How Big is Your Bilge Pump?

Man, my 6:00 am men's group at church comes up with some great expressions and thoughts (reference the "Boiling Your Frog" post previously). You wouldn't think that 6:00 am would be the most creative time in a person's day, but we seem to get great one-liners.

Today we were discussion the protection that is promised in the to believers. The primary intent of the discussion was to indicate that while God does not promise you will have no troubles in this world, He does promise that he will be with you. In essence, though your body is still vulnerable, with God's help, your soul is invulnerable.

There was a reference made to the metaphor that water can only sink a ship from the inside. Like the ship, if your soul is protected by God's strength, it cannot be "flooded".

So, instead of asking how big your god is, ask how big is your spiritual bilge pump.

I think my bilge pump is pretty darn big. Thanks, God.

Why does APPL attract so much Vehemence?

Today I pose a question.  Don't know if anyone can answer it, but I pose it just the same.

 

Why do discussions of APPL always result in hateful comments?  It amazes me that a blogger can make discuss APPL, and the comment sections go nuts with volleys of hateful bashes.  And if a blogger often casts a less than 100% pleasing glow of APPL, those that provide comments appear to read the blog only to be able to complain.  There is one blogger in particular that continuously gets comments that disparage his intelligence because he doesn't think that APPL is the best company ever.  He is typically very realistic in his attitude towards APPL.  But the comments continuously berate him and accuse him of trying to "spin" APPL in a negative light.  But every post attracts the same people making the same comments.  If you know that you disagree with someone, why read the blog at all?!?

 

Not to say that the APPL "fan-boys" are the only ones that get aggressive with comments.  APPL "haters" likewise will comment on anything APPL, praising the slightest negative, and bashing the slightest positive.

 

Let's face it.  APPL has some great designers working for them.  The new desktops are beautiful.  And the iPhone interface is a marvel. 

 

But does APPL really do anything that special?  In the cell phone realm, there are smartphones that are at least nearly as functional as the iPhone.  And there are MP3 players made by other manufacturers that have all the functionality of the iPod (excluding the Touch interface).  With the iPod, APPL was the first big name on the scene, and they created a new, superior user interface.  But the rest of the companies either are catching or have caught up.  With the iPhone, I honestly think that the attraction is APPL itself.  They have the name to get the press required to make a splash.  Yes, the touch screen is cool.  But is it really necessary?

 

As far as computers go, Mac is superior in the fact that the platform is more tightly controlled than Windows.  These leads to a less buggy existence.  But the flip side is that there are fewer applications available.  Microsoft intentionally opened their platform to encourage third party developers.  Mac has taken a different tack.  For home users, a Mac may now be a useful alternative to Windows, largely in part to the increasing functionality of the web (this has not been the case for most of APPL's existence).  But for business machines, the edge is still with Windows just because of the availability of applications and the ease of creating custom apps. 

 

Mac chose in its early years to go after a few niches of the market where Microsoft was weak.  In those niches it paid off beautifully, as they became the standard (especially in journalism and page layout).  But APPL has since been fighting to infiltrate the home computer market.

 

Now, for those of you who read this and instantly want to bash me, I will provide full disclosure.  I do not own APPL stock.  I do not own an APPL product.  I have not used a Mac in 15 years.  However, I am considering a Mac for my next computer.  I do not own an iPod for two reasons.  One, you can get equivalent functionality for considerably less cost.  Two, I do not like being locked into a file format supported by a single company, regardless of whether that format is better or worse (same logic behind why I wouldn't for years consider anything that used a Sony MemoryStick).  Finally, I am not considering an iPhone because I do not need a phone with that many bells and whistles, and I have a contract with another carrier which I do not feel like breaking.  Plus, I have never spent that much on a cell phone, and I do not plan to start now.

 

Any thoughtful comments are more than welcome.  And any bashers comments (from either side) will be shown provided they remain polite.

More Supposition about Chrysler's Lineup

Well, I have heard more guesses and rumors about what Chrysler LLC is going to do with their vehicle lineup.  The most recent two I read are contradictory, so I will take them in the order in which they are written.

 

First, I read that Chrysler is planning to kill the Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen and replace them with new crossover vehicles built off the new mini-van platform, a la the upcoming Dodge Journey.  Isn't this what Chrysler tried about 4 years ago when they released the Chrysler Pacifica, which is now also being killed?  Admittedly, the Aspen is not the luxury SUV that Chrysler needs.  The best I can tell, it was only created because the Pacifica, although a nice vehicle, was not selling to SUV and crossover buyers as Chrysler had hoped (it is after all more wagon than crossover).  But why try to modify a mini-van into a crossover again?

 

Today, CCNMoney has a post that I hope is closer to the truth.  This one says that the Durango and Aspen will be killed, but are more likely to be replaced by something off of the Jeep Grand Cherokee platform.  Of course, first they need a Grand Cherokee that someone wants to buy.  The current model's interior is so deep in cheap looking plastic that it feels like a 10 year old Korean vehicle.  And the exterior has traded rugged looks for boring slabs of metal.  But at least there is a chance of returning the Grand Cherokee to its former glory and making the new platform flexible enough to work a couple additional vehicles off of it.

 

This also jibes nicely with the rumor I heard that the Jeep Commander will disappear.  Take the Commander to Dodge, and make a spiffed up version (with a different exterior feel) for Chrysler.  Face it, the Commander is not a serious off-road vehicle in the first place.

 

Now if Chrysler can do all this and still move towards what are sure to be more stringent CAFE regulations...

Houston Taxis: Go Green or Don't Go!

Houston City Council this week approved an ordinance to require that all taxis requesting new taxi permits as of January 1, 2008, must have either a four cylinder engine or be hybrid drive.  Has the City Council lost their minds??

 

I understand that the city wants to be environmentally conscious.  And I applaud that.  This ordinance, however, makes little to no common sense. 

 

Per the ordinance, taxi drivers will have two options, hybrid or four-cylinder.  For sedans, both solutions essentially point to the Chevy Malibu (least expensive hybrid, largest 4 cylinder).

 

The base price for the Malibu Hybrid vehicle is $22,790 (per the Chevrolet website).  Not outlandish, by any means.  But the car is not very large, either.  Most taxi drivers still want to offer large vehicles.  The Ford Crown Victoria has remained for years a popular choice for taxi drivers.  Why?  It is reasonably priced, built like a tank, and large enough to haul six people and a lot of luggage.  The Malibu, while a nice car, can only seat five, and the trunk is 28% smaller than the Crown Vic (21 cu ft vs. 15.1 cu ft).  Further, Ford offered a Crown Vic specifically for taxi service that had a longer wheelbase and extra room in the back seat.  Now the best legroom available will be "cramped".  And watch out if your cab driver is pushing 6 feet tall.  Every inch he moves the front seat back is less room for the passenger in the back.

 

And the while the Chevy Malibu is an efficient car in either 4 cylinder or hybrid form, the difference in economy is not that great.  The EPA numbers are 22 city/30 highway for the four cylinder and 24 city/32 highway for the hybrid.  Given the choice, how many hybrids will be on the streets as taxis?

 

Finally, Houston has one of the highest prices for taxis in the country.  In fact, they get so expensive that for anything more than a short ride, a town car becomes cost competitive.  Given the choice of a Chevy Malibu or a Lincoln Town Car, which would you pick for a ride to the airport?  Personally, I would take the Town Car.

 

What are other cities doing?  Well, if you look at New York City, there are several taxi regulations regarding fuel economy.  However, none of the are as restrictive as this.  And while the city does want all taxis to be hybrids, the implementation date is not until 2012.  Hopefully by then the car manufacturers will be able to offer a large car in a hybrid (I have heard that Chrysler is working on a hybrid 300 already).  But to require something like this now is extremely restrictive to the taxi industry.

 

Finally, I want to raise issue of limiting the technology to four cylinder or hybrid.  If the intent is reduce emissions, shouldn't the regulation be economy based, not technology based?  This is also the approach that NYC has taken.  Of course, with a taxi, the city number is as critical as the highway number since taxis spend a lot of time in the city and/or at idle.  But to say "four cylinder" is not realistic.  What if a six cylinder car can get the same city mileage?  Or what about multi-displacement engines that can turn off some of their cylinders when the power requirement is low?  But this would not be allowed per the Houston ordinance.

 

But for now, it looks as though Houston will be stuck with a limited number of car models available as taxis.

 

Of course, I have taken two taxis in the six-plus years I have lived in Houston.  Why do I really care?

Will the Fed Kill the Greenback?

As most of you are probably aware, the Federal Reserve Board will announce today it's revised interest rate for short-term borrowing.  Most experts assume that there will be at least a quarter percent reduction, with the possibility of a half percent reduction.

 

The reduction in the interest rate can hurt the value of the US Dollar and even lead to inflation, however.  So, if the Fed continues cutting the Dollar, is the US economy doomed anyway?

 

It seem to me that the Fed is walking a very narrow tightrope.  Don't cut the rate, the current concern over banking remains, investment drops, and the US could enter a recession.  Cut the rate too much, the value of the Dollar continued to decline (it is down 8% this year), and the economy could enter into a cycle of inflation.  It seems a no win situation.

 

Today, CNNMoney has an article saying that experts believe a quarter percent cut has already been factored into the US Dollar value.  I hope that this is true, because I think that a cut is inevitable. 

 

Let's just hope that the economy can remain recover some strength and stay solid.

Election 2008: Can Anyone Win?!?

First, let me explain to you, the reader, why I am qualified to become a political pundit for a few hundred words.  Simply put, it is my blog, so I am going to write.

 

I have been thinking recently about the upcoming presidential election.  Not so much about for whom I would like to vote (I have never voted in a primary, and I don't know that that will change in '08, so I have time).  I have been thinking more about who on each side has the best chance of winning the election.

 

I tend to have pretty conservative values, so I will start with the Democrats.

 

Let's face it, I think it is a two man, I mean person, race on the Democratic side.  Of course the two front runners are Hillary and Obama.  I am afraid, for better or worse, that John Kerry will be, so to speak, "always a bridesmaid".

 

Obama has one issue that will make it difficult for him to win the Democratic nomination.  He has minimal experience in international politics.  I heard a political analyst say recently that the experience issue is going away simply because Obama has been considered a front runner for so long now.  To the thinking man, this does not fly.  So maybe it doesn't matter after all in a general election.  But let's move on.

 

Hillary, of course, is trying to be the face of the new Democratic party.  That is fine.  The problem is that she keeps talking.  Of primary concern for electability is the fact that she keeps touting her "experience" in the White House.  She has not ever learned that politicians, as well as the public, see the First Lady as a publicity role, not a political one.  Do not get me wrong, the First Lady has power.  However, the First Ladies that are admired, most recently Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, are loved because they understood that their influence was with the common person, not the politician.  The First Lady influences government though the representative system, not directly through politics.  Hillary did not understand this going in to the White House, and got slapped, so to speak, through her health care reform debacle.  This experience is mostly valuable as a lesson to future First Ladies.  It is only marginally applicable to the Presidency.  I do not think that most of America remembers Hillary fondly as a First Lady, and this will not help her win a Presidential election.

 

On the Republican front, it is a dead heat of who-cares.  The real problem is that the only candidate who has a chance for mass appeal has basically said that he doesn't want to be there.  Of course I am talking about Fred Thompson.  Apparently Fred did not learn the one valuable lesson from Ross Perot's 1996 campaign: You cannot act like a candidate, back out of the election, and then come back and receive votes.  Had either man just stayed in the whole time, their support would be/have been much stronger.  (This statement is backed up by polling numbers from Ross Perot's candidacy.  I haven't researched Thompson's support trends.)

 

The remaining candidates all have problems that are going to keep conservatives from supporting them.  Romney has religious issues, whether or not they actually affect his politics.  Giuliani has personal issues and problems with his social stance.  And no one knows who Mike Huckabee is.  Did I even spell his name correctly?  I honestly don't know.  He is only in the running because conservatives don't have anyone else to support.

 

So, where does that leave us?  I have recently heard a lot of talk about a Clinton/Obama ticket (or Obama/Clinton, I don't think it matters) for the Democrats.  I think that there are too many problems here to win the moderate vote.  And the best thing that the Republicans have going at this time is that the Democrats might actually field a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket.  Perhaps Republicans can appeal to social moderates by including Giuliani on the ticket.  But will that turn away the social conservatives.  And will evangelical Christians, who actually hold a pretty strong voting block, vote for a Mormon?

 

The only logical conclusion I can reach at this time is:  Where are the third-party candidates?  This might be the election for a third party to actually get some votes in the electoral college.