The environmentalist agenda requires constant scare tactics and hysteria, even when the facts don't back them up.

It's a good thing that we are cutting air pollutants down.

I do have a question though...

If you claim that air pollutants and CO2 emissions aren't bad, then why is Bush even rolling them back?

Is he bowing to political pressure.

Our next step to reducing air pollutants, raise the EPA gas milage requirement on private automobiles.

"...raise the EPA gas milage requirement on private automobiles."-by: Georgia Frawg

That's so last millenium. We should be aggresively researching H-fuel cell cars and switching to biodiesel, ethanol, etc.
:)

President Bush, rocks!

Deleted - Personal insults

Anyone who has ever taken a psychology course can explain the "tragedy of the commons," the phenomenon which occurred when citizens shared a grazing pasture for their cows. Ideally, no one's cow would eat more than its share, and all the citizens would have an equal amount of meat to sell and eat. What happened, however, is that a few citizens naturally got greedy, purchased many cows and completely wiped out the pasture. As a result, many villagers died of starvation.

While it would be nice to think that people will forego individual benefits for the common good, it is an idea that has unfortunately been categorically debunked. See Lay, Kenneth L.

Freedom1-

Actually, if we raised the fuel mileage requirements while aggressively researching H-fuel cells and alternative energies, it would actually benefit our automobile industry.

Strangely enough, part of the reason that American automobile compaines are in such dismal shape is their meager international sales, mainly because they can't sell their cars overseas because they don't meet other countries' environmental requirements (including China's). How strange...

O... and welcome back keefer... Why did you change your name?

Aw, keefer, you're busted, by the Frawg, no less.

Frawg, I am curious, why do you suppose American automobile companies don't want to do what's necessary to compete overseas? And why are they less and less competitive in this country? Are they just stupid? I'm not trying to make light of your comment. I just can't imagine why multi-billion dollar companies like Ford and GM would not want to be as competitive as possible, in as many countries as possible. I realize you probably don't have the answers, but I'm curious to hear your opinion. BTW, do you have a link or links to your statement that American manufacturers can't meet "other country's environmental requirements"? I had never heard that before.

I don't disagree with you, BTW. I own 2 Toyotas for a reason.

We should be aggresively researching H-fuel cell cars and switching to biodiesel, ethanol, etc.

Here's an idea...let the market sort it out. One of the Japanese auto companies just ceased production of one of their hybrids. Know why? Couldn't sell it. Doesn't much matter how "friendly" it is to the environment if you can't get anyone to buy it. Or is evreyone proposing that the goverment step in and start mandating what you drive? Like this?

Spook-

I read it from a non-internet source, so it would take really long to find a link. It was from one of the various periodicals that I read. I will try to find other countries' mileage requirements for y'all.

I think that the reason that these companies don't do what is necessary is because they were babied by low oil prices for at least a decade, so they specialized much of their equipment to build things like Hummers and GMC Yukons. Monstrosities like those became popular until oil prices shot up, and now they can't move their inventories of big vehicles and changing their specialized equipment is probably prohibitively expensive.

Meanwhile, fuel efficient Asian and European cars (I acutally drive a MAZDA) are proving to be an insurmountable foe.

I think, by forcing the companies to modernize their equipment (by raising to EPA standard or by giving large tax incentives or both), we can not only make our environment cleaner, but we can salvage our auto industry as well.

That's just the air though, the administration isn't as "great" on other parts of environmentalism as the are on the air (apparently, I'm confused of how the Ozone Layer is shrinking faster if the air is getting less polluted). If Bush loved the environment, he wouldn't support drilling in ANWR. Someone who cares about the environment does't support the destruction of the ecosystem to keep our convenient lifestyle.

just wondering if any of you actually read the report from the National Academy of Science...

pretty much says IF the EPA puts in place recommendations there may or may not be an overall effect on emissions...

bottom line is, the article Mark is using to show how great the "cap and trade" program is pretty much boils down to this conclusion:
"Because current models shed little light on the expected effects of EPA's rule changes on particular plants and geographic locations and local populations with varying characteristics, no conclusions can be drawn about how the revisions would affect human health, the report says. "

Your article ONLY notes that auto emissions are falling at a rate of 8% a year; some say it’s actually 10%....nothing to do with “cap and trade” though…

And not only that, a Congressional report and the EPA it’s self, today, is saying it has done poor job of reducing health risks as required by the Clean Air Act, 30% of the requirements set by the CAA have not been met…

What is it about this Nation that makes you cons hate it so much that you want to destroy it? Oh wait I know…no need to answer

China’s new fuel economy standards require 32 different car and truck weight-based classes to achieve between 19 and 38 mpg by 2005, and between 21 and 43 mpg by 2008. Only 79% of U.S. car sales and 27% of U.S. light truck sales currently meet China’s 2005 standards. Only 19% of car sales and 14% of truck sales currently meet China’s 2008 standard.

China’s new standards prescribe a maximum level of fuel consumption for every vehicle within each weight class, meaning that every automobile produced in a particular weight class has to meet the fuel economy standard set for that weight class. The U.S. fuel economy system, on the other hand, only requires that car and light truck sales averages meet fuel economy standards for each class. In China, if the automobiles do not meet the prescribed standards, they simply cannot be sold.

-http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/10/china_new_fuel_.html

There is a source (the link code I've been using seems to no longer work).

Umm... what does "Cap and Trade" have to do with Auto emissions? I thought Cap and trade was all about power plants and the like. Though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

As for vehicles, I'm all for looking into alternative energy sources for powering our vehicles but I don't see how raising the EPA gas mileage requirements will help that effort.

I'm reminded of a preview for the electric car movie coming out soon. (Can't recall the name of it) It talks about the electric car that used to be available out here in California and how the big car companies "killed" it. The preview makes you think this car was great when the actual car I saw wasn't that good and really wasn't anything more than an experiment. There is such a thing as releasing a technology too soon which can turn the market off of the idea. I don't want Hydrogen Fuel cells or what have you to do the same.

Personally I drive a Chevy truck, because I don't fit in little imports. I like them, they're cool and all but they don't fit how I live. I'm either hauling people or junk when I drive most of the time so a little import does me no good. It's an inline 5 and gets decent gas mileage so I get the best of both worlds, a good size and decent gas mileage.

"Here's an idea...let the market sort it out."-Reverend Scaramonga

Of course. These alternative fuels must be cost effective or they simply won't work.

Is it Republican or Democratic not to want to continue to rely on oil supplied by any country except our own. We need to get done with an oil based lifestyle. That will piss bush and Cheney off, but only 27% of Americans like those boneheads anyway. Peace

"American automobile compaines are in such dismal shape is their meager international sales, mainly because they can't sell their cars overseas because they don't meet other countries' environmental requirements (including China's). How strange...I read it from a non-internet source, so it would take really long to find a link." Frawg

Do you believe everything you read? Both Ford and GM have manufacturing plants in China which produce cars for that market. Are you even aware that both companies make cars in overseas markets which are not sold in the US?

Your subsequent post is even more absurd. There is no relationship to cars sold today in the US market to emission standards for China in 2008, especially since cars made in the US are typically for this market, not for export.

Are they teaching you reasoning in UGA? Try a little research and think for yourself before you swallow nonsense hook line and sinker.

Our auto companies used to export, but stopped doing so long ago, except for small qualitites of specialty cars, when they realized that they couldn't compete with the cost basis they had in the US. Both companies would probably be doing fine if they could dump their loosing US manufacturing operations which are hamstrung by union contracts.

/Agreed their Freedom.

Once again I bring up the electric car out here in California. If you release a product based on a technology that's not fully ready for the general public you're going to get burned. There's a lot of wasted money behind those electric cars.

Don't get me wrong, I look forward to the day my car goes "HUMMM" and not "Vroom" but I don't want that day to come so soon that I won't be able to keep my car humming. :)

The environmentalist agenda requires constant scare tactics and hysteria, even when the facts don't back them up

Well here's a factual tactic that scares me:

Doe Run is the largest lead smelting plant in the United States. It is situated in a small town of Herculaneum about 35 miles south of St. Louis.

A survey showed that 24% of children aged 6 and younger met the federal standard for lead poisoning,.....Considering that the US national average of lead in blood is 2.3 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, and that only 4% of US children are diagnosed with lead poisoning, local officials cited "a public health emergency" among Herculaneum children.

The survey was done in 2001, but of course the lead poisoning problem had been around since Doe Run opened its plant. It took this study and federal intervention to make these buzzards do something about it. Don't believe me? Look at the figures for Peruvian children that live near Doe Runs plant there where there is little or no government regulation:

By comparison, the DIGESA study found that in La Oroya, 99% of children have lead poisoning,

So no I don't trust people to always do the right thing. Especially when money is involved.

Aw, keefer, you're busted, by the Frawg, no less.

Not because of the code, Spook; Frawg and I have a history.

Mark, what gives? You and Matt deleted my comments. I'm on your side, brother, and these trolls are dumb as rocks. Dumber, actually.

I'll be more discrete with my remarks...

Gozer, My wife drives a Honda Hybrid that averages about 45 mpg and emits less co2 than gasoline only engines. But it seems to be shrinking (or I,m getting bigger) so we are looking for another vehicle. Have you looked into Dodge Ram Biodiesels? They are cleaner burning than even our Hybrid. I don't know what kind of mileage they get, but if you can use E-85 in them it would still save money.

Welcome back keefer. Heck compared to the good Reverand Sacayouknowwhat you're a pussy cat!

Mark Noonan wrote:

"There really is no problem which can't be cured by encouraging people to voluntarily do well. While people can be bad, they will in the aggregate be good when the incentives are all directed towards good things."

OK, that sounds good. What say we offer inner-city and rural poor kids scholarships to a state or community college if they maintain good attendance and behavior records at school, earn a high school diploma and have no felony convictions and no record of multiple arrests for any reason?

Mark Noonan wrote:

"Its a pity the environmentalists - like all leftists -are so wedded to the anti-business lies about matters environmental that they cannot free themselves from dogma and take a fresh look at the best means for cleaning up the environment."

Uh oh, wait a minute. What about this?

Report faults EPA on clean air regulation

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

The government is failing to reduce health risks from toxic air pollution as required by law, congressional investigators said Wednesday.

The Environmental Protection Agency has not met 30 percent of the Clean Air Act's requirements and regularly misses deadlines, they said.

EPA scientists issued their own report Wednesday, saying the agency should consider tightening its national health-based standards for smog-forming ozone to a level similar to California's, though not as restrictive as what the Swiss-based World Health Organization recommends. They said the risks of asthma and other respiratory ailments are greater than previously believed. EPA is under court order to propose a decision on this by next March.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said the EPA largely has failed to regulate air pollutants from small sources, including dry cleaners and trucks. The GAO report said the EPA has not yet met 239 of the law's requirements; of those the agency did fulfill, only 12 were met on time.

"EPA has not reduced human health risks from air toxics to the extent and in the time frames envisioned in the Act," according to the report by the investigative arm of Congress.

Maybe the real problem with environmentalists and leftists is that they expect actual good, consistent, verifiable results, not propaganda and self-congratulatory spin.

The Environmental Protection Agency has not met 30 percent of the Clean Air Act's requirements

Does that mean they did meet 70 percent of the requirements? Not perfect, but in most schools that's a passing grade, no?

Did they report have any clue as to why the EPA did not meet the goals? Was it funding? Was it lack of action by congress to pass appropriate laws? Was it some difficult technological effort they are still working on? Still, 70 percent's a pretty good accomplishment for meeting goals set by a bunch of career politicians who wouldn't know the first thing about what they're "mandating."

I mean look how long its taking for these guys to fix that simple blue-screen problem...

Air is cleaner and the crime rate is down significantly since Bush took office.

"Its a pity the environmentalists - like all leftists..."

I'm sorry, but aren't you saying that Bush is an environmentalist? Well, I guess sloppy propaganda is better than no propaganda at all.

Heck compared to the good Reverand Sacayouknowwhat you're a pussy cat!

Thanks--compared to the elephant man, you're a hunk...

Hey Ash, if you can tell the truth for once--what's your golf handicap?

frawg says:

"If you claim that air pollutants and CO2 emissions aren't bad...."

WHO says "....air pollutants and CO2 emissions aren't bad..."?

Spurce your snippets, frawg. Because I'm at a loss to figure out who might claim that toxins are not bad.

Are you talking about the debate about how much impact air pollutants and CO2 emissions have on the warming trend we are seeing? Because that's all I can imagine you might be talking about.

Mark is right---you can come in swinging a big hammer, threatening and blustering, to try to impose an ideal, or you can approach people respectfully and use a carrot/stick approach, asking for cooperation, rewarding cooperation, and making lack of cooperation less desirable. I know that the second approach by the Bush Administration had the Libs' knickers in a knot, with hysterical claims that a calm and reasonable approach really meant Bush had no interest in cleaning up pollution at all, but it was just a different approach---and it seems to be working.

What got the Libs so wound up was the refusal to treat corporations like the enemy, and choosing to treat them like allies in a campaign that benefits us all. That will never be enough----politikspeak demands that we assign enemy status to (gasp!) CORPORATIONS!!!!! and THE RICH!!!!!! and the Target of the Month, whoever has upset the libs most recently. It's not about progress, it's about punishment.

ReaganSmash - one post, and a wacky one. Are you really drive by steve?

Ash, I've looked into the Dodge line and most of the Bio Biodiesels are full size or larger trucks, far more than I need. I drive a Colorado which to me is a good mid-sized vehicle. Then again I'm a guy who thinks Station Wagons are the greatest GP/Family car around. :)

PLUTO NOW WARMING UP TOO. Just like Earth and Mars....must be those SUVs and George Bush I tell ya.

----------

July 26, 2006

Astronomers at the University of Tasmania have found that the solar system's smallest planet is not getting colder as first thought and it probably does not have rings.

Dr John Greenhill has collected observations from last month's event when Pluto passed in front of a bright star, making it easier to study.

French scientists have shared the measurements they took in Tasmania that night, which indicate that the planet is unlikely to have rings.

Dr Greenhill says the results are surprising because they show Pluto is warming up.

"It looks as though the atmosphere has not changed from 2002, which is pretty surprising because we expected the atmosphere would freeze out as the planet moved further away from the Sun," he said.

"But so far, if anything, the atmosphere has gotten even denser."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm

PLUTO NOW WARMING UP TOO. Just like Earth and Mars....must be those SUVs and George Bush I tell ya.

----------

July 26, 2006

Astronomers at the University of Tasmania have found that the solar system's smallest planet is not getting colder as first thought and it probably does not have rings.

Dr John Greenhill has collected observations from last month's event when Pluto passed in front of a bright star, making it easier to study.

French scientists have shared the measurements they took in Tasmania that night, which indicate that the planet is unlikely to have rings.

Dr Greenhill says the results are surprising because they show Pluto is warming up.

"It looks as though the atmosphere has not changed from 2002, which is pretty surprising because we expected the atmosphere would freeze out as the planet moved further away from the Sun," he said.

"But so far, if anything, the atmosphere has gotten even denser."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm

Keebler, welcome back.

I was wondering what happened to you after you accused your fellow Cons of being posers and then packed up your stuff and stormed out.

Now you and the Rev can compete for the craziest, most senile poster on here.

phnxbmed,

Are you blaming unions for the EPA's failure to meet 30% of their goals?

"PLUTO NOW WARMING UP TOO. Just like Earth and Mars...."-Posted by: Warriornation

It's got to be caused by the invisible Martians and their invisible flying SUV's. The Terran UFO sightings are the proof-PROOF I tell ya! See, the UFO sightings are the result of the occasional failures of the Martian's UFO's cloaking devices. Pluto is warming up because the Martians are spending their summer vacations on Pluto. Al Gore's gonna be mad!
:)

On a serious note, 3 planets in the Sol solar system appear to be warming. I wonder how the rest of the solar system is faring?

Al-

I actually never mentioned global warming...

Do me a favor. Go to downtown Atlanta in mid-August and just breathe.

Then you can try to convince me that massive CO2 emmissions aren't a bad thing.

i wasn't the brightest kid in my class but in prehistoric what were the average temps? and then we went through how many ice ages? could it possably be some sort of cycle? you know gradualy warm for 10 mil years then drop into a ice age for a cupple mil years?

o ps if you are realy afaid of co2 emmisions, do your part hold your breath

President Bush has also pushed alternatives fuels and made them a reality, more than any president in history. Never in my life have I heard so much about enthanol and really seen it become a reality. That's who republicans are- we get things done, not just talk about it and do nothing. Who ever knew that President Bush would be the greatest environmentalist president in american history.

keef

I think I admitted this to you once- I once hit a drive parallel to the tee and hit my buddy (ex-buddy) and cracked his kneecap. No one will play with me any more. I broke a hundred every once in a while before that.

Almiranta: "a calm and reasonable approach really meant Bush had no interest in cleaning up pollution at all, but it was just a different approach---and it seems to be working."

I tried finding that NAS report the NRO article mentioned, and I can't. Apparently it's not up on their site yet, or it's behind a subscription wall. I did find two articles, both in WaPo, that said completely different things. One, entitled, "Scientists Group Fears More Pollution" basically claimed that the NAS took Bush's Clear Skies Initiative to task because it relaxed emissions standards for power plants. The other, entitled "Bush Pollution Curbs Are Rated Equal to Clinton's", is more in line with what the NRO article said. So obviously I suffered a little cognitive dissonance, lol! They can't both be right, right? But then I came across this article on WebWireIt has an NAS tag line, so I think it's legit. And I think it clears up the discrepancy. Apparently, the EPA tried to relax the restrictions that were imposed by Clinton's New Source Review program that were imposed on factories and power plants when they tried to obtain permits to make modifications in existing plants or making new ones. That sparked a series of legal challenges to prevent the EPA from relaxing the restrictions. To get around those suits, Bush instituted the CAIR "cap and trade" program. And that, the NAS found: "At a national level, the model analysis suggests that a cap-and-trade program with caps below those specified by CAIR would be a more cost-effective approach to lowering emissions than aggressive regulation under New Source Review." How about that -- just as good and more cost effective. You can't beat that. At least that's their best guess. They go on to say that there aren't enough data to thoroughly analyze what is likely to happen, but that's their conclusion based upon what data there are .

So there you go -- it appears that Bush's first attempt wasn't so good. He came up with a second strategy only because the first one was effectively prevented. But that one turned out to be a pretty good idea. Nothing like a little oversight, I guess.

By the way, keef, I'm glad you decided to come out of the shadows again. That other alias was just too hard to spell, lol!

Okay Georgia, here's another fun little "just try" idea. Go back ten years and take a little trip to San Bernardino or LA. Do your "Just Breath" test and then try it again today.

Yes, exhaust emmissions are a problem, but they are certainly getting better over the years, not worse.

Having lived here in Los Angeles since 1975 (with a lapse between 1987 and 1999) I can tell you the air is way, way, way better now then it was in 1975 despite TWICE as many people and more than 2.5X the number of cars on the road.

I'm all for cleaner air (so are 99.9% of Republicans and conservatives I know), cleaner water, etc.

Rev. Scaramonga wrote:

Does that mean they did meet 70 percent of the requirements? Not perfect, but in most schools that's a passing grade, no?

. . . Still, 70 percent's a pretty good accomplishment for meeting goals set by a bunch of career politicians who wouldn't know the first thing about what they're "mandating."

Percentages are funny things, Rev. If your brother-in-law borrows $1,000 and only repays you $700, I'll bet you'd find it unacceptable. Big time. And if your body temperature dips 30 percent below normal, I hope you've got your affairs in order.

The thing about trading off rights to pollute is that a bunch of poor persons wind up living in a low-rent neighborhood downwind of a plant that gets by on vouchers instead of installing scrubbers and other air-cleaning technology. They live there because it's what they can afford.

So, the poor neighbor gets 100 percent of the excessive air pollution. Meanwhile, while the CEO of the polluting plant, who lives far away in a nice, clean, suburb or ex-urban gated community of McMansions, gets credit and a tidy bonus for adding a few percentage points increase to the bottom line.

As far as career politicians not knowing anything about what they're mandating, that may be true of neocon Republicans. After all, they disdain and dismiss science, and treat facts as extra-cost options good for little besides standing in the way of their political progress.

SW,

ROFL - verifiable results? Yeah, let me get out my copies of "Silent Spring", "Population Bomb" and "Global 2000"...

Ricorun wrote:

I tried finding that NAS report the NRO article mentioned, and I can't.

Don't be surprised if turns out the report doesn't exist or does exist but doesn't say what was claimed.

Remember this, from about a week ago?

By Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham Tribune staff reporters Published July 19, 2006

When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.

In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."

The administration's assessment of stem cell science has extra meaning in the wake of the Senate's 63-37 vote Tuesday to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The measure, which passed the House last year, will now head to Bush, who has vowed to veto it.

But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research--echoed by many opponents of funding for such research--is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists, including a dozen contacted for this story.

"[Rove's] statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.

Going by what they say and do, neocon Republicans consider science an unnecessary nuisance and inconvenient facts expendable. If either gets in the way of gaining political advantage or achieving some political goal, or runs afoul of ideological precepts, science and truth get dumped without a second thought.

Gozer, Warriornation,

Yeah, tell me about it! I'm an L.A. native. I've lived in the City of the Angels all of my life. I can also attest to how the air quality here in Los Angeles has DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED over the years.

SW: "Don't be surprised if turns out the report doesn't exist or does exist but doesn't say what was claimed."

I think that WebWire article was the official NAS synopsis, and I think I presented it accurately. It sounds to me like the Bush boys eventually came up with an effective plan, and they deserve credit for it.

I can also attest to how the air quality here in Los Angeles has DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED over the years.

But is it anywhere near a safe level?

I'm not saying that it hasn't improved. I'm saying that it is too early to pat ourselves on the back and rest on our laurels.

The Japanese company, Honda Corp, just reported more than a $1.2 billion quarterly profit and 70% of it was because of the increase in sales for the Civic and the Accord, highly fuel efficient cars and due also to large increases in sales of its hybrid cars.

Honda made these profits without government meddling on how they should build their cars. The profits are due to the fact that people are buying these cars out of choice. Why? Because Honda makes cars that people want. Also because of that fact, it has expanded its North American operations by adding another production plant in Indiana - its eighth new plant.

Nobody mentions another reason Honda is doing so well, but it should be noted. Namely, that Honda isn’t crippled with the high wage and legacy costs for health care and pensions. GM, Chrysler, and Ford are.

Ash...people here in L.A. live as long as anyone else in the country so you tell me?

Rev.-

Are you aware that most (if not all) of the Hondas sold in the US are built in the US?

That would, of course, mean that they are subject to the same high wage and legacy costs that GM, Chrystler (which just merged with Mercedes-Benz, a German Company), and Ford are.

Honda just makes a better product than those aforementioned companies.

Now you and the Rev can compete for the craziest, most senile poster on here.

Fine with me, muffin, but you already win as the craziest, most stupid. The Rev and I will vie for most senile, as we're adults.

The reason I asked about your golf handicap, Ash, is that I recall a comment by you, claiming you would beat me at golf. I was just curious. I remember your post about you hitting your (ex)buddy, now that you remind me. I once played golf with a guy who could hit the ball about 270 yards with his three-wood, but fell into such a funk that he could barely get off the tee, and once hit a drive that went through his legs.

I do break 100, almost every time I play. My club handicap is 15, but back in 1983, right before I was stationed in England, I was down to an 8. Oh how I long for the good old days...

Ash...people here in L.A. live as long as anyone else in the country so you tell me?

That may or may not be true, I'll take your word for it. But how does it stack up in terms of lung problems? Emphsema?

Besides the bigger point is how is the greater LA area contributing to the ozone layer. How much affect is it having on global warming?

It's a small world after all. As my mentor once told me: "What I do affects you. What you do affects me. What we do together affects the world."

Hey keefer, oh grammar guru, is affect correct the way it was used or effect?

is that I recall a comment by you, claiming you would beat me at golf.

Was I drugged at the time? Was I talking about miniture golf, goof golf? I know I'm way smarter than you, but will certainly defer to your golf skills. :)

BTW: I hear you. I played college basketball and essentially ruined my knees (that was before I knew white men couldn't jump) It makes my current athletic pursuits difficult. You know, horseshoes, checkers, and that all time favorite shuffleboard.

Are you aware that most (if not all) of the Hondas sold in the US are built in the US?

I was born in Detroit. I grew up in Saginaw, MI where all my family worked for the car companies. Everyone was a UAW member. I graduated and joined the service to get away from that trap. Years later I went back and settled into Flint, MI (another car company/UAW town. Fortunately I worked for the Federal Government so I was not sucked into the car world. So I guess I can say I know about the car business a little. Most foreign car companies have plants in America. Many are strict non-union shops. Many others have no massive debt due to outrageous benefits and pensions. They have nowhere near the stress on their bottom lines as the Big Three. Do a little homework and you will see I am correct.

That would, of course, mean that they are subject to the same high wage and legacy costs that GM, Chrysler (which just merged with Mercedes-Benz, a German Company), and Ford are.

Not even close. See above.

Honda just makes a better product than those aforementioned companies.

That's subjective. I happen to be a Chevy man and I would NEVER own a Honda. Honda has a good reputation and their cars are popular, but they're not for everybody. They do seem to be pretty good quality-wise. But When I lived in Michigan, those Japanese cars were always rusting out first. And when I lived in Hawaii, all the Japanese cars' paint jobs faded from the sun very quickly. They make cars people want and because of that they sell a lot of them. But they do have an economic advantage over US companies because of their far lower labor costs.

Another thing most people do not consider, Honda and other Japanese plants are very, very new and highly automated. That is the way the plants were built. As a result, they could hire a lot fewer employees. The big three have plants that were old by WWII. They can try to put in automation, but if it eliminates a job, they have major hassles from the UAW. Often the agreement ends up to be that they can put in the new system but they have to keep the old guy and job. This is not uncommon. Years ago, in the railroad business they transitioned from coal to diesel. Coal engines required a fireman. Diesel engines did not. In a practice that became known as "featherbedding" the railroad companies ended up agreeing to have firemen on Diesel engines even though they weren't needed to purchase peace from the unions. Similar concept for the big three automakers when they try to cut costs. Honda has none of these problems.

another blue screen