Did her skirt give it away?

Don’t tell the folks at Reuters, but it is no longer necessary to point out that a woman is a woman. They seem to have inadvertently discovered that at least in some places, the glass ceiling is semi-permeable.

The headline “Citigroup Taps Woman to Run Consumer Unit” is an insult. Would they have pointed out this promotion had she been a man? Is it not the least bit important to note that her male boss is vacating her new office to become the COO? If they thought the “woman” angle was so important, they could have said “Citigroup Names Marjorie Magner as Global Consumer Group’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer” as Business Wire chose to do. This approach is subtle and commendable; it conveys the information without sending signal flares of femininity. They furthermore went on to speak glowingly of her accomplishments as an executive, adding the usual sentence or so to point out her son. Perfectly standard treatment for a brief introduction. Dow Jones didn’t consider her gender as issue at all, only using her first name once, no biographical content, dropping the “Ms.” Citigroup’s own press release on the issue was much more informal, calling her “Marge.”

Reuters might be genuinely surprised to know that Ms. Magner is not the only female executive out there. She is blessed with plenty of company on Fortune’s list of the 50 Most Powerful Women in Business. Female CEOs can even be found, and not just at “female oriented” businesses such as Avon. New economy companies like Ebay and even stodgy old Dow components like Hewlett-Packard have female CEOs. Women have offices in high places in a wide variety of industries, including banking, media companies, retail, pharmaceutical companies, airlines, food products, consumer products, electronics, oil companies, and brokerages. They may not be as plentiful as their Y chromosome bearing brethren, but there is no reason to shout “Hey, look, it’s a woman in the corner office!”

Congratulations on the promotion, Ms. Magner. I’m sure you are the right person for the job.

Is the TSA trying to kill air travel?

You’d better allow extra time at the airport.

In this morning’s news, we are told that our TSA screeners will be lavishing extra attention on a long list of items that have nothing in common except batteries. In fact, be prepared to drag everything battery powered out of your carry on bag: not just the laptop computer, but also the camera, the flash for your camera, CD player, cell phone, any radio more complicated than AM/FM, and even the remote key-fob for your car. In short, every single person in the security line will have at least one thing that requires additional scrutiny by your friendly screener. What a fabulous opportunity for thievery! A cornucopia of electronic gadgets, some of them quite pricey, temporarily separated from the direct scrutiny of a traveler who is really more concerned with getting his shoes back on. Lets not forget that although your friendly TSA screener is now a federal employee, he is not required to pass a civil service exam. Indeed, he is not even required to have a high school diploma. Furthermore, “airports wouldn’t put up with waits that last more than 10 minutes, the standard the government has set for its screeners.” So, the screener, who may or may not actually be able to read the manual of any of the devices in question (even if you happened to carry such paperwork), will be rapidly sorting through vast piles of gizmos with the goal of sorting you into the “get out of my way now” line to the terminal and the “wait here for in depth screening by someone who will assume you are a terrorist until you prove otherwise” line. He does not care when your flight takes off. He does not care that you are clearly on your way to an important meeting, or clearly on the way to see your grandchildren. He does not care that the gadget he is mangling or outright confiscating is perfectly normal and perhaps required for your livelihood. Screening silliness has spawned a plethora of anecdotes and websites.

Ask around. You undoubtedly know someone who has an airport screener story.

Business travelers should not put up with this. Indeed, they can’t afford to put up with it. A 3 hour flight already means losing an executive all day. And what if his luggage is lost, or destroyed during the “inspection” process? What if his company issued laptop computer is stolen while in the security line? What if the revolutionary device he was going to demonstrate to his important client is confiscated? What if he is arrested for questioning let alone protesting any of the indignities he suffers at the hands of the TSA? Businesses will be doing a lot more teleconferencing, driving to relatively close locations, and chartering private flights to more remote locations.

That leaves the leisure traveler as effectively the sole market for commercial air travel. They don’t pay full price for flights. They plan months ahead and scan for ultra-cheap flights, bringing down per-seat revenue in the process. Not being frequent fliers, they are more likely to not understand screening rules, to accidentally attempt to bring banned items on flights, and more likely to raise a stink (and get arrested) when such items are confiscated. The leisure traveler may start to think the cross-country road trips of their youth are more appealing than ever. The more wealthy leisure traveler may consider charter flights, just like he takes for work. Some very small very wealthy minority may even decide to learn to fly small airplanes themselves.

Both scenarios bode ill for commercial air travel as we know it. Even the former CEO of American Airlines said the industry is in big trouble “if the system we end up with is so onerous and so difficult that air travel, while obviously more secure, becomes more trouble for the average person than it is worth.” The airlines are already in financial trouble. The “jobless recovery” is not resulting in increased demand for air travel. More smaller planes in the air is not safer than fewer large planes in the air. The only good news is that any effort to create a national air transit carrier will be met with derision.

Testing Mulligan

Don’t blink, or you might miss the fact that not only do we have teachers who cannot pass basic English proficiency tests, sometimes even their bosses fail the tests. In fact, the Superintendent of Schools in Lawrence, Massachusetts has failed the test 3 times. His excuses include lack of preparation, the fact that English is his second language, and that “nobody” looks at the rules of grammar and punctuation on a regular basis except English teachers. He went on to call the test “stupid.”

I can understand the idea that maybe the first time he took the test, he could have been blind-sided by depth of contest. That is no excuse for the second and third failures. The “ESL” tactic is an insult to anyone who came to this country and learned to speak and read the language. It should be considered an insult to anyone whose grandfather came to this country for a better life. The fact of the matter is that good English skills are the cornerstone to getting a decent job, although you would never know it to look at Mr. Laboy’s $156,560 annual salary. As for the rules of grammar and punctuation, one is forced to wonder if Mr. Laboy ever writes memos. Does he rely on a word processor to correct his grammar? I might have sympathy if he is having trouble remembering the exact formatting of a footnote according to Turabian, but I would not be surprised if the problems are more mundane. Their, there, or they’re? s or ‘s? How do you decide whether to use a colon or a semi-colon? You don’t need to be an English teacher to know these things. All things taken together, this is nothing less than an indictment of the Superintendent’s own education.

If we were hearing that a large percentage of teachers given this test were failing, we might indeed  conclude that the test was “stupid” — I mean “not a valid measurement of skills and knowledge.” But we are talking about a district with 22 schools and over a thousand teachers where a mere 24 teachers failed the test. Those sound like pretty good numbers.

Competent teachers are important. Nobody will publicly say they disagree. Unfortunately, there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding what that means. It certainly means more than “having completed educational coursework and possessing a teaching certificate.” If we are to improve the education of our children, we must start with teachers who can read and write English correctly. Our teachers should have a firm grasp of concepts and facts in other basic subjects, such as math and science. How can we set this standard without equally competent administrators?

We all know that America’s continued general prosperity hinges on people: people who can do the important research or the future; people who know how to get things done in an increasingly complicated world; people who simply know how things work. That starts with teaching our children, and that in turn depends on our schools. Do not accept incompetence. Indeed, do not even accept mediocrity.

A Tax on the Castle

This morning I picked up the newspaper and was just
shocked to see this quote in oversized letters on the front
page:

“I am a senior and I
am on retirement (income) and Social Security, and I thought that homes, as they
got older, usually went down (in taxable
value).”

I was flabbergasted! Has
this person not noticed housing prices going up both in her neighborhood and the
nation at large, with talk of a potential housing bubble? Has she not noticed the assessment
notices from the county each year? Can she possibly not be aware that housing
prices and tax assessments have at least some passing relationship? Have we not
been told since we were old enough to pay attention that a house is not merely a dwelling, not only our
castle, it is an investment, a cornerstone of our financial
planning, a colossal tax break, and the most important asset most of us are
likely to ever possess?

A related story on the front page tells us that in
the last year “the average value of resale homes jumped an unprecedented 10
percent.” This rise is not typical, but it’s still impressive. That’s pretty
darn good in an environment where the long bond is earning less than 5% and the S&P 500 has risen about 7% in the last year.
Housing has been a bright spot in a dull economy
in many parts of the country.

Even
considering this performance, I am of the opinion that a primary home is not
always
an asset and not always a good investment. I am furthermore not alone in this
opinion. The issue of whether your home is an
asset or a liability depends on many factors, some of which are unique to your
situation. Here are some issues you should consider when deciding where the
family home fits in the family
finances.

What are you
really paying? No, not just the accepted
offer price, the amount of money you
will pay over the term of your mortgage. If you take a 30 year
mortgage, even a low interest rate like 5.5% will leave you paying twice the
mortgage amount. Do you really think your house will be worth twice your
purchase price when the mortgage is paid off? Be honest. Before you start
shouting that all the interest you pay is all tax deductible, you should know
that is only completely true if you are not subject to AMT. Furthermore, your deduction will only save
you the amount of interest you paid times
your tax rate. Paying $12,000 and in the 28%
tax bracket? Your $12000 expense will only save you $3360. A mere $280 per
month. I certainly would not buy a bigger house just for a bigger tax
break.

Have you considered
the incidental expenses? Incidental expenses
include a raft of bills and hassles that come with homeownership. Many of these
things apartment dwellers only pay in an incremental, pass-through fashion
instead of a big bill. The list includes all maintenance, such as repairing
roofs, painting, replacing carpet and appliances, mucking out gutters, mowing
the lawn, keeping the water softener full of salt, checking the air
conditioning, and keeping the common areas clean. The list also includes
non-maintenance items such as property taxes, homeowner association dues,
utility bills, and even helping resolve problems with the
neighbors.

How does buying a
house compare to the alternatives? If the
cost of renting the size dwelling you need is comparable to the cost of buying
in your area once you have considered incidental expenses, then buying is
probably the way to go. When this even close to the case, the mortgage interest
deduction actually does some good. Furthermore, equity is a pretty good thing.
However, don’t make yourself “house-poor,” don’t justify spending a lot more
each month to get the equity and the deduction, don’t tell yourself the house
surely will go up in value unless you have looked at the facts. Be sure to take
into account special situations, such as knowing you are going to get a job
transfer or wanting to be in a particular school district.

How important is
liquidity? A house is a tough asset when it
comes to using your equity. There are really only two ways to get money out of
your primary residence: mortgage it (again) or sell it. If you mortgage it, you
have another bill and are paying more interest — depending on your equity level
and your tax status, it might not even be the deductible kind. Furthermore,
mortgage paperwork is time consuming, and there will be closing fees associated
with the new mortgage. If you sell it, you have to find a new place to live.
That is an expensive pain in the butt. If you think you may need to lay hands on
your money in a hurry, a house is not the best place to
invest.

Is this particular
house a good investment? Is it reasonable to
think it will go up in value? How is the neighborhood doing: improving or
declining or maybe just stable? Are people in the neighborhood families planning
to stay around, or transient executives, or older people planning on moving to a
more retirement friendly area? Is the house or the neighborhood historical?
Are there some obvious improvements you could make that will increase the
house’s value? Are there tax implications beyond mortgage income deductions and
property taxes? Do not forget to consider your timeframe. Planning to live in a
house 5 years is different from planning to live in a house 20 years. Don’t
forget any value you may extract simply by living there and enjoying it. On the
other hand, do not overvalue that experience.

I am not saying you shouldn’t buy a
house. I am saying you should consider whether it is really in your best
interests to do so.

End of the Beetle Era

The last Volkswagen Beetle has officially rolled off the assembly line. In production continuously for the last seven decades, this is truly the end of an era. Over 21 million Beetles have been manufactured over the years. It holds the record for most vehicles of one name without a substantive redesign, having surpassed the Ford Model T: a record unlikely to be broken again. It has inspired customization for decades. Even though the original Beetle has not been available in the United States for over 20 years, owners still love them, covet them, trick them out, keep them running. There are at least 2 magazines devoted to them, and countless small shops that do everything from selling replica bud vases to engine and transmission building to complete restorations. The original Beetle was a great car, and an engineering masterwork.

Maybe you remember having owned a VW. Maybe it was a bullet-proof single owner air-cooled model that faithfully got you to school or work for years and years. Maybe you even got it from your Dad, who only grudgingly handed you the keys after having loved it for years himself. Perhaps it was a used air-cooled model which required service so often you kept a toolbox and a copy of the Muir book in the trunk. Maybe it was a Rabbit or Jetta that you literally drove until the wheels fell off, and you were a little sad the day you finally traded it for something newer and more “practical.” Maybe it was a Jetta or Scirocco you are sorry you ever laid eyes on. Maybe it was a fully restored beauty that you built from the formerly rusted-out floorpan on up.

I have historically been a Volkswagen person myself. About a dozen have graced our driveway over the years, from Beetles and Superbeetles, Microbusses, all the way to Jettas and New Beetles. We have owned so many various Volksies that I was once asked by a VW mechanic if there was any VW I had not owned. This being said, I do not think I will be owning another Volkswagen any year soon. There are two reasons. First there is the issue of quality. German engineering just isn’t what it used to be. The brilliant Porsche designs of yesteryear are forever gone, leaving only a mystique in its wake. My last VW was, granted, purchased used, but in 6 months I spent half its initial cost in repairs. The moment of truth came the last time I left the service department, having just paid $500 for a repair I knew cost as little as $100 on other vehicles. On the way out the service manager was kind enough to remind me that I was almost due for a routine service checkout — an additional $500. The next day, I bought a new car, the kind with a  warranty. I am not the only person whose mechanic influenced a change away from Volkswagen. I realize that anecdotes are not data, but the various automotive reviewers seem to think that reliability is an issue, too. It is telling that even Hyundai offers a longer warranty than VW.

The second big problem with VW is the price tag. What are the competitors to the Jetta? I think most Americans would agree that the short list includes the Honda Civic, the Toyota Corolla, and maybe an American model like the Dodge Stratus. All small but not teeny sedans. All available with a variety of amenities. However, all of them can be had, comparably equipped, for several thousand dollars less than the Jetta. That’s a lot of money for what is arguably a less reliable vehicle. Of course, that difference is before the generous purchase incentives that VW is not offering, while its competition is.

The comparisons get worse should you move up to the Passat, a beautiful if overpriced larger sedan. For Passat money, you have to seriously ask yourself if you shouldn’t at least drive by the BMW or Mercedes dealer. You might end up with a slightly smaller vehicle, but with oh so much more perceived class.

Should we even discuss the new Touareg? With base price starting at over $35,000, this SUV is only a bargain when seen as a cheap version of the Porsche Cayenne. No matter what VW would like to believe, people contemplating the purchase of a Cadillac or a Lexus SUV are not considering a stop at the Volkswagen dealer. Not even to kick tires. Not even to play with the salesman’s head.

These facts have added up to bad financial news for Volkswagen. In addition, they have problems concerning the German economy, the exchange rate of the Euro, Brazilian land rights, and expensive labor. All of these make the quality and price problems even worse, of course.

I come to bury the Volkswagen, not to praise it.

Divertmento and Troika

In a move tantamount to shouting “Look out!” on a busy street corner, the Department of Homeland Security has “warned” law enforcement and airlines of the possibility that there may be an Al Quida Hijacking attempt sometime in the next few months. Unless of course there is not. This so vague as to be useless warning was released despite the spokesman’s statement that “We continue to investigate this information to determine its level of credibility.” The terror level remains unchanged at Yellow, leading one to believe that the credibility level is quite low. This clumsy move is such an obvious distraction that one must wonder what we are supposed to be distracted from.

Meanwhile on the other side of the globe, things continue to go badly in the newly liberated Iraq. Essential services including water, sewer, and electricity are still spotty and crime is rampant, yet that appears to be the least of the problems. American forces are so desperate to complete the winning hand that they have stooped to the level of kidnapping women and children. From the Washington Post: “Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: “If you want your family released, turn yourself in.” Such tactics are justified, he said, because, “It’s an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info.” They would have been released in due course, he added later. The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered.”

This is not good. First, this is behavior that would not be tolerated almost anywhere else in the world. Did anyone ever suggest kidnapping the family of, say, Milosevic? Second, did it not occur to anyone that if we knew where the wife and child were, the man of the house would at some point come home for dinner? Why exactly could American forces not simply put them under surveillance and waited? Finally there is the most disturbing issue of all: the fact that it worked. This demonstrates that the General in question honestly believed his family was not safe in American hands, that they would come to harm if he did not comply. Whatever we have done to cultivate such an image is unconscionable.

In other news from Iraq, British troops are being investigated for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, the ICC. The court is focusing on 22 incidents, documented in 74 press reports and 13 video tapes. You remember the ICC, don’t you? They are that big international court that the Bush Administration was so adamant the United States could not be part of. After all, American troops are involved in a lot of “peace keeping” missions, and could be brought up on charges in such a court! Although I refuse to believe that such a court would concern themselves with the perhaps ill-advised isolated actions of young soldiers, one must surely wonder if the court should be looking into the actions and orders of Col. Hogg. Indeed, it is a shame that Uday and Qusay Hussein are too dead to be brought before such a forum. A public trial would have gone a long way towards earning the trust of the Iraqi people and the world. That is, assuming “swift execution” and “justice” are not synonyms.

Finally, the Japanese have decided to send a team from the Self-Defense Force (SDF) to Iraq to determine what reconstruction assistance they can provide. There is still the possibility that the Japanese may determine that the best assistance they can provide is troops. This is notable and controversial. As the very title of the SDF suggests, their primary purpose is to defend Japan itself. It was set up during the post-WW2 reconstruction to specifically be an alternative to an Army. Indeed, Japanese troops “have not fired weapons in combat since the end of World War II….” Not even against Godzilla. The Japanese lawmaking body, the Diet, didn’t just have to approve troops, they had to change laws to be able to consider the possibility. Because they have a parliamentary system, Diet members risked incurring voter outrage and subsequent elections to make this change. This is a big deal.

As a postscript, a bit of news that has been almost ignored in the American media. The House of Representatives has voted to repeal the section of the PATRIOT Act which allows secret search warrants, which they call “sneak and peek” warrants. The Department of Justice has vowed to fight this, calling the move the “terrorist tip-off amendment.” Since such a change must still be approved by the Senate, I strongly urge you to tell your Senator what you think. Do it today.

How many roads must a man drive down?

I kept my mouth shut last week. Maybe I shouldn’t have. Seriously, how many elderly drivers have to injure or kill people in the course of just one month before we young whippersnappers do something? Please keep in mind, the month isn’t over yet. More carnage could be coming to a fruit market or street corner near you. Drivers who should not be on the road anymore are a danger not only to us, but also to themselves.

Now, please understand, I do not support simply having a maximum driving age. I do, however, think there needs to be some way to get dangerous drivers off the road. We have ways of getting drunk drivers off the road. We have had great success in reducing the accident rate among young drivers through better instruction and “graduated license” programs. In fact, both of the last two big teenager crashes I can think of involved young people in violation of their license limitations. There must be a way to make sure that elderly drivers are competent behind the wheel.

We can start by making a driving road test mandatory to receive or renew a handicapped parking tag. Every time I see some Mercury or Buick parked badly more or less “in” a handicapped parking spot, I think to myself “Here is someone who couldn’t even wedge their vehicle between the extra wide lines of a handicapped spot at less than 5 mph. How on earth do they manage to keep between the lines of the road at 35 mph, let alone higher speeds?” What about people who need the tag because they drive for a handicapped relative? Let them go to the DMV in person and fill out an affidavit to that affect. It will be up to the professionals at the DMV to determine whether a driving test is necessary. These professionals, by the way, should keep several newspaper pictures of crashes posted prominently in their workspace, as a reminder of what can happen should rules be bent.

Perhaps we should also have regular road tests for drivers over, say, 75. While we are at it, we could say that drivers with certain types and quantities of traffic tickets should get road tests when they renew. I am not talking about a new test every year. Maybe once every 3 to 5 years. And yes, states are going to have to spend some money on testing. They could recoup some losses by having a “retest fee” on any driver who takes a driving test more than once in the course of a month, regardless of age. Such a fee would certainly make marginal drivers rethink their test date. It might make them think twice about retesting at all.

Now lets take a few minutes to examine the criticism to doing much of anything about this problem:

It’s discriminatory! Yes, and so are senior citizen discounts. For that matter, so are retirement villages. You are grown-ups. Deal with it. Life is not always fair.

How are they supposed to get to the grocery store and to Doctor’s appointments? Let me get this straight, we are supposed to allow dangerous drivers to be a menace to people, property, and themselves so they can get to the Doctor’s office? The idea that people whose licenses are revoked will be stranded is certainly a problem, but not so big a problem that we should allow people to drive who are proven to be unsafe behind the wheel. The wonderful thing about a market economy is that I can say without fear of contradiction that someone will come up with a safe and sane solution to this problem.

The driver isn’t always to blame. Often older people drive older cars, which are more prone to mechanical problems such as sudden acceleration, stuck throttles, and failing brakes. If this is valid, then we should also be hearing about a lot more cases of people between 20 and 50 having mechanical failure induced wrecks, shouldn’t we? In the old days, many states had safety inspections, and some still do. Perhaps mores states should have such tests. Often conducted by your friendly neighborhood (but state certified) mechanic, he would among other things they make sure the brakes worked, the the horn was loud enough, and that all the lights worked. These tests were a big pain, but they did make sure unsafe vehicles got fixed or taken off the road. Unfortunately, these tests had the side effect of making cars too expensive to maintain for some poor people, some of whom also happened to be elderly. Of course, this does not address the issue that most “sudden acceleration” is in fact “user error” and that some “failed brakes” may simply be legs too frail to properly depress the pedal in an emergency braking situation.

No matter what you say, elderly drivers still have fewer accidents than teenagers! Yes, that’s true. It doesn’t take into account that elderly drivers drive less. It doesn’t account for the fact that elderly drivers are usually more experienced drivers who should “know better.” And it doesn’t account for the 27% rise in elderly people killed in car wrecks in a decade where total auto fatalities dropped. Besides which, many states now restrict teen driving. They do it because they care, and want their kids to stay alive. Oh, and not kill anybody else either.

You are blaming everyone for a few bad apples. No, we’d just like to get the bad apples off the road to keep all of us safe, even you.

So what if elderly drivers are going a bit more slowly? What’s the problem? What’s your hurry? If all these drivers were doing was going a bit slow, I don’t believe anyone would have a problem. But look at the 10 links to accidents in the first paragraph! How many of those wrecks were caused by “going too slow”? The slow driving is unfortunately often a compensation for slower reaction times and poorer eyesight — both of which cause crashes.

This is an excuse to herd old people into concentration camps! Putting all of us into one place is the only way you can make sure we have “transportation,” and when we are too expensive to take care of you will euthanize us! Do you really think the AARP will allow that to happen?

Driving tests are a bad idea because the test will make Seniors nervous. That almost guarantees they will fail. If they are getting nervous and messing up in a driving test, then they are getting nervous and messing up in traffic emergencies too. Like when that pedestrian steps in front of them. Or the light all of a sudden turns red. Or when the “accelerator sticks.” Or when they see those emergency vehicles in the rear view mirror. Or when that young fool behind them starts beeping because the light turned green a whole second ago. Or when they get cut off in traffic. You can at least study and practice for a test. You can’t study and practice for a traffic emergency.

Hitting the gas instead of the brake can happen to anybody. And when was the last time you heard of this happening to anyone who was not either elderly or inexperienced?

The AARP is going to lobby hard against any change to the status quo. They have to; their membership demands it. However, they are going to have to come up with a better solution than checklists and voluntary driving refresher classes.

“Let your Light so shine before men”

Yesterday’s news includes the footnote that a church in Milford, Connecticut is buying out an adult movie store. The congregation raised $245,000 to do it. Almost a quarter of a million dollars. What else could they have done with that money?

They could have given 16 people full time jobs at minimum wage with benefits. Alternatively, they could have hired 8 people at a salary of $30,000 per year. They could have “adopted” a dozen needly families, and helped them with everything their meager earnings would not cover.

They could have fed 150 homeless people a meal, each and every day of the year. They could have paid a years rent at $500 per month on 40 apartments to help homeless families transition out of shelters. They could have bought and distributed over 11000 Bibles. They could have purchased over 3600 winter coats for needy people.

They could have given full scholarships to 29 underprivileged children to attend the Academy of Our Lady of Mercy – Lauralton Hall in Milford. They could send 78 children to private schools with the Cato Institute’s average tuition of $3116.

They could have bought a years supply of birth control pills for 510 impoverished married women, preventinggod-alone-knows how many abortions, and helping poor families keep from becoming even poorer by allowing them to control the size of their families.

They could have purchased 22 Toyota Echos and replaced an equal number of old junkers that were unreliable, got lousy milage, and polluted “God’s Creation” more than new cars.

They could have sent 70 letters to each of the 3500 people on Death Row in the entire United States, or 12 letters to each and every one of the over 19,000 people in Connecticut prisons. They could have sent a $10 “get well” gift after each of Yale-New Haven Hospital’s annual 22,000 surgical operations.

They could have taken over 40,000 people to see a movie.

The really ironic part of this entire saga is that it will not put the former owner out of business at all. Could they really honestly have thought he would say to himself “Oh well, no more adult entertainment business for me. I think I’ll become a laundromat attendant”? No, he’ll use that money to rebuild, and have a new bigger place of business in a couple of months. Maybe just down the street! If the church got a non-compete clause in the sale, he will set up as close as is allowed, or get a court to set the agreement aside. His former customers will visit his new business, but his employees may not be so lucky, depending on their available transportation.

The only thing they have truly accomplished is knowing there’s no adult entertainment nearby — Not In My Back Yard. At least for today.

The Scales Scream for Ice Cream

Even the “researchers” began this scoop with the concession that “Everyone knows icecream is not health food.” From the very beginning, this sounds like another missive from the Duhpartment of Stupid Research. However, I think it was a little surprising to many to find out that a deluxe ice cream cone might run as much as 800 calories. That a sundae might be over 1200 calories. That a mere milkshake might pack in a thousand calories — and that’s for plain vanilla. Or that the “fat free” frozen yogurt might have 11 grams of fat.

Talk about a diet buster. Even if you are of normal weight and metabolism, you’ll feel this on the scales. Regardless of your opinion regarding the role and impact of dietary fat, the mere calories easily equal a meal — or two! Keep in mind, they haven’t even compiled figures on the refined sugars in any of these products. And good luck finding nutritional information on their websites; you can find it sometimes if you have the time and energy and a knack for Googling. This data might be “available on request” at the respective store, assuming they have any data sheets left, and assuming the employee on duty knows where they are kept and can get to them. For that matter, any data you are actually able to lay hands on assumes that the employee does not inadvertently “super size” your order by, say, cramming 6 ounces in a 4 ounce serving, or maybe giving you “the real deal” instead of the fat/sugar/taste free item you requested.

At least if you make a sundae at home, you have the labels of each product you use handy, and can control serving sizes accordingly. If you use 8 ounces of ice cream and 4 tablespoons of Hershey’s Syrup — naturally fat free! — you and you alone are to blame for the calories.

And to think they didn’t bother to look at the nutritional information for Dairy Queen.

Do You Beleive in Little Things?

Today’s science news includes the idea that scientists have created stain-free pants! I confess, my knee-jerk reaction to this news was “Wake me when they are sold at Mervyn’s for less than $100 a pair.” To my great surprise you can actually purchase them at Eddie Bauer, for a mere $10 premium. The company claims they have sold well since their introduction in 2001 — begging the question of why this is in today’s news. Shirts of similarly treated fabric are supposedly available, with jackets to follow this fall. This is clearly a boon to those who still have a propensity towards spilling things on themselves, usually at inopportune moments, such as right before a job interview.

Strictly speaking, nanotechnology is nothing more than the science of making things that are very small. Things like better skin lotions, batteries that last longer, or anti-stain coatings for fabric. The public idea of nanotech, however, includes such “flying car” ideas as microscopic robots that cure disease, and cars that can repair themselves. Nanotech is seen as “revolutionizing” everything from medical products to environmental cleanup to crime prevention. Even the government wants in on this act.

Intelligent people who you may or may not agree with, like Steve Forbes and Joe Lieberman, say this is such a clearly up and coming field that people should invest in it. Not just as individuals, but as corporations and venture capitalists and governments. They cite figures saying that it could be a $1 Trillion business in 15 years.

Others say this is a dangerous trend, which should be closely monitored, lest there be horrible unforeseen results. This is particularly true of military applications of nanotech. It does not take a tin-foil hat to see the possibility that weapons using the technology of the very small — say, pocket sized nuclear devices, or listening devices no larger than a flea, or even weapons-resistant coatings for tanks and aircraft — could be very dangerous in the “wrong” hands.

Still others think nanotech a tempest in a teapot, perhaps interesting, but not paradigm shifting. Sure, nanotech is interesting, but is it cost effective? Can it ever live up to its promises? Remember that not long ago, everyone was convinced that the Internet would change everyone’s lives in unimaginable ways. When all is said and done, the biggest change for most of us is the ability to find a startling amount of information without leaving home, and without living in a research library. The nay-sayers have a half-century of “world of tomorrow” exhibits to point to as they say that things rarely turn out exactly as planned.

I think I’d be very careful about investing in nanotech. Investors might be better off waiting for 3M and DuPont to buy out the small companies with actual viable products. In the meantime, I think I’ll see if those Eddie Bauer pants come in a 26″ inseam.