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!

The DVD Situation

For anyone who is not aware of this matter, there is a battle going on concerning the next generation DVD standard. The two new formats are HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. HD-DVD has Toshiba, Sanyo and NEC backing it. Blu-Ray is supported by Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, and Pioneer. Sound familiar? If it does, you're old enough to remember the Betamax vs VHS wars.

I, like many, still have a VHS collection that isn't going away. Sure, I've had a DVD player for five years now but I wasn't about to re-buy movies I already had. The VHS era lasted about 25 years, the first generation DVD era lasted about 8. As television technology is linked more to computer technology, don't expect standards to last the way they used to. For example, NTSC, the television standard that most of us use today, was established in the 1940's. Now before HD-TV even establishes a full foothold on the market, some companies are already looking at standards even better than that.

I'm not buying any more DVD movies in lieu of not wanting to feel the need to buy them again when a better standard comes out. I'm keeping track of how the DVD wars comes out. I'll decide on a standard eventually.

The Arctic Issue Continues

From John Adams of the Nation Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

"It's the most outrageous scheme yet to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. We have just learned that pro-drilling Senators are sneaking their Arctic drilling measure into the Defense Appropriations bill."

...

"But some Senators are so shameless in their quest to boost oil company profits that they're willing to exploit the Defense Appropriations bill, which is meant to fund our troops in Iraq and other military needs.Your Senators will be under enormous political pressure to vote Yes on the Defense Appropriations bill no matter what's in it. We're counting on a last-ditch effort by a determined group of senators to filibuster this bill until Arctic drilling is removed. In that case, the oil industry and their allies would have to get over 60 votes to keep drilling in -- something they have never been able to do."

While I lean to the right on many things, I am disgusted by the desire of many republicans (and a few democrats) who want to open up the Alaskan wilderness to save Americans, perhaps, $0.02 per gallon. This bill has already been shot down so now some senators are trying to attach it to another bill that has a strong chance of passing.

For more information, take a look here:
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts3.asp

Please Stay Tuned

It's just crazy at my work. I've been coming in at 6 am and leaving at 8 pm and I've been working weekends. I will be writing more articles when the workload lessens a bit.

Thank your for your support

Robert

Thanksgiving

With Thanksgiving two days away. I will have little time for myself so I will take the opportunity to reflect on what I am most thankful for now.

• I am thankful for my wife Michelle, for she makes life worth living, in good times or bad.
  
  (The rest are in no particular order)

• I am thankful for my parents. May they continue to share life together, a good while more.

• I am thankful for my roof over my head, the food I can eat, and a warm dry place to sleep.

• I am thankful I have the means to provide myself and my wife the above amenities.

• I am thankful I have the tools to express my creativity.

• I am thankful to the friends I have (Jeff, Lisa, Lee, Erik, Michele, Steve, Randy, Reggie, Gloria) as good ones are so hard to find.

Remember that Thanksgiving is the only true American holiday. Remember the significance of what it means and please don't disgrace it by referring to it as "turkey day".

Have a pleasant and safe Thanksgiving.

The Liberal Media (Part 2 of a Series)

Chapter 1
The Liberal Cinema (Continued)

Last week, I pointed out some examples of how politicians, particularly the President of the United States are portrayed in recent films. Notably, liberal politicians are good and care for the people, while conservatives are basically, not. There are many examples of this other than the four I specifically mentioned. In these film, the liberalism of cinema is pretty obvious. The same mindset is in many other, if not most Hollywood productions. The liberal innuendos can be more subtle in these films.

The De-John Wayne(ing) of the Cinematic Hero

John Wayne was the man that many boys growing up from the 1930's to the 1970's wanted to be. He was the gold standard for a movie hero. He portrayed quiet strength, independence, conviction, and confidence. He played characters who were a bit set in their ways, but had a good heart and gradually learned to accept change. I don't think it's a stretch to say that John Wayne represented an ideal of the complete conservative. When you look at the past three republican presidents (Reagan and the two Bushes), Americans saw them as the John Wayne cowboy type.

Wayne died in 1979 and by then, America had changed, mostly due to Vietnam. The war was not only unpopular, America lost it. In losing the war, America lost a lot of its mystique of being good and undefeatable. Hollywood reflected this. With a few exceptions such as Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry and Harrison Ford in Star Wars, the 1970's was not much of a decade for the John Wayne type of hero. Even the James Bond franchise changed from practically a british version of John Wayne in Sean Connery to a softer, more jovial Roger Moore. The 1980's featured a comeback of the John Wayne hero in Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Harrison Ford, and Bruce Willis. Timothy Dalton brought back the grim James Bond. Then the 1990's came and Hollywood changed.

No Longer a Hero

In the 1990's, Hollywood seemed not only reluctant to show macho, white male heroes. They even produced movies to bring them down and expose these stereotypical heroes as bigots and anachronisms. I will discuss two of these films.

A Few Good Men

Here's another Rob Reiner film and one that I enjoy and respect. Jack Nicholson plays Colonel Nathan Jessup, an ultra-tough, militant bulldog who lives his life on words like "honor, code, loyalty". He is practically the second coming of John Wayne. In this film though, John Wayne, er Colonel Jessup is also corrupt and is revealed to be still living in the cold war. The lawyer, Caffey played by Tom Cruise, is the "Harvard mouth" with the "faggoty white uniform". He tricks Jessup into revealing he was responsible for the murder of one of his Marines. Apparently, a little know trait of John Wayne heroes is they are very gullible.

Crimson Tide

This is a favorite film of mine. It features some terrific performances by Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman and a very realistic feeling and tense situation. This time it's Gene Hackman as the anti-hero. He too, runs his life by rules of tight discipline. Unlike in A Few Good Men, Hackman is not corrupt, he is merely so conservative, it blinds him enough to make an error in judgement that nearly leads to World War III.

There are similar films that convey the same message. We have Wesley Snipes instead of Sylvester Stallone, Lara Croft instead of Indiana Jones. Even if the hero is a white male, as in Titanic or Spiderman, the guy is hardly the hearty John Wayne type. Instead it's skinny little guys of whom John Wayne would have kicked sand upon. As for westerns, the 1980's featured Pale Rider and Silverado, both of the heroic variety. The 1990's featured Unforgiven, where Clint Eastwood paints the dark side of being a gunslinger and in doing so, de-mythologizes his earlier roles as that type of individual. We also got Dances with Wolves where Kevin Costner turned his back upon the U.S. Army and became a Sioux Indian. Yes, in Hollywood today, its How the Left has Won.

The Liberal Media (Part 1 of a Series)

Prologue

A short while ago, I was talking with some of my co-workers and the subject of the President and political parties came up. Without revealing any opinions, myself, I asked the three twenty-something fellow employees of how they thought about Bush and the War in Iraq. I got a pretty unanimous type of response with comments like: "Bush sucks!", "Republicans are racists", "Bush only cares about oil", and "Bush overtaxes us and gives breaks to rich people". I asked where they got these opinions from. Guess what? They said they didn't know. I was very curious about this so I probed a little. Do they read newspapers? Do they watch the news? The answer to both questions among all three of them was "no". So where do these opinions come from? It's a rhetorical question because I'm pretty sure I know. The liberal media is everywhere. They are clever and most people, especially younger people, have no idea they are being brainwashed. I have a feeling that these three individuals are fairly representative of young people in our nation. So, I'm going to explore different forms of media and give my take on where this liberal bias is coming from. I'm going to start where most people can relate. The movies.

Chapter 1

The Liberal Cinema

Most people watch movies. Whether it's Friday night at the multiplex or watching HBO or a DVD on the tube at home, movie watching is a national pastime. Movie lines have become part of our pop culture so their influence can be quite substantial. Movie producers recognize this and feel compelled to promote the liberal point of view in many films. This has been especially true since the early 1990's.

In the past, studio executives, who were typically conservative, had the power and made the decisions about what films to make. The power has shifted to the actors. Mega-stars, who happen to be devout liberals such as Tom Hanks, Barbra Steisand, and Susan Sarandon, who've made millions in the industry are now also the filmmakers and decision makers. This shift has changed the content of what we see on the screen.

The President

Let's look at some movies involving the president of the United States. There is a prevailing theme. Democratic politicians are intelligent, broad-minded, and compassionate human beings. Republican politicians are narrow-minded and corrupt and only have self-serving interests.

The American President

This film exemplifies my point exactly. Michael Douglas plays the seemingly ideal president. He can be charming and diplomatic with the premier of France, bomb Libya, make national policy decisions, be the perfect father, and even have time to find roses for his ultra-liberal girlfriend played by Annette Bening. But Douglas' President Shepherd has a problem. For some unexplainable reason, he finds himself trying to get anti-crime legislation (a right-wing type of thing) passed through congress. Ah, but sensibility wins in the end as Shepherd tosses the bill away in the end so he can support an environmental bill (i.e. the type of legislation that Democrats are supposed to support) instead.

What really kills me in this film is Shepherd's state of the union speech at the end of the film. He makes a grand statement that being an American is "advanced citizenship". This is the motto of conservatives. It should mean that while Americans have more freedom and opportunity than the rest of the world, the price we pay for that freedom and opportunity is less government intervention. Of course, Shepherd twists that around and makes it about free speech and how it's okay to burn the flag. This was directed by Rob Reiner, a prominent Hollywood liberal.

Dave

This Kevin Kline/Sigourney Weaver film has similar themes as The American President. Dave (Kline) is an ordinary Joe who is recruited to act as President of the United States. You see, the real president (who just so happens to be Republican) died and his evil chief of staff Alexander (played by Frank Langella) schemes to have Dave replace the dead president so he can have control. So Dave, the middle of the road, average, sweet, everyday, mainstream kind of guy (in other words, a typical Democrat if you believe this) finds out he doesn't approve of the policies of the late president so he begins to change things to the way he thinks it should be. He wants to help the homeless children of America. He tries to enact some kind of program guaranteeing every American a job (Yeah, right!). This is a fairy tale and I have no problem with that. In fact, I actually like this movie. However, I get extremely annoyed at how the Republicans are so villified.

The Tom Clancy films - Clear and Present Danger/The Sum of All Fears

I'll group these two together. Both films feature a hard-core conservative president. Neither states the political party of the president, but it's pretty obvious that they are Republicans. In Clear and Present Danger, the president sacrifices American troops so he can move forward on his war on drugs agenda. In The Sum of All Fears, the president is a war-mongering, narrow-minded coward who, since an atomic bomb was detonated, concludes that it must have been the Russians without any real information. Thank goodness that in both cases, we had the clear-thinking Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in the former, Ben Affleck in the latter) to save the day and expose the incompetence of the president.

To be fair, Air Force One is one film where there does not seem to be a sublime political agenda. Harrison Ford plays the good president but his political sway is not clear.

In part two, I'll explore some films that aren't so politically based, yet still manage to deliver the same message. That is, liberal Democrat = good, conservative Republican = bad.

Baseball's next controversy

In 1974, Los Angeles Dodger pitcher Tommy John tore ligaments in his pitching arm. At that time, such an injury meant the end of a pitcher's career. Doctors, in fact, told Tommy John that his pitching days were over and it appeared to be the end of a solid career.

Dr. Frank Jobe decided to try an experimental surgical technique on Mr. John in the hope of repairing his arm to a degree where he would be able to pitch again. Tommy John missed the entire 1975 season rehabilitating his arm. In 1976, he returned to the Dodgers and won 10 games - earning him Comeback Player of the Year honors. John went on to pitch to 1989, winning 20 or more games 3 times and earned a Cy Young award in 1978. Tommy John clearly became a better pitcher after the surgery. Now, the question is, did he improve due to natural maturing or did the surgery actually improve his pitching arm?

Before I go too far here, I completely respect Tommy John. He loves baseball and had an opportunity to extend his career by bravely going through the surgery. However, I do wonder today when it seems every other pitcher in the major leagues has gone through what is now called "Tommy John surgery". Pitchers are claiming their arms are stronger after the surgery than ever before.

Pitchers have it tough. Baseball fans tend to love lots of offense so pitching stars don't measure up in popularity as hitting stars do. Throwing a baseball 90 mph repeatedly is not a natural motion for a human being. Damage to muscles, tendons, ligaments, and bones are commonplace, even before a pitcher gets to the major leagues. But now, it seems that when a young pitcher gets his first pitching injury, they go for the "Tommy John surgery". As I watch the World Series, I heard the announcer mention how White Sox pitcher Jenks has a "bionic arm" due to his surgery.

Steroids aren't for pitchers since bulking up only inhibits their ability to pitch. So the surgery seems to be their answer to hitter's supplementing themselves. Let's see if this becomes a similar issue as the steroid problem.

Paper is Dead. Long Live Paper!

Remember how the 2000's was going to mark the beginning of the paperless office? Electronic media in the form of documents, forms, letters and even books and magazines were going to replace their electronic counterparts.

Alas, things never goes as they should. I work with attorneys, specifically big city (Los Angeles) attorneys who deal with multi-million dollar lawsuits. When corporate lawsuits occur, each side will inundate the other with invoices, drawings, contracts, letters, emails, financial reports and all sorts of goodies. Many law firms deal with this stuff completely electronically and hand over CDs (or DVDs) filled with electronic documents. Unfortunately, you'll always get the one firm or attorney who insists on actual paper. To me, a CD holding 10,000 pages that I can search through on a laptop computer is far more appealing than scrounging throught 3 25lb banker's boxes. Yet, our office is in a seemingly constant state of printing out and boxing up paper documents because an attorney insists on doing it the old fashioned way. It is not uncommon for a job to consist of 100 boxes or more. That's 300,000 pages that has to sit in some warehouse somewhere for attorneys and paralegals to find their key documents. It's absolutely unbelievable!

Facts

Erik and I got tangled in another topic. Look here. It was another thread that started to get personal. I'm going to rebut here simply because I can illustrate my points better on my blog. Also, I feel this discussion has a broad enough theme to address it here.

The Premise

From Left Over Right

"Terror Level
I wonder when there is going to be a raising of the national terror alert level from yellow to orange. After all, whenever Bush's numbers seem to fail that's when it's raised AND there is an election next year for senate and congress so it seems logical for Bush to use that to his advantage."

Erik states that it "seems logical" that there is a correlation between the terror level and Bush's approval rating. Basically, he believes that Bush and his staff artificially raise the terror level so the American people get a positive feeling that Bush is doing his job protecting Americans. I want to point out that Erik did use the word "seems" because it's important. I called his post a "conspiracy theory" based on:
A. His statements were about a conspiracy of Bush pulling a fast one on the American people.
B. It is a theory given that Erik gave no arguments to support his statement other than alluding to that it "seems" that the terror level rises in accordance with Bush's lowered approval rating.

Theory or Fact?
Erik took exception me calling it a theory. Suddenly, to him, it was factual. His initial post certainly did not have a feeling of fact. In my opinion, Erik took my statement personally and let his emotions take over his brain and turn his theory into fact. I tried to point this out by putting out my own conspiracy theory:
"The Indianapolis Colts are 5-0. Therefore, I can conclude and state as 'fact' that the Colts have bribed the NFL referees handsomely."

I intended this statement to satirize Erik's claim. I don't believe this theory for a second. I just wanted to point out that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories. I like to use analogies in my arguments. I hoped that Erik would pick up on this and realize that if he wants to convince me his statements are factual and not theory, he was going to have to come up with a better argument.

A Better Argument

I didn't get such an argument from Erik. Instead, he chose to call my conspiracy theory nonsense (which it probably is, but that's not the point). Worse, he decided that I had to come up with facts to prove his statement incorrect. Wait a minute! It is Erik's statement, not mine. In fact, never once did I ever say he was wrong. Yet, he tried to put the ball in my court when the ball is clearly in his. I have nothing to prove but Erik does. I asked for facts, but Erik, in turn did the literal equivalent of cupping his ears and stammered that it was up to me to provide facts to prove him wrong. This was clearly childish behavior and when I called Erik on it, well, he didn't take it so well. So, I walked away from the discussion as it was going nowhere.

So, my point is; If you are going to make accusations about people, politicians or not, either call it a theory or provide comprehensive evidence to support it. You can't call your own theories "fact", you have to convince others and have them agree with you to even begin to consider it fact.

If Erik wants to support his theory, then he needs to provide something like the following:

(Please note: the figures here are purely made up and are for demonstrative purposes only)

Click on image for full sized view.

The Solution

Recap
Last week, I posted about the world-wide problems that confront the human race now, and even more so, in the future. If we do not confront the issues of overpopulation and consumption of resources, one of two things is going to happen eventually.

1. Nature will balance its books one way or another. Disease, natural disasters, and/or a giant meteor will wipe out most if not all of the human race. If and when this happens, the world will be restored to its relatively balanced self in 10,000 years and all will be fine on Earth and there will be no more humans.

2. The human race will beat nature to the punch and destroy itself in nuclear holocaust.

So, when I hear solutions like "tax incentives" (sorry Erik) or anti-poverty programs I sadly shake my head because I realize that most humans are too self-centered to see big picture problems and big picture solutions.

The answer's up there
Look upwards, not at the birds, or the airplanes or the clouds. Look at the universe. It's really, really big. It's loaded with solar energy and hydrogen. Ultimately, the answers to all of humankind's major problems are in outer space. Solar collectors can be installed and provide all the clean energy we could ever want. Hydroponic farms in space stations can produce food in abundance. The Moon has as much real estate as planet Earth and there's Mars as well. Why not live there? Does this all sound like science fiction? Yes, I'm afraid it is but it doesn't have to be.

So why are we not colonizing space?
Unfortunately, we keep these ideas in the realm of science fiction because most of us don't really believe it can be done. Also, even if it can be done, too many of us feel that there are too many earthbound problems to deal with before we go to space. Yet another problem for most people is that we won't see space exploration realize the promise it can offer for many, many, years, perhaps, not even in our lifetimes.

This saddens me as I realize more and more, that we are too short-sighted to survive. We are always going to have domestic problems. The economy will never be good enough. We always find an excuse to not fulfill what should be our destiny of leaping from our planetary cradle. In other words, we are too self-centered and when it all comes down to it, we really care more about our individual lives than we do for our children and their children.

For me, this is the issue of our time. I look to any leader with the courage to restart the space program that Kennedy started over 40 years ago. We need to start now and we need to realize that we need to stay committed to it. I like President Bush's proposal of going back to the Moon and to Mars. I'd like to believe we will stay the course and take the baby steps needed in order to get our foothold in space. Let's do it, not for ourselves but for our children's children's children. (Thank you, Moody Blues)

Hockey's Back!

It's good to see one of my favorite spectator sports on TV again. (It's purely a spectator sport for me, I can't skate.) I'd gripe about greedy players and owners but I've pretty much given up on going to games a few years ago.

I want to make a few comments on some of the new rules:

Good

Losing the redline and allowing passes from inside the blue line to center ice: A rule that makes sense and promotes a more free and faster-paced game.

Limited equipment and padding on goalies: This rule also promotes a faster games. Goalies were able to practically cover the entire net making goals almost impossible to get from a good shot. Goal scoring was getting ugly where it required big men up front to get rebounds and knock out defenders. If Wayne Gretzky had come up in 2000 instead of 1980, I doubt he would have been nearly the player he was as the NHL got big and slow. The new rule promotes more athletic goaltenders.

Bad

Shootouts in the event of a tie: I've got several issues with this one. First of all, the other rules should open up a faster, more wide open game. Breakaways should be more common than before so there is no need to have this. Also, teams with the better pure scorers are apt to sit on a tie in the third period so they can have their chance to win in the overtime shootout, thus, slowing down the game. Finally, a shootout is just plain not hockey.
My solution? How about having a 15 min sudden-death overtime period. If someone scores, they win. If the game is still tied after 15 min. both teams lose. Think, maybe we'd see some exciting action in overtime with this rule in place? I do.