Power Rankings - 2006

I always enjoy Fox Sports' and ESPN's NFL power rankings. It's so hard to predict how a new season will end, but I'll try anyways. I'm throwing in my own personal power rankings.

1. Steelers
2. Giants
3. Seahawks
4. Patriots
5. Colts
6. Panthers
7. Bengals
8. Cowboys
9. Broncos
10. Eagles
11. Dolphins
12. Bears
13. Jaguars
14. Buccaneers
15. Cardinals
16. Redskins
17. Rams
18. Chargers
19. Falcons
20. Ravens
21. Vikings
22. Lions
23. Chiefs
24. Titans
25. Bills
26. Texans
27. Jets
28. Raiders
29. Saints
30. Browns
31. 49'ers
32. Packers

My pick for the Superbowl is Steelers over Giants. Anybody else want to throw in their predictions?

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.