Those of you who spend any time around me at all know, or will realize upon a moment's thought, that being "on time" is not of tremendous importance to me. It's not that I'm inconsiderate of others, and it's not that I'm just a slack bastard who can't get anywhere "on time." I set out my junior year in high school to earn a perfect attendance award, and I did it. After that, I moved on to other challenges.
Punctuality is a highly over-rated quality. I had a friend once whose philosophy was, "Early is on time, and on time is late." But, in cases where it is vitally important to be at a specific place at a specific time, arriving early is almost always just as bad arriving late. In music, being early is possibly even worse than being late. On an infantry maneuver, being early could get you killed by your own troops. In social situations, it is rude to show up at someone's house early - they may not be ready for you. In most cases, it simply isn't all that important to show up at a specific time.
At work, my philosophy is if showing up "on time" is anywhere near as important as what I do after I arrive, it's not worth showing up at all. I don't work for the German railroad. This attitude caused me a lot of grief when I was in the military. The Army's prevailing attitude was, if a formation was called for 6:30, you were supposed to be there at 6:20. That would have been fine if the Army was as diligent about releasing us from duty on time. They wanted us there early but had no qualms about keeping us late - even when there was absolutely nothing for us to do. I got out after my first hitch. As far as I'm concerned, punctuality cuts both ways.
I'm jealous of my time. It's the only thing I cannot get more of. I can arrive at a given location at a set time when I feel that doing so justifies the opportunity cost. But, that is rarely the case. You can't even say that firemen or medics need to be "on time;" they just have to show up fast when called - not at a particular time. Getting somewhere fast at random times is far different from merely showing up at a place at a particular time day in and day out simply because it's "time" to be at work (or where ever).
You can probably blame my entire attitude toward punctuality on the medical field. I used to show up for doctor appointments slightly early like they always ask you to. Not once was I ever called in at my scheduled appointment time. Never. I may not get paid as much as a doctor, but my time is just as valuable. We each have but 24 hours in a day. Thus, I started showing up for medical appointments between five and fifteen minutes after the scheduled time. Oddly, this neither increased nor decreased my wait times. But, it certainly eliminated the stress of trying to get to a doctor's office "on time."
Gradually, my casual attitude toward time slipped into all other aspects of my life. This was mainly because I found that whenever I showed up "on time," everybody else was late. I decided that I'd rather hurry to catch up than hurry up and wait. You can argue that friends should drop whatever they're doing to be sure they meet each other "on time." Conversely, you could argue - as I do - that when the purpose of getting together is to relax you shouldn't create more stress by demanding punctuality from each other.
In Saudi Arabia (and, I understand, all across the Middle East) as well as Spain, Mexico, and a number of other whole countries, punctuality isn't even an issue. When I lived in Saudi Arabia, I had a room-mate who was probably never late to anything in his life. One afternoon he suffered a massive coronary and died, ironically, what I suppose you'd call an untimely death. In five years, I never once heard of an Arab falling over dead of a heart attack - and they smoke. I also never once heard an Arab utter the words "late," "on time," or "punctual." The Arabs may be on to something.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Ice Hockey and Fighting
We are a hockey family. At our house, we say football is the contact sport for people who can't skate. Any 200+ lb. knucklehead can carry a big ball from one end of a grassy field to the other. Try "carrying" a 3" puck on the end of a stick while ice skating. And, oh yeah, while other people are crashing into you and using their sticks to take the puck away. That, my friends, takes skill. So, I get a little put off when I hear people talk about going to hockey games just to see fights. It's as though they don't think hockey is worth watching without fights.
I've heard a lot of people say they don't understand hockey; they get the fighting, but the rules of hockey itself are too complicated. They aren't. The goal is to shoot the puck into the opposing team's net. How much simpler can it get? There are rules, of course, but they are few and fairly intuitive. You cannot, for example, whack opposing players across the head with your stick. If you do, you'll be sent to the penalty box for 5 minutes.
The one and only rule you should really understand is the off-sides rule, and it's pretty simple. You cannot go across the opposing team's blue line until after the puck has crossed the blue line; if the other team moves the puck back out, everyone on your team must go back until they regain possession of the puck. In other words, you can't plant a couple of players next to the other team's net and leave them there for the entire game. If you understand that, you can watch hockey and you'll know what's happening at least 90% of the time.
Back to fighting. If both benches at a football game started brawling on the 50-yard line, it would be headline news. At hockey games, fights are common. There's a reason for that. Hockey is a non-stop game which moves fast and involves a lot of on-going physical contact. Generally, barring a penalty or lost puck, play continues without stopping until someone gets the puck into a goal. Players rotate on and off the ice constantly because, frankly, nobody can play at full speed for more than a few minutes at a time - but the game doesn't stop. A new "shift" jumps onto the ice and picks up play on the fly. Unlike football (or most other sports which stop frequently), in hockey you don't get much time to cool off physically or emotionally. Getting slammed into the boards and whacked with the butt end of a stick can piss you off, especially when you're tired. A little irritation piled on top of a close game can push players to take a swing at each other. Fights in hockey are a direct result of emotional intensity combined with physical exertion. They are not "part of the game." They are a by-product of the game.
There's more than enough violence built into the game without fights. Last year a player got his throat slashed by another player's skate. Plenty of players have died after being hit by pucks (rubber gets extremely hard when frozen, and pucks move well over 100 mph). Plus, you've got ten guys skating around with sticks at over 30 mph in an area confined by a wall of wood and glass. You know there's going to be contact. You need to see fighting on top of all that?
Do I think fighting should be completely eliminated from hockey? Not necessarily. I have played hockey in a no-checking league where fighting would have gotten a player kicked out of the league entirely. Frankly, I think the games were somewhat MORE interesting without the intentional contact because we relied solely on skill to move the puck. There was still contact, but we couldn't deliberately crash into each other. As a result, tempers tended to stay fairly calm and fights were non-existent. But, knowing that a fight would get us into serious trouble did tend to make us back off a bit in play. I'd hate to see professional play similarly restricted.
Still, I also hate to see the semi-amateur leagues like the SEHL and SPHL use fights to lure crowds of wrestling fans into ice rinks. If you want to see fights, go to a boxing match. If you just like watching overgrown guys bang into each other in the mud, you've always got football. If you want to see some intense play by some very talented athletes, go to a hockey game.
I've heard a lot of people say they don't understand hockey; they get the fighting, but the rules of hockey itself are too complicated. They aren't. The goal is to shoot the puck into the opposing team's net. How much simpler can it get? There are rules, of course, but they are few and fairly intuitive. You cannot, for example, whack opposing players across the head with your stick. If you do, you'll be sent to the penalty box for 5 minutes.
The one and only rule you should really understand is the off-sides rule, and it's pretty simple. You cannot go across the opposing team's blue line until after the puck has crossed the blue line; if the other team moves the puck back out, everyone on your team must go back until they regain possession of the puck. In other words, you can't plant a couple of players next to the other team's net and leave them there for the entire game. If you understand that, you can watch hockey and you'll know what's happening at least 90% of the time.
Back to fighting. If both benches at a football game started brawling on the 50-yard line, it would be headline news. At hockey games, fights are common. There's a reason for that. Hockey is a non-stop game which moves fast and involves a lot of on-going physical contact. Generally, barring a penalty or lost puck, play continues without stopping until someone gets the puck into a goal. Players rotate on and off the ice constantly because, frankly, nobody can play at full speed for more than a few minutes at a time - but the game doesn't stop. A new "shift" jumps onto the ice and picks up play on the fly. Unlike football (or most other sports which stop frequently), in hockey you don't get much time to cool off physically or emotionally. Getting slammed into the boards and whacked with the butt end of a stick can piss you off, especially when you're tired. A little irritation piled on top of a close game can push players to take a swing at each other. Fights in hockey are a direct result of emotional intensity combined with physical exertion. They are not "part of the game." They are a by-product of the game.
There's more than enough violence built into the game without fights. Last year a player got his throat slashed by another player's skate. Plenty of players have died after being hit by pucks (rubber gets extremely hard when frozen, and pucks move well over 100 mph). Plus, you've got ten guys skating around with sticks at over 30 mph in an area confined by a wall of wood and glass. You know there's going to be contact. You need to see fighting on top of all that?
Do I think fighting should be completely eliminated from hockey? Not necessarily. I have played hockey in a no-checking league where fighting would have gotten a player kicked out of the league entirely. Frankly, I think the games were somewhat MORE interesting without the intentional contact because we relied solely on skill to move the puck. There was still contact, but we couldn't deliberately crash into each other. As a result, tempers tended to stay fairly calm and fights were non-existent. But, knowing that a fight would get us into serious trouble did tend to make us back off a bit in play. I'd hate to see professional play similarly restricted.
Still, I also hate to see the semi-amateur leagues like the SEHL and SPHL use fights to lure crowds of wrestling fans into ice rinks. If you want to see fights, go to a boxing match. If you just like watching overgrown guys bang into each other in the mud, you've always got football. If you want to see some intense play by some very talented athletes, go to a hockey game.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
A Tax Loop Hole for the Average Guy (or Gal)
Have you ever noticed that it's virtually impossible to meet the 7.5% of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) cut-off to deduct medical expenses from your income tax? You can save every receipt for every conceivable medical expense - from mileage driven to the doctor to your annual family health insurance deductible - and, unless you have some catastrophic disease, the receipts will almost never add up to 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.
Don't believe me? Let's say you make a modest income of $30,000/year. One percent of that is $300.00, so seven percent would be $2100.00 and 7.5 % would be roughly $2250.00 (if you were watching closely, I just showed you how to do that calculation in your head because I was too lazy to open the Windows Calculator). If you make more than $30k/year, your threshold for deducting medical expenses goes up from there. And, that's just the threshold - you can only deduct expenses beyond that amount. Hardly worth the effort you'll put into trying to keep track of all those receipts all year and adding them up on April 14th.
An FSA is a back door around the 7.5% deductible threshold. You have money taken out of your check BEFORE taxes and put into the FSA. Then, you use the FSA money to pay for any medical expenses you incur during the year. You do need to keep receipts, but only until you're ready to submit them to your FSA provider. When you have a medical expense - virtually ANY medical expense - you send a claim form and a receipt in and they send you a check. It's like being able to deduct your medical expenses without meeting the 7.5% deductible threshold.
Here's another cool thing about the FSA. You decide how much you're going to put in for the whole year and equal installments are taken out of every paycheck. For example, let's say you decide to put $1200 into your FSA and you get paid every two weeks; they'll take $50 out of each paycheck for the whole year (which adds up to $1200). Here's the cool part: the entire $1200 is available to you right away! If you spend the entire $1200 in the first month, you can be reimbursed without waiting until the end of the year. So, besides the tax advantage, it's also like financing your annual medical expenses interest-free.
The only tricky part that I've found - and it's not significant - is trying to guess how much you'll spend on medical expenses in a year. You don't want to put too much in the FSA because if you don't spend it you lose it. So, I lowballed my guess. Basically I know I'm very likely going to pay out at least my individual medical deductible and some fairly regular prescription expenses. Plus, I know I'll send the whole family for two regular dentist appointments for which I have a copay. I just sort of added up a rough estimate of what that would cost and made that my FSA contribution for this year. If I underestimated, I can adjust later or just suck it up and pay with after-tax dollars from my pocket. Again, the important thing is not to over-fund your FSA because you'll lose the unused money.
What amazed me was the vast range of things I can pay for out of my FSA. For starters, any deductibles or copays on my medical or dental insurance, including prescription medication copays, can be paid out of my FSA. Virtually anything else that you can reasonably consider a medical related expense is also included: bandages, antiseptic, antibiotic creams, over-the-counter medications (with a few exceptions), etc.
You won't get wealthy by using an FSA, and not every employer even offers this benefit. But, if your employer offers an FSA (flexible spending account) as part of your benefits package, TAKE IT.
Don't believe me? Let's say you make a modest income of $30,000/year. One percent of that is $300.00, so seven percent would be $2100.00 and 7.5 % would be roughly $2250.00 (if you were watching closely, I just showed you how to do that calculation in your head because I was too lazy to open the Windows Calculator). If you make more than $30k/year, your threshold for deducting medical expenses goes up from there. And, that's just the threshold - you can only deduct expenses beyond that amount. Hardly worth the effort you'll put into trying to keep track of all those receipts all year and adding them up on April 14th.
An FSA is a back door around the 7.5% deductible threshold. You have money taken out of your check BEFORE taxes and put into the FSA. Then, you use the FSA money to pay for any medical expenses you incur during the year. You do need to keep receipts, but only until you're ready to submit them to your FSA provider. When you have a medical expense - virtually ANY medical expense - you send a claim form and a receipt in and they send you a check. It's like being able to deduct your medical expenses without meeting the 7.5% deductible threshold.
Here's another cool thing about the FSA. You decide how much you're going to put in for the whole year and equal installments are taken out of every paycheck. For example, let's say you decide to put $1200 into your FSA and you get paid every two weeks; they'll take $50 out of each paycheck for the whole year (which adds up to $1200). Here's the cool part: the entire $1200 is available to you right away! If you spend the entire $1200 in the first month, you can be reimbursed without waiting until the end of the year. So, besides the tax advantage, it's also like financing your annual medical expenses interest-free.
The only tricky part that I've found - and it's not significant - is trying to guess how much you'll spend on medical expenses in a year. You don't want to put too much in the FSA because if you don't spend it you lose it. So, I lowballed my guess. Basically I know I'm very likely going to pay out at least my individual medical deductible and some fairly regular prescription expenses. Plus, I know I'll send the whole family for two regular dentist appointments for which I have a copay. I just sort of added up a rough estimate of what that would cost and made that my FSA contribution for this year. If I underestimated, I can adjust later or just suck it up and pay with after-tax dollars from my pocket. Again, the important thing is not to over-fund your FSA because you'll lose the unused money.
What amazed me was the vast range of things I can pay for out of my FSA. For starters, any deductibles or copays on my medical or dental insurance, including prescription medication copays, can be paid out of my FSA. Virtually anything else that you can reasonably consider a medical related expense is also included: bandages, antiseptic, antibiotic creams, over-the-counter medications (with a few exceptions), etc.
You won't get wealthy by using an FSA, and not every employer even offers this benefit. But, if your employer offers an FSA (flexible spending account) as part of your benefits package, TAKE IT.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
A Complete Amateur's Quick and Dirty Guide to the Stock Market
As many of you know, I was a technology major in college - not a finance or business major. But, I've bought stocks, and I've made money in the stock market. I have actually read a book or two about it. While I'm not an "expert," I feel perfectly qualified to offer the following information. It seems like something my friends might want to know about in these trying times.
First, the basics. Stocks are shares in companies which choose to be publicly traded. When you buy a stock, you own a part of a company. It's a very, very tiny part, but you're in there even if you own just one single share. Stocks are sold and bought on the stock market. There are actually several "stock markets," with the NY Exchange being the best known. The NY Exchange started under a tree at the end of Wall St. about 200 years ago, which has absolutely no bearing on anything but it's sort of interesting to think about how much things have changed.
Companies pretty much decide how much they will charge for a share of stock at first. After that, the price of a share of stock in any company is determined primarily by conjecture, mob mentality, and wild assed guessing. Really. There is some but very little correlation between the price of a share of stock and it's actual value. Occasionally, there is no correlation at all.
The value of a share of stock should represent how much money the company is likely to make over time. Let's say XYZ Co. Inc. has 100 shares of stock owned by various investors. Let's also say the company makes $100,000 profit this year. At the end of the year, that $100,000 would theoretically be split equally and each share of stock would earn $1000. If you owned 5 shares, you'd get $5000 in dividends. If XYZ invented a new product and expected to make $200,000 next year, the value of their stock would increase. If XYZ hired a complete idiot to run the company, the value of the stock might decrease because people would expect earnings to go down next year.
There are two ways to make money in the stock market: 1) Buy stock in good, solid companies which will earn profits consistently and hold onto these stocks for life. Every year, you'll get a nice dividend check in the mail. Or, 2) Buy stocks when their price goes down for whatever reason and sell them when the price goes up. It helps to have some idea of what might cause a stock price to go up or down. If you can figure that out, you're better than most Wall Street pros.
Wall Street people are very much like paranoid lemmings. If one fund manager decides to sell off ten-thousand shares of XYZ, Inc. tomorrow, other fund managers will likely assume that something is wrong at XYZ, Inc. and start selling their shares. The price of XYZ stock goes down. If somebody with some sense happens to be around to buy up the shares, the price will stabilize. But, then other investors may decide that XYZ shares are "hot" and start buying them up, causing the price to shoot up. And, so it goes. Day in and day out.
Sometimes stocks are bought and sold with the intent of affecting their share price. Sometimes information about a company is deliberately publicized to drive share prices up. That's what the Enron scandal was all about. With that sort of stuff going on, it can be very hard for Joe Middleclass to make good buy-sell decisions. Hell, that sort of stuff makes it hard for investment bankers to make good buy-sell decisions. But, even Joe M. knows that Wal-Mart is going to be in business for a long time.
So, my advice to anyone thinking of getting into the stock market (and this may be a very good time to do that if you have some money to invest): buy stock in good, stable companies that will continue to thrive in a sluggish economy. If the price goes down, buy more shares. Hold onto them until you don't need the dividend income any more. Or, if you're just not sure about all this, stick with managed funds where somebody else is getting paid to figure out what to buy or sell.
A side note (purely my opinion): When management of a company decides that Wall St. investors are more important than employees, you end up with a typical corporate sweat shop that treats its employees like crap. This is why I recommend buying stock in the company you work for - the profits resulting from having your pay cut, losing your bonus, getting no OT, and paying increased insurance premiums should come back to you in the form of dividends.
First, the basics. Stocks are shares in companies which choose to be publicly traded. When you buy a stock, you own a part of a company. It's a very, very tiny part, but you're in there even if you own just one single share. Stocks are sold and bought on the stock market. There are actually several "stock markets," with the NY Exchange being the best known. The NY Exchange started under a tree at the end of Wall St. about 200 years ago, which has absolutely no bearing on anything but it's sort of interesting to think about how much things have changed.
Companies pretty much decide how much they will charge for a share of stock at first. After that, the price of a share of stock in any company is determined primarily by conjecture, mob mentality, and wild assed guessing. Really. There is some but very little correlation between the price of a share of stock and it's actual value. Occasionally, there is no correlation at all.
The value of a share of stock should represent how much money the company is likely to make over time. Let's say XYZ Co. Inc. has 100 shares of stock owned by various investors. Let's also say the company makes $100,000 profit this year. At the end of the year, that $100,000 would theoretically be split equally and each share of stock would earn $1000. If you owned 5 shares, you'd get $5000 in dividends. If XYZ invented a new product and expected to make $200,000 next year, the value of their stock would increase. If XYZ hired a complete idiot to run the company, the value of the stock might decrease because people would expect earnings to go down next year.
There are two ways to make money in the stock market: 1) Buy stock in good, solid companies which will earn profits consistently and hold onto these stocks for life. Every year, you'll get a nice dividend check in the mail. Or, 2) Buy stocks when their price goes down for whatever reason and sell them when the price goes up. It helps to have some idea of what might cause a stock price to go up or down. If you can figure that out, you're better than most Wall Street pros.
Wall Street people are very much like paranoid lemmings. If one fund manager decides to sell off ten-thousand shares of XYZ, Inc. tomorrow, other fund managers will likely assume that something is wrong at XYZ, Inc. and start selling their shares. The price of XYZ stock goes down. If somebody with some sense happens to be around to buy up the shares, the price will stabilize. But, then other investors may decide that XYZ shares are "hot" and start buying them up, causing the price to shoot up. And, so it goes. Day in and day out.
Sometimes stocks are bought and sold with the intent of affecting their share price. Sometimes information about a company is deliberately publicized to drive share prices up. That's what the Enron scandal was all about. With that sort of stuff going on, it can be very hard for Joe Middleclass to make good buy-sell decisions. Hell, that sort of stuff makes it hard for investment bankers to make good buy-sell decisions. But, even Joe M. knows that Wal-Mart is going to be in business for a long time.
So, my advice to anyone thinking of getting into the stock market (and this may be a very good time to do that if you have some money to invest): buy stock in good, stable companies that will continue to thrive in a sluggish economy. If the price goes down, buy more shares. Hold onto them until you don't need the dividend income any more. Or, if you're just not sure about all this, stick with managed funds where somebody else is getting paid to figure out what to buy or sell.
A side note (purely my opinion): When management of a company decides that Wall St. investors are more important than employees, you end up with a typical corporate sweat shop that treats its employees like crap. This is why I recommend buying stock in the company you work for - the profits resulting from having your pay cut, losing your bonus, getting no OT, and paying increased insurance premiums should come back to you in the form of dividends.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Return of the Wagon
Chrysler re-opened one of its smaller plants this past week after a brief haitus. Guess which one. It was the Magnum plant. That just supports one of my deeply held automotive opinions - that the station wagon has been and remains the most under-rated automotive format of all time.
I used to work with a guy who owned a Magnum. He went crazy if you referred to his car as a "station wagon." But, look at it. The Chrysler Magnum is a station wagon. It's not half the wagon my old Crown Vic Country Squire was, but it's a station wagon nonetheless. It's got 4 passenger doors and a tailgate. If it rode higher, it might be an SUV; SUVs are just station wagons with extra ground clearance and, usually, four-wheel drive. Since most SUVs never leave a paved road, the ground clearance and four-wheel drive are a waste. I don't know a single SUV owner who wouldn't be better off with a station wagon.
Years ago station wagons were considered "family-go-bowling" cars. Much like mini-vans are today. But, SUVs are just soooo cool. Yeah. That Pontiac Aztec is a slick ride. . . I'd like to have two of those. One to drive off a cliff and the other to cover up the mess. Porche's SUV looks like Pixar's Lightning McQueen with a lift kit. The Escalade looks like an overgrown hearse. Does anyone who thinks for themselves honestly think Escalades look good? Ick. I just don't like the whole SubUrban Vehicle concept. If you need a truck, buy a truck. If you need a big car, buy a station wagon.
Honestly, one of the greatest vehicles I've driven in recent years was a mini-van, but I'd still rather have a station wagon than any SUV ever made. I don't like the looks of the Magnum so much, but good for Chrysler for bringing back the most functional vehicle type of our time.
I used to work with a guy who owned a Magnum. He went crazy if you referred to his car as a "station wagon." But, look at it. The Chrysler Magnum is a station wagon. It's not half the wagon my old Crown Vic Country Squire was, but it's a station wagon nonetheless. It's got 4 passenger doors and a tailgate. If it rode higher, it might be an SUV; SUVs are just station wagons with extra ground clearance and, usually, four-wheel drive. Since most SUVs never leave a paved road, the ground clearance and four-wheel drive are a waste. I don't know a single SUV owner who wouldn't be better off with a station wagon.
Years ago station wagons were considered "family-go-bowling" cars. Much like mini-vans are today. But, SUVs are just soooo cool. Yeah. That Pontiac Aztec is a slick ride. . . I'd like to have two of those. One to drive off a cliff and the other to cover up the mess. Porche's SUV looks like Pixar's Lightning McQueen with a lift kit. The Escalade looks like an overgrown hearse. Does anyone who thinks for themselves honestly think Escalades look good? Ick. I just don't like the whole SubUrban Vehicle concept. If you need a truck, buy a truck. If you need a big car, buy a station wagon.
Honestly, one of the greatest vehicles I've driven in recent years was a mini-van, but I'd still rather have a station wagon than any SUV ever made. I don't like the looks of the Magnum so much, but good for Chrysler for bringing back the most functional vehicle type of our time.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
One of GM's Biggest Mistakes
If GM had kept making it, they'd probably be putting in overtime instead of shutting down plants this summer. A few years ago when I suspected gas prices were about to go up, I found and bought a used Geo Metro. I had heard they get amazing fuel economy, and that is true. But, beyond that, my Metro is one of the best cars I've ever owned. Everywhere I go, people say to me, "I used to have one of those, and it was the best car I ever had. I wish I'd kept it." So, it's not just me. The Geo Metro was a great car.
My 1994 Metro goes from 35 to 50 miles on a gallon of gas. I hear ads for new cars touting fuel economies of 25 to 32 miles per gallon. So what? My Metro is 15 years old, has over 100,000 miles on the clock, and does better than that. Fifteen years ago this country was making a car that gets better fuel economy than just about any vehicle being made today. Yet, for no good reason, GM stopped making the Metro over ten years ago.
Compared to a Cadillac, my Metro is a bit of an "econobox." I suppose the interior is a little spartan. The cup holder is a kind of a cheap plastic deal that pulls out under the radio. And, the window regulators are weak; my driver's side window won't roll up without parts inside the door bending and making the window glass go off-track. So, I never roll down my window. This is mostly an inconvenience when I get to work and need to show my ID to the security guard. I have AC, and the rest of the windows seem to work fine. Both of these issues could have been easily and cheaply fixed by GM.
The heat and AC work great. There are no blind spots. And, there is a whole lot more room inside than you'd ever imagine. Four normal-sized adults can easily ride in my Metro. My freakishly tall step-son finds the back seat a little tight, but he'd find the back seat of virtually any car a little tight. Plus, on my hatchback version, the back seat folds forward, giving me almost as much room to haul stuff around as a small pick-up.
Have you seen ads for car tires where they have a super cheap price in big, bold numbers and then read on to find out that the tires for your car are significantly more expensive than the boldly advertised price? Well, the Metro uses the tires that actually sell for the cheap price in those ads. I recently put a whole set of new treads on my Metro for right around $150. Tires for my truck cost about $150 each.
Unlike most of the cars made in the past 10 years, the Metro is easy to work on, too. Plenty of room under the hood, and no plastic covers designed to scare off do-it-yourselfers. You know what I mean - the crap they put on top of engines now that make a simple car engine look like a small nuclear reactor. The three-cylinder engine in the Metro can literally be lifted out by hand. You can't more home-mechanic friendly than that. But, unlike many cars on the road today, you don't need to pull the engine out of the car just to change the belts. All in all, the Metro is a do-it-yourself mechanic's dream.
Handling in the Metro is stable, and the ride is acceptable. You'll feel bumps, but they won't shake your teeth out. Even with only 3 cylinders, the Metro moves. I've driven it on the Interstate at 70 mph with no problems. Around town, with a 5-speed manual gearbox, my Metro keeps up with anybody who isn't looking to have their license revoked. And, it's a fun car to drive. I call it my "go-kart." Like any car that can be lifted off the ground by a few fairly fit guys, the Metro will hydroplane. But, that's to be expected. Slow down when it's raining.
The bottom line is this: car-makers have spent untold piles of money developing hybrids and over-engineered economy cars which don't go as far on a gallon of gas as the Geo Metro, which first hit the roads nearly two decades ago. GM, what were you thinking?
My 1994 Metro goes from 35 to 50 miles on a gallon of gas. I hear ads for new cars touting fuel economies of 25 to 32 miles per gallon. So what? My Metro is 15 years old, has over 100,000 miles on the clock, and does better than that. Fifteen years ago this country was making a car that gets better fuel economy than just about any vehicle being made today. Yet, for no good reason, GM stopped making the Metro over ten years ago.
Compared to a Cadillac, my Metro is a bit of an "econobox." I suppose the interior is a little spartan. The cup holder is a kind of a cheap plastic deal that pulls out under the radio. And, the window regulators are weak; my driver's side window won't roll up without parts inside the door bending and making the window glass go off-track. So, I never roll down my window. This is mostly an inconvenience when I get to work and need to show my ID to the security guard. I have AC, and the rest of the windows seem to work fine. Both of these issues could have been easily and cheaply fixed by GM.
The heat and AC work great. There are no blind spots. And, there is a whole lot more room inside than you'd ever imagine. Four normal-sized adults can easily ride in my Metro. My freakishly tall step-son finds the back seat a little tight, but he'd find the back seat of virtually any car a little tight. Plus, on my hatchback version, the back seat folds forward, giving me almost as much room to haul stuff around as a small pick-up.
Have you seen ads for car tires where they have a super cheap price in big, bold numbers and then read on to find out that the tires for your car are significantly more expensive than the boldly advertised price? Well, the Metro uses the tires that actually sell for the cheap price in those ads. I recently put a whole set of new treads on my Metro for right around $150. Tires for my truck cost about $150 each.
Unlike most of the cars made in the past 10 years, the Metro is easy to work on, too. Plenty of room under the hood, and no plastic covers designed to scare off do-it-yourselfers. You know what I mean - the crap they put on top of engines now that make a simple car engine look like a small nuclear reactor. The three-cylinder engine in the Metro can literally be lifted out by hand. You can't more home-mechanic friendly than that. But, unlike many cars on the road today, you don't need to pull the engine out of the car just to change the belts. All in all, the Metro is a do-it-yourself mechanic's dream.
Handling in the Metro is stable, and the ride is acceptable. You'll feel bumps, but they won't shake your teeth out. Even with only 3 cylinders, the Metro moves. I've driven it on the Interstate at 70 mph with no problems. Around town, with a 5-speed manual gearbox, my Metro keeps up with anybody who isn't looking to have their license revoked. And, it's a fun car to drive. I call it my "go-kart." Like any car that can be lifted off the ground by a few fairly fit guys, the Metro will hydroplane. But, that's to be expected. Slow down when it's raining.
The bottom line is this: car-makers have spent untold piles of money developing hybrids and over-engineered economy cars which don't go as far on a gallon of gas as the Geo Metro, which first hit the roads nearly two decades ago. GM, what were you thinking?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
A Couple, A Few, A Lot, Some and Many
Which is correct?
There's a lot of people here today.
There are a lot of people here today.
A lot is a single entity. So is a few, a couple, a bunch, and a dozen. Because these words represent groups of items, many of us try to treat them as plural nouns. We'll say, "There are a lot of people here today," thinking that we've done the grammatically correct thing. We make grammar harder than it is.
This is really a very easy rule to apply. It's just a matter of realizing that words like lot, few, couple, bunch, dozen and others like them are singular. A lot. A few. A couple. A bunch. A dozen. The "A" gives it away. Treat these words just like you would treat the word "group," and you won't go wrong.
If you want to use a plural verb, that's fine. Just add an "s" to words like "lot" and, presto, we have a winner. "There are lots of people here today," is correct. Too easy.
I've tried to limit my use of the word "lot." "There's a lot of trees across the river," doesn't really tell you much, does it? How many trees are in a lot? I don't know. Except on eBay and at other auctions, not too many things actually come in "lots." Plus, you can dodge the whole singular vs. plural issue by using other words which are more descriptive and less vague. I'm certainly not suggesting that we start talking like poets or snobs, just that we try exercising our present vocabularies. Even a third-grader knows the word "hundred." "There are hundreds of trees across the river," tells me that we're probably talking about a forest and not a city park.
There's a lot of people here today.
There are a lot of people here today.
A lot is a single entity. So is a few, a couple, a bunch, and a dozen. Because these words represent groups of items, many of us try to treat them as plural nouns. We'll say, "There are a lot of people here today," thinking that we've done the grammatically correct thing. We make grammar harder than it is.
This is really a very easy rule to apply. It's just a matter of realizing that words like lot, few, couple, bunch, dozen and others like them are singular. A lot. A few. A couple. A bunch. A dozen. The "A" gives it away. Treat these words just like you would treat the word "group," and you won't go wrong.
If you want to use a plural verb, that's fine. Just add an "s" to words like "lot" and, presto, we have a winner. "There are lots of people here today," is correct. Too easy.
I've tried to limit my use of the word "lot." "There's a lot of trees across the river," doesn't really tell you much, does it? How many trees are in a lot? I don't know. Except on eBay and at other auctions, not too many things actually come in "lots." Plus, you can dodge the whole singular vs. plural issue by using other words which are more descriptive and less vague. I'm certainly not suggesting that we start talking like poets or snobs, just that we try exercising our present vocabularies. Even a third-grader knows the word "hundred." "There are hundreds of trees across the river," tells me that we're probably talking about a forest and not a city park.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)