My Blog
-
Cash for Clunkers? I think Not!
Fri. Sep. 04, 09:25am EST
On the surface, the Cash for Clunkers program sounded like it was getting "old," "inefficient," "polluting," cars, trucks and suvs off the road and replacing them with newer, efficient and lower emission vehicles while providing an incentive to consumers and dealers to promote a "greener" planet. I think it failed in all regards. Allow me to explain.
This morning on the way to work (at 0600 in the predawn, shadow of the hills morning), I came across a "clunker" in the true sense of the word. A late 90's white Camaro (I like Camaros) with blue fenders, that had no hood, no working headlights, belching blue/grey smoke through a non-existent exhaust. The left tail light was dim and the third brake light blinked on and off (without a foot on the brake). This car had so many dents it was almost unrecognizable as a Camaro. Yet, it's on the road, legally registered and (hopefully) insured. Whereas, it was noted on one of our local (central Alabama) newscasts a pristine late 90's Jeep Cherokee with just over 18,000 miles on it was awarded a Cash for Clunkers certificate. Cruising the local dealers there were an abundant of really decent and formerly good running vehicles in the lot with, "CLUNKER," written on the windows. Were they really? I seriously doubt it. The Government's definition of clunker applied to them, but ironically, not to the Camaro. Why? The Camaro wasn't on the governments list (like my wifes 2002 Saturn) because they were deemed by Congress as fuel efficient (thus greener) cars. It's sad to see so many "good" vehicles going to the crusher when there are so many needy families out there needing vehicles to help support their families, provide transportation for work, shopping or school. Again, we have to ask, is this profiling? Is this government stereotyping? Yes. It's perceived by those out of the automotive loop (and their constituents desires) that if it's big, it's bad, if it has a V8, it's inefficient and a gas guzzler, thus a massive pollution maker.
Now, let's hit that ball into deep right field! Those determining what a "Clunker" is, a pristine SUV with 18,000 miles on the odometer, are the same people you're trusting to determine it's better to provide military and VA style health care to the general populace while these same people exempt themselves and their families from it. Even though there is a major outcry from both party constituents, it's going to be bullied through. I know memory is short for a lot of people, but try to recall the problems there were at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in D.C. last year and the security violations and conditions at Veterans Administration Hospitals the last couple of years (remember, these are supported by the same writers of the Health Care bill).
Thus, what is your cut off date? Do you qualify as a Clunker, yet?
I don't know about your area, but here in central Alabama, dealers are still waiting for the red tape, bureaucracy and other processing paperwork to get paid for their participation in the "Cash for Clunkers" program. A foreboding of the red tape, bureaucacy and other processing of paperwork for the O'Magic Health Plan? Let's see, when I was in the military (a version of socialized medicine), my annual appointments (dental and physical) were scheduled around my birthday, sick call (emergency room) was seen via the caste system (combat soldiers, then active duty, active duty dependents, retirees, retiree dependents and others [in that order]). That's what you face with a government run health program.
I would say, "It's your choice." But, that's been taken away from you by "your" representatives. They'll push it through whether you want it or not. Then, what happens when an 80 year old Congressperson (not your state sponsored doctor) determines you are a "clunker?"
Disclaimer: I used my wifes car as an example, we don't want to get rid of it but if we did, it wouldn't have qualified as a "clunker," (per Saturn, though it'd qualify as a trade-in).
-
Government Run?.....RUN!
Thu. Aug. 13, 09:34am EST
Considering I have served (and been served) in and with the government my whole life (even as a military dependent) through active duty, civil service and now as a contractor in the DoD environment, I have seen a lot (read A LOT) of waste. And most of it is tied to deals made through our legislature by lobbyist. Remember the mid 70's with the $600.00 hammer fiasco? Congressional influenced contract (government run). The chrome toilet seats for the B-52s? Pilots and crew hated them, (ever sit on a piece of frozen chrome at 40,000 ft)? Each one cost us around $800.00; Congressional contract (government run). Remember, these planes are not insulated and pressurized the same as your "commercial" airliners (built by "lowest" bidder for the reporting).
Closer to home, (IT, Intelligence and Communications), the computers purchased for our use by the government is "of course" bought from the lowest bidder, but the lowest bidder as compared to whom? Other bidders of course? Compared to local procurement and it's way high; Congressional contract (government run).
A direct example:
I've been told my DoD purchased laptop cost US (you and I) in the realm of just over $2K. It's nice, it's heavy, the power supply is a brick, has a 17" screen and CD player (not CD/DVD or writer), and 512MB of RAM with a 150GB HDD. The software they gave me to run on it for my job requires at a minimum, 1GB RAM (per application and there's several applications used simultaneously in the package). The package also cost around $2K for a "government" single use license. In short, a Gateway M675PRR (look it up) with Adobe Creatvie Suite 3 extended. Total cost (plus/minus) around $4K.
This is akin to shooting a BB Gun at a bear. If he even notices, it only makes him mad! This PC makes me mad just waiting for a single application to come up, much less the whole usable package.
My personal laptop: Cost me just at $1K ($1049.00 to be exact); lightweight, 17" screen, small power supply, CD/DVD writer, 4GB RAM, 250GB HDD. My "same" software cost me personally less than $500.001. It's a HP Pavilion dv9820 laptop (look it up). Total cost (plus/minus) around $1.7K. Uh, twice as capable at under half the cost. And, I can string several browsers, applications and ahem, Politics4all along my system tray, all open, all running.
Why? Simple. Yes, under federal law, we have to provide three sources for procurement of items we need, but we somehow ALWAYS receive our items from a single source not submitted, and for lots and lots of tax dollars more.
This same government now wants to run a "national" health care plan. Let's see how many pharmaceutical firms, hospitals, research facilities and medical groups are in Congressional pockets. Where does this leave Dr. Jones? Probably out of the network, therefore, not covered, and it's more out of pocket for his patients. He/She will either have to join a medical group or take down his shingle. Where does that leave his/her patients? Having to join the "national" plan as their current insurance companies cannot compete with the government.
Then, YOUR family and MINE (but NOT Congresses) will be served medically by the Lowest Bidder.
1: I took a different route. I got Photoshop 5 as a gift at a Tech Fair for free (30 day trial); updated to Photoshop CS2 for $149.00 from Adobe (on special), and about six months later paid $199.00 for CS3 extended upgrade from Adobe. My "additional" 3D and graphics software has cost me around $350.00 (so far).
-
Thanks Joe
Tue. Aug. 11, 11:13am EST
If not for friends...
I, as with ALL people sometimes miss the obvious. As was the case with my last blog entry. Since 1993, when I first became a "webmaster," and started with Notepad and Notetab Pro as my authoring tools, I have been a hard-coder. Sure, I use Dreamweaver now, sometimes Opera and Homesite, but Dreamweaver has been my tool of choice simply due to the clean, uncluttered code.
Ironically, Joe and I both work in different offices (now different locations) supporting the same web presence in different capacities. It too uses this same type of editing tool (so similar in fact, it's kinda scary). So? How did I MISS it? I suspect it was the emotional plea for the cause in the message. But thanks to Joe, I can now hard code to my hearts content while getting the message across. Thanks Joe. :o)
Update on my yesterday's item...
My friends son's surgery was postponed a day while they recompute the route to abide by the "government's" requirements rather than the medical requirements. Gotta LOVE Governmental influence in medical matters.
Correction:
I made a mistake (OH NO! NOT YOU BILL!): After two years on Medicaid (which expired years ago for this young man, he qualified for Medicare and though the nurse said, "Medicaid," she meant, "Medicare." But, still, between private coverage and government coverage, he's still getting a "shunt" that may or may not work, and may get a second down the road where the stint would correct it the first time (per his doctor). And this is what we're asking for if we allow the government to "compete" with our private insurers. Think (AND READ) before you support something.
-
The Government Run Healthcare Experience
Mon. Aug. 10, 09:54am EST
Despite all the hoopla and back and forth bickering about the government run healthcare programs. It really hits home when you see it in action.<br>
My best friend's step son is in the hospital. The son is a 40 year old, blind, male with a myriad of other health problems that have cropped up in the last couple of years. Being disabled as he is, his employment opportunities are quite slim, so he's on Medic<b>aid</b> (the government run and operated, "social" health plan for those unable to provide for themselves and are not eligible for Medi<b>care</b> [the other government subsidized health plan]). <br>
This last week, he was sent to the emergency room and further to a specialized hospital an hour and a half north to have his situation corrected. Yesterday, while visiting him and his parents in the hospital one of the nurses was explaining the procedures he would be going through this morning. After reading and explaining to us what to expect, she flipped a page and audibly stated, "Oh, you're a Medic<b>aid</b> patient. I'll be back." <br>
About a half hour later, she returned with a whole new set of "procedures" and expectations. The most striking, in his case, he didn't "qualify" for a "stint" he was to receive before, he'd receive a "shunt" instead. Which, we were told was the government approved "temporary" fix for his problem and if, "IF" he has a problem in the future, he would have to return and receive another "shunt" and if that one collapses, he may then qualify for the "stint" which would hold his artery open. <br>
Okay, let's take everything out of the equation: a 40 year old, blind, male in need of a stint. The only difference is, the first read was based on his step-father's insurance (which he had to fill in as he is the "responsible" party if the patient's primary insurance wouldn't take care of the bill even though his step son isn't qualified to be on his insurance due to age, despite disability [deep breath]). Based on this input, the hospital created one set of procedures. It wasn't until it was "<em>rediscovered</em>" he was under the government provided Medicaid (not Medicare, two almost completely different programs), the whole process changed (for the worse). <br>
This, folks, is going on <b>today</b> by the government run health programs currently in place, imagine what it'll be when we <b>all</b> will be on their programs. Sure, the democrats in Congress (notice I said <em>in Congress</em> [who, with their families, under the new program is <em>exempt</em> from the program per page 114 of the bill... READ IT]), said, "we will compete with with private insurers," which would not be able to compete leaving the country with only the government-run health program, ala Medic<b>aid</b>, Military (disclaimer: Some of the BEST doctors I've had was while serving in the military, on the other hand, some of the worse as well), and VA health care.<br>
What amazes me is that with a track record of the 110th Congress after being the "majority" (by one seat), became known nationally as the "Do Nothing Congress," they were voted back in for the 111th, and they <b>STILL</b> don't perform for their constituents, as they're too busy being self serving. Well, in a democratic republic, we get what we vote. As a veteran, if I ever need a stint (hopefully not), I'll end up with a shunt as well, because I too am too young for Medi<b>care</b> as my current health care insurance will be extinct from competing with the government. After all, the "political boards" are already competing with doctors as to what procedures and medicines the government can afford to provide for those in need. And, <em>those</em> in need will be only those who are productive to their society. I myself am only a few, okay, quite a few (12), years shy of my new government sponsored "Die With Dignity," counseling session before being turned into mush (Soylent Green) for food.
-
Crude vs Synthetic - An Ephiphany Part 2
Mon. May. 18, 10:56am EST
A Temporary Update to Crude vs Synthetic - An Ephiphany : After reading through the comments (yes, I currently have the time lol), I noticed the original intent I had got skewed into the "global warming" argument. There is a direct connection certainly, but the original intent was to point out that there would be more use of alternative fuels, lubricants and vehicles if energies and funds were directed toward research and development other than simply providing them at double (or more) the "person on the street (the mass user)" currently pays for current usable, low cost oil products readily available. Granted, not everyone enjoys working on their own vehicles like I do, keep them running for years and years and therefore, saving money, and environment (by not taking up three metric tons in a junkyard).
My favorite example from my own experience is the 1978 Chevy C-10 I had custom built at the factory (unfortunately they will not do that any more). With shaved heads, increased valve sizes, a different cam, lower rotational weight, very little unsprung weight and a few other do-dads this increased the HP/Weight ratio and other factors. I put over 320,000 miles on it averaging 33mpg and she never broke down on me in the thirteen years before my ex (hence the word) sold her for less than the new tires I put on the day before. Actually, there was a lot more to the ex thing, BUT an excellent example none the less. lol
I've read articles in magazines (mostly Hot Rod, Car Craft and Car and Driver of course), that indicate others such as myself building personal vehicles getting excellent HP/Weight and exceptional mileage. But, a one off (like my truck above), tends to be a lot (read A LOT) more expensive (the truck cost 50% above a stock vehicle of the same model) than most consumers are ready to invest. Back then, I had just came back from Berlin with a hefty military bonus and put it all down on the truck I "engineered" over two years of study. It paid off well, as I would have normally bought two or three cars/trucks in that period of time had she not been so strong a vehicle. A comparable article in particular a couple years back, a gentleman in California built a Chevy 350, put it in a 79 Ford Fairmont body and achieved 26mpg from an engine producing just over 500 HP. However, it cost him over $14K for the personal engine buildup alone. Which brings us to the next question (and answer)...
Why can't the auto manufacturers create such vehicles? Simply put, they mass produce vehicles for the masses as cheaply and economically as they can in order to make a profit by selling massive amounts to the masses. It's up to the consumer to "improve" the vehicles performance, economy and usability. You could have (as I and others have done but unfortunately can't seem to anymore), contact the engineering departments of the auto maker and ask, "What can I do to make the engine, transmission, etc more efficient, cleaner, more powerful, etc?" They were happy to tell where there was additional slag in the engine, ports that could be blocked, how to adjust the cc's in the combustion chamber making it not only more powerful, but more fuel efficient and run cooler. Bearing in mind, it would be expensive, and there was the chance you'd void the warranty (if that's an issue). I ask that if it's an issue because my wife's 2002 Saturn has never been in for mechanical warranty work, it has been in twice for door seal leaks, but mechanically, it's almost 100,000 miles old and we just took a trip to Dallas/Ft. Worth and back to central Alabama getting just under 39mpg in it with no worries. Which again, brings us back to the original issue...
If I had the option of putting synthetic oil in her Saturn, at a cost advantage to the common consumer (myself), sure, I may have moved that number to over 40mpg, maybe as much as 45mpg (not quite enough to offset the cost of fuel [yet]). But until it's cost effective for me, I'll have to stay with crude. As Jenci put it however, using an analysis of cost over the long run or lifetime of the vehicle (in these examples), it wouldn't affect mine that much, however, I have to admit not everyone enjoys tinkering as I do and some not at all. For a lot of people I know and even Love, their extent of vehicle upkeep is putting fuel in it, and when it goes "BANG" get it towed to a mechanic or buy a new one. I can see however, in the near future, I too will have to refer more and more of my work to my next favorite mechanic as I get older and unable to bend around shafts, springs and pipes as much. I'll have to divert my energy and attention to other endeavors.
Afternote: Upon proofreading, I realized that, sure, I keep my vehicles until the wheels fall off (literally) and then just put them back on and run them more. But not everyone has the aptitude, attitude or desire to do this. Simply put, I do. Now, if I can get synthetic oils and fuels I can afford on a "regular" basis I too would switch, but since the "normal" consumer relies on a lube shop sticker to tell them when to change oil and filters, the additional cost may not be an issue. But then again, even going from 31 around town, 39 interstate on crude to 45 on synthetic over the long run could possibly make more fuel available for others. Something to think about.
Thank you for letting me attempt to swing this back around to engineering and creating cost effective synthetics versus crude. I don't really see this as a "Global Warming or Global Cooling" issue as much as simply a global resource issue.
