Is "History" Being Made Too Often?

Many of us who have labored through a history class will remember hearing the dire warning from all who teach history: "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." So far in my life I've had no trouble remembering history, and have managed to avoid assassinating any Archdukes from Austria. In high school, however, I did find out that forgetting Geometry does in fact require one to literally repeat it.

Recently I've noticed that the term "history" or more specifically "making history" has sure been thrown around a lot. I think we're using this term a bit too casually.

When I think of making history I think of, well, history. You know, important elections, wars, major events, natural disasters, etc.

The New Jersey Nets potentially setting the NBA record for worst franchise start? I'm sorry sports fans, that is not making history.

I mean can't sports writers come up with a better phrase than making history? Do they really think a sports franchise win-loss record should be described the same way as the lunar landings?

Baseball is even worse. How often do you hear commentators gushing over a pitcher who "made history" by setting a record for the number of strikes thrown on an odd day of the week with a full moon?

The phrase is also grossly overused in politics. Yes the election of Obama was historical (indeed all Presidential elections are). But remember the night Pelosi said the House health care bill would pass, her quote was: “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act… We will make history..."

I know the Dems see this whole health care debate as big deal and frankly it is. But does she really believe voting on her bill was a chance to make history?

There is one thing Pelosi and supports of her insanity should realize.

Infamy is sometimes as easily made as history.

This Time The Music Gets Lost in the Scandal

One of my all time favorite rock and roll stories involves rock god Alice Cooper biting the head off of a chicken. Way back in the days of Heavy Metal's infancy, Cooper was on stage performing a concert at temporary venue erected on someone's farm. Somehow a chicken wandered up on stage. Cooper had never been on a farm and assumed the chicken, as most birds, could fly. He picked it up and threw it out over the audience. Of course the fowl fell into the crowd where the, no doubt stoned, masses of moshing fans promptly stomped it to death.

The next day the press reported the incident something to the affect of "Alice Cooper Bites Head Off Chicken on Stage." Apparently Frank Zappa, responding to the stories, asked Cooper if the rumors and stories were true. Cooper initially denied it to which Zappa famously replied, "Well whatever you do, don't tell anyone you didn't do it."

You've likely heard by now of American Idol runner up Adam Lambert's performance on the AMAs this week which prompted literally thousands of complaints to the network and a subsequent cancellation of another show. No chickens were involved but Lambert kissed another male musician and gave a face-full of crotch to another.

I'm sure the whole incident will no doubt serve as great publicity for his album and certainly can be justified under the mantra that even bad press is still nonetheless press.

However Lambert spent all of the Idol competition and the months afterwards not focusing on his sexuality but on his music. This prompted many in the gay community to criticize him for not being gay enough.

Clearly Lambert's actions were both premeditated and designed to shock and to garner attention. And they were likely in response to these critics. The tragedy is that now instead of a focus on his very obvious talents as a musician, the story is instead about what really amounts to a juvenile publicity stunt.

Lambert of course claims a double standard, and claims the furor is because he is gay.

Unlike Alice Cooper, who frankly needed a good chicken biting story to make up for mediocre at best singing skills, Lambert would do well to focus not on sensationalizing his sexuality, but to truly make his career, all about the music. In other words, let the talk be about his merits as a musician.

Isn't that what being treated equally really means?

Olympic Defeat Reveals the President's Influence is in his Head

The gathered masses gasped and broadcasters struggled to hide their disbelief as the announcement was made this morning that Chicago not only would not host the 2016 Olympics but was removed from consideration after only one round of voting.

To the those in the President's fold, namely the Mainstream News Media and other Kool-Aide drinkers in the Democrat party, the rejection of Chicago has to be seen as a rejection of Obama himself. In the aftermath, so many of the pundits could only say "no one expected this." And who could blame them? Both Obama's AND Oprah (did she really think she could make the Olympic Committee another extension of her book club)? How could they lose?

To most in the President's place, this experience would serve a wake up call. I don't think it will.

We all laugh at teachers who lead children in hymns of praise to the President, we mock those who voted for Obama because he would solve their every problem or even pay their mortgages.

The larger concern for me, is that I really think Obama believes the hype. Obama really believes that if he merely "wills" it, it will happen.

Think of his pronouncements over the summer that the health care bill had to be passed before the summer Congressional break. Think of how many big speeches he has given. It seems to be his answer to everything. He has weighed in on virtually every issue. And honestly, how many "big" speeches can a guy give?

The complete lack of influence that arose form his joint-sessional healthcare speech to Congress notwithstanding, Obama's trip to the IOC demonstrates the arrogance and pride of the man. It also shows how completely overstated his popularity is. Despite falling poll numbers and near universal rejection of his radical ideals, the MSM and his minions just can't come to grips with the fact that Obama is not nearly as popular as they believe. And even less popular are his positions.

There will likely always be those who believe Obama can walk on water.

Here's to hoping that Obama is not one of them.

Fleeing From the Public Option

Overriding all of the debate over nationalized healthcare, is the larger issue over the role of government. Will our country improve if the government becomes more involved in our day to day lives? Can government intervention fix the economy? Is government ever the "answer." Amidst all of this debate, the proverbial mud has been slung from both sides with one warning of death panels and the other making accusations of fear mongering.

I know that not everyone is passionate about these issues, and that sometimes its easy to get lost in all of the vitriol. I recall seeing one Facebook status last month that said "Got up early to study healthcare." This can be pretty heady stuff!

I think one of the best ways to evaluate this issue, is to consider these questions: 1. What has resulted from government involvement in industry? 2. How has government involvement in healthcare worked already, (in our country or others).

To this end, today's L.A. Times provides two excellent answers to these questions.

First, there was a front page article on the Canadian system in today's paper. This article goes a long way to answering our second question.

Though none of the bills currently in Congress contemplate the Canadian model, the system has for years been touted by the left as an example of successful government-controlled healthcare.

There are several anecdotes in the article. All detail the frustration Canadians have in waiting for health care. An active 72 year old is told she would have to wait a year and a half to have surgery. The justification for this delay? Her injury wasn't life threatening. Now ask yourself, if your in agony from back pain, would you want to wait eighteen months for surgery? What kind of quality of life is that? The woman in the story ultimately went to the U.S., paid out of pocket and received the care she needed.

To boot, the Canadian government is facing huge budget deficits. For example, health providers are being told to "[hold] the number of MRIs to last year's total...[and reduce] elective surgeries by 14%.

All of us have complain when public services get delayed, or when budget cuts affect our schools. But how would you like being told you can't get the care you need because services are being cut back? Now that's a budget cut that really hurts!

Another example of just how badly the government handles heathcare, is the Veteran's Administration. Have you ever talked to a veteran whose happy with the way he or she is treated at the VA? I have a classmate who is a Iraq veteran. Her take is, if the government can't treat returning soldiers right, it surely won't be able to handle taking care of the general population.

Think of your own interactions with government employees: the post office, county officials, the DMV - do these experiences inspire any confidence in the government?

Juxtaposed with today's article on Canadian health care, the Times also had a very frank opinion piece on the disfunction that occurs when government gets involved in private industry. The article discusses the mortgage industry and government sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac The Times editorial board is absolutely correct when it says:

The companies' troubles demonstrate that the mix of public mission and private ownership is too combustible to be sustained. The federal sponsorship and duties convey an implicit governmental guarantee against failure, which gives the companies an incentive to take excessive risks as they compete for market share. And grabbing the biggest possible share of the $10-trillion U.S. mortgage market works for shareholders, but it only increases the consequences for taxpayers if the companies go belly up. The private sector has shown in the past that it can sustain a secondary market for mortgages. The government should give it the chance to do so again after the wave of foreclosures has passed, either by cutting its ties to Fannie and Freddie or by dismantling them.

I suppose one could read this and argue that one solution then would be to eliminate private ownership from the equation. Of course this would be the very government takeover that those on the right have been warning of.

Of far greater value is the lesson to be learned from Fannie, Freddie and the mortgage debacle: the best fix to economic issues will always be based in private, market-based solutions. Does this mean the private sector had no role in causing the current crisis? Of course not. But it does mean that the best chance of solving the problem will be through private industry - not the Federal government.

In conclusion, I hope that as our leaders debate these issues, they will ignore the doomsday rhetoric from both sides, and focus on demonstrable track record that Canadian Health care has laid before us. I hope they see the havoc that the government mandates to broaden home ownership has wrought upon the mortgage industry.

The lessons from history are in front of us. We'd be foolish not to learn from them.

There is No Free Lunch

My wife is an amazing shopper. She smells out bargains like sharks smell blood in the water. She loves deals so much that after I buy her a gift, she's guaranteed to love it more if I got it on sale.

"Deals" and savings, however, are sometimes illusory. Have you ever had a post-shopping conversation where the shopper justifies an receipt by boasting how much they saved? Sure I spent $250, but I saved $75! As this very simple example exhibits, there is a cost that comes with these savings.

Our kids are on a traditional school schedule, so we just started back to school after labor day. Among the myriad of forms, letters, and disclosure notices (honestly, how many times do we need to print our name, address, phone numbers, DOBs, next of kin, emergency contacts, blood types) thrust at us by our school's dutiful faculty was the see-if-you-qualify form for the "free lunch" program.

What shocked us this year was that one of the teachers told us that the forms were to be filled out by everyone, regardless of income. Why we asked? Is it too much to require the allegedly needy to ask for it? Why does everyone need to fill this out? Heck we feed our children! This teacher's response was so telling: "because you may qualify for free lunch and not know it." In essence: you could be getting free lunch!

Folks, anyone who tells you school lunch is free clearly does not understand how the world works.

First, some brief discussion on the history of the "National School Lunch Program."

The program, paid for by the Federal Government started in the 1946. It's origins may surprise you. The goal of the program had nothing to do with poverty, starving children or child obesity. It was started as an effort to bulk-up America's youth for the military. Apparently too many would-be soldiers were being turned down for service due to poor nutrition. So Congress faced with the advent of the cold war and a need to combat the commies thought it would be a great idea for the Federal Government to feed kids directly.

Once again that when the government gets involved, it becomes so self-perpetual that even when the original goals of the program are met or become irrelevant, the program remains!

Any idea on what this program costs? Eight billion dollars a year. In 2008, nearly 31 million students in 101,650 schools and residential childcare institutions participated in the program.

Does anyone really believe that, were it not for this program, 31 million little kids would starve?

The Dept of Agriculture, who administers the program (I know, we really do still have a Dept. of Agriculture) of course touts the nutritional value of the food being served. From their website "[the program requires]... that lunches meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and provide at least minimum calorie levels and one-third of Recommended Dietary Allowances of protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, and calcium."

Next time you talk to a teacher, ask them about the lunch program and kids who receive the "free" lunches. They will tell you that for the most part it is wasted. Also, teachers I've talked to express widespread cynicism that the receivers are truly needy. Kids ignore the fresh fruits and healthy food, and throw away huge percentages of their lunches. And why shouldn't they? After all, can we really expect them to appreciate something they are being told is being given to them for free?

What has started as a lunch program has now blossomed into summertime lunches (they call it seamless summer), breakfast, and after school snacks. There's even a "Special Milk" fund!

What are we really teaching children when tell them they are being fed for free, especially when its a eight billion dollar lie? Is this really how life works? You just show up everyday and someone feeds you. Sure!

Why stop with breakfast and lunch? Let's have the Federal government pay for dinner! I propose that we have the Federal government, via the taxpayers cover three square meals a day. While we're at it, there are too many poor children with messy hair. I propose we start a National Shampoo and Hair Gel Program!

Would these children really go hungry without the "free" lunches? Even without the lunch program, the Federal Government spent thirty four billion dollars on food stamps last year.

Is it really too much to ask parents to feed their own children?

I told our son's teacher that even if we did qualify (and with five kids, we probably do) we wouldn't take the free lunch for our kids. Why not?

Because there is no such thing as a free lunch.

When Cars Get Named After Famous Carnivores

A lot goes into a car manufacturer naming a car. Though must luxury brands eschew traditional names, for manufacturers lower on the totem pole, the marketing goal becomes obvious in the choice of the name. Some examples of this are the Tundra, Highlander, Mustang or even Suburban. Other times, names are just made up like Sentra, Maxima or Acadia. What the heck is a Corolla anyway?

Today I read the first reviews for Ford's Special Vehicle Team's Raptor. Yes. That's right, Raptor. You remember the Raptors from Jurassic Park right? Those were those beady-eyed miniature T-Rex pack hunters that killed three fourths of the cast in every movie.

Ford has much to admire these days. They are the only one of the big three not to declare BK and so far they haven't taken any Federal Bailout money either. Plus the product line has improved as well.

Ford's SVT heretofore has focused nearly exclusively on traditional performance models, like the SVT Cobra Mustang, the Focus SVT and even the Ford Lightening (Ford's prior ridiculously fast F-150). But with the Raptor, the SVT has now focused on off-road performance. In fact, with the Raptor, they just went plain old insane.

If your reading this, take a moment to check out the video introduction to the Raptor. You know it's going to be good when they lead with a huge legal disclaimer (the usual: closed course, professional driver, we would never encourage you to actually do this at home). The disclaimer is followed by Van Halenesque metal music and video of the Raptor doing seventy in the desert.

Half-way through the videos I'm already thinking that surely there must be a way I can drop forty large for a truck that I can take on jumps.

Just imagine being the guy at work on Monday, who purchased a Prius the same weekend as the guy who bought the Raptor. You bought a what?

Look at the Raptor grill. You can read Ford from space!

The Raptor is proof positive that when you get a bunch of car guys together, remove all pretense of political correctness and let them build away, you end up with something pretty cool. And marketable too.

It also shows the lunacy of a Government controlled industry. Do you really think GM would build the Raptor now?

Conservatives Aren't Supposed to Protest

Though I spent most of my Saturday as I do nearly every Saturday - with my face buried in a book, I delighted in watching/ reading about the coverage of today's nationwide protests.

What brought the smile to face was not the protesters or their signs (okay some were pretty good, my favorite "Think Health Care is Expensive: Wait Till Its Free). No what I've enjoyed is the Mainstream Media's (MSM) totally inability to explain and come to grip with these protests. Who are these people? Why are there so many of them?

You see, conservatives aren't supposed to protest. They just don't do that. They're what Nixon famously called the "silent majority." Conservatives, holds the conventional wisdom, just sit at home, get angry and then take it out in letters to the editor and at the ballot box. They don't ever take to the streets.

When the Tea Parties first started, the MSM dismissed them as mere disingenuous orchestrations of the Republican Party. Later as the protests moved into the Health Care Town Hall meetings, Dem congressional leaders looked like fools maligning them as Un-American and Nazis.

Read this CNN piece on today's protest. Let's see, the protesters lack a central leader, come from a variety of local organizations, aren't affiliated with any particular political party and are unified by a common theme.

I think there's a phrase for this: It's called a grass-roots movement.

But CNN and the rest of the MSM even the Dems just can't get themselves to acknowledge this. They can't admit that this President's actions have inspired all of these protests.

It seems that finally, the MSM is realizing this is movement is more than the "angry white men" conservatives have long been portrayed as. They see people of all races, from different political parties. They see mothers with children, rich, poor, senior citizens. They see Americans.

Remember when Barack Obama promised he would be the great unifier by transcending our political parties and our red and blue states? Well today is proof positive that Obama has fulfilled his promise of unification.

He has unified the conservative movement.

Too Much of a Bad Thing?

Though those of us who live, breath, eat, sleep and excrete politics certainly were looking forward to tonight's "make or break" Obama speech, I'm wondering if all of this joint-session of congress, prime-time effort on the part of the President is futile?

Why? I think the President is suffering from a classic case of over-exposure.

Think about it. This man is more omnipresent than Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and that song you hate on the radio combined.

Is it normal for the President to be in the news cycle on a regular basis? Of course. What isn't normal, is to have the President so utterly involved in every issue, every debate, every story. The man made a March Madness pick!

Of course this was most dramatically displayed during the "Cops Acted Stupidly" news conference debacle.

I think the President would do well to realize that big speeches aren't as exciting when you make one on every issue, every day. Same goes for town-hall meetings too.

Remember how sick you were hearing about MJ's death? Think of how most Americans must feel about Obama and healthcare.

The President clearly understands the "big stick" he carries. I think he just needs to use it a little less frequently.

Beach Sand is Really Just Fancy Dirt

I'm going to start this post with a statement that may offend some of you: I don't like going to the beach.

There, I said it.

Admitting you don't like going to the beach is kind of like admitting you don't like kittens, small children or apple pie. It's almost Un-American.

First, some admissions: the ocean is beautiful, the weather and temperature are perfect and it is a lot of fun for most- but not for me.

Let me explain. We love going to Newport Beach's Balboa pier. Its my favorite beach to visit, albeit even there it's a reluctant trip. Why is it my favorite? Just one reason - great parking. That's right, Balboa could force me to walk over rotting corpses but as long as the parking is good, I'll take it.

When you arrive at the beach or just before you leave, we all know the first thing you have to do is to smear suntan lotion all over. I hate this. And if you have kids, you get to rub it into them. I hate that more. Of course if you don't do this right all you're risking is potential DEATH from skin cancer. Is that something you have to contemplate while relaxing at home?

Despite all of the rubbing and smearing, somehow, some way, you inevitably miss covering something and end up with a blazing farmer's tan or worse a sun burn. Nothing like spending the week afterwards being reminded of your mistake with every subsequent twitch of your neck!

After lubing up, it's time to grab everything you brought with you. What is about the beach that requires so much stuff? Are we moving? How is it a trip to the public pool requires a towel and flip-flops, but the beach requires every member of the family to saddle themselves like domesticated pachyderms heading out on some sort of Saharan trek?

You finally get everyone loaded and then you step onto the sand. Suddenly your walking like you're drunk in public and you feel like your feet have 50 weights on them (which is ironic because each arm is carrying at least that in supplies). And the sand! I know most of you love walking on the beach with the sand between your toes. To you, the sands of the beach are almost mythical, therapeutic even.

Folks I hate to break it to you: it's just dirt. Yep dirt. You know, the stuff you yell at your kids for throwing at each other. Dirt.

Trust me on this one, I'm a lifer in the Mojave Desert. We know dirt. And beach sand is just fancy dirt.

Some of you may not know this, but your body has magnetic reaction to beach sand. Really this is true! That's why within four steps you've got sand wedged into orifices and cavities you didn't even know you had. And the best part is, it's not coming off until you actually get in the car, wherein the same sand on children spontaneously demagnetizes and works its way into every nook and cranny of the car where it remains for life.

Have you ever tried eating at the beach? Do you like your chips gritty?

Does anyone really enjoy swimming at the beach? The water is freezing, full of seaweed and who knows what else. I mean really, all of our storm water drains to the ocean. You've seen storm drains before a storm - do they look clean to you?

Finally the blessed hour arrives when your kids have so much sand on them that they look like they might start barking and chasing after Jawas that it is time to go.

Balboa has a public restroom. It also has outdoor shower. However, what you soon realize is this shower will be unlike any other shower you've taken. This one will have an audience! There's nothing better than trying to excise this demon dirt from the afore mentioned orifices and cavities with twelve complete strangers watching you, all of whom are waiting for their turn at futility in the shower.

Then you go into the restroom to the change. Thanks to perverts of the world, Newport Beach has removed all of the stall doors from the Men's Restroom. Because of the omnipresent dirt, er, sand, the floor has turned into a substance that looks like it was created when someone accidentally tipped over a rent-a-john. So there you are, trying to change, with no privacy, no shame and no chance of actually getting clean, when a complete stranger rounds the corner (he has no idea you're there because there's no door). Awkward!

Yes everyone has a good time, especially the kids. But the happiest moment for me is always getting in the car to come home .

Marnie would love to move to the beach (easier said than done). Maybe someday we will, but in the mean time I try to point out that where we live now is a lot like living at the beach.

After all, we've got plenty of dirt.

Here it comes...

I've made no secret that I believe the Obama Presidency may very well be one of the greatest disasters in history. No, my friends of the left, that does not mean I want him to be a failure. As one who will be shortly again be entering the job market, I would love for things to turn around and it would not bother me in the least for the President to get all of the credit for it. However, more and more his policies are reminding me of the gold standard of unmitigated presidential catastrophes, Jimmy Carter.

Now there is plenty of time for Obama to wake up and turn this thing around. And, believe or not I am the first to say I support the President in regards to his very unpopular yet correct position on the war in Afghanistan. He is doing the right thing there.

But let's assume BO's presidency ends as Jimmy Carter Part II. To what will the experts, the pundits and history attribute his failure?

Enter the Governor of New York David Paterson. Unlike the President, the verdict is in on Mr. Patterson who seems to start each week with a goal of setting new lows in incompetence, unpopularity and futility. Let' s just say he's meeting those goals.

Now, to what does Mr. Patterson blame his failures? On his polices? No. His decisions? Nope. Mr. Patterson blames it all on race.

How will the left explain a failed Obama Presidency? Will they be intellectually honest and talk about his polices and provisions that have only divided the country? Will they talk about his broken promises? Will they talk about his liberalism? Or are they just going to drag out that tired old race card?

Here's my challenge to all Obama supporters. If Obama's presidency fails, do us all a favor and leave race out of it.

He'll have no one to blame but himself.

Getting to Know to the Real Man

All of us have a friend who, for lack of a better term, is just clueless. You know, the one who, despite a bazillion different ways to stay informed, two weeks after the fact, still has no inkling of what's happening in the world. "MJ did WHAT?"

You know they have no idea what's going on, because on that rare day where they venture into into the world of the informed and actually make a comment about something, they always preface it by quoting the most all powerful and omniscient source in the universe: The They.

"They say that...(fill in the blank)" Why must they refer to They? Who are the They? Well people like this have their heads shoved so far down into the ground, it takes a "they" to tell them what the heck is going on.

Well eventually, after enough time, even the ignorant begin to figure things out. Yes it takes time. Sometimes it takes more than an election, an inauguration, one hundred days or even seven months of total media saturation. Some how, some way, the unknowing finally become the knowing and the light goes on.

Which takes me to our President. Never in the history of politics or maybe all of history has someone come so far on so little. No I'm not referring to his abject lack of experience before office (yes liberals, Sarah had similar shortcomings, but she's not the President now is she).

No I'm referring to then candidate Obama. Hope, change, we are the ones we've been waiting for, what did all of that really mean? Who is Barack Obama?

Those of us who have watched this man over the last two years knew what these terms meant. We reacted in horror as he and his wife proclaimed their desire to fundamentally change this great country of ours. We warned the world of what was coming. But the world did not listen to us.

Now, finally, after all of this time, our friends are finally figuring things out. And you know what, this time for once our friends really getting things. This time, they aren't listening to "The They." This time, their seeing what this President stands for, what he's trying to do. They are finally seeing who Barack Obama is.

And you know what? Our friends don't like it. And they don't like him.

When Bad Movies Fail Can You Really be Surprised?

The Times today ran an article on Universal execs responsible for movies that recently bombed. Of course they are now full of hand-wringing and angst. How could this happen? What went wrong? Whose going to loose their job?

I was struck by the movies mentioned in the article. No, I was not surprised that these toilet ringers were on the list. What' shocking to me is that there wasn't a single person on any of their seventy million dollar budgets with enough sense to say: Hey Mr. producer, these suckers are DOA!

What follows is my take on a few of these duds. Nope didn't see them, just reviewing the premises:

The Tale of Despereaux: Okay this may have been an okay movie and I love a great kid flick, especially the recent "Up," but really, another movie featuring a mouse/rat/rodent as the protagonist? Did someone at Universal not see Ratatouille? Does the name Mickey ring a bell to anyone?

Frost / Nixon: Obnoxious British reporter "grills" former President. Hey let's make an entire movie about a television interview! Nothing gets my blood going more than a Matt Lauer interview. Oh that they could all be two hours long! The movie was further doomed by the fact that most of the principles on whom the movie was based completely denied and discredited most of the film. What was left? A fictional television interview. Exciting!

Land of the Lost: I loved the original TV show with its campy special effects and seventh grade acting, but really, did we really need another movie with people running from dinosaurs? Did anyone finish JP III and find themselves just wanting more? And to make it a PG-13 movie too?

Public Enemies: This one just flat out bewilders me: another gangster / mob movie. How did this get made? Critically may have been a well done but really, haven't we beat this genre to death already? Folks, this horse is dead!

Funny People: Dying comic learns greater fulfillment in life. Doesn't sound too bad right? Except this is a Apatow film meaning the movie must have sex and nudity literally falling out of the theater doors and launch more F-bombs than a boatful of sailors (there were 151 and I'm not making that up) . With so much garbage, who could really feel the touchy feely stuff? Dumb!

Honestly, isn't this all further proof that the studios no new ideas? At what point do we run out of comic books and old TV shows? I want originality!

Still, I can't wait for Smurfs the Movie in 2010.

Proud Future Owner of Dodge Caravan!!!

Some of you may know that one of the few perks I receive in my job is the unfettered use of a company car. I don't have to pay for gas, registration or insurance. I do track my personal miles and these are counted as income for tax purposes. Granted with five kids, we have like nine thousand deductions, so it doesn't hurt to bad.

My current vehicle, a Dodge Magnum, came after I went through about five Ford Tarusi (I think that's the plural). For those of you unfamiliar with the Taurus, they are widely known to be the "disposable razors" of the automotive world.

So the Magnum was defiantly a step up. It looked cool(er), its rear-wheel drive, and frankly faster than 2.7 liters of engine would imply. Plus half the unlearned public thinks it has a hemi.

The Magnum was also my first company car to be logo'd. Now it's not as bad as some of our competitors, who seem to think that airplanes should be able to see the company name on their cars. The original labels (which were changed after my company was purchased) covered both doors, but now occupy the driver and front passenger doors only. Unbelievably, despite the logos the question I get asked by members of the public: Is that company car (read red-neckvoice)? Nope. I'm just a really enthusiastic policy-holder.

With almost three-years of driving bliss behind me comes word now that I will soon be the proud new owner of another company car. Now think of all of the cars in the world. Now think of the one you want the most. Now think of the opposite and you get...

A 2010 Dodge Caravan SE!

Okay, the positives: uh, it seats seven people. Yes that's great except I am by myself 99% of the time. Sto and go seats? Again, great if I was in the grocery delivery business.

Negatives: do I really need to list them? Its a minivan! Duh! Now I can look like a industry schmuck and a soccer mom at the SAME TIME!

Well since learning of this exciting news, I've tried to comfort myself. Yes I'm still employed. Yes it's still a great benefit. But my greatest solace? It could always be worse. Our department head?

He had a Chevy Corsica.

No Way to Make this Better

There are a few public figures who, at the mere mention of their name, create within me the instant urge to projectile vomit. A small, though not exhaustive, list includes Jimmy Carter (whom I'm convinced may have been the worst President in history, more on him another time), Paris Hilton, and former Presidential Candidate, trial lawyer and all around cockroach: John Edwards.

Most of us will recall that Edwards, who at anytime had about as much chance as becoming President as I do of, uh, receiving an F-18 for my next company car (post on that coming soon), pretty much ended his chances politically when he admitted to having an affair.

You may also recall that Edwards, always the consummate lawyer, vehemently denied paternity of his lover's baby and incredibly attempted to mitigate his transgression (not discretion as this is often called) by stating his wife's cancer was in remission! Yes because finding out someone has cheated on their cancer-stricken wife is so much more palatable when you hear the spouse actually had a chance at living!

Now comes word that Mr. Edwards will soon admit that, despite heretofore denying such, he is in fact the father of the child.

Seriously, could this guy be any more revolting? Despite "coming clean" and "taking responsibility" he now, undoubtedly due to some sort of incontrovertible evidence (read DNA) and after several years of denial finally admits he fathered a child?

Is Edwards the first Politician to have an affair? No. Do I hold as much contempt for Republicans who steep to similar behavior? You bet. But there is something about Edwards that is just simply revolting. Like the old saying goes, how do you know John Edwards is lying?

His lips are moving.

Design I Get Excited About

Most men do not get particularly excited about design shows and well fashion. If most of us were pulled over by the fashion police, we would go directly to jail without collecting two hundred dollars.

Consider however this garage. Now to me this is the perfect marriage of design and function. The garage is inside the house. This comes close to design perfection. Maybe if it had a frig in the room too.

I don't think this would work with any car - a Prius, or a Camry probably would not be the same inside your living room. And let's be honest, if I had a Ferrari, I would park it in the bedroom.

When Morons Play with Bears

I will never claim to be an outdoorsman or some sort of survival expert, but I've learned over the years of camping and being in the mountain areas that when one happens upon a bear, of any size, there is but what one appropriate reaction: run, flee, avoid, escape.

Recently I've caught two articles on what can only be described as living proof that natural selection is alive and well in our society. The morons shown in the photo from here in the San Bernardino mountains clearly do not understand the implications of what they are doing and have somehow learned to overcome one's natural born inclination to avoid man-eating animals.

In Colorado, moron number two thought not only feeding bears was a great idea but decided to do so, on a regular basis at her house. Why their like pets she told friends! Imagine the hilarity that ensued when neighbors came over to discover her being eaten by same bears at her home.

Can you really blame the bears?

My Favorite Wrestler Lost...

A few days ago I was in my second floor office working when I heard the unfortunately familiar sound of Winston, my seven year-year old, coming up the stairs moaning. Those of you who have kids know this moan. It's the one that sounds like a whale that has been shoved into a can of soda.

This usually means he's been hurt by one of his brothers (shocking, I know). Except this time he had actual tears coming out.

He walked up to me, placed his head on my shoulder and with the saddest voice told me he was super sad.

I asked who had beat him up this time?

No one had beat him up he replied. Then he said, in one sentence, "I'm sad because we were watching WWE and my favorite wrestler Ray Mysterio was wrestling in a cage lost and he got into a big fight with someone and he was almost going to win but then he lost." As he said it a fresh round of tears squirted out.

Sometimes I forget just how little he still is. Moments like this one help remind me.

When Leaders Fail to Lead

We all remember President Obama's announcement, shortly after he was inaugurated that he would be closing the Cuban based Guantanamo Prison (aka Gitmo) within one year. Though the left immediately applauded this announcement, many conservatives responded with questions as to how exactly this closure would take place. For example, what should we do with all of these would-be evil doers currently located in Gitmo? (I say we need to find a nearby astroid to send them to).

In making the announcement, Obama failed outline any specific plan for closing the prison. Now, still lacking a plan, the President has begun to back away from his earlier statement, with the administration recently saying that closing the prison is more of a goal. Of course the President has stated that he has a committee or two working on a plan.

Similarly we see this leadership pattern with the Health Care debate. While constantly beating the drum of reform, the President has yet to come up with his own plan. To boot, he has even refused to endorse any of the plans currently on the table. This non committal attitude has lead to rumors as to what secret agendas the President really has (witness the "death panel" rumors) regarding health reform.

Obama's non-leadership for some may be a welcome change. Bush was often criticized for being too decisive and leftist may argue that Obama is simply allowing the process to play itself out by deferring to his panels of experts.

I think Obama's leadership gap is the result of the fact that he does not have the slightest idea of what he is doing, and I think this is a direct result of his complete lack of real-world experience prior to being elected. Can we say Jimmy Carter?

Regardless of why he is being gun-shy, the President would do this debate and the country a big favor by refraining from constantly about the need for reform and spend more time talking about what he feels that reform should be.

Too Many Prisoners Equals a Riot?

In California one of our local prisons had a huge riot a few days ago. There has been much hand wringing over what caused this and it was assumed that the cause was overcrowding. The Times today cited a 2007 report citing that warned of over-crowding caused riots. There's only one problem with this. The riots had absolutely nothing to do with over-crowding but were actually caused by racial tensions among Black and Latino prisoners.

Now why would the Times want to de-emphasize this?

Evidence of Just How Bad the Economy Is...

This article appeared on the front page of the BUSINESS section of the L.A. Times yesterday. What struck me as funny was the serious tone of the author. One can almost feel the angst as he wrote of the decrease in pay these "adult" film stars getting. Why can't the press realize porn stars are just glorified prostitutes?

Health Care is not the same as Health Insurance

Throughout the last few weeks of the ongoing saga that is the BO Healthcare Reform debate, I've come to the conclusion that part of the problem is that we are simply confusing the issues.

As I read the various pundits on both sides, I'm struck at how often the issues of quality of care are confused with insurance issues (and vice versa). Insurance of course centers around risk and who should bear that risk. This is something I know a great deal about.

Health care of course deals with what happens once a loss (i.e. an illness, injury etc) occurs.

Part of the problem is that we've come to think of health care and health insurance as the same. Additionally, consumers treat health insurance totally differently than any other form of insurance. For example, no one would consider paying insurance premium to insure against the cost of oil changes. Why not? That's just maintenance. Yet we seem to have no trouble expecting insure against the cost of routine medical exams. Yes part of this may be because of the cost involved (if oil changes were $300 a pop)!

I can't help but think what we really need is more freedom for consumers and the introduction of greater market forces. I know many on the left feel, wrongly I believe, that market forces are ruining health care.

In auto and property insurance we are regulated in California by the fair claims and settlement practices. These rules have done a pretty good job of keeping insurers honest.

I do have some ideas on reform. I'll be happy to share them later. In the meantime lets make sure when we are talking about health care, we really are talking about health care and not the allocation of risk.

Even Porsches Sometimes Come Out Ugly!

As a consumer and an admitted car fanatic (I admit it, I have serious problem) I'm sometimes perplexed by various marketing schemes or campaigns I see. Sometimes I wonder, how on Earth did this ad/ etc make it on the air? Don't they have committees for this?

By way of example Saab's recent "Born from Jets" campaign. Pathetically, because Saabs have about as much in common with Jets as I do with say, uh, Brad Pitt, the ads, in not so small text, were forced to disclaim at the bottom that Saabs no longer had any affiliation with aircraft making. Was that even necessary? Like some guy is going to sue because he later finds out his Saab came from a Chevy instead of an F-16.

Beyond bad ad campaigns are cars that are just plain ugly. Most are familiar with the now infamous Pontiac Aztek (the most "versatile car on the planet" was the pitch). Many who saw the Aztek and were able to control the dry heaving wondered how it made it to production? GM of course has been lampooned for allowing this to happen.

This brings me to the new Porsche Panamera. Besides having a name that sounds like some sort of exotic sandwich bread the car is flat out ugly. It looks like someone took a 911 an put it in some sort of cake decorating tube and squeezed out a car.

Porsche faithful went nuts a few years back when the Cayenne was introduced (the first Porsche SUV). Because the Cayenne is now their top selling model many in the press have been gun shy about second-guessing Porsche's wisdom. I'm not.

I don't care if they sell a million a year. At 100k a car better make me weak in the knees. And this one makes me weak in the stomach.