Dear Seth MacFarlane, et al

Dear Seth MacFarlane, et al,

I have been a huge fan of Family Guy since the first season. I watched as Fox cancelled the show, and rejoiced as Fox brought it back from the grave. I love the show, despite your obvious liberal bias. The George W. Bush jokes were in poor taste, but then, that's the humor in Family Guy. It's funny that there has not been one Barack Obama, or Joe Biden joke, despite obvious fodder.:

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go."

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"I promise you, the president has a big stick. I promise you."

"His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she's- wait- your mom's still- your mom's still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul."

"Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya."

That's not why I write this, though. I've long ago put aside our political differences, and enjoyed the humor that is Family Guy.

This is about the last episode that I watched, "Tea Peter."

This is the thing that bothers me about the left... let me see if I can make you understand this:

Wanting a constitutionally limited government is not the same as wanting no government. The group that Peter joined were anarchists, not the Tea Party.

I get the joke. But, in all humor, for it to be truly funny, there has to be some truth to it; or, I guess, some commonly assumed truth; which is why there was some humor in making fun of George W.; despite him having better college grades, and a higher IQ than his last opponent, John Kerry. But, then the common idiom was that John Kerry was a super genius, like Wile E. Coyote, while W. was in idiot...

Can't wait to see how Family Guy portrays our next Republican President...

Sincerely,
Auto Tech Pundit

It's Been Awhile

It's been a while since I've posted. Life has a tendency of getting in the way of things I want to do.

Since I've last posted, the dealership where I work has lost it's Ford Franchise. I work at a Lincoln Mercury dealership. I've been a Ford Tech since 1983. I've been there since 2003.

While I understand that things happen, I can't help but wonder what Ford is up to.

They took no bailout money, and as such, was not forced to close a bunch of dealerships by the Imperial Federal Government. Which, I might add, costs the manufacturer virtually nothing, as dealerships are independently owned and operated small businesses. The closing of dealerships saved nothing, and actually caused hundred's of thousands to lose jobs, unnecessarily. Ford was also extremely profitable in the last two quarters.

It's funny, actually; well, okay, I'm not laughing at the moment. I'm out of a job, and the people that employed me for the last 7 years now have a worthless building with too much overhead to operate as much other than a New Car Dealership. But, I digress; Every morning, as a learned Ford Tech, I log(ged) into Ford's website to learn the goings on. One day, there was a notice to dispel the rumors that Ford Motor Company was eliminating the Mercury brand. The next day, that message was gone; couldn't even find it by searching the site. A week later, there was another message, saying that they were eliminating the Mercury brand. But, they were going to really push and promote the Lincoln brand.

Well, I thought, maybe Ford will do something right, bring more Lincoln buyers into our showroom, and make up for the loss of Mercury buyers. A month later, or thereabouts, the big bosses informed us that we have lost our Lincoln franchise, too. Ford, apparently, wants to build the Lincoln into a premier brand. And this includes completely removing their presence from our city. 150,000 in the city, and another 100,000+ in the outlying area. Second or third largest city in Illinois. No. Lincoln. Presence. Really? You want to improve sales by making it more difficult for buyers to find you?

I don't get it. But, then again, I'm just a lowly mechanic, and I'm not supposed to understand, right?

Addicted to Oil?

As I was listening to Beyond the Beltway, recently, the fellow on the left kept bringing up our "addiction to oil."

Addicted to Oil? Yes, our economy is addicted to oil, in much the same way that our bodies are addicted to air, water and food.

Like it or not, the world's economies are reliant on energy. The cheapest, most reliable, efficient and plentiful source of energy today comes in the form of oil, coal and natural gas - fossil fuels. Electricity could be produced much more cheaply, reliably and cleaner with nuclear energy, but we haven't built a nuclear power plant in over 20 years. So, oil, coal and natural gas, it is. The environmentalists and the left hate the very thing that would do the best job in reducing our dependence (not addiction) on fossil fuels.

The left loves to talk of a future powered by wind and solar energy, and I don't have a problem with that - in the future. Those technologies aren't ready for prime time, yet. Several problems are all but impossible to overcome, the least of which is you can't rely on the wind, and only half of the planet is covered in sunlight at a time. Battery technology is still years behind making electric powered transportation mainstream. If you can't hop in your car and drive non stop from one end of the country to the other, without an 8 + hour "recharge" time breaking up the trip several times, it isn't viable. "I'm sorry , but you can't have your package overnight, the truck has to stop to recharge every 5 hours for 8 hours..."

If there were a better way to power our society, wouldn't the capitalists in our world be jumping all over it? Wouldn't every venture capital company on the planet be jumping on the bandwagon to make a profit from it? The facts are that the most efficient method of powering our transportation, industry and households is burning fossil fuels. Until, that is, our government artificially makes fossil fuels too expensive, and that would wreak havoc on our economy.

President McFly?

I'm sure we've all seen the movie "Back to the Future." George McFly needs to take Lorraine to the Enchantment Under the Sea dance, so they can have their first kiss, set the timeline back to normal, and Marty will still exist. Because Marty interrupted the original timeline, George had to try to win Lorraine over, again.

The reason I'm bringing this up, is because George went through a transformation. The plan was to "rescue" Lorraine from Marty, and win her heart. While practicing what he was going to say, "Get your damn hands off of her," his heart wasn't in it, and he didn't even think he should swear! In the process of trying to save her from Marty, Biff took Marty's place. George's transformation didn't take place, until he realized that he finally had to stand up, be a man, and protect Lorraine. President Obama, tried to make the same transformation, recently. "...And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."

I'm sorry, Mr. President. But, you can't just act tough when you have never shown any proclivity to it in the past. George McFly didn't know how to act tough, because people had been walking all over him for all of his life. It wasn't until he actually felt angry, that he could actually summon up the genuine anger that was needed in that situation. Bottom line: You can't just act all tough when it isn't genuine, and expect the American people to buy it.

In addition, your "ass to kick" rhetoric was misplaced. While George had a genuine threat that he had assessed and dealt with appropriately, your tough guy act is completely inappropriate, especially given your agreement to deal with actual thugs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Hugo Chavez without preconditions. Find a more appropriate time to try on your big boy pants, sir.

Chicago: More Dangerous Than Iraq?

Chicago, that bright and shining example of leftist ideology, is now more dangerous than Iraq.

A police officer, back from two tours in Iraq, was murdered in front of his home, where some thugs were trying to steal his motorcycle. In front of his father. T

Sad.

"Our Fair Share"

I am getting very sick of the "Census" commercials.

"If we don't fill out the Census, we won't know how many buses we'll need, and won't get 'our fair share' of funding."

Here's an idea; it's none of the federal government's business how many buses we need in my town. If the local government determines it needs more buses, then the local government should decide how to fund those buses. How in the Hell does it make any sense to take money out of my pocket in Northern Illinois, send it to Washington, so they can determine from there if I need another bus? What business does government at any level have determining if I need a bus, at all? If my city needs another bus, there should be private company's determining if it's profitable to provide a bus to cart my ass around. If it is profitable, then private company's should be competing to provide that service.

That would be a hell of a lot more efficient than some bureaucrat in Washington determining if I need another bus that I'll never ride, because I can't afford to be sitting at a bus stop when I have more productive things to attend to with my time.

Improper Diagnosis?

I have spent the last 26+ years of my working life as an auto repair technician. We were called "mechanics" back then. I have worked primarily in Ford and Lincoln - Mercury Dealerships. The following statements applies to anyone that earns their living repairing things:

If you don't diagnose the problem correctly, the repair will be ineffective.

For example, if a vehicle comes into the shop with a misfire caused by a burned exhaust valve, diagnosing and replacing the spark plug will be an ineffective repair. The repair will have to involve the replacement of the exhaust valve. Any other repair will be ineffective.

It is even possible that an improper diagnosis could cause more problems than the vehicle originally had.

For example, Ford produced a Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) when the Montego, Freestyle and Five Hundred came out. If the technician diagnosed a CVT concern, and decided that a fluid change was necessary, if the technician puts the wrong fluid back in it, the CVT will be destroyed; regardless of the original concern.

This thought process can certainly be applied to law and lawmakers.

The concern is "Health Care is too expensive." The diagnosis is that government isn't involved enough?

The concern is unemployment is too high. The diagnosis is that government isn't spending enough money on "creating or saving" jobs?

Looking at history, I can safely say that most of our biggest problems are created by lawmakers mis-diagnosing the problem. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."