2004/12/30
i am the personification of all that i hate
Last night I watched a man on television recounting how he was on vacation and is now returning home without his girlfriend...she was ripped from his arms as the tsunami waters receded in a torrent. The most upsetting part, while watching this guy choke up, was that he was the luckiest of millions of people...so many who live in those poverty-stricken countries have lost children, parents, siblings, friends, homes, and businesses. The least fortunate of the world's 6.5 billion became even less fortunate in an instant.
In the months following the 9/11 attacks, North Americans gave approximately $2 billion to support the families of 6,000 victims through agencies like the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the ironically named Robin Hood Fund. All this money for white-collar workers who already had life insurance and on top of the fact that the government had a pot of $6 billion to pay the victims (to keep them from suing the airlines, who were legitimately negligent with passenger safety).
My theory is that everyone was so entertained with those big explosions, pyrotechnics, and demolitions, that we felt obliged to pay something. After all, we pay when we go to the theatres, don't we? Heck, I was watching that morning after the first plane struck, and I saw the second plane hit LIVE! I got to watch several hundred people die! I wonder what kind of a payout I am obligated to cough up for that kind of entertainment?
My theory has to be correct, because it couldn't be based on logical need. I vomited and wept from stress and grief after 9/11, but I knew that what those people needed wasn't money. Not 99% of them anyway. The victims were the families of white-collar workers who had life insurance and still had their homes and supportive families.
But if $2 billion wasn't an entertainment fee and it wasn't through a logical attempt at re-distribution of wealth, then it must have been out genuine compassion. I'm inclined to believe so. However, for me to believe that, I expect to see - at a very minimum - $38,000,000,000.00 (that's $38 billion) donated to charities for the purpose of relief, aid, and redevelopment in the wake of this tsunami disaster. That's 114,000 victims (a conservative estimate) multiplied by $333,333.33 (the approximate amount donated per 9-11 victim).
(amount donated to victims of 9-11) / (9-11 victims) = (amount per victim) x (conservative estimate of tsunami victims) = expected tsunami giving
therefore:
($2,000,000,000.00) / (6,000) = ($333,333.33) x (114,000) = $38,000,000,000.00
So, if I'm so much smarter than the rest of you chumps, then why am I the personification of all that I hate? Because I'm sitting here proving why you're stupid while most people (ie 5 billion people) have real problems. And here's a rundown of my last 24 hours:
-watch tsunami victims on television
-sleep in warm dry bed
-wake up late
-discuss New Years party plans over the internet
-go for coffee with friend
-get car washed at an automatic car wash
-get home and clean the inside of the car
-biggest worry of the day: getting home from the wash without the car getting too dirty.
In the months following the 9/11 attacks, North Americans gave approximately $2 billion to support the families of 6,000 victims through agencies like the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the ironically named Robin Hood Fund. All this money for white-collar workers who already had life insurance and on top of the fact that the government had a pot of $6 billion to pay the victims (to keep them from suing the airlines, who were legitimately negligent with passenger safety).
My theory is that everyone was so entertained with those big explosions, pyrotechnics, and demolitions, that we felt obliged to pay something. After all, we pay when we go to the theatres, don't we? Heck, I was watching that morning after the first plane struck, and I saw the second plane hit LIVE! I got to watch several hundred people die! I wonder what kind of a payout I am obligated to cough up for that kind of entertainment?
My theory has to be correct, because it couldn't be based on logical need. I vomited and wept from stress and grief after 9/11, but I knew that what those people needed wasn't money. Not 99% of them anyway. The victims were the families of white-collar workers who had life insurance and still had their homes and supportive families.
But if $2 billion wasn't an entertainment fee and it wasn't through a logical attempt at re-distribution of wealth, then it must have been out genuine compassion. I'm inclined to believe so. However, for me to believe that, I expect to see - at a very minimum - $38,000,000,000.00 (that's $38 billion) donated to charities for the purpose of relief, aid, and redevelopment in the wake of this tsunami disaster. That's 114,000 victims (a conservative estimate) multiplied by $333,333.33 (the approximate amount donated per 9-11 victim).
(amount donated to victims of 9-11) / (9-11 victims) = (amount per victim) x (conservative estimate of tsunami victims) = expected tsunami giving
therefore:
($2,000,000,000.00) / (6,000) = ($333,333.33) x (114,000) = $38,000,000,000.00
So, if I'm so much smarter than the rest of you chumps, then why am I the personification of all that I hate? Because I'm sitting here proving why you're stupid while most people (ie 5 billion people) have real problems. And here's a rundown of my last 24 hours:
-watch tsunami victims on television
-sleep in warm dry bed
-wake up late
-discuss New Years party plans over the internet
-go for coffee with friend
-get car washed at an automatic car wash
-get home and clean the inside of the car
-biggest worry of the day: getting home from the wash without the car getting too dirty.
2004/12/28
gurr's pick o' the day
ok so i bought this little kit for the dryer hose yesturday. This afternoon my dad installed it and we are LOVING THIS. For nine bucks I picked this up at Canadian Tire. Think about this: what is the worst about your air during the winter? It's cold and it's dry. When you vent your dryer out, what are you blowing out of your house? Air that's hot and humid. Problem? Meethinks. So we installed this little kit on the hose and now my room (next to the laundry room) is warmer and smells moutain-fresh (despite me). During the summer (when not using the clothes-line) you can turn the switch and blow the air out of the house. genious.
Thainamu can ignore this post and stick to the clothes-line. Darn you and your warm climate.
Thainamu can ignore this post and stick to the clothes-line. Darn you and your warm climate.
2004/12/25
Merry Christmas
and a happy new year.
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, "Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger."And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"
When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.
2004/12/23
shoppers car mart
my opinions, rambling as they may be...nobody held a gun to your head to get you to come here....
I must confess that over the past couple of months I have not been living in Peterborough. Or Kingston. I've been living in Vice City. I know what you may be thinking...are you some kind of sociopath? Not entirely. But the game is really enjoyable, with an exciting mix of first-person-shooter and driving. And a great plot. But I figured it was time to take a break from virtual driving and talk about real driving (how's that for the worst segue ever?). I looked at a lot of cars before purchasing the Focus, so I thought it would be fun to review how I made my decision.
Used
I went to new car dealerships, but got talked into checking out a couple of almost-new used cars. I was interested, because they were both sought-after models that were out of my range in new-car form.
Mazda Protege5
This was a decent car. The thing that surprised me about it was the lack of room on the inside. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't a tight squeeze, especially when compared to other cars I drove. However, this car seems like a big car from the outside. Yet inside - especially in the back seat - it seems smaller than its dimensions. This could have just been perception, I haven't checked the numbers...perhaps I was just expecting something more. Anyway, this car really moved. It felt great, handled great, looked great. It actually reminded me of the Focus I landed on: the fit and finish was there yet one cannot help but wonder about the quality. This car had something loose in the drivers door that rattled enough to shake a tooth loose. In the end it's a car that I would've been proud to own; practical performance wrapped up in a real purdy package. The price just wasn't right from the Toyota dealer it was at.
Fuel Economy: 3.8 stars
Handling/Performance: 4.2 stars
Practicality: 5 stars
Looks: 5 stars
Toyota Celica
Um, wow. I loved driving this car more than any other car I tested. This despite the fact that it had 72,000km on it! The thing handles like a go-kart...meaning it has no body roll (think about how your parents' minivan leans over while turning - this car had none of that). Grip was phenomenal. Acceleration was heart-stopping. I picked my mom up from work in this car, and on the way home I did 160kph. She didn't even notice; that's how well this car rode. The only thing that kept it out of the winner's circle: it had even less room than the Corolla SR5 I was trading up from. This car's backseat was so small, I would've seriously considered removing it for more sound system/cargo room. Even the front seats were..."cozy".
Fuel Economy: 4.5 stars
Handling/Performance: 5 stars
Practicality: 2.2 stars
Looks: 4.5 stars (as tested. The brand new GTS's are 6 stars out of 5!)
New
I went into this with little criteria. In fact, the only criteria I set out was that it had to be a manual transmission. After that, I judged each car by it's own qualities. This meant that I tested cars that I otherwise would've overlooked.
Toyota Echo Hatchback
This car had a distinct disadvantage coming into my test: I had extreme expectations for it. I was really excited when this car came to Canada last year. Based on the Vitz out of Japan (called Yaris in Europe), this car is popular the world 'round. In the end this car disappointed me. First off, Toyota Canada decided to call it the Echo Hatchback instead of Vitz or Yaris. To me, that's a mistake considering the disdain people have for Echo styling (I myself love the redesigned Echo of the past couple of years...the only problem with it is that - although quite attractive itself, especially in sport form - it's reminiscent of the older ugly one). Secondly, this car is CHEAP. And I do mean cheap in the truest sense - my tester had a piece of plastic in place of where the radio should be. The quality is there; I have no doubt in my mind that these cars will outlast my Focus by a factor of two, and get phenomenal mileage while doing it. They just feel aweful: cheap plastics, power nuthin, cheap shifter (all cars I tested were manual trannies - cause only losers drive autos /rant). Plus, the three door I tested (I wanted a five door) was the same monthly payment as my Focus ZTS! This because Toyota doesn't feel it needs to offer rebates or financing. Now, I can understand no rebates, but they - along with the other Japanese manufacturers spare Mitsu - are making a serious mistake by not offering 0% financing. If they offered 0% for 60 months, they would destroy the domestic automakers.
Fuel Economy: 5 stars
Handling/Performance: 2.5 stars
Practicality: 4.4 stars
Looks: 3.8 stars
Chevrolet Cavalier
This little lady was the shocker of the group. In the end I only agreed to test it because I liked the saleswoman so much (she sold us our minivan). This car is archaic. It is basically the same car that they were producing 20 years ago. The J-body has had many forms: through many Cavalier facelifts as well as Sunbird and Sunfire iterations. However, age has done this car no harm, as GM has had lots of time to tinker and improve on the design. Perhaps there is something to be said for manufacturers to keep the same car for a decade at a time. Meh, it won't happen: it's all about marketing. Anyway, I tested the fully loaded Z24 coupe. If I had purchased I would have gone with the equivelent Z24 sedan. It's Ecotec engine was very peppy, with a clutch/shifter second only to the Celica. It was comfortable, and with the Z24 gold package, quite attractive. The only downside is the lack of respect this little number gets. But, I for one no longer look down on these cars.
Fuel Economy: 3.8 stars
Handling/Performance: 4.7 stars
Practicality: 3.8 stars
Looks: 4.7 stars
Chevrolet Optra5
GM recently aquired the bankrupt auto manufacturing division of Daewoo. The rebadge-Nazi's at the General took this opportunity to water down the corporation's brandnames even further. Taking all of Daewoo's cars, they gave them facelifts and put gold bowties on them. Now, that might not sound too bad, until you realize just how bad of a car Daewoo was. There was a reason they went out of business! Think Hyundai in the mid-80's. Yah. That said, I decided to be open-minded and give the hatchback iteration of the Optra lineup a try. It actually really impressed. It was the only car that I tested that I could comfortably sit behind myself. By this I mean that I adjusted the driver's seat just the way I like it (way back and way reclined - like the gangsta that I'm not) and then sat in the backseat behind. With the driver's seat adjusted, I could still sit in the backseat without my knees rubbing. Truely impressive. The car's interior is huge; with the backseat folded down the cargo room is mind-boggling. It comes well-equipped with options. For $20,000 you can get one that's basically fully loaded (no leather or heated seats, but it does have a sunroof). The engine, though, is weak and inefficient. Fuel economy is atrocious. If they put the ecotec of the Cavalier into this attractive and practical body, GM would have a real winner.
Fuel Economy: 2 stars
Handling/Performance: 2 stars
Practicality: 5 stars
Looks: 4.4 stars
Kia Spectra5
I would've bought this car. The only problem is, Kia has decided it's Mazda and is going to produc too-few vehicles and charge full price. So be it...I wouldn't pay full price for a Kia any more than I'd pay full price for a Ford. Anyway, this car is phenomenal. I only sat in it, but the reviews say it drives really nice. It's got a great fit-and-finish, it's roomy, it's got some really cool interior features, and the MSRP is right (there are just no incentives). Chances are I'll look here again when the time comes.
Fuel Economy: 4.2 stars
Handling/Performance: N/A
Practicality: 5 stars
Looks: 4.8 stars
Hyundai Elantra
Even moreso than it's cousin company Kia, Hyundai has made leaps and bounds over the past few years. Elantra is one of those cars that could suit anyone's needs. It's roomy and drives ok. The fit and finish is great, and the entire car is just nice to be in. It also has that quality - like the Focus - of blending in with the five trillion other cars just like it. Oftentimes, that's just what we want. The only thing I didn't like was the body-roll. Perhaps my parents would enjoy that kind of handling, but for me it was just too soft. For me, if I'd gone with Hyundai I would've gone with Elantra's little sister.
Fuel Economy: 4.2 stars
Handling/Performance: 2.8
Practicality: 4 stars
Looks: 4.5 stars
Hyundai Accent5
Officially making the original Accent redundant, the Accent5 is a tremendous vehicle. It does everything well, but in a bland sort of way. If I couldn't have found anything more exciting, I would have been satisfied with this.
Fuel Economy: 4.2 stars
Handling/Performance: 3.1 stars
Practicality: 4.5 stars
Looks: 4 stars
Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Rally Edition
Gorgeous. This was the car I wanted more than any other car. Almost as much fun as the Celica, but with a practical dose of room. The OZ Rally has the look of the Ralliart/Evolution, but without the engine to back it up. Which is fine with me, because I like my gas mileage anyway. In fact, I like this car so much I think I'll post a pic of it. What are you going to do? It's my blog.
Fuel Economy: 4.2 stars
Handling/Performance: 4 stars
Practicality: 4.7 stars
Looks: 5 stars
Ford Focus ZTS
I would not have considered a Focus, especially a non-hatchback Focus, except for the price. And even then, it had to be the nicely equipped model. But, the Focus has a good balance of performance, handling, space, looks, and fit-and-finish. The quality remains to be seen, but hopefully this "new generation of Ford" really is new. The handling is really quite something on the Focus. Since its introduction, I had heard wonderful things about how fun the car is to drive. But when I took the car on a test drive, it seemed to ride pretty soft. It seemed like there was a lot of body roll and other such cushiness through cornering. I didn't push the car anywhere near its limits, though...I just toured. However, once I purchased the car and broke the engine in, I started running it through its paces and lo and behold, the handling performance remains composed no matter what you do. Turn the traction control off, and this thing flies. The 2.0L zetec provides some quick zip. This car defies logic; it appears cushy when cruising, but sporty when pushed. Now, it's no sports car, but it provides more fun to city driving than almost anything else I drove. Add to that complete luxury and 48% off the MSRP, and my name was on that dotted line faster than a fat kid on a Smartie. A word to the wise: if I had known about the 2.0L zetec's thirst, I would have reconsidered my purchase. I'm not saying I would have turned the car down, but at what point is luxury and performance worth the wallet crunch at the pumps and damage to the environment?
Fuel Economy: 2.8 stars
Handling/Performance: 4.7 stars
Practicality: 4.7 stars
Looks: 4.8 stars
I must confess that over the past couple of months I have not been living in Peterborough. Or Kingston. I've been living in Vice City. I know what you may be thinking...are you some kind of sociopath? Not entirely. But the game is really enjoyable, with an exciting mix of first-person-shooter and driving. And a great plot. But I figured it was time to take a break from virtual driving and talk about real driving (how's that for the worst segue ever?). I looked at a lot of cars before purchasing the Focus, so I thought it would be fun to review how I made my decision.
Used
I went to new car dealerships, but got talked into checking out a couple of almost-new used cars. I was interested, because they were both sought-after models that were out of my range in new-car form.
Mazda Protege5
This was a decent car. The thing that surprised me about it was the lack of room on the inside. Now don't get me wrong, this isn't a tight squeeze, especially when compared to other cars I drove. However, this car seems like a big car from the outside. Yet inside - especially in the back seat - it seems smaller than its dimensions. This could have just been perception, I haven't checked the numbers...perhaps I was just expecting something more. Anyway, this car really moved. It felt great, handled great, looked great. It actually reminded me of the Focus I landed on: the fit and finish was there yet one cannot help but wonder about the quality. This car had something loose in the drivers door that rattled enough to shake a tooth loose. In the end it's a car that I would've been proud to own; practical performance wrapped up in a real purdy package. The price just wasn't right from the Toyota dealer it was at.
Fuel Economy: 3.8 stars
Handling/Performance: 4.2 stars
Practicality: 5 stars
Looks: 5 stars
Toyota Celica
Um, wow. I loved driving this car more than any other car I tested. This despite the fact that it had 72,000km on it! The thing handles like a go-kart...meaning it has no body roll (think about how your parents' minivan leans over while turning - this car had none of that). Grip was phenomenal. Acceleration was heart-stopping. I picked my mom up from work in this car, and on the way home I did 160kph. She didn't even notice; that's how well this car rode. The only thing that kept it out of the winner's circle: it had even less room than the Corolla SR5 I was trading up from. This car's backseat was so small, I would've seriously considered removing it for more sound system/cargo room. Even the front seats were..."cozy".
Fuel Economy: 4.5 stars
Handling/Performance: 5 stars
Practicality: 2.2 stars
Looks: 4.5 stars (as tested. The brand new GTS's are 6 stars out of 5!)
New
I went into this with little criteria. In fact, the only criteria I set out was that it had to be a manual transmission. After that, I judged each car by it's own qualities. This meant that I tested cars that I otherwise would've overlooked.
Toyota Echo Hatchback
This car had a distinct disadvantage coming into my test: I had extreme expectations for it. I was really excited when this car came to Canada last year. Based on the Vitz out of Japan (called Yaris in Europe), this car is popular the world 'round. In the end this car disappointed me. First off, Toyota Canada decided to call it the Echo Hatchback instead of Vitz or Yaris. To me, that's a mistake considering the disdain people have for Echo styling (I myself love the redesigned Echo of the past couple of years...the only problem with it is that - although quite attractive itself, especially in sport form - it's reminiscent of the older ugly one). Secondly, this car is CHEAP. And I do mean cheap in the truest sense - my tester had a piece of plastic in place of where the radio should be. The quality is there; I have no doubt in my mind that these cars will outlast my Focus by a factor of two, and get phenomenal mileage while doing it. They just feel aweful: cheap plastics, power nuthin, cheap shifter (all cars I tested were manual trannies - cause only losers drive autos /rant). Plus, the three door I tested (I wanted a five door) was the same monthly payment as my Focus ZTS! This because Toyota doesn't feel it needs to offer rebates or financing. Now, I can understand no rebates, but they - along with the other Japanese manufacturers spare Mitsu - are making a serious mistake by not offering 0% financing. If they offered 0% for 60 months, they would destroy the domestic automakers.
Fuel Economy: 5 stars
Handling/Performance: 2.5 stars
Practicality: 4.4 stars
Looks: 3.8 stars
Chevrolet Cavalier
This little lady was the shocker of the group. In the end I only agreed to test it because I liked the saleswoman so much (she sold us our minivan). This car is archaic. It is basically the same car that they were producing 20 years ago. The J-body has had many forms: through many Cavalier facelifts as well as Sunbird and Sunfire iterations. However, age has done this car no harm, as GM has had lots of time to tinker and improve on the design. Perhaps there is something to be said for manufacturers to keep the same car for a decade at a time. Meh, it won't happen: it's all about marketing. Anyway, I tested the fully loaded Z24 coupe. If I had purchased I would have gone with the equivelent Z24 sedan. It's Ecotec engine was very peppy, with a clutch/shifter second only to the Celica. It was comfortable, and with the Z24 gold package, quite attractive. The only downside is the lack of respect this little number gets. But, I for one no longer look down on these cars.
Fuel Economy: 3.8 stars
Handling/Performance: 4.7 stars
Practicality: 3.8 stars
Looks: 4.7 stars
Chevrolet Optra5
GM recently aquired the bankrupt auto manufacturing division of Daewoo. The rebadge-Nazi's at the General took this opportunity to water down the corporation's brandnames even further. Taking all of Daewoo's cars, they gave them facelifts and put gold bowties on them. Now, that might not sound too bad, until you realize just how bad of a car Daewoo was. There was a reason they went out of business! Think Hyundai in the mid-80's. Yah. That said, I decided to be open-minded and give the hatchback iteration of the Optra lineup a try. It actually really impressed. It was the only car that I tested that I could comfortably sit behind myself. By this I mean that I adjusted the driver's seat just the way I like it (way back and way reclined - like the gangsta that I'm not) and then sat in the backseat behind. With the driver's seat adjusted, I could still sit in the backseat without my knees rubbing. Truely impressive. The car's interior is huge; with the backseat folded down the cargo room is mind-boggling. It comes well-equipped with options. For $20,000 you can get one that's basically fully loaded (no leather or heated seats, but it does have a sunroof). The engine, though, is weak and inefficient. Fuel economy is atrocious. If they put the ecotec of the Cavalier into this attractive and practical body, GM would have a real winner.
Fuel Economy: 2 stars
Handling/Performance: 2 stars
Practicality: 5 stars
Looks: 4.4 stars
Kia Spectra5
I would've bought this car. The only problem is, Kia has decided it's Mazda and is going to produc too-few vehicles and charge full price. So be it...I wouldn't pay full price for a Kia any more than I'd pay full price for a Ford. Anyway, this car is phenomenal. I only sat in it, but the reviews say it drives really nice. It's got a great fit-and-finish, it's roomy, it's got some really cool interior features, and the MSRP is right (there are just no incentives). Chances are I'll look here again when the time comes.
Fuel Economy: 4.2 stars
Handling/Performance: N/A
Practicality: 5 stars
Looks: 4.8 stars
Hyundai Elantra
Even moreso than it's cousin company Kia, Hyundai has made leaps and bounds over the past few years. Elantra is one of those cars that could suit anyone's needs. It's roomy and drives ok. The fit and finish is great, and the entire car is just nice to be in. It also has that quality - like the Focus - of blending in with the five trillion other cars just like it. Oftentimes, that's just what we want. The only thing I didn't like was the body-roll. Perhaps my parents would enjoy that kind of handling, but for me it was just too soft. For me, if I'd gone with Hyundai I would've gone with Elantra's little sister.
Fuel Economy: 4.2 stars
Handling/Performance: 2.8
Practicality: 4 stars
Looks: 4.5 stars
Hyundai Accent5
Officially making the original Accent redundant, the Accent5 is a tremendous vehicle. It does everything well, but in a bland sort of way. If I couldn't have found anything more exciting, I would have been satisfied with this.
Fuel Economy: 4.2 stars
Handling/Performance: 3.1 stars
Practicality: 4.5 stars
Looks: 4 stars
Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Rally Edition
Gorgeous. This was the car I wanted more than any other car. Almost as much fun as the Celica, but with a practical dose of room. The OZ Rally has the look of the Ralliart/Evolution, but without the engine to back it up. Which is fine with me, because I like my gas mileage anyway. In fact, I like this car so much I think I'll post a pic of it. What are you going to do? It's my blog.
Handling/Performance: 4 stars
Practicality: 4.7 stars
Looks: 5 stars
Ford Focus ZTS
I would not have considered a Focus, especially a non-hatchback Focus, except for the price. And even then, it had to be the nicely equipped model. But, the Focus has a good balance of performance, handling, space, looks, and fit-and-finish. The quality remains to be seen, but hopefully this "new generation of Ford" really is new. The handling is really quite something on the Focus. Since its introduction, I had heard wonderful things about how fun the car is to drive. But when I took the car on a test drive, it seemed to ride pretty soft. It seemed like there was a lot of body roll and other such cushiness through cornering. I didn't push the car anywhere near its limits, though...I just toured. However, once I purchased the car and broke the engine in, I started running it through its paces and lo and behold, the handling performance remains composed no matter what you do. Turn the traction control off, and this thing flies. The 2.0L zetec provides some quick zip. This car defies logic; it appears cushy when cruising, but sporty when pushed. Now, it's no sports car, but it provides more fun to city driving than almost anything else I drove. Add to that complete luxury and 48% off the MSRP, and my name was on that dotted line faster than a fat kid on a Smartie. A word to the wise: if I had known about the 2.0L zetec's thirst, I would have reconsidered my purchase. I'm not saying I would have turned the car down, but at what point is luxury and performance worth the wallet crunch at the pumps and damage to the environment?
Fuel Economy: 2.8 stars
Handling/Performance: 4.7 stars
Practicality: 4.7 stars
Looks: 4.8 stars
2004/12/11
They aren't rich and they definately aren't white...
2004/12/05
Freedom's On The March
Evidence, Mr. Ambassador?
by Naomi Klein; UK Guardian; December 05, 2004
David T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, London
Dear Mr Johnson, On November 26, your press counsellor sent a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my column of the same day. The sentence read: "In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies." Of particular concern was the word "eliminating".
The letter suggested that my charge was "baseless" and asked the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide "evidence of this extremely grave accusation". It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the evidence you requested.
In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.
US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer", speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital "a centre of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, replied that "what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... " Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack *******d a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.
Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.
But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.
Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.
Eliminating journalists
The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job," the IFJ stated.
It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.
On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.
Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".
"We don't do body counts," said General Tommy Franks of US Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.
Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses
by Naomi Klein; UK Guardian; December 05, 2004
David T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, London
Dear Mr Johnson, On November 26, your press counsellor sent a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my column of the same day. The sentence read: "In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies." Of particular concern was the word "eliminating".
The letter suggested that my charge was "baseless" and asked the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide "evidence of this extremely grave accusation". It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the evidence you requested.
In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.
US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer", speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital "a centre of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, replied that "what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... " Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack *******d a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.
Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.
But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.
Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.
Eliminating journalists
The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi's detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. "We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job," the IFJ stated.
It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.
On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.
Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack".
"We don't do body counts," said General Tommy Franks of US Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.
Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses
2004/12/04
ooh ahh
its times like these that make me say
Lord if you see me please come my way
leavin bread crumbs for when i stray
rely on sacrifice and the price You paid
feel me like a fingertip
sometimes i fall, i slip
my heartfelt desire is to be more like you
trying not to quench Your fire by the things that i do
my life be like...
the fear of never falling in love
and the tears after losing the feelings
of what you thought love was
like the dirt still up under the rug
my life be like...
bad characteristics
covered in Christ's blood
the joy of new birth
and the pain of growing up
the bliss between giving my all
and giving up
the highs and lows
paths and roads i chose
in the cold i froze
trying to ease my woes
in this world of sin
clothes too thin to fend
so to God i send
words of help to win
in grumblings so deep
letters could never express
so the sound of ooh aah
beneath my breath projects
my life be like...
the fear of never falling in love
and the tears after losing the feelings
of what you thought love was
like the dirt still up under the rug
my life be like...
bad characteristics
covered in Christ's blood
Lord if you see me please come my way
leavin bread crumbs for when i stray
rely on sacrifice and the price You paid
feel me like a fingertip
sometimes i fall, i slip
my heartfelt desire is to be more like you
trying not to quench Your fire by the things that i do
my life be like...
the fear of never falling in love
and the tears after losing the feelings
of what you thought love was
like the dirt still up under the rug
my life be like...
bad characteristics
covered in Christ's blood
the joy of new birth
and the pain of growing up
the bliss between giving my all
and giving up
the highs and lows
paths and roads i chose
in the cold i froze
trying to ease my woes
in this world of sin
clothes too thin to fend
so to God i send
words of help to win
in grumblings so deep
letters could never express
so the sound of ooh aah
beneath my breath projects
my life be like...
the fear of never falling in love
and the tears after losing the feelings
of what you thought love was
like the dirt still up under the rug
my life be like...
bad characteristics
covered in Christ's blood
2004/12/03
What Does Jesus Want for Christmas?
December 11, 2001 — Fresh Words Edition
By John Piper
By John Piper
What does Jesus want this Christmas? We can see the answer in his prayers. What does he ask God for? His longest prayer is John 17. Here is the climax of his desire:
Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am (v. 24).
Among all the undeserving sinners in the world, there are those whom God has "given to Jesus." These are those whom God has drawn to the Son (John 6:44, 65). These are Christians – people who have "received" Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior and Lord and Treasure of their lives (John 1:12; 10:11, 17-18; 20:28; 6:35; 3:17). Jesus says he wants them to be with him.
Sometimes we hear people say that God created man because he was lonely. So they say, "God created us so that we would be with him." Does Jesus agree with this? Well, he does say that he really wants us to be with him! Yes, but why? Consider the rest of the verse. Why does Jesus want us to be with him?
. . . to see my glory that you [Father] have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
That would be a strange way of expressing his loneliness. "I want them with me so they can see my glory." In fact it doesn't express his loneliness. It expresses his concern for the satisfaction of our longing, not his loneliness. Jesus is not lonely. He and the Father and the Spirit are profoundly satisfied in the fellowship of the Trinity. We, not he, are starving for something. And what Jesus wants for Christmas is for us to experience what we were really made for – seeing and savoring his glory.
Oh, that God would make this sink in to our souls! Jesus made us (John 1:3) to see his glory. Just before he goes to the cross he pleads his deepest desires with the Father: "Father, I desire – I desire! – that they . . . may be with me where I am, to see my glory."
But that is only half of what Jesus wants in these final, climactic verses of his prayer. I just said we were really made for seeing and savoring his glory. Is that what he wants – that we not only see his glory but savor it, relish it, delight in it, treasure it, love it? Consider verse 26, the very last verse:
I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.
That is the end of the prayer. What is Jesus' final goal for us? Not that we simply see his glory, but that we love him with the same love that the Father has for him: "that the love with which you [Father] have loved me may be in them." Jesus' longing and goal is that we see his glory and then that we be able to love what we see with the same love that the Father has for the Son. And he doesn't mean that we merely imitate the love of the Father for the Son. He means the Father's very love becomes our love for the Son – that we love the Son with the love of the Father for the Son. This is what the Spirit becomes and bestows in our lives: Love for the Son by the Father through the Spirit.
What Jesus wants most for Christmas is that his elect be gathered in and then get what they want most – to see his glory and then savor it with the very savoring of the Father for the Son.
What I want most for Christmas this year is to join you (and many others) in seeing Christ in all his fullness and that we together be able to love what we see with a love far beyond our own half-hearted human capacities.
This is what Jesus prays for us this Christmas: "Father, show them my glory and give them the very delight in me that you have in me." Oh, may we see Christ with the eyes of God and savor Christ with the heart of God. That is the essence of heaven. That is the gift Christ came to purchase for sinners at the cost of his death in our place.
Seeing and Savoring Him with you,
Pastor John
2004/12/01
Why I'm cancelling my CIBC Visa
CIBC faxes private information for hundreds of customers to an auto wreckers in West Virginia. They did this from July 2001 - when the owner immediately alerted them to the problem - until November 2004, when he broke the story to the Canadian media. Enough information was transferred for an unscrupulous recipient to assume customers' identities.
CIBC loses tens of millions to an investment in Ken Bryden and the Ottawa Senators, recieving $0.0006 for every $1.00 loaned (point six cents on the dollar). No doubt this loss with be offset through nickel and diming small customers.
CIBC dispenses Canadian Tire money from one of its ATMs.
Edit: Note that I did not say "ATM Machine". People who say "ATM Machine" are slack-jawed mouth-breathers. Should you encounter someone using the phrase "ATM Machine", promptly make them say in full what they are actually saying: "Automated Teller Machine Machine".
Chin up, kid, it turns out even faceless trillionaires can have a bad week....
CIBC loses tens of millions to an investment in Ken Bryden and the Ottawa Senators, recieving $0.0006 for every $1.00 loaned (point six cents on the dollar). No doubt this loss with be offset through nickel and diming small customers.
CIBC dispenses Canadian Tire money from one of its ATMs.
Edit: Note that I did not say "ATM Machine". People who say "ATM Machine" are slack-jawed mouth-breathers. Should you encounter someone using the phrase "ATM Machine", promptly make them say in full what they are actually saying: "Automated Teller Machine Machine".
Chin up, kid, it turns out even faceless trillionaires can have a bad week....
