The Real Legacy of Joe Paterno

This morning, the NCAA sanctions regarding Penn State University were announced in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal.  Those penalties were severe:  $60 million in fines, no post-season appearances for four years, reduced scholarships for four years, and all of the wins since 1998 vacated.  There are plenty of critics, who suggest that the NCAA has overstepped.

In my mind, this represents a signal ruling for our culture.  It represents a swing of the ethical pendulum … in a positive direction.

We have all heard of the “good old boy” networks.  Perhaps we have seen them portrayed on television or on the big screen.  Maybe we’ve experienced them firsthand … positively or negatively.  It was business-as-usual, and (in the worst cases) it became de rigueur.  Things were swept under the proverbial rug, winks were traded, and the prevailing expectation was that nothing was amiss as long as it was not blatant.

More recently – and I’m thinking of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal – media scrutiny has led unethical leaders to embarrassing confessions.  The person’s character was called into question … doubts surfaced as to whether it may have affected other areas of their lives … but, in the end, the major effect was to provide fodder for comedians.

The NCAA sanctions announced today tell a different story.  They tell us that a flawed character and a good-old-boy mentality cannot be overlooked.  We should not praise a person for their accomplishments in one area of their lives when we discover other areas which hide filth and corruption.  Bad people are not worthy of praise … regardless of what they have “accomplished” in other areas.  Character counts.

Again, there will be many critics of the decision.  I see a glimmer of hope, as the sanctions tell us that the ethical pendulum has returned to a serious consideration of the value of the person behind the deeds.  This may be one of the few positives to spill out of a tragic scandal … but it is clearly a positive direction for our culture.

Smart Phones and Routines

I haven't posted here in about a week.  The reason is because my routine has been thrown off.

As you may have noticed, if you've been reading my posts, a lot of my news comes from Yahoo! sources.  And that started because of a pattern I adopted while checking email accounts.  I have an account with mail.com, and I would check it.  There are a few news links on the sign-in page there.  The I would go to the my.yahoo page, to check my Yahoo! email.  And the news feed on Yahoo! was better (in my opinion).  So it came to be that I would get my "news update" from Yahoo each evening.

This continued, even after switching almost all of my email to GMail.  I continued to check my mail.com account, then go to Yahoo! ... not to check email, but simply to get the news.  Most days, I would not even log in on the Yahoo! site, but would simply scroll through their news feed.

A week or so ago, I discovered a mail.com app for my smart phone.  I was checking for a particular email that I was hoping would come through, and the app made sense -- because I could check the account on my phone without having to go through the web browser.  So I installed that app, and I've been getting all of my email messages on my phone.

And that has disrupted my routine.  I would check email, go to Yahoo! for news, and find something to write about in the process.  Now I'm getting email on my phone, and sometimes I never even make it to Yahoo! for the news feed -- because checking email was the "trigger" that led me to the news items.

I have heard that mobile technology is where everyone is going ... that there will be fewer desktop computers and far more tablets, notebooks, and other portable devices.  There are enough things that I do (and need to do) on a desktop or laptop unit that it is hard for me to envision the change.  And yet, perhaps I just had my first taste of it.  With the smart phone getting all of my mail, it has disrupted my routine and changed how I do things.

It's subtle.  It's a small thing.  But my routine has changed, and it has done so because of a phone app.  Once we have an app for that, we change.

Optimizing Bureaucracy

I think I've mentioned that I've been driving my current vehicle for over fifteen years.  That was the last time I bought a vehicle from another individual.

A couple of days ago, I traveled three hours to see a vehicle I had found online.  I liked it, and the seller and I agreed on a price ... so I bought it.  We read the back of the title, filled in all the blanks, and he gave it to me with the keys.

Today, I went to the motor vehicle department to pay the taxes and apply for a new title.  There I discovered that there was information at the top of the title which I hadn't read.  There is another form which has to be filled out.  It contains basically the same information on the title itself ... with an added section where the sales price is recorded.  But I cannot register the vehicle without this form being completed.  And the seller lives three hours away.

I read an article a couple of years ago about the rules changing on how tax is collected on a motor vehicle sale.  Apparently, the state realized that most people report a lower-than-actual sales price when it comes time to pay tax.  This form is supposed to help combat that.  It is no longer a matter of verbally telling the clerk what was paid.  Instead, both the buyer and seller have to sign a document where they state the price of the sale.

And so it is that cheaters cause increased bureaucracy.  That is true in most things, I suppose.  If everyone followed the rules, we could all enjoy significantly less time and expense involved in red tape.  A lot of our tax money goes to pay people whose primary task it is to enforce the rules – knowing that a large number of people will violate the rules if there is no enforcement.

Rule utilitarians suggest that we should find the optimal set of moral rules.  The "optimal" set of rules must take into consideration the likelihood of people actually accepting and following these rules, of course; the cost of enforcement has to be considered in determining whether a better set of rules exists.

When I look at real-world bureaucracy, I wonder whether that goal is achievable.  After all, as the adage goes, rules are made to be broken.  In order to have a greater likelihood of adherence, the standards have to be lowered; the higher the standards are raised, to greater the cost of enforcement.  I'm not at all sure where the happy medium is to be found in such a situation.

Motivating a Teenager

I asked my son to work in the storage building today, while I was at work.  I explained, in very clear terms, that we needed to move stuff from the garage to the storage building, so he needed to re-arrange what was already in the building to create room.  I even gave him a good idea of what we'd be moving, so he knew how much space was needed.

When I arrived home, I asked him how much he'd gotten done.  "Well, I didn't see that much that could be moved."  Oh really?!?  So I put on some old clothes and went out with him.  As soon as we opened the door, I asked him what he saw, as far as space.  "There's some room on that shelf, and there's an open spot over there, and ..." ... and he correctly identified five or six spaces into which things could be moved to create space.

Which tells me that he isn't blind.  He just didn't want to do it.  He could clearly see where things could be moved -- but he had no desire to move them by himself.

I (sort of) remember being that age.  Did my Dad get this exasperated with me?  I think I did what I was asked to do.  And since I did (or I think that I did), I'm not quite sure how to motivate my son, who seems to have no inclination to do these things on his own.  I've tried tying his allowance to her performance of chores and tasks around the house.  He goes a couple of weeks without an allowance, complains about having no money, and things are still left undone.

Obviously, I'm not gifted at motivating a 15-year-old.  If anyone knows where the magic elixir is, pass me a bottle, if you would.

Vehicles I've Owned

I'm in the market for a vehicle … my current ride is getting old and the repairs are becoming frequent enough (and expensive enough) that it's time to find something different.  Notice that I didn't say "something new," because I can't afford a new car right now.  I might be able to swing the payments … but the insurance would eat me alive.

I got to thinking about the cars I've owned.  I've been driving for about 35 years now (yes, I'm giving away my age).  I've had seven "primary vehicles" in that time, unless I've overlooked one.  I've owned another three vehicles … at one time I had two vehicles, and I've owned two that were my wife's car.  (The rest of the time, she has driven one of her parents' cars.)

My first car was a 1967 Pontiac Bonneville.  I learned a lot about cars with that one, and it's one of two vehicles on which I broke even.  My older brother, who is two years older than me, got it when he was sixteen.  Two years later, he was ready to trade it in on a new vehicle as he left for college; the dealership was going to give him $100 for it, so I paid him $100 and assumed ownership.  Two years later, I sold it for $100.

The other car on which I broke even was a Chevrolet Caprice; I don't remember what year model it was.  The fellow I bought it from had driven a lot of highway miles, so the price was lowered because of the high mileage.  I lived six blocks from work, five blocks from the grocery store, three blocks from the Laundromat – and seldom went anywhere else.  I drove the car for a couple of years, at which time it was considered a low-mileage vehicle.  I sold it for about the same amount I'd paid for it, two years previously.

I've forgotten the year models on almost all of these, but my other primary vehicles have been a Chevrolet Monte Carlo (which I only owned for about five months), a Buick Electra, a Toyota Corolla, a Ford van, an Oldsmobile 98 Regency, and a 1995 Ford Ranger (my current vehicle).  We had a 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier for my wife, and a 2000 Buick Century was the second vehicle we bought for her to drive.

I've only bought one car brand new … the Cavalier.  Everything else has been used.  And just about all of them were driven for quite a few years before I got rid of them.  After all, I bought my Ranger in 1997 when it had 13,000 miles on it; I've had it for 15 years, and it has 188,000 miles on it.  That has become my pattern … buy something used and drive it a long time.

Hopefully I'll find a good replacement in the next few weeks.  I hope to find something with low mileage ... and drive it for a number of years to come.

Being Dedicated to Health

It is difficult to be dedicated to a healthy lifestyle.  At least it is for me.  I've heard that gym memberships are cyclical -- with memberships rising around the first of the year (New Years' resolutions) and at the start of summer (swimsuit season) ... and tapering off between.  So maybe it isn't just me.

Years ago, I was working at a place where there were three other men I worked with.  I'm 5'11" and I probably weighed about 170 at the time.  One of the guys I was working with weighed about 275 ... another was around 220 ... and the third was a 6'4" beanpole.  In that group, I was the little guy.

In my current position, I work regularly in a group with seven other guys.  All but one are slim and trim; the other outweighs me by a good amount.  So, in this group, I am the second heaviest.  Yes, I've gained some weight.  But whether I feel overweight, or recognize that I need to lose some weight, largely depends on who I'm being compared to ... and who I find myself surrounded by.

Yet, even as I realize I need to lose weight, it is hard to commit to the changes that will make it happen.  I spend a lot of time sitting behind a computer.  I drink a type of coffee that is flavored, and I've drank Dr. Pepper since I was in high school.  I know that just changing those three things would make a difference -- eliminating the "empty calories" and getting more exercise.

The truth is that, while I've been overweight for the past few years, I've never really tried to diet.  Yes, I have sporadically watched what I eat a little better, and I've increased my exercise at various times.  But I have never really, seriously tried to diet.   Even with what little I've done, I can attest to the fact that it's hard to do.

I recently got a book for my Kindle called "The Sugar Divorce:  Fitness Over Fifty."  According to the blurb, the book explains how sugar affects insulin ... which determines whether the body is storing fat or burning it.  And when we start looking at complex carbohydrates ... which are complex sugars ... like bread and pasta ... it only gets worse for me.  I absolutely love Italian food, and bread is one of the best things about nearly every meal.

Apparently, the book also dovetails with a 4-hour body diet plan -- which I have not yet heard about.  I'm going to give the book a read and see what I can learn.  Maybe I'll find the motivation to make some changes which will be lasting.

Dealing with Instant Wealth

I mentioned, in a recent post, that I would probably show up for work if I won the lottery.  That has to do with an article I read recently (although I can't find it again, now that I want to comment on it).  The article mentioned some interesting things that I had never thought about.

I knew (everyone does, right?) that lottery winners start receiving all sorts of pleas for help -- from individuals and charities.  They also find out how much their relatives really care about them ... even the ones they haven't heard from in the past 20 years or so.  And they may be more susceptible to crime, where they are targeted for robbery or a break-in.

What I did not know, and what this article pointed out, is that lottery winners often find themselves to target of lawsuits.  Someone will walk across their yard and find a hole to twist their ankle in.  They will find themselves involved in a traffic accident.  Accidents will start happening all around them -- involving assets in their name -- because greedy people will see that as the best way to get to the money.

That was an eye-opening revelation for me.  I had never thought about people trying to manufacture accidents in order to file lawsuits.  And yet, apparently, this is one of the big problems encountered by people who win large sums of money.

So if I were to win, I would go to work.  I'd keep the ticket in a safe place (a safe deposit box at a bank) while I got a few things in order.  One of those would be selling my home, so that I had no real property.  Since my job is the only thing tying me to this location, I'd plan to move once the winnings were in hand ... finding someplace that would be nice to live, where no one knows me, and where people couldn't easily trace me to the winnings.  To do this, I'd get rid of just about everything I own.  Things that are true keepsakes I'd move to a storage facility rented by a relative, to be retrieved once I did find a place to settle.

I'd make sure that all the financial arrangements were in place -- trusts, multiple bank accounts, and so forth -- so that the money would be quickly dispersed into safe locations to earn interest.  My goal would be to live primarily off of the interest, rather than spending large amounts.

To help the trail go cold, for anyone who tried to follow me (and set up a lawsuit), I'd probably move around a fair amount the first couple of years.  I'd find an interesting place and move there for a couple of months.  I could live out of an apartment with a short-term lease ... or even a weekly-rent hotel room.  I would rely on public transportation, instead of having my own vehicle.  I would be a tourist, not seeking to make friends or create new relationships.  After a month or two, I'd move on to a new place.

This would take discipline.  Most people immediately start giving money away and spending lavishly.  I wouldn't do that.  I would be very methodical in protecting the funds, "going underground" to avoid as much publicity as possible, leaving a cold trail that greedy people couldn't follow, and taking several years before finally settling in an appealing area, buying a home, and buying a nice (but not outlandish) vehicle.

Based on the stories I've read of lottery winners and their tribulations, it seems to me that this approach is the one that would work the best.  Is it foolproof?  Certainly not.  Nothing is perfect.  But, given that sort of financial freedom, I would do everything possible to be untraceable.

It's all part of the dream.  Since I seldom remember to buy a lottery ticket, I doubt the plan will ever go into action.  But at least I have a plan, were it to ever happen.

Finding Your Passion

I watched several sports-related things on television today. I watched the Belmont Stakes, of course (another exciting finish). Before that, I watched part of a soccer match between Germany and Portugal. This evening, my son wanted me to watch the NBA playoff game with him (Boston vs. Miami).

I happened to think of something that has occurred to me before. These athletes that make millions of dollars each year … why do they keep playing? I mean, if I got a contract to play for a couple of years for multiple millions each year, I would be sorely tempted to play a couple of years, bank all of the money, and retire. If I had $10 million in the bank, I could live comfortably for the rest of my life.

I know that one part of the issue is that people who make a lot of money tend to spend a lot of money. I understand that. But what if one of them actually had the discipline to set the money back for retirement? Why keep playing?

The same is true of executives who make seven figures. After all, many people who inherit fortunes don't work for a living – because they don't have to. So when someone works and amasses great wealth as a result, why keep working? Why not live like a rich person and enjoy the wealth?

I think there are two parts of the answer. First of all, those who inherit a fortune have never had to work; those who earned their wealth have worked hard, and it's all they know how to do. So it could be that those who have made a lot of money keep working simply because they don't know what else to do.  Their work has made them who they are -- and it is an intrinsic part of who they are.

I suspect that the other part of the question, however, is that those who have earned their wealth have done so because the work they are doing is their passion. They aren't doing it for the money … not deep down. They are doing it because they love doing it. The wealth they are able to amass is simply a result of doing what they have a passion for doing.

Which is where the question for myself arises. If I won the lottery, would I show up for work Monday morning? Probably not. (Actually, I might … but the reason for that is a subject for another post.) I work to make a living, and if I didn't have to work, I wouldn't. What I'm doing for a living is not what I have a passion to do. And yet, what would I do, if I were independently wealthy and didn't have to work for a living? If I could do anything as an occupation, what would it be?

They say that you can make a living doing just about anything, if you really have a passion for it. If you are passionate, then people will pay you to do what you love. I guess the first question that has to be answered in that formula remains, What am I passionate about? Figuring out how to make a living doing it is secondary to figuring out what it is that you really and truly want to do.

Will We Ever Have Another?

I don't watch much horse racing.  There are at least two races I try to watch every year.  I was born in Louisville, Kentucky, so I (almost) always watch the Kentucky Derby on the first Saturday of May.  I'll pick one or two horses -- usually based on whether their name catches my fancy -- to cheer along in the most exciting 2 minutes of sports.

Whoever wins the Derby will be my choice in the Preakness Stakes, which is run on the third Saturday of May.  This is the second leg of the Triple Crown.  And, if the Derby winner wins the Preakness, then you can bet I'll be watching the Belmont Stakes -- run 3 weeks after the Preakness -- and cheering that horse on to victory.

The Triple Crown is elusive.  Only 11 horses have ever won all three races.  These races are only for 3-year-olds, so it is, literally, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.  The Derby, at 1 1/4 miles, is (I believe) the longest race any of them have yet run.  The Preakness is slightly shorter, at 1 3/16 miles.  The Belmont, at 1 1/2 miles, is the longest most of them will ever run.  And they run all three races in a mere 5-week span of time.

The last Triple Crown winner was Affirmed, in 1978.  I remember that race.  And I keep wondering whether we will ever have another Triple Crown winner.

This year, it was looking hopeful.  I'll Have Another won both the Derby and the Preakness in some of the most exciting stretch runs I can remember in recent history.  I was literally on the edge of my seat in the Derby.  And at the top of the stretch in the Preakness, I turned to my son and said, "He's not going to make it," only to watch -- cheering -- as he did.  Both races were amazing.

But, alas, I'll Have Another won't be running tomorrow.  With a sore leg that indicates tendinitis, the owners simply can't risk a fatal injury.  I'll Have Another is retired (although reports say that he will actually be in the post parade tomorrow, as his "farewell" to the track).  And so we want another year ... wondering whether we'll ever have another chance to see a Triple Crown winner.

Keeping Up on the Highway

According to a Yahoo! news report, a stretch of highway between Austin and San Antonio may soon have an 85 mile-per-hour speed limit.  (See the article at http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-highway-first-allow-85-mph-speed-limit-154924311.html.)  When I first saw the headline, I was expecting it to be reporting on an area out in west Texas, along I-10 or I-20.  For this to be implemented in the Austin/San Antonio corridor is surprising.

The reported reason for the experiment has to do with helping to clear congestion on one of the busiest interstate highways in the nation.  These speed limits will be tested, apparently, on a toll road -- not on the interstate itself -- hoping that the ability to travel faster (saving time -- and getting some high speed thrills along the way, perhaps?) will lead more people to use the tollway.

Will that congestion be eased if lanes are repeatedly closed to clean up after accidents?  Or will there be congestion on two roadways at that point?  That is what everyone will be waiting to find out.  It seems to me that there is a fine line somewhere ... a speed which keeps traffic flowing, but not so fast that more accidents occur.

It seems like a risky experiment to me.  I generally drive within the speed limit, so I don't have a lot of experience with high-speed maneuvers.  It seems to me, though, that something that causes a driver to weave -- someone pulling into your lane suddenly -- and which can be handled fairly easily at speeds which are more tame could easily lead to problems at higher speeds.  People aren't used to controlling vehicles at that speeds if something goes amiss.  And if someone blows out a front tire?  I wonder whether odds-makers in Vegas are taking bets on how long it will take before the first big pile-up occurs.

I don't live in that area, so I'm not sure whether I'll find myself on that road during the experimental period.  My greatest fear would be that my little 4-cylinder would never get up to speed.  I honestly don't know whether I've ever driven it that fast ... even when accelerating to get around a slower-moving vehicle, going downhill with a tailwind.  If I do happen to be in the area, I think I'll risk the congestion on the interstate.

Vanity Plates

I read an article today (at http://news.yahoo.com/u-car-license-plates-damniml8-ok-toilet-not-163727178.html) which talked about strange vanity license plate requests.  Some of the approved requests might raise eyebrows -- like the Florida license which reads "O2B NUDE."  There are other things that are rejected, even though they aren't clearly graphic -- like "TOILET."

Some silly (albeit cryptic) requests were mentioned ... like "4NICK8," "3MTA3" (read that one backwards in a mirror), and "370H55V" (which should be read upside down for its full impact).  The creativity involved in some of these is to be commended, if nothing else.

What I found interesting was that the article pointed out that people who serve on the screening committees have to keep up with slang terms in order to determine when something is inappropriate.  Prisoners who make license plates sometimes help, too, for requests that pass the committee but should be rejected.

Apparently -- I didn't know this -- those seeking vanity plates will be asked for the meaning if it is not immediately clear, so that a decision can be made as to the acceptability.

I guess I always though that anything not clearly vulgar was allowed ... because it says more about the person that would put such a thing on their car than it offends the public sentiment.  And, compared to some bumper stickers I've seen -- which are not "licensed" -- I'd say a license plate declaring "IHAV2P" isn't really so bad, in the grand scheme of things.

By the way, the Maryland plate which reads "WTF" (which is popular chat-slang for "what the f***") was going to be revoked.  However, the state discovered that the tag had been issued long before the internet and is used by someone who owns a waterfront home.  The moral to the story:  if you want to put something vulgar on your car's license plate, get the plate made before you get everyone else to start using the phrase.

Should I Buy a Lottery Ticket?

I do not consider myself particularly lucky.  If there is a drawing of any type, I often don't even drop my name in the hat ... because I get tired of getting my hopes up and then "losing."

The past two weeks have been interesting, though.  In an online game, I won one of the major prizes in a drawing where about 30 other people were entered.  In another online game, I won a cash prize -- that was also a drawing.  (There were fewer entered ... but I'm still the person who won.)  And when I was at the conference last week, I dropped my business card in a bucket to enter a drawing, and I received a notice from the company today that I had won that drawing.  My son is jealous, because I won some $180 Skullcandy headphones.

So am I on a streak here?  Should I strike while the proverbial iron is hot?  The Texas Lottery Commission website shows that the Powerball jackpot is at $120 million right now (cash value option), while the MegaMillions is at $11 million and the regular Texas lottery is at $7 million.

Or is the third time a charm, meaning that I've won three times in two weeks and my streak is now at an end?  Should I have bought a lottery ticket instead of entering the drawing for the headphones?

Of course, I dropped another business card in the drawing for the Kindle at the conference as well, and I haven't heard anything about that one.  That's just as well, since I just ordered a Kindle ... and I do need a new set of headphones, since my old ones lie broken on the desk.  (I can still hear out of one of the ear pieces, but they are broken and can't be worn on my head.  To listen to something, I have to hold the working ear piece up to my ear.)

I don't stop at convenience stores often, so I'll have to see whether I remember to stop and buy a ticket tomorrow.  If I do, I won't be holding my breath expecting to win.

Reverse Discrimination in the News

There is a Yahoo! Sports story about a softball coach who is being replaced by a female coach.  The coach believes that the school is discriminating against him, and he is currently considering his options.  (The article can be found at http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/softball-coach-claims-reverse-discrimination-ousting-because-school-100523488.html.)

Let me say, first of all, that I think the story and its title are a bit misleading.  The suggestion is that the coach was fired in order that the school might hire a female coach in his place.  Later in the story, however, it is revealed that the coach in question ... Brandon Cobb ... will continue to coach volleyball and teach government classes.  He is simply being relieved of his duties as the coach of the softball team.

This casts a very different light on the story, in my opinion.  There are two sides, both of which are presented.  The superintendent stated that he believed it to be important to include female coaches -- noting that the school does not currently have any women in coaching positions.  The author of the story points out that the lack of female coaches on the athletic staff could be construed as an existing institutional discrimination.  On the other side of the issue, Cobb suggests that it would be considered discriminatory if a woman were told she couldn't coach any more, simply because the school wanted a man to do the job.

Unfortunately, Coach Cobb, I'm not sure your argument carries much weight.  If the school district were to fire someone, it might be different (although I'd have to think a little harder about that one to be sure).  But this is a question of assignments -- where no one is being dismissed from their employment -- and employers (school districts) have a right to reassign people as they believe will best serve the interests of the business (school) and its customers (students).  And the fact that the students participating in softball and volleyball are girls would actually give the district a valid reason for suggesting that a female coach would be preferred.

Without offering a trivial example, suppose that I worked at a fast food restaurant -- sometimes as a cook, but other times as a cashier.  Perhaps I have been working the counter (as a cashier) for the past two months, and I haven't done anything wrong which would suggest that I was doing a poor job.  Can the manager decide to move me back into the kitchen (as a cook)?  Of course she can.  Her job, as manager, is to determine what will work best for the business.

Perhaps we might question the manager's judgment if I was moved simply because she wanted the counter staffed by females.  I'm not convinced that it is discriminatory, though.  And, in the case of the school district, there are good reasons which could be offered for the change.  So I'm just not seeing reverse discrimination involved in this one.

Enticing a Trade-In

We have two cars right now, and both of them are getting old.  The newest is a 2000 model, so it's 12 years old; the other is a 1995 model.  Both of them have over 150,000 miles on them.  And both of them are starting to encounter problems that fall into the "major repair" category.

On one, the anti-lock brake light is glowing on the dashboard.  When I took the car to the repair shop, I was told that the repair would run nearly $2,000 ... and only $200-300 of that was labor.  The part itself cost $1,700.  I took it to the dealership for a second opinion, and was told the same.

So here's what I don't understand.  The car originally sold for, let's say, $35,000.  (Since we bought it used about 5 years ago, I'm honestly not sure what the new price was -- but that is about what the 2012 version runs.)  If this part costs $1,700, then that's 1/20 the value of the vehicle.  I'm sure there are 19 other individual pieces which carry hefty price tags, like this one, and those parts account for the total cost of the vehicle.  What about all the other stuff?

And what about the big manufacturing plants, filled with expensive equipment and powered by expensive union labor?  What about the transportation costs of delivering new vehicles to the dealerships, by train or by truck?  How in the world do they ever sell a car for less than a couple hundred thousand dollars?  Not ever having worked in manufacturing, that boggles my mind a bit.


Of course, I have a different theory as to why a part would be so expensive.  I think the manufacturers want to encourage people to upgrade to new vehicles.  They can't make the price of every part exorbitantly expensive -- they know the ruse would be up if a spark plug cost $200.  But they can find a few key parts, especially those on major components of the vehicle (like the braking system), that will be so expensive that it will nearly guarantee that the person believes the car needs to be traded in for something new.

The only part of my theory I'm not sure about is how they identify which parts get this special pricing.  But it doesn't make any sense that it is really that expensive to make that particular part -- because there is no explanation for how a car containing that part could sell for $35,000.

Showing My Son the Sights

I ran across an article today entitled "10 Places Every Kid Should See" (written by Sean O'Neill for Budget Travel).  I'll admit that my first question was to determine how many of these landmarks I had seen myself.  But I was also curious to see how many of them I'd taken my son to visit.

I discovered that my son has only been to 3 of the 10 on the list:  Sea World in San Antonio, Carlsbad Caverns, and the Hoover Dam.  I guess that's not too terrible, given the fact that we haven't had the time or money for many "family vacations" over the past few years.  Since he is 15 now, I may have missed the "window of opportunity" on a few of those, but there were some good ideas of things to save toward.

What pleased me was that theme parks were not on the list.  Six Flags over Texas, Disney World, and Disneyland were no where to be found.  Admittedly, the list was focused on things that would be educational landmarks.  To me, it's nice to see lists encouraging families to do things that are fun but not focused on entertainment.  I personally think that we spend far too much time, energy, and money on entertainment these days.

My problem is that I'm not very adventurous.  When I was at the conference last week, I didn't get outside the hotel much at all ... and some of my colleagues told me about the nice restaurants and landmarks they had found within walking distance.  I tend to plan things, so I look for things to do before leaving on a trip; if I don't know about it beforehand, there is a good chance that I will never find it.  But that is limiting, and I'm realizing it more and more.

Spontaneity has never been a strength for me, but maybe I need to stretch my wings.  I don't know that we'll have a chance to have a "real vacation" this summer, but I'll start thinking ahead to next year, and I will build in some room for spontaneous activities.  After all, spontaneity can be planned, right?