Mazda's Styling Cues

I've wondered for a long time where Mazda got their styling cue, first for the Mazda 3 and then incorporated into subsequent models. Here's, the Mazda 3:




Then, it dawned on me. The source was none other than:





The spaceship from the movie Heavy Metal

Liberals and Conservatives Don't Get It

This morning, 19 June, Jon Stewart was on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I was struck by how little they understood each other. Repeatedly (Stewart especially), asked, do you get me now. Remarkably, they didn’t “get” each other, despite their sincere efforts. Like most Democrats and Republicans, Stewart and Wallace don’t understand that both sides have the same concerns. Both sides are concerned about the economy, health care, education, and the family. The difference between the two is that they have different ideas on what they believe will help or improve those various issues.

Stewart talked about an organized right-wing conspiracy and Wallace talked about liberal bias in the media. Neither of them “get it” or understand that they are dealing with a set of beliefs and ideologies formulated by the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee. There is no conspiracy so much as a standardization of beliefs manufactured by the DNC and RNC – the default spokes-vehicles for liberals and conservatives in this country.

This brings up the issue of standardized beliefs. In Europe, Parliamentary politics is based on extreme party discipline. Politicians who don’t tow the party line are stricken from candidate’s lists and can’t get elected. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan relaxed party discipline to broaden the appeal of the Republicans and win new voters. Then, in 1998, at the impetus of Moveon.org, the Democrats increased party discipline in order to clarify their ideas. The Republicans then followed suit. Thus, our parties have adopted, to a large extent, European parliamentary party discipline. This discipline is strong in both parties because they both have the same over-riding goal, quite apart from the economy, health care, education, or the family.

Despite their differences, the DNC and RNC now share the same primary goal – win election or seek re-election of their candidates. Our political leaders aren’t focused on serving their constituents so much as they are focused on supporting their parties. The reality of the current situation in American politics is that they can’t afford to focus on their constituents when they must focus on the interests of the party to remain in office. Our representatives rely on their respective national committees to convince their voters that their work in Washington is serving the interests of “the people.” And, if not, they argue that it’s the fault of the other party.

Ideology replaced independent thought. Now, propaganda has replaced ideology. Maybe that’s why Stewart and Wallace couldn’t “get” each other. Maybe that’s why we get the government we deserve – a government increasingly run by unelected bureaucrats.

A Modest Proposal for Mr Roger Goodell

With apologies to Jonathan Swift, I offer the following modest proposal to NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell. Thanks to a number of currents flowing together (like noxious sewers), Goodell has the opportunity to alter football for the better.

First, marketers tell us that fans demand high-scoring games. Therefore, the NFL Rules Committee has changed the rules to ensure that the passing game is emphasized. Defensive backs cannot get near a wide receiver lest they draw a pass interference penalty. Likewise, the quarterback has become more sacrosanct than ever before. Even touching the quarterback below the knees or above the shoulders results in an immediate penalty. This is done, in part, to slow down the pass rush so the quarterback has more time to complete the long, down-field passes. Curiously, the emphasis on the passing game over the running game produces an undesired result (for advertisers) because games that are pass heavy take longer to play than running-dominated games because of clock stoppages. Advertisers want quick games. Rightly seeing that the average American has a one-hour attention span, they want the games to be over quickly so people are more likely to watch. (This, however, seems counterproductive because short games mean less overall advertising time, but I’m not in advertising). My solution will solve the nagging problem of long, low-scoring games.

Secondly, both the NFL owners and the NFL Players Association seem hell bent on destroying the goose that laid the golden egg. Football revenues are up so both sides are making more money than ever before. Unfortunately, neither side seems to be serious about renegotiating the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which the owners opted out of last year. The owners claim that sharing 60 per cent of their revenues with the players is unfair to the owners. Apparently, the owners believe they do more than 40 per cent of the work or that 40 per cent of the football fans are paying to see really, really good ownership. The owners also claim that many of them are losing money. However, they refuse to open their books and prove they are losing money. Meanwhile, the Players Association is led by a guy whose credentials to be the lead negotiator for the NFL players includes the facts that he is a lawyer, a lobbyist, and close friend of Barack Obama. He clearly knows a great deal about wheeling and dealing in Washington, but his policy of brinksmanship in labor negotiations is deeply suspect. In any event, both sides of multi-millionaires are hell bent on destroying football (just like the respective sides did with baseball), either by the owners locking out the players or the players going on strike, again.

Luckily, I have a solution to all the NFL’s problems. Reduce all teams to 11 players and one coach. This will save the owners a great deal of money. We’ll only need 11 offensive players to ensure that there is enough scoring to keep the marketers happy. The coach only needs to have a “magic wheel” of plays – think of Wheel of Fortune, but with football plays. For example, the coach might spin the wheel and the play is a thirty yard go route. The quarterback calls the play, the offensive line pass blocks (against nobody), the receivers run their routes (against nobody), and the quarterback completes the pass (hopefully). After the play, the solitary official spins his “magic wheel” of penalties. If there is no penalty, the play stands. If, for example, there is illegal contact downfield against the defense, ten yards gets tacked onto the play. If, for a different example, there is offensive holding called, the play comes back. It doesn’t matter that there are no defensive players on the field. The officiating this year proved that a penalty doesn’t need to occur to have been called, nor are blatant penalties called (just ask James Harrison). Sure, you may get a roughing the kicker penalty when there is no kicker on the team any more, but I think most fans would agree that my system has less room for mystery calls than the current system.

This plan saves the owners money, the marketers get short, high-scoring games, and, as an added benefit, we get better officiated games. In addition, all the fantasy football fans will be pleased. They won’t have to worry about the pesky problem of rooting for one particular team or worrying about their real team screwing up their fantasy team. Instead, they can just concentrate on the truly important question -- is a system that uses whole points or one that uses fractional points for yards gained more accurately reflective of reality. Obviously, the yards themselves are not reality. Now, if I could just find Mr Goodell’s phone number, we can get the ball rolling (or “magic wheel” spinning).

Cotton Hill and Edward Whitacre, Jr.

Cotton Hill and Edward Whitacre, Jr. -- separated at birth?




(http://hollywoodsnark.com/2007/11/12/a-requiem-for-cotton-hill/)




(http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1903758,00.html)

For the Medical Industry, It's Time for a Change

Anybody who thinks the medical industry in this country doesn’t need reforming either has bag loads of money or runs the medical industry. There are two obvious problems with our health care industry. First, the cost of insurance (and the ever increasing costs that insurance won’t pay – like annual checkups for children) is getting out of hand. For years, the cost of medical care in this country has been exceeding the rate of inflation – greatly exceeding the rate of inflation. The rate of increase is having an adverse affect on retirement systems across the country. In essence, the insurance companies, at the heart of the medical industry, have no competition and insignificant regulations to keep down their costs. They are running a protection racket that makes the Mafia jealous. The American Chamber of Commerce has recently argued that reforming the health care industry will put insurance companies out of business. This is like worrying the Mob might be put out of business. And since hospitals know that insurance companies have no incentive to hold down costs because they have a captive market, the hospitals keep raising their prices, outstripping inflation (think about the 10 dollar Tylenol).

The second problem is the high number of Americans who don’t have health insurance, thus often preventing them from getting proper medical care for them or their children. At least 46 million persons below the age of 65 don’t have health insurance, and, of these, over 8 million are children. We, as a nation, are simply letting over 46 million of our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters, suffer because we can’t or won’t think of ways to help them.

The most common argument against reforming the system is the shibboleth of “socialized medicine” and the exaggerated claims that such national health care systems don’t work. The exaggerated failures in Canada, Britain (and here, and here), Sweden, etc. are the typical scare tactics used to frighten Americans. The argument boils down to, yes, our system isn’t perfect, but if you try to fix it, it will get worse. First, the use of the word “socialized” is simply a way to scare Americans. The typical American believes the mindless equation: socialism = communism. Secondly, in reality, we already have “socialized” medicine in this country. “Socialized” medicine is simply medical care paid for by the government. Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans’ Affairs are examples of government-supported medical care. This is not to say that these services don’t need reforming as well. This does mean that the argument that reforming the medical system will lead to the horrors of “socialized medicine” is simply scare tactics. Call it what ever you want, we need to reform the medical system, and if you want to call it “socialized medicine,” “managed healthcare,” “single-payer universal care,” or some euphemism, it doesn’t matter as long as the obviously broken system gets fixed.

The high cost of a national health care system is trotted out as a reason not to even attempt to provide basic health care to all Americans. However, according to a report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the US already spends more on health care than any other country. Thanks to the obscene profits across the medical industry, Americans enjoy paying 16.0 per cent of GDP on healthcare in 2007. In the same year, Canada spent 10.1 per cent, Sweden spent 9.1 per cent, and Britain spent 8.4 per cent (the average cost of health care in the countries surveyed in the OECD report was 8.9 per cent of GDP). Thus, we are paying more than any other industrialized nation, including those with the dreaded “socialized” medicine, for a system that is obviously broken .


Too often, the argument against reforming the medical system is that it’s too complicated to fix. However, just after World War II, Europeans said the quickest way to get something done is to tell an American it can’t be done. With that kind of attitude, we figured out the Marshall Plan and put a human on the moon. Now, unfortunately, when you tell an American something can’t be done, he shrugs his shoulders and watches what he has on the DVR.

We used to have the smartest people in the world. In 1960, President John F. Kennedy challenged Americans to put a man on the moon. Americans (and people from all over the world) worked together, without regard to political affiliations, for seven years and achieved a remarkable goal. If we assume that other countries haven’t figured out their version of national health care (and this is a major assumption based on a phenomenal amount of disinformation), that gives us something to learn from. The basic elements of the scientific method are to gather data and make experiments. We have numerous observations and experiments to draw from. Maybe it’s time, once again, to challenge Americans to solve a supposedly insoluble problem.

There is no fast, simple solution to the problem of the looming financial disaster facing Americans, even those currently with health insurance. There is no fast, simple solution to providing basic medical care for all Americans. Admittedly, the typical American is the guy standing impatiently in front of the microwave waiting with irritation for his instant coffee to get finished. Assuming we can fix the health care problems in this country by some arbitrary date a few months from now is a curious mixture of arrogance and idiocy. We need to take advantage of the best and the brightest (especially those in our universities – persons who get paid to think, not bureaucrats who get paid to spend money), examine what works in other countries, and adapt those solutions to our problems -- this will take a reasonable amount of time.

There are no simple fixes, no magic wands to wave. I offer only four observations. The notion that a national health care system will be low cost is nonsense. Therefore, a necessary first step to help keep down the cost of national health care is to control our borders (ht to politicalman for this argument; truth to be told, he doesn't agree with my entire argument). According to some estimates, there are over 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. We must provide health care for all Americans, but, if we provide health care for illegal immigrants as well, the flood gates will be opened and we’ll be swamped as more illegals, understandably eager for both higher wages and higher medical care, come to this country. At this point, our country could not sustain such a high financial burden . Secondly, to help finance a national health care system, we should institute a national lottery (according to Thomas Jefferson, a lottery is “the tax … laid on the willing only”. Every year, the Powerball turns a profit of millions of dollars. A true national lottery to fund health care would significantly lower the overall costs to the taxpayers.

Thirdly, we should focus on preventative health care. A RAND study indicated the possibility of $81 billion in savings per year with preventative health care. For example, instead of waiting for somebody to become deathly ill with diabetes, it would be more cost effective to send the person at risk for diabetes to a dietician and a gym than to wait to treat the blindness, gangrene, and other issues that result from this disease.

Fourthly, Congress needs to cancel their own, separate medical insurance system . Their system creates a health care utopia for them and their families. With little cost to them and with low or no co-pays, they cannot understand the health care problems of the average American. Most significantly, they and their families cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. There is also no chance that their policy will be canceled by their company once they retire. If they want to lead, if they want Americans to take them seriously, they should have the same medical benefits at the same cost to them as the average American. Any solutions to the problem with the medical industry must be enjoyed or suffered by our leaders.

There is no quick fix to the problems with the medical industry in this country. However, we have the ability to solve the problem if we approach the situation both rationally and compassionately. As long as the Democratic leadership argues that we must solve the problem within a few months (before elections) and the Republican leadership argues that “socialized” medicine will bankrupt this country (or at least put a dent in the obscene profits of insurance companies and hospitals) the problem will never be solved. As long as the American taxpayers continue to harden their hearts against the suffering of their fellow Americans, we will not solve this problem. As long as we choose not to force the government to perform its basic function of protecting its citizens, we'll have no meaningful health care reform. It’s time that we start taking care of our brothers and sisters.

Cap-and-Trade for Idiots

The “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (HR2454) has passed the House of Representatives and is now working its way quickly through the Senate. The Act, in part, controls the emission of green house gasses based on the notion of cap-and-trade. The basic idea behind cap-and-trade can be a bit confusing, so here’s a simple lesson in the way it works. Cap-and-trade requires those businesses who produce a great deal of green house gasses while actually producing things (for example, electric utilities powering all the plug-in electric cars ) to buy “credits” from those businesses that don’t produce much so they don’t produce many green house gasses. Let’s say company “A” produces 50 units of green house gasses (what those units are doesn’t matter; let’s call them death bombs). Meanwhile, company “B” produces 20 death bombs. The government decides that no company, no matter what they produce, can make more than 40 death bombs. So, company “A” must buy 10 credits worth of death bombs from company “B.” Has this reduced the overall number of death bombs? Has this reduced global warming (sorry, climate change – the theory that explains everything)? No, merely shuffled them from one place to another. There are still 70 death bombs being produced.

Here’s the fun part. Somebody has to broker the sale of death bomb credits, just like somebody brokers the sale of orange juice or hog bellies. In this case, the death bombs will be brokered by Generation Investment Management, LLP. The chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management is Nobel Prize winner (not Irena Sendler), Al Gore.

Of course, Gore will profit greatly from his good work saving us from imminent incineration because of all the death bombs in the atmosphere. But he’s not the only one.

In June 2007 and again in February 2008 Generation Investment Management contributed $28,500 to the Democratic National Committee.

So that’s cap-and-trade for idiots. Some unkind souls might call it money laundering funds extorted from American businesses for the DNC, but it’s really to Secure us from all the death bombs.

In Memoriam You Idiot

Did you know that Michael Jackson died? It’s been on the news a few times. Now, I understand the hyperbole inherent in funerary orations. After all, a number of idiots spoke about what a great president Richard Nixon had been after he passed on to what I hope is his just reward (think warm). However, the orations at Jackson’s going away party might have embarrassed a Roman emperor.

During the several eulogies, he was frequently called the greatest dancer who ever lived. His signature move was the “Moonwalk.” However, this dance was first performed by tap dancers over 50 years ago. So much for the greatest dancer. Other eulogists, overcome with Jackson’s greatest, asserted that he was the greatest entertainer of all time. In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine contained an article entitled, “The Immortals: The First Fifty” listing the top 50 rock-and-roll entertainers of all time. Michael Jackson ranked 35th behind Johnny Cash (#31), Bo Diddley (#20), and The Beatles (#1) among others. So much for the greatest rock-and-roll entertainer (let alone greatest entertainer).

Don’t worry. In the face of reality, we can always count on the government to step in and revise reality. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee has introduced House Resolution 600 recognizing Jackson as “an American legend.” Naturally, this resolution will be debated in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Yes we can – legislate reality.

We have been saturated by the media with report after report of the passing of Michael Jackson. There have been and, for the foreseeable future, there will be tributes to his greatness. This media adulation becomes more disturbing if we compare it to the coverage of the passing of somebody who was … what’s the term? … important. Compare the coverage to that of the passing of Ronald Reagan. Reagan was not the best president we ever had, but he, along with Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II ended the Cold War (see, John O’Sullivan, The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister). It says something about our twisted culture and the equally twisted media that reports on it that somebody who helped end a conflict that could have ended the human race is less worthy of attention than a little, weirdo-bizarro, infantile pederast.