicle that night before we drove to our hotel.

Tuesday, we drove back to West Hurley, rested, and went to see Syriana (my mother in-law's choice). Syriana is one of the most convoluted, confusing, pointless, and worst movies I have ever had the displeasure of watching. I had thought the cinematic low point of 2005 was Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy but I stand corrected.

Wednesday, we went to Julanne Sapronetti's house in Sturbridge Mass. It was another 150 mile drive. Julanne was Michelle's maid of honor at our wedding and was Michelle's college roommate a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. She married a fellow named Jan since our wedding so we got to meet him.

Thursday, it rained and rained and rained. It was a messy drive back to West Hurley. Much of the snow was gone by then. We had one more hurrah with Dan, Diane, John, and Edith before our trip back home.

A great trip for both of us. Too bad it had to end. Happy New Year everybody and Go Trojans!