Cars Trouble

I'm finally back in Rexburg, and it's been awhile since I've updated this blog. The last thing I had posted was that the transfer case on my Jeep had exploded on the highway and I was stranded in Towanda, PA. Well... in the end it took over two weeks and ten thousand dollars to get Kate and me home. Here's how it went down.

Rather than wait a week or longer for a new transfer case for my Jeep, Kate and I decided it would be best for her to drive to Towanda in her Ford Expedition and tow me home. We were planning to have her fly out and then make the drive home together anyway, plus my dad has more than one broken down Jeep with a compatible transfer case, so parts and labor would be free if I fix the Jeep myself. She made it out to Pennsylvania without incident, we disconnected the drive shaft on the Jeep and put it on a tow dolly Kate had pulled all the way from Rexburg (cheaper to borrow than to rent), and we were on our way. The only interesting thing at this point was that Kate's dashboard was acting up. If I accelerated hard, the thing would short out and all the needles would point to zero. Then it would click, all the needles would go to maximum, then it would click again and show accurate readings. It didn't affect how the car ran, though, so we decided that when we stopped in Rolla, Missouri to visit Kate's parents, we'd have it checked out. We didn't make it that far, though.

Just as we passed a city in Illinois called Effingham (I didn't make that name up), there were two popping noises from the dashboard of the Expedition, smoke came out of the dashboard, all the instruments went dead, and the car lost power. Traffic was heavy, but I made it through one lane of traffic without power steering to get to the shoulder and stop. We called AAA and got towed to a Ford dealership in Effingham, and Kate's parents drove three hours from Rolla to pick us up. Turns out the voltage regulator in the alternator had gone bad and had sent a power surge through the vehicle that fried the battery, the GEM module (controls the electronics in the car), the fuse circuit and the instrument cluster. Of course, they didn't figure it out all at once. First they replaced the battery and alternator, and still there were problems. Then they found the fried GEM, replaced that, still problems. Then they found the fried fuse circuit, replaced it, and now the car functions except that when you start it the anti-theft features lock it all up so it's not drivable. They tried reprogramming the instrument cluster, but it's fried, too, all data lost, and won't accept new data, so it has to be replaced. The problem is, it has to be programmed with all the original data specific to our car, same VIN, same odometer reading, etc., and of course the part is on backorder from the Ford manufacturing plant.

We waited a few days, but when it seemed unclear when the part would arrive, we decided we couldn't wait there anymore or Kate might lose her job and I might miss my super important field camp class. We considered flying home and coming back for the Expedition and Jeep later, but that meant not returning the tow dolly to the auto body shop my dad had borrowed it from, and they kind of needed it. We couldn't afford replacing it, so we couldn't leave it behind. My parents suggested that since they needed a new car anyway, maybe we could find one and buy it, use it to tow the Jeep home, and then they would buy it from us. So we found a 1998 Chevy Tahoe in Sullivan, MO, and bought it.

Of course, the guy wouldn't take a personal check, and it was already Friday evening when we found it and Kate's parents test drove it for us, so just buying it was an adventure. Kate and I had stayed a couple nights in a hotel in Effingham expecting the Expedition to be ready any time, but it wasn't; so Kate's parents drove three hours to pick us up at 8am, and we drove three hours back to get to a bank an hour before it closed, then get to the guy's place to buy the car, then take it to get a drive-away tag since we didn't want to license it in Missouri. Fortunately, a drive-away tag doesn't require an emissions inspection, which would have meant we'd have run out of time and would have to wait until Monday to leave. So all was well: we had a new Tahoe, we went back to Effingham and hooked up the Jeep, and were on our way.

Guess how far we made it? Topeka, Kansas. The Tahoe, which was in excellent shape with only 77,000 miles on it, drove fine at first, but the farther we got the wimpier it got. 20 miles west of Topeka it decided it couldn't make it up a hill. Not a big hill, a Kansas hill. Barely a hill at all. So I pulled over again, and it died, and wouldn't start. It seemed like it was out of gas, but there was more than half a tank. So Kate's dad drove six hours from Rolla to Topeka, we bought a new fuel filter and replaced it on the road... still nothing. It was Sunday, so nothing was open, but we managed to find a wrecker with a tow truck who pulled the Tahoe and the Jeep to the nearest repair shop, in Alma, KS. There's no hotel in Alma, so we stayed about 15 miles away in Wamego, which is apparently the Oz Capital of the World. On Monday the mechanic looked at the car, told us it was the fuel pump (which we had guessed when the filter didn't help), and said it may be a couple days before a part came. Fortunately we didn't have to wait, he got his pump that day, fixed it, and we drove away.

Guess how far we made it? The Tahoe lost power again and died on the side of I-70 a second time only 3.5 miles from the Colorado border. Yep, we didn't even make it out of Kansas. This time the battery was mysteriously dead, pointing to alternator issues. My dad decided at this point to call around to find local LDS church authorities who could recommend a mechanic in the area and help us get there, since we were again 20 miles from any town. It was about midnight, but early the next morning a local bishop came out and picked us up and took us to his place in Goodland, KS. Kate stayed there to wash up and rest while this bishop and I took a fresh battery out to the Tahoe. It started up with a new battery, the alternator seemed to be working fine, but I followed the bishop to a local Chevy dealer who tested the battery and alternator and said the alternator was good but the battery was bad. We got a new battery, the bishop gave us free food at the McDonald's in town (which he owned), and we were on our way.

Guess how far we made it? The Tahoe started losing power again, and I made it to the exit ramp for a rest stop at Arriba, CO, but couldn't make it onto the ramp. The alternator for the past several miles had stopped putting out power, and finally died at Arriba. My dad called around again (I could have if there was internet access on I-70, but there isn't), and was directed to an auto parts store in Denver with the appropriate alternator. He bought it over the phone, and another local bishop sent someone to pick it up and deliver it to us on the highway. I replaced the alternator right there on the road, in high wind and rain, and we were on our way again.

Guess how far we made it? This time we made it to Rexburg, and that was the last of the car troubles. Kate's dad couldn't stand the idea of his daughter being stranded on the highway, and after leaving us after the fuel pump in Topeka and hearing we were stuck again, decided he would tail us the whole way. He caught up to us in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and we all had dinner, and he stayed there for the night and waited to hear we'd made it home before setting off for Missouri himself.

So what is the bill? Parts and labor on the Jeep will be free, but there's $200 to borrow the tow dolly from the auto body shop. The final bill on the Expedition isn't in but will likely exceed $2000. The Chevy Tahoe cost $7000. A new alternator, new fuel pump, gas for the whole trip, hotels, food, etc., is probably close to another $2000 all together. So this trip cost over ten thousand dollars, not counting the money not earned during a couple weeks of not working. My Jeep broke on May 14th. We arrived in Rexburg around 5:30am on June 3rd. This whole trip took 20 days. Considering three cars broke down a total of five times, I call this "cars trouble" rather than just "car trouble".

Oh yeah, it's not over yet. Kate's Expedition is still in Effingham, IL, waiting for an instrument cluster. On Monday I start the major portion of my field camp class, which means for the next seven weeks I will be camping and making geologic maps, home only on weekends which will be filled with homework. Once that is done I will fly out and drive home Kate's Expedition. Let's hope nothing else goes wrong.

I Am Stuck in Towanda, PA...

...because of this:

That is the transfer case on my Jeep. Coming home from work today I heard a metal clinking noise, and I looked in my rearview mirror to see chunks of metal bouncing down the highway. The chunks of metal I saw are the chunks of metal that are not in the above pictures. As I stopped to investigate, I suddenly heard the most awful scraping, grinding noise I've ever heard from a car, and it hasn't stopped. One of the mechanics that looked at it said it sounded like a rock tumbler. I now drive a rock tumbler. Awesome! So long story short, my car doesn't go until I get a new part.

Live Free or Die Harder With a Vengeance

I've been getting a lot of hate mail from my fans lately saying "Why aren't you reviewing movies anymore? We're tired of this politics crap, tell us what movies we should watch so we can watch more movies!" Okay, okay, fine! Just stop sending me the hate mail! I know, I'm way behind with the movie reviews, especially considering the massive amount of time I've had on my hands lately to watch them. So here come one review of four movies!

About a month ago I had myself a Die Hard movie marathon. I was never interested in the Die Hard movies until I saw Live Free or Die Hard, and was impressed. So I got my hands on the other movies, and watched all four back to back in one day. That's right, in a twelve-hour shift I have enough down time to watch four movies relatively undistracted, and even get paid all the while because I'm working, too. And guess what? All four Die Hard movies are awesome, especially the first and fourth ones. Except the last one they are very heavy on the language, and the first movie has brief and completely unnecessary nudity near the beginning; but other than that, that is all you need to know. No need to read further (though you're welcome to), if you haven't seen them yet, don't wait as long as I did, go rent them and watch them. They are worth the time.

I originally avoided them because they looked like typical action movies with a predictable plot and unbelievable explosions and no real point except to show cool fight scenes. Well, they are your typical action movie, but Die Hard doesn't follow any formula, Die Hard is the formula used by so many action movies since. With this movie it's fresh and new, not as unbelievable as it could be, and Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman are believable in their roles. With action movies (and especially superhero movies), what really makes or breaks it is the villain. The reason most of the James Bond movies are merely fun, and no more, is that if the villains weren't completely incompetent James Bond would be dead about fifty times now. There's nothing satisfying about watching a hero, no matter how cool, go up against a villain who isn't truly threatening. Bruce Willis makes a great hero, doing an especially good job being a "regular guy" (well, a detective, and really tough, but deep down just a regular guy) who becomes a hero only by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even better, Alan Rickman makes such a believable, menacing villain, that it is very satisfying to see him brought down by the hero (even with 1988 special effects).

The overall plotline is mostly predictable, but along the way individual scenes throw some pretty fun curve balls, and there's great humor, too. The action is intense, and while there are the expected overdone Hollywood explosions, most of the action and stunts are plausible and the danger seems real without becoming an overload for the audience. Many action movies fail by being all climax all the time, and by the end are boring no matter how many bullets are flying, and others fail by trying to have too much deep dialogue and social commentary from the characters, and are boring that way. The pacing in Die Hard is perfect. I was riveted the whole time, and satisfied by the end.

The only real downsides were some lame acting from some of the supporting cast, and I can't help seeing the guy who played the cop who helps Bruce Willis and thinking "Family Matters". I can't take that guy seriously no matter what, and he's not that great an actor. Worse, Die Hard makes the classic movie mistake of having the cops bungle everything from start to finish because the police captain has an ego and insists he knows everything despite getting the inside info from Bruce Willis. Sure, this happens in real life, too, but wouldn't it be nice in a movie to see competent hero, competent villain, and competent cops? (Terminator 2 had that, now that I think of it... another great movie.) But even accounting for these negatives, it is still one of the best action movies I've seen, and well deserving of it's classic status.

Die Hard 2: Die Harder was also fun, but was in my opinion the weakest of the series. That's not a bad thing, Die Hard is a tough act to follow up. How do you raise the bar? They tried, but it didn't really work. It had it's plot twists, backstabbing and betrayal, and plenty of action, and was definitely a fun movie and didn't feel like a waste of time despite not having as solid a plot as the original. What made it work was Bruce Willis. The villain was pretty good, but no Hans Gruber, but Bruce was still Bruce, and fun to watch. Though there is a scene where he fails to save quite a lot of people and starts crying, and that's a bit uncomfortable. The incompetent cop formula is even stronger in this movie, though, and definitely getting old. You can skip this movie and not be lost in the next two, but I still recommend it. It is above average for an action movie.

One thing I liked about it is how well it made the point about the media in its quest for sensational, dramatic stories, does the public no favor and can make things worse. My memory is a bit rusty (that's what I get watching all four at once in one day and waiting so long to blog it, I guess), but I think the first Die Hard made that point as well, but it is in this movie that it sticks in my mind. It reminds me of a real-life example that happened ten years ago: the school shooting in Columbine. A friend of mine sent me a link to a very interesting interview with someone who studied that event, and one of the most interesting aspects is how the myths connected to the shooting originated from CNN coverage within hours of the shooting. Children in the classrooms were watching what was happening on TV, and as they came out they were interviewed by reporters as if they were eyewitnesses who knew the shooters personally when all they were doing is repeating what they'd just seen on TV and immediately reinforcing the myths. That's sort of a tangent, but it is one of the more interesting parts of the movie seeing the attitude of the news reporters trying to get the story that will make their career, oblivious to the panic they are causing and the leverage they are giving to the terrorists.

Die Hard With a Vengeance was a lot of fun, much better than the second movie. This one brings in Samuel L. Jackson as a character named Zeus, which is awesome by itself. Zeus is a very racist black man who only begins helping Bruce Willis to save his black neighborhood from unwanted negative publicity. When a terrorist sets off a bomb and threatens to detonate more unless Bruce Willis's character walks through Harlem wearing a sandwich board with offensive racial slurs on it, Zeus saves his life explaining that the last thing his neighborhood needs is another headline about black gang members killing a white cop.

I was dubious at first, letting the character chemistry between Samuel Jackson and Bruce Willis be enough to make the movie worth watching, but disappointed that it was just a typical sadistic villain out for revenge coming up with silly impossible scenarios to keep the cops guessing and the hero running. By the end I was impressed, though, because there is much more going on than that, and it starts from the very beginning though you don't see it. Or maybe I just didn't see it. This movie was also great in that finally we're allowed to see competent cops, making honest mistakes because even though they've thought it through they can still be wrong, not just stubborn and stupid in the face of obvious facts. There is also a very effective scene as a school is evacuated due to a bomb threat, where the bomb expert stays in the school trying to diffuse a bomb knowing he has no chance of success and is going to die, but refusing to leave as long as there are kids in the school. This was a really great movie.

Not as good as the last one, though! Live Free or Die Hard was the movie that got me interested in the series in the first place, and it was just as good the second time. All of the Die Hard movies are very patriotic (it is still amazing to me that Hollywood can pump out movies that clearly demonstrate why we can't negotiate with an enemy bent on our destruction, then they turn around and denounce the "illegal" war on terrorism), but this one is the most so. It also is the first of the series to moderate the language to the point that it is not rated "R", though there's an "Unrated" version that is hilarious in that language is added in when it is clear the character is not really speaking. It is also the first of the series that does not take place on Christmas; instead this movie takes place on Independence Day. Bruce Willis is much older in this film, and they work with that fact very well in the film. His partner in this film is the Mac guy from Apple's "Get a Mac" commercials, and plays a very convincing hacker, and is great in the film.

The story is great, the characters are great, the fights are very cool and above average for realism in an action movie, and there are some extremely cool stunts, not all of which strain your suspension of disbelief (though some do). My favorite part was watching throughout the movie as Bruce Willis is so impatient with the nerds he has to work with to stop the terrorists in this movie, especially when they meet the biggest nerd of all, who lives in his mother's basement and answers only to "Warlock". I don't know if I can say if this is my favorite or the first is my favorite, because they are very different movies; but especially if language in a movie bothers you, or you refuse to watch an "R" rated movie, Live Free or Die Hard is the one I would recommend the most.

Okay, four down, about two dozen movie reviews to go... another time.

Compulsive Commenter

Okay, so my last three posts in a row have had titles along the lines of "Something Day". Time to break that streak! This has been an interesting past couple days for me. Today, within minutes of coming to work I was in a political debate with both of my coworkers (my usual coworker, Dawn, and a trainee, Derek). Mainly it was over whether Obama's plans were good for the economy, the merits of Obama as president, and the economy in general. What I found most interesting was the completely pessimistic attitude of one of my coworkers, who claimed he had no more faith in humanity, and that whoever was president it can only go badly. If everyone was pessimistic, things would only go badly! That is why the economy suffered as little as it did after 9/11, because our country remained optimistic under Bush's leadership, and his encouragement to continue spending money kept us afloat. Note that individuals spending real money is quite different from the Obama plan of the government spending money that doesn't exist, and is the true economic stimulus.

A face-to-face, rapid-fire vocal debate is quite the adrenaline rush, and I hadn't had a good one in a long time! It's good to keep the wits sharp, sparring with someone with opposing views, much more satisfying than the typical conversation with a fellow Republican, which can quickly devolve into "Aren't Democrats dumb?" "Yeah, Democrats suck!" It doesn't always go that way, but it can in any conversation on a hot topic with a like-minded person. This is part of why I so much enjoyed the year I worked at Barnes & Noble, which is hostile territory for conservatives. I loved the job and my coworkers, got along great with them, and had many interesting, friendly debates. At one point, tired of them blaming everything bad on George W. Bush, I began to take it a step further with comments such as "Damn that George Bush, icing up the roads like that! It took me forever to get to work because of George Bush!" Occasionally they would catch themselves almost agreeing with me reflexively, which was always fun.

Yesterday, upon arriving at work, I logged into Facebook and immediately found myself in three political debates all along the same topic. No good debates in many months, and suddenly four in two days! It occurred to me that the thousands (probably closer to five or six) of people who follow my blog regularly, eagerly awaiting the next brilliant post, are probably dying to know the outcome of these debates, and are also wondering exactly how good are my debating skills. Well, I'm no professional at it, but I can hold my own, thanks to the sage tutelage of Professor Rush Limbaugh of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, at which I have been a student for many, many years. More than half my life, in fact! There are no graduates, no degrees, just continuous learning of conservative principles from the Master of Democracy.

So how well have I learned from Rush? It occurred to me that the thousands of people (closer to five or six) who regularly read my blog, every day eagerly awaiting the next brilliant post, must be dying to know how my Facebook debates went. So, because I've been so flooded with requests (I requested of myself that I do this), I am posting the most interesting and involved of these debates yesterday, which began when I commented on my friend Beth's status, and one of her liberal friends (with whom I debated) commented back. I have made no edits beyond formatting for the blog, a minor censor of one of my posts to clean up the language slightly for some of my more sensitive readers, and I have removed most of the names. My full name remains, and Beth's first name, but all other commenters are referred to only by their first initial. I think I caught it all. You will see that I am a compulsive commenter; I can't keep my comments to myself. I love leaving feedback almost as much as I love receiving it. It feeds my ego! I say several times in the debate that it is my last comment, then I leave a dozen more. So read away, and I will leave it to you to judge the merits of the arguments on either side, and whether I managed to hold ground in the debate or not.

Enjoy:

Beth is sickened by liberals
Yesterday at 12:02am · Comment · Unlike
You and P like this.

L: I agree

Dan Little: I'm sickened by the liberals in power, and baffled and saddened by the well-intentioned but misled liberals who vote for them.

D: That's alright. We're sickened by conservatives. Personally, I'm sickened by this, "us against them" mentality, with the perpetual disregard for the differences within each party, and the constant blindness by everyone to how bad things actually are for most families just because they haven't personally experienced it.

Dan Little: Haha, read my comment more carefully, D, you'd be surprised how many conservatives agree it isn't "us against them". Many of my closest friends are liberal, and they don't sicken me, I feel they are misguided but well-intentioned and I hope they come around at some point. It is the Nancy Pelosis, Tom Daschles, Harry Reids, Barney Franks, Ted Kennedys, Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas of the world that truly sicken me. I honestly believe all those names I mentioned are truly evil people. Oh, and John McCain pretty much sickens me as well.

D: See, I disagree strongly. I think you're the misguided one. I admire Obama in particular because of his community service work. He's actually been on the streets and has seen how people are living. Or you could take the entire RNC, who laughed and insulted him over his community work. You've obviously never had to listen to your children crying because you couldn't feed them, or worried about losing your house because you can't make your rent. No, the current "conservative" movement is all about greed and selfishness. THAT is evil.

P: They're going to hell and we're not. That's all that matters.

Dan Little: No children yet, but I grew up in poverty. Look at our senators, the rich, greedy ones are nearly all Democrats. I have a lot of compassion for the poor, and even though until recent months I have worried every single month that I can't pay my rent, I have never failed to give 10% of all I earn to my church, whose judgement in assisting the poor I trust far more than the government's pork spending. Governments are wasteful, and are there to get in a man's way, not to help. Charitable spending is always higher in times with lower taxes, as was proven in the 80s, the so-called "Decade of Greed". I don't want to depend on government, live my life the way they tell me, just for a pitiful handout at the expense of my freedom and independence.

D: Frankly, there are rich greedy bastards on both sides. To say they're mainly in one party is just not true. Churches are just as bad as any government when they have enough power. Jus look to the middle ages, or any modern theocracy to see that. Even then, I disagree that a church is the best place for charity. How many mouths could the LDS church have fed with the money they spent fighting gay marriage? How many roofs could they have built for the homeless? Regardless of your feelings on that subject, there are about a thousand better things they could have spent it on. No one is saying that you need to give up freedoms; taxes are specifically for using to help the common good. Don't forget that a government is just an organization created for the purpose of helping as many people as it can, be it through traditional charity, defence or public works. It isn't just there to control and be reviled.

P: Wow D, you're awful judgemental about how LDS has been spending their charity money when what we should be focusing on is the wasteful spending of the United States government.

Dan Little: You're misunderstanding me again. It is of those in power that I accuse liberals of being greedier, not us common folk. Remember, liberals vote every time for more control over your money and mine, with the arrogant attitude that they're smarter than you and I at spending it. Even if they are, it isn't their right. Conservatives (I'm tired of Democrat vs. Republican because so few Republicans are conservatives anymore) want less control over our money, leaving it more in our hands. Don't forget that before I accused liberals in power of being greedier, you made the assumption that since I am a Republican I never experienced poverty. The difference is that a liberal looks to government to save him from poverty while a conservative looks to himself and his network of friends and family. Guess which one has his best interests in mind? If not for high taxes, not only would my rent in every case have been less, but I would have had more cash in hand to pay it. Taxes hurt everyone.

Dan Little: http://darkcenteroftheuniverseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/tax-day.html

D: I simply chose that as an example because it was a very recent spending spree by a church that I can think of. Others have examples too, I'm sure. I agree that the government should cut spending, but this was a counter argument to the idea that churches are a better option than government.

Dan Little: Red Herring.

First you assumed that since I am a Republican I have never experienced poverty.

D: Incorrect. My assumption was that you knew Beth through work and had done the standard parents -> college -> decent job thing.

Dan Little: Wrong either way. I am happy for Beth that she is doing so well financially, and though I am struggling, I don't resent her affluence. I don't feel that because she chose to work very hard at a career that pays well the government needs to decide she makes more than she needs and I make less than I need and therefore her money after a certain point goes to me. That would only make her work less hard, meaning less "excess" money for me, and make me not need to try so hard since my basic necessities are paid for by someone who has more. You cannot tax the productive part of the economy, reward the unproductive part, and expect anyone to benefit.

I'm working on the parent -> college -> decent job thing.

If you really want to know what I think, I'm tired, so read that link, feel free to let me have it, and watch this guy say what I'd like to the British PM what I'd like to say to Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3axC6pmF4cY

D: I apologize for the incorrect assumption. But for many people it still stands. They honestly don't know what it's like to have no recourse, nothing to fall back on. I grew up in a VERY small rural MO town, and I know plenty of Republicans barely scraping by. And it saddens me to see them vote to give millionaires tax breaks while screaming about liberals wanting to give them healthcare.

D: The problem is, those wealthy people aren't "productive." most of them fell into there jobs or wealth, and with the exception of a few, they're using that money to buy polititions to keep everyone else down while writing themselves loopholes. Heavy taxes on the poor hurt us, but no taxes hurt us more.

Saw the video, honestly didn't see a big deal of it.

Dan Little: I agree, it is sad. But you can't give a tax break to a poor man who doesn't pay them, you can only give it to those who actually pay taxes, and the rich pay more than their fair share. I say this much better in the link I posted, but most rich people aren't Scrooges. They employ people, and when you tax them, they pass it on to the consumer and employee, by raising prices, lowering wages, and hiring fewer. Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more than the rich. It seems counter-intuitive at first, and I honestly respect those of you who see the poor and want to help them; I just think you are looking to the wrong source.

Most of the rich are not Kennedys, who fall into their wealth, and most who do don't manage it well and lose it. Most work from "some", a few from "none" to achieve true affluence. Even if that wasn't the case, it is not the government's right to mandate generosity.

D: The problem with trickle down economics is that the rich don't do those things. They hoard the money instead. I think that education, hralthcare, and public works do infinitely more for helping people. You're making the assumption that the people getting the help just don't want to be productive. I was a teenage father trying to support my family. If I hadn't gotten help through food stamps and college grants and loans, I'd still be poor and barely scraping by. Because of that help, NOT because of tax breaks, I can make good money now, donate to charities, and can volunteer my time.

Dan Little: If you honestly think that the rich hoard the money, there is nothing I can do here. I have never been employed by a poor person. Even if the rich hoard their money, the government has no right to tell them not to. It is not the government's money.

D: They do. That's why the first Bush got elected by arguing against Reaganomics. I suspect we'll never see eye to eye on this. You're not just conservative; you're an anarchist. Taxes are a necessary evil (think funding EMS for example), and that necessitates taking funding.

Dan Little: Haha, I'm no anarchist.... "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine
I am a Reagan conservative. Believe it or not, the reason Bush's approval ended so low was that he was NOT a conservative, and had by the end alienated conservatives such as myself, who were only glad he was President because it meant Kerry and Gore weren't. Reaganomics works, and he proved it in the 80s. He brought the top marginal rate down from around 70% to around 30%, which put more rich people money in the economy, and increased IRS revenues from about 440 billion in '81 to about 950 billion in '89. Charitable giving also went up in the 80s, since people had more of their money in their pocket. If lowering taxes raises IRS revenue by encouraging more spending, I think that proves that it is raising taxes that causes the rich to hoard their money against the fear of losing it to the government.

D: And honestly, you've probably never been hired by a rich person, either. Most people are hired by corporations: organizations of people working together to make money.

Dan Little: Who runs corporations? Rich people. Who invests in new technologies and new businesses, even small ones? Rich people. Who buys the fancy new electronic gadgets before they are affordable to the general market, thus providing the capital to launch mass production (i.e. cell phones and TVs and every other thing you and I take for granted).

D: That quote can be used in nearly any context. I could use it to support universal healthcare. I could use it to support a dictatorship. I like the quote, but it's open to be used in whatever context you want.

I wasn't talking about the second Bush, FYI. Conservatives are a relatively small portion of the populous, and not enough to explain his popularity alone. Anyway, not worth arguing over.

Quite frankly, you can't say the government has no right to tax without being an anarchist. Sorry, you're an anarchist.

Only the largest corporations are run by rich people. And most of those shouldn't have been allowed to get that large (microsoft for example, abuses it's size horrendously) and they keep other small corporations from competing.

Dan Little: Whoa! Labels! No, not an anarchist, just want as little government as possible to do the job, which is to protect our freedoms (not grant them, not limit them) and defend our borders (don't take that as an immigration comment). You'd be surprised how many conservatives there are, even among Democrats. I'd say we're 50/50 in this country.

Even smaller corporations get their starts often from investments from rich people. I have never felt threatened by Microsoft, either, I have always had the option to use a Mac. It is consumers who decide which businesses live and which die (and now Obama decides), Wal-Mart has driven no company out of business. Consumers such as myself do that.

You're right that "best state" of government is debatable, but there is no ambiguity in that quote as to how much power a government should have. If it is a necessary evil, it should have as little power as possible, be it dictatorship or democracy or whatever.

D: I agree with a minimal necessary government, but a government can't exist without taxes. If you believe the government shouldn't tax, you believe the government shouldn't exist. Believing that governments shouldn't exist is anarchy. Therefore, you're an anarchist according to your statment that the government doesn't have that right.

You've been harmed more by Microsoft than you realize. They've abused their monopoly significantly, mainly as a weapon against corporations that wanted to use other operating systems of programs. You think most people use Windows because they thought it was the best choice? Or Internet Explorer? They're pretty much constantly in court. They've even been ordered by the US courts to break up for violating monopoly laws once (second Bush stopped that, oddly).

I agree with you on Walmart though.

D: Last poll I saw on how people identify had 33% conservatives in the US, 41% moderate, 18% liberal, 8% chose not to identify.

So given party sizes, yeah, that's a significant numer of Democrats (Democratic party is quite a bit larger than the Republican party for whatever reason)

Dan Little: Holy [crap], you agree with me on Wal-Mart? I am very pleasantly surprised! Common ground at last. :)

I have been harmed zero by Microsoft. I have always had the choice to use Apple, and so has everyone else. It is Apple's fault they didn't corner the market, because they have often made bad business choices despite making amazing products. Apple almost went under at one point because of stupid decisions by Apple, not because of any pressure from Microsoft, ever. I use MacOSX because it is the best, and Safari because it is the best, and at school I use Windows because that's what the school bought. You think with that statement I lost my argument, but more and more schools and businesses are realizing they have a choice, and Apple's market share has done nothing but grow since Steve Jobs came back. That is all on Apple, none on Microsoft. There are always options. As much as I despise Microsoft products, I wish people would vote with their dollars instead of taking them to court.

Dan Little: Yes, but conservative candidates get a lot of votes, which is how I judge that (lots of people like to say they're "moderate" no matter what), which is how Democrats got control of Congress recently: by nominating relatively conservative Democrats.

The Republican Party will shrink even more if they nominate another Democrat like John McCain in 2012. They will lose me for sure if they continue down their path of getting along by compromising beliefs.

Jindal/Palin 2012!

Dan Little: Anyway, we've found SOME common ground, and I have exhausted my willingness to debate for now. I will continue letting the rich be rich and hoping I can be well-off someday, not looking to the government for help, using Apple products, shopping at Wal-Mart, complaining about taxes, voting for conservatives, counting down Obama's days in office, and you're welcome to think I'm wrong on any or all of those things. Live and let live, but I hope someday you will see as I do, or if I am truly wrong, that I will realize it. I don't think I'm wrong, though. :)

Dan Little: Thanks for the good debate, it keeps my wits sharp, and I was bored today.

D: True about the Democrats. Honestly, I've been expecting the Democrats to absorb enough Republicans that the Republican party will die and eventually break off of the Democratic party again later. Who knows?

I'd agree with McCain from this last race. I liked him in 2000.

/shudder. Just say no to Jindal/Palin. Please make sure your preferred candidates have a basic sense of geography before letting them run ;-)

D: It's been fun, at least :-D

Dan Little: Hahaha, no, 90% of the crap you hear about Palin is dirty politics by the McCain campaign, making her the scapegoat, which is most of why I am so disgusted by McCain. I hated him since he started playing dirty in 2000 when he lost the nomination. I'm a huge fan of Palin, but sadly I don't expect her to run again. She can just continue doing well in Alaska. At least she didn't ever claim to have campaigned in 57 states.... ;)

Dan Little: Okay, done for reals! I am so easily goaded into debate, hahaha. :)

Beth: Wow. I just got home from work and Facebook said I had 36 comments on my status. Nice going, guys. Dan, your arguments are beautiful. D, you arguments are flawed and uninformed. I still like you, though. :)

D: Ha! The only flaws in my arguments are typos from doing that all on my phone ;-)

Don't you just feel loved with that much e-mail though? :-D

Dan Little: Haha, it kept me occupied for four hours during my usual boring day at work. :)
I haven't had a good debate like that in awhile.

Beth: D, I know what it's like to not have money. Growing up, my family never had extra money. My daddy is a car mechanic and my mom is a part-time teacher. I got a job that paid $5.50/hr the minute I turned 16 years old. I worked for 3 years there washing dishes. I then worked at a gas station, a school, and a restaurant during college. I have NEVER been without a job since I was 16. Because of my work ethic, I was able to save for college and pay my way through. I had NO monetary help from my family. I got a BS in Nuclear Engineering with only $8000 in school loans to pay off. I'm now making good money because of my thrift and hard work. This is the American Dream. Its not a dream of handouts; but of hard work and reaping the benefits of Capitalism.

Beth: Wow! You did all that on your phone? I'm really impressed. And yes, I do feel loved.

Dan Little: Wow! Beth, that is amazing. I was better off when starting school, yet have racked up more loans and it'll be awhile before I make as much as you, if ever!

By the way, I think everyone should watch "Pursuit of Happyness". It is an AMAZING true story of rags to riches, with NO government help. Plus, Will Smith is just an incredible actor and all-around person.

Beth: I love that movie!!

D: Imagine proud you pulled it off, and it's less common than it should be, but you didn't have it that badly.

Ever try it while raising kids? Without a home? Did you honestly do it without any grants or unsubsidized loans? You know the government paid half your tuition anyway, because you went to a government school? Did you do it with out using government property?

I agree, it's hard, and what you did is something to be proud of. But it SHOULDN'T be hard. Everyone should be granted an equal chance. If they blow it, fine, but we have to help people get there, first. As is, children are going hungry, primary and secondary schools are in disrepair, programs are cancelled constantly, limiting options they can even learn about.

How can future kids work to be nuclear engineers if they don't even know what an atom is?

Dan Little: Blech. I have only one more comment, and that is that government subsidies raise prices to the point that they are unaffordable without government subsidies.

D: Anyway, let's agree to disagree.

My phone is going to die soon, but this has made this train trip less boring. :-d

Beth: I never said that I had it badly. I grew up well taken care of, but I wasn't spoiled with any frills, and my parents never gave me any money. And yes, I honestly did not have any grants (my parents "made too much", ironically, for any government aid). I believe I had one unsubsidized loan of $300, and the rest were unsubsidized. I had about 30% of my tuition paid for by scholarships, which I worked hard to earn. I think it should be hard, otherwise we would take things for granted. What do you value more, something that was easily given to you, or something you toiled long and hard for? People should have a sense of pride, and they can't have that with handouts. I agree that some have to work harder, but everyone still has a chance. You're proposing that everyone starts out the same, with "equal" chances. Well, that's impossible unless we have a complete redistribution of wealth so that everyone makes the same amount of money. (I'm afraid we're not that far away from that.)

Beth: The truth is, not everyone is going to be a doctor or lawyer. We need people flipping burgers at McDonalds, otherwise where will we get our Quarter Pounders? We need people as janitors otherwise we live in filth. Everyone's job has a purpose, be it with or without education. The cool thing about America, though, is that janitors have oppurtunities to go to college if they choose, through thrift, saving, and hard work. The oppurtunities in the country are limitless.

Dan Little: Supply and demand applies to labor as well as goods. Fortunately, the burger flipping jobs are typically entry level to the workforce, occupied by high school and college students for the most part. McDonald's was my first job.

Pride in ownership is what the original Pilgrims learned that first hard winter. They tried to have everything common, everyone equal, and found that no one was motivated, no one worked hard, and they almost all died. So they threw out the original charter, divvied up the land, imposed personal ownership, found pride in what they produced and traded, and began immediately to thrive. Why do we never learn even from our own history?

D: I find your last statement pretty funny. The opportunities are very limited in some places.

And we're nowhere near equal redistribution of money. That vast majority of money in this nation belongs to less than 1% of the population. I suppose we're near it if you think an exponential curve looks the same as a horizontal line.

Some people have it FAR worse. (I had it pretty good, luckily, and of was hard as hell.)

Dan Little: Ironic that the majority of the tax burden also falls on 1% of the population.... "plurality" I should say. The majority falls on the top 10%.

Dan Little: Ah! I keep saying "this is the last comment" but I'm a compulsive commenter, with easy to find buttons to push to make me respond! ;)

D: Why do you think a janitor has the options you did? Worst cast you'd have gone back, lived with your parents while saving cash to go to school.

What if the janitor is supporting his family? How much of that janitor's income goes to feeding children and paying rent? About 300%. Most likely, he and his wife are both working two jobs. They not only barely have the money to feed themselves, but because they're working multiple jobs they don't even have time to go to get a higher education.

I happen to be a big fan of food stamps and government support for childcare (it's tax free), because this I'd VERY common.

D: Unrelated note, my signal sucks and battery is under 10%. ;-)

Dan Little: It's not tax free, it's tax paid.

D: Sorry, I meant tax deductible.

The End.

Earth Day...

...was yesterday. Still, one day behind is much better than usual for me.

It may surprise many of my huge audience to learn that I am not opposed to the idea of Earth Day. I love Earth, I like being here, and I think we should take care of it, and I have no problem with taking a day to celebrate it. What I don't like is that Earth Day was created by and has been dominated by radical environmentalists and tends to be observed with pointless gestures that make people feel good about themselves and superior to others while simultaneously doing nothing at all for the Earth. In fact, I remember growing up in Boulder, Colorado, a very liberal place where Earth Day was a big deal, and it's amazing how much paper (recycled, sure) goes to making Earth Day posters that end up being day after Earth Day litter. I love the term coined by Rush Limbaugh to describe these "environmentalists": watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside).

Contrast that to another Colorado event I remember attending in my childhood: Dan's Bake Sale.  This started as a joke, with Rush Limbaugh suggesting to a caller, "Dan", who couldn't afford a subscription to The Limbaugh Letter, that he organize a bake sale to raise the funds (he was making fun of a school who had held a bake sale to reduce the deficit). Only a joke, yet it ended up a major gathering of conservatives, around 65,000 total from all over the U.S., and Limbaugh himself gave a speech. 65,000 Earth-hating conservatives should have quite the environmental impact, right? Yet hours after the event there was not a trace anyone had been there. No littering, no detrimental impact to the environment. This is a tangent, though...

Why can't Earth Day be a genuine celebration of the Earth, rather than a day of empty symbolism and finger-wagging at people who don't drive a Prius? Why does it have to be a day to call progress and technology and those who use it evil? Let's just celebrate the planet we live on and take care of the bit we live on and stop wasting our time, money and energy on unsustainable and unworkable "alternative" fuels and worrying about our "carbon footprint" which makes no difference in the long run. In fact, let's be glad that because we live (so far) in a successful, capitalist society that we can afford the luxury of taking care of our environment.

Guess what? Affluence and technology are good for the Earth! I read one of the best articles I've ever read on the environment yesterday, from the New York Times of all places! It's called "Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet", and it is a must-read. Here's a paragraph that stuck out to me:

As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy. This global decarbonization trend has been proceeding at a remarkably steady rate since 1850, according to Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and Paul Waggoner of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.

“Once you have lots of high-rises filled with computers operating all the time, the energy delivered has to be very clean and compact,” said Mr. Ausubel, the director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller. “The long-term trend is toward natural gas and nuclear power, or conceivably solar power. If the energy system is left to its own devices, most of the carbon will be out of it by 2060 or 2070.

Makes sense to me. I recommend reading the entire article.

What else did I do for Earth Day? I watched an episode of my favorite documentary: Planet Earth. One of these days I will be affluent (and therefore green!) enough to afford an HDTV and a Blu-Ray player, and the first thing I buy in HD to enjoy on this system will be Planet Earth. I have never seen better footage of Earth, from scenic views of mountains to rare views of exotic animals and environments. There are two versions, though, one narrated by Sigourney Weaver and one by David Attenborough. They have identical footage and scripts, but Attenborough has a much better narrating voice, so if you get the DVDs be sure you know which version (Weaver is Discovery Channel, Attenborough is BBC). There's an occasional irritating environmental destruction comment in the narration, but overall this is an excellent celebration of Earth, and I can't recommend it highly enough. It's almost a disservice to show YouTube quality clips when it should be seen in HD, but I will end this post with two of my favorite clips from Planet Earth:

A great white shark attack in slow motion:

A deadly mind-controlling fungus that feeds on insects:

That's it for now. Take some time this week to go burn some fossil-fuels in your car, on a good scenic drive!

Velociraptor Awareness Day

I very nearly forgot... today is Velociraptor Awareness Day! Are you prepared? You never know when a velociraptor will strike, and it's not the velociraptor you see that is the one that will get you. They are very smart and stealthy, and you can't outrun them. So what can you do? The chances of you being attacked by a velociraptor today is very slim, but the chance that you or someone you know will experience an attack at some point in your lifetime is something to consider. As you go about your day, think of a plan of action if you encounter a velociraptor at home, at school, at work, even at church. Always have an escape route ready. Are you armed? Mace does no good, but a decent gun with significant ability to penetrate the thick skin of these ruthless murder machines can be of use, especially if you are not alone.

Run drills with your friends, family and coworkers, and make sure everyone has at least one "velociraptor attack buddy" and knows what to do if they are separated from their buddy. If all else fails, be ready for you and everyone with you to scatter and run; it's not likely they can get all of you. If a velociraptor catches someone you know, just keep running because there's nothing you can do to save them and any action you take will only give the velociraptor more to feed on. Once you are safe, be sure to notify the appropriate authorities.

The last thing you can do, and not at all less important than taking measures to be prepared, is to remember the fallen. Take time tonight to hold a moment of silence, and light a candle in memory of those who have been the victims of velociraptor attacks. Remembering those we have lost will not only honor their memory, but will strengthen our resolve to see that fewer innocent people become prey to velociraptors in the future. If we all do our part, velociraptor attacks can become a thing of the past.

For more information I would suggest joining a velociraptor attack support group on Facebook known as the Velociraptor Awareness Coalition (VAC). Here you can connect with others who have lost people they know to velociraptors, and discuss actions to increase preparedness.

Have a fun, safe, velociraptor-free day!

Tax Day

So yesterday was tax day. My taxes were done awhile ago, but I wish I could have participated on one of these "Tea Parties" instead of being bored at work. I'd love to be part of a real, meaningful protest, it sounds like fun. Plus, it's a way to "stick it to The Man", who, ironically, is now a black man.

I don't want to say too much on taxes, because I'm already tired of the subject, and it is very frustrating to see the level of ignorance that is out there. On the other hand, it's frustrating enough that I have to say something.

I hate hearing people call for government to tax "the rich" because they can afford it, and to tax corporations because they exploit the lay man. Even if a corporation gives its executives large bonuses while the company is failing, what right does the government have to dictate how that money is spent? It is not the government's money. And if we tax a corporation that the government decides needs to be punished, how does that help the people at the bottom? There is no such thing as a corporate tax. As with every other expense, it gets passed on to the employees and the consumer. Plus, as has already been seen, once the government starts deciding how an individual or corporation should spend its money, the government has gained control over our lives that it won't give up easily. If the President of the United States can fire a CEO on a whim, what's next? This is power our government was never meant to have, and it is frightening.

And what about the rich? If one person decides to pursue a particular lifestyle, why should the government stand in the way? Because one person has more ability than another? More drive, more diligence? This is the land of opportunity, and the last thing we need to preserve our freedom is for the government to put a cap on achievement. Looking out for those who are in unfortunate circumstances is one thing, but cutting down those at the top helps nobody. If Donald Trump wants the headache of managing billions of dollars, why should that bother me? I don't want it. The great thing about this country is that I can be successful if I want to, and I can measure that success in my own way. And if I want to earn money, who can offer me a job, and pay me? Not those at the bottom, it's those at the top.

The thing that Obama and so many others don't realize (or do, and resent, and want to keep us ignorant of) is that rich people move this economy. Rich people buy cool gadgets when they're brand new and ridiculously expensive, investing in the technology and bringing it to us ordinary guys. If no one had bought a cell phone or a flat screen TV when they were still impractical, they could never have been mass produced for me to afford one. I couldn't afford a cell phone fifteen years ago, but Rush Limbaugh could, and that made the technology work. Not the government, not those of us on the bottom, though we have our part in the economy as well. We also have the opportunity, if we want to, to rise in this economy if we are willing to put forward the work necessary. Chance is involved, too, but most success stories involve diligence in times of hard luck. (If you haven't, please watch The Pursuit of Happyness; it is an excellent true story of this kind of success.)

Taxes are harmful to the economy, and this has been proven time and again. The best example that comes to mind is in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan doubled IRS revenues in eight years by dramatically lowering the top marginal tax rate. But if you dig deep enough, it is not about money to Obama and his people, it is about fairness. When a liberal defines fairness, they usually mean everyone ends up the same. When a conservative defines fairness, we mean that their reward is proportional to their contribution. Some people honestly cannot contribute, and contrary to popular belief, we conservatives do not want them to suffer, and would gladly contribute to charitable causes. The more we are taxed, however, the less money there is for charity, and the more money goes to pork spending. What if the government steps aside and people don't help the poor on their own? If that is the case, then we have problems beyond what can be solved by government. Fortunately, this is not the case in this country.

I could go on with facts and figures and numbers to support my case, but the bottom line is that the government has grown to powerful and intrusive in our lives, and even assuming government has our best interests in mind, it is dangerous to give a government this much power. The government has always squandered money that didn't belong to it, and now it is making up for a lack of money by spending money that doesn't exist in amounts never before seen. It's like paying the fee for a bounced check by writing another bad check. It won't fix this economy, it will and is making it worse.

There is one object lesson that is of value, and it is happening in New York. Governor David Paterson recently signed a major tax increase on "millionaires" that was the final straw for Rush Limbaugh, who is getting rid of his assets in New York. Paterson laughed it off, saying "If I knew that would be the result, I would've thought about the taxes earlier!" Why is this important? I'm sure a lot of people think it's great that taxes can chase away such an awful person as Rush Limbaugh, though I'm not one of them, being obviously a fan of Rush. Here is an excerpt of a recent article by Neil Cavuto, one of my personal heroes and the economics genius on Fox News:

"Clearly, the gov's not a fan of Rush. But I suspect he is a fan of Rush's money. He's going to need it. And now he won't have it. And if other rich guys join Rush, guys like Donald Trump....he won't have a lot of it, or them.

Then what will become of the governor's millionaire tax for which $300,000 is enough to qualify? If you can't stick it to the rich who are bolting, how much lower on the financial food chain are you going to have to be moving? Because you better move fast, governor.

I suspect what happened with Rush won't stay with Rush. But the governor chooses not to pick a fight with Donald, just Rush. Even though others will be wandering, who have nowhere near the money of Rush.

But Governor Paterson, you don't see that. You see Rush. And you want the always compliant media to see Rush. And only Rush. And then laugh at Rush. And their hatred of Rush. And their love of anything hated by Rush.

If only they'd stop rushing to conclusions. Because this isn't about a broadcaster who could easily afford to keep a pad here but won't, but many who barely could and are wondering now if they will.

If they follow Rush, it won't be funny, governor. For you and your state, it won't be funny, at all.

Sad, yes. Funny, no."

He's exactly right. The very small number of rich people, both in New York and in the United States as a whole, bear the vast majority of the tax burden. The "poor" don't pay taxes. The more we tax the rich, the more ways they find to hide the money they have worked so hard to earn, and with which they pay their employees and manage their companies. Even when the rich don't leave to avoid the burden of taxes, if they stay they have to deal with the financial hit, which means they cut back on hours for their employees, lay people off, and raise prices in order to keep their company from going completely under. If we punish the part of the population that moves our economy, then we are dead in the water. Taxes hurt everyone. Say no to higher taxes!

I wish I could have gone to one of those tea parties.







By the way, even if you absolutely hate Rush Limbaugh and everything he stands for, this interview on Neil Cavuto's show should be very informative, even if all you get from it is an insight into how rich people think, which is helpful in understanding how harmful these taxes really are: