Analytics

Sunday, July 31, 2016

Miscellany: 7/31/16

Quote of the Day
Ninety-nine percent of the discoveries are made by 1 percent of the scientists.
Julius Axelrod

Tweet of the Day
Image of the Day

Reason Retakes Hillary Promo Video



The Military-Industrial Complex





Cavuto Attempts to School a Young Leftist





 Maybe a Lot of Dems Are Libertarian?



Facebook Corner

(Reason). Donald J. Trump could have taken this opportunity to point out that Army Captain Humayun Khan died in a disastrous war supported by Hillary Clinton that never should have been fought in the first place. Trump takes a swipe at the Muslim soldier's parents instead.
Just because Trump may have read the Constitution at one point of his life doesn't mean that he understood or agrees with it or intends to honor it during a prospective term in office. He is an authoritarian who does not limit himself to enumerated duties in office.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson, "Heal the World"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, July 30, 2016

Miscellany: 7/30/16

Quote of the Day
Power is the ability to do good things for others.
Brooke Astor

Tweet of the Day

DEAD WRONG: Wealth is Anti-Green




The Case For Free Trade



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson, "Who Is It?"

c
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

Friday, July 29, 2016

Miscellany: 7/29/16 Happy 8th Blogiversary!




Well, since Wednesday I've been on a manic 2200-mile plus drive from SE South Carolina to SW Arizona. I brought two notebook PC's with me, both of which were unusable Wednesday night. As I write, I'm having to break in a new notebook.

I'll have plenty of time to catch up on politics over the weekend, including Twitter and Facebook feeds as I resume a regular publication schedule. But as I was eating a Subway sandwich for lunch yesterday, I caught Clinton saying it's the most important election in recent memory. Duh! She went on to say it's not because her name's on the ballot. Yeah, right. The fact is, whoever wins, we're going to see no meaningful entitlement reform and we're going to have interventionist policy. I do think Trump is going to try to radically expand the Presidency, and he's going to open Pandora's box on trade and immigration.

The trip itself wasn't political; I had to drive through El Paso for the first time since I left the UTEP faculty over 20 years ago. As I neared the campus on I-10, I could glance across the Rio Grande and see the same shacks scattered over the hill. The only attachment I have to El Paso was a coed I met while attending OLL in San Antonio. I really loved that girl, but she enrolled only one semester. I once promised her that I would visit, but you have to understand that there's very little west of San Antonio or Ft. Worth. I worried about gas stations or having a car break down in the middle of nowhere. There were some spots you could only catch an old country-western or Baptist preacher station. She never said a word about my no-show, but I had made up my mind I would fly to El Paso, and she thought I was getting too serious. In fact, I had attended the wedding of Navy instructor friends in Orlando, which was a first to me. I tried to touch base while on UTEP faculty. One of her cousins called my folks' house and talked to my brother-in-law while we were at Midnight Mass. She had moved on in her life, had 2 daughters, etc. This may sound like rambling but there's a lot of road between Ft.Worth and El Paso.

Lodging was interesting. The first 2 hotels I tried in Alabama were booked up. Then the room I booked in Eastland, TX the next night had a bathtub seemingly with blood stains.

I did have my A/C recharged, but it was a joke to the sun gods; the feeble cool puffs through the vents were no match. I had sweat streaming over my eyes; the backs of my hands were getting sunburned. It was like an oven. I think I saw 2 or 3 universal sweeps for migrants and/or drugs going east on I-8 and I-10. I got caught up in one sweep on I-10 west of Las Cruces. Not a big deal other than the heat. You just couldn't stay hydrated enough. I must have gone through a huge cup of Diet Dr. Pepper in 10 minutes.

Thursday sucked because it rained my whole trip through Mississippi, Louisiana and much of TX. You know, sometimes it pours down so hard you can barely make out road dividers. I have no idea what motivates people to zoom past me under those conditions or those idiots who try to fill my safety gap behind another car. Ft. Worth was a special case; the sun was out in evening rush hour traffic, and the effect was like trying to drive through dry ice.

I had the misfortune of driving through rush hour in Atlanta on Wednesday and Dallas/Ft.Worth on Thursday. I mean, it's bad enough I've faced the SW Freeway in Houston, Route 101 in Silicon Valley, Chicago and the Beltway.

Eating was for me an interesting experience because I almost never eat out. I happen to love diners; I would rather eat at a Denny's than a 5-star restaurant. God bless the Waffle House. Where else can you get a T-bone steak and eggs over easy for a reasonable amount? A little rail-thin blond waitress came in to help the skeleton crew; I felt like a giant looming over her, and I'm barely average height. I have a sister who's only 4'10" and would have stood inches over her.

Pulito's, on the eastbound access to I-20 in Eastland (first exit heading west, last heading east) up from an Exxon station, is superb Mexican fare. The complimentary chips were tasty and fresh; the salsa was perfect with just a hint of a bite. I had the Papa's dinner, a combination plate with generous helpings of Mexican rice and beans, a taco, enchilada, tamale, scoop of guacamole, and a pecan praline cookie.

Last night I tried the Country Pride Restaurant at a trucker stop in east Arizona. I hadn't had a good chicken-fried steak in years; they also have a nice complimentary salad bar with many entrees. I really am not that hungry on the road; about every other trip I've taken (other than as a road warrior) it seems I get ill. In fact, the steak arrived before I had finished my salad and soup (and never got around to finishing them). I used to love baked potatoes, but I opted for onion rings. Oh my God! Those were the best onion rings I've had since being a kid, maybe ever.

Oh, and of course, I drank lots of iced tea--at least 2-3 glasses at those last 2 restaurants.

A couple of notes about billboards. Texas seems to have a thing going on about parents leaving kids locked up in cars unattended; I must have seen a dozen signs encouraging citizens to do something about it. And I don't know what it is, but New Mexico seems to have a fetish for fresh jerky. I swear every other sign promoted jerky. I have enjoyed jerky on a lower-carb diet, but not that much.

I drove nearly coast to coast in 3 days (San Diego is less than 3 hours away). The car itself was almost given last rites about 2-3 weeks back. I start a new adventure Monday. Besides the mishaps with my laptops, my biggest issue was hydration. Towards the end I started taking more frequent fueling stops and buying drinks (also to take advantage of air conditioning in the convenience stores). I probably won't do this again soon, but in part I wanted slack in my schedule if, say, I had a car malfunction. I was at the mercy of my new job start and the mover schedule.

Just one brief comment about the mover service; this is one of those cases where policies beyond my control are a pain in the neck. I had three movers on Tuesday mostly repacking items I had in a storage unit. It drove me nuts; in past 2 moves, mover helpers loaded/unloaded boxes in just over an hour. But then they left it to me to figure out to do with the old boxes. It's like you go in for an oil change, and they hand you the used oil and tell you it's your problem to get rid of it and deal with the EPA regulations, etc. It's almost like dealing with the government.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Miscellany: 7/28/16

Quote of the Day
When a thing has been said and well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it.
Anatole France

Green Party Stein Targets Angry Sanders Voters



Left-Fascists vs Right-Fascists



Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

 Michael Jackson, "Jam"

Posted by at
Labels:

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Miscellany: 7/27/16

Quote of the Day
I wept because I had no shoes, 
until I saw a man who had no feet.
Ancient Persian saying

Tweet of the Day
The Boomerang Effect



Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson, "In the Closet"

Posted by at
Labels: ,

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Miscellany: 7/26/16

Quote of the Day
The system is that there is no system. 
That doesn’t mean we don’t have process. 
Apple is a very disciplined company, and we have great processes. 
But that’s not what it’s about. 
Process makes you more efficient. 
But innovation comes from people meeting up in the hallways or 
calling each other at 10:30 at night with a new idea, or 
because they realized something that shoots holes 
in how we’ve been thinking about a problem. 
It’s ad hoc meetings of six people called by someone 
who thinks he has figured out the coolest new thing ever and 
who wants to know what other people think of his idea. 
And it comes from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure 
we don’t get on the wrong track or try to do too much. 
We’re always thinking about new markets we could enter, 
but it’s only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important.
Steve Jobs

Note: Publication Schedule Through the Remainder of the Week May Be Irregular

Posts through early next week, including my 8th blogiversary, may be affected by business travels. I may have briefer or prescheduled posts.

Tweet of the Day
Reason Interviews the LP Presidential Ticket



Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Steve Kelley via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson, "Remember the Time"

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

Monday, July 25, 2016

Miscellany: 7/25/16

Quote of the Day
So great has been the endurance, so incredible the achievement, 
that, as long as the sun keeps a set course in heaven, 
it would be foolish to despair of the human race.
Ernest L. Woodward

Tweet of the Day
Lemonade Economics



 Sanders Supporters Feeling the Burn On WikiLeaks on DNC Siding With Clinton



Are Leftists More "Compassionate" Than Conservatives?




Facebook Corner

A follow-up on a niece's thread of an article posing whether Catholics in good faith could vote for Trump. I r espond to her friend's comment:

 Although great arguments against him, most of these arguments are exactly what the oposing party stands for. And really, bring up a Strip club? Go to Europe, although the Catholic Church may not want it's sheep to go for that kind of profession, it has embraced choices for far longer, than the existence of our beloved country. I don't believe that any religious entity should try to influence it's members in any political issues.
You do realize Donald Trump was a registered Democrat for 2001-2009, donated/supported Clinton and Obama. He initially left the GOP around 1999-2000 to run for President on Ross Perot's Reform Psrty ticket (he eventually withdrew and Pat Buchanan got the nomination). Trump rejoined the GOP in 2009 and then left again around 2011, only to rejoin a few weeks later. So the man of "principle" has changed parties like some people change underwear, and Donald Trump has heavily contributed to the mostly Democratic establishment in NY. It isn't a coincidence that Democratic ideas have found their way into his candidacy and platform.

 No, the Catholic Church does NOT endorse political parites or candidates, although the Church has tacitly supported the social programs of the Dems and the pro-life/social conservatism of the GOP. I think black churches have been far more political in that sense, although a couple of priests in the past did run for Congress as Dems. (John Paul II put an end to that.) The question posed by the article was not a Catholic endorsement in this fall's election, but whether individual Catholics, based on Church guidance in faith and morals, could vote for Trump in good conscience. This is a decision that any Catholic can only make for himself or herself; that's why I said to Claire that she has a right to her own vote, but for me, the answer is a compelling no.

 Let me give one simple example to make my point. Trump, until he decided to run for POTUS as a Republican, supported partial-birth abortion, which is particularly gruesome. Let's be clear--the reason Trump is running as a Republican is because he thought he had an easier path to nomination. That's true for a number of politicians, like the late Specter and former NYC Mayor Bloomberg. At any rate, Trump at 69-70 all of a sudden decides he's "pro-life" on abortion. And he decided, as a "law and order" guy that he wanted to prosecute women who have had abortions--a position that is not advocated by anyone in the pro-life movement. This blew up in Trump's face, and he quickly backed off. But this is a perflect example of how paper-thin his judgment and principles are; I think it's all seat of the pants on his part, and that makes him especially dangerous. Clinton is a principled, hard-working leftist, not my preference, but I know where she stands. Trump will throw his stated positions under the bus if and when they get in the path of his desire for power and glory.
(separate comment)
The point of talking about how Trump decided to open a strip club in one of his casinos was more about demonstrating the hypocrisy of his social conservatism. In fact, in his own autobiography, Trump brags about his adulterous conquests, although he doesn't name names. Of course, Trump until recently owned and operated the Miss Universe pageant, which also objectifies women and famously also said if his daughter wasn't related, he would be attracted to her, which may be the grossest thing I've ever heard a father say about his daughter. He has also criticized the figures of flat-chested women. This is something you might expect from a teenage boy, not a 70-year-old grandfather.
The key thing to remember is whoever becomes president gets to appoint a Supreme Court justice on day one. We already know that Hillary will appoint a pro choice, pro gay marriage, anti gun hardcore liberal to the court. We also know that Hillary will push all of those items as president. Trump on the other hand already released his list of Supreme Court nominees and they were all very pro life, pro gun, and very conservative. We may not know exactly what all Trump would do, but we do know what Clinton will do.
 Hell no. This is a particularly disingenuous response. First of all, Trump can't be trusted, period, on anything, never mind SCOTUS. If you thought SCOTUS was a legitimate issue, you should have supported a conservative, not Trump. It's not just his notorious flip-flops on abortion. He sided against Apple in the notorious FBI attempt to conscript Apple to create a form of operating system letting it break into any iPhone. He has talked about sanctioning companies with international operations. He supports eminent domain, rejects due process for individual rights, he has talked about policies against the Geneva Convention. He wants religious restrictions on immigration. He believes in expanding the powers of the Prersidency. If you think he's going to name a conservative jurist, you are gullible beyond belief.

 I think Trump's gimmick is manipulative, and he's trying to fearmonger conservatives on SCOTUS. His "list" is pure bullshit; once he's elected, he'll pick whoever he wants; do you think you get your vote back? Remember, he talked at one point of picking his sister, who is a very liberal judge. We have no control over SCOTUS beyond constitutional amendments, and some very liberal justices were nominated by Republicans. Remember, if the GOP has a majority in the Senate, they can vote down Clinton's choices or even filibuster them. So like Obama, Clinton cannot appoint a radical leftist, period.
 He would want to get re-elected. He would get challenged for nomination in 2020 if he appointed a liberal judge. With Trump we likely get a pretty conservative justice. With Clinton we get a liberal judge. Maybe a more moderate liberal but still a liberal. Clinton will also do many executive orders just like Obama. With Clinton we get a full fledge liberal. With Trump we may not get a conservative, but we likely at least get a moderate republican/independent. It's one or the other.
None of this amounts to a serious counterpoint to what I've already said. Once a justice is approved, he or she has a lifetime appointment. Ford nominated Stevens, Bush nominated Souter, as they "evolved" to a liberal perspective. We probably wouldn't know in just 3 years. If you think that you can primary a sitting President, you're in a state of denial. Reagan tried to do it to Ford, Kennedy to Carter, Buchanan to Bush. It's almost impossible to defeat an incumbent. In recent history, only Reagan has done it. The fact is, talk is cheap, and Presidents are notorious for breaking promises.
SCOTUS is NOT a legitimate issue. Obama has had 2 choices (3 if we count Scalia, but that may not ever get a floor vote) over 2 terms. Trump's mental instability, impulsiveness, irrationality, unprincipled, incompetent behavior is simply disqualifying period. He will likely drive the global economy into depression. He is NOT a conservative. He's a thin-skinned authoritarian. Clinton, as bad as she is, is much better than Trump on any criterion.

Clinton shared classified material with a private server. The Cli ton Foundation has received millions of dollars from communist countries some of which support genocide and terrorism. You think she is going to be tough on those countries? Why did they give her money? All sorts of people close to the Clinton's over the years have shown up dead mysteriously. Hillary is not much better by a long shot. You are the only person I have seen act like the Supreme Court means nothing. The Supreme Court is a really big deal. Try telling all the unborn babies who have been slaughtered that the Supreme Court means nothing.
Several things. First, my original comments said that I didn't support Trump or Clinton; you're making shit up. I do know that Trump is a far greater risk to liberty and our Constitution than Clinton. Clinton is a leftist, but a known risk operating with known parameters. Trump is an unprincipled demagogue who is radically anti-immigrant and anti-trade which is against decades-long GOP policy. I can cite literally dozens of incidents where Trump has pledged to violate existing laws or Constitutional protections. Trump is NOT a conservative; I've pointed out earlier that he has literally changed party registration 4 timees between 1999 and 2011. He is a political whore and people like you are easily duped and being used.

I can go point by point through your bullshit but I don't suffer fools glady. The first problem you have is that whereas I thought her use of private email server was troublesome, it did NOT violate US law. Moat of the emails in question had sensitive information classified ex post facto, which is a judgment call. There's no or little evidence that Clinton shared sensitive information with unauthorized personnel. Moreover, the same charges are relevant to Powell and Rice under Bush. Moreover, government email systems have also been subject to hacks. There are issues here including federal records compliance, but for the most part this is much ado about nothing.

I've already responded to the SCOTUS argument, which is little more than a desperate attempt by a liberal Trump to fearmonger conservative voters, and it's all bullshit for reasons I've already given. I mean this is a guy who claims to not be politically correct, but he specifically added Q to LGBT which is about as politically correct as you can get with the gay community. I stand by what I say; both parties will have more than enough Senators to block overly political choices. If you think the Dems will let Trump appoint a really conservative judge, you're out of your mind. I mean, Obama wanted to filibuster Alito.

 Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson (with Rockwell and Jermaine Jackson), "Someone Watching Me"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Miscellany: 7/24/16

Quote of the Day
He that plants trees loves others besides himself.
Thomas Fuller

Tweet of the Day
Image of the Day


 Critique of the Rape Culture



Choose Life


Facebook Corner

This is from my niece's thread on an article posing the question of whether Catholics could morally vote for Trump. I wrote "No!". Another commenter worried that Clinton could win by default, pointing out Ross Perot's role in the 1992 election. I pick up on the thread:
I remember Ross Perot. Lol. Uncle Ronald, did you campaign for him?
No. I liked Perot's fiscal conservatism, but like Trump and Clinton, he's anti-trade, which is economically illiterate. I voted for Bush's reelection. But Perot didn't cause Bush to lose. There are a variety of ways to show this, but Perot got 19M votes, Bush lost nearly 10M votes since 1988, and there were 13M new voters. Perot supporters favored Dem govs, only narrowly Republicans in Congress. Clinton only got 3M more than Dukakis. So roughly, Perot took nearly equivalent bites from Clinton and Bush, and in head to head, Clinton won the non-Perot vote 53-46%. It would have taken a huge majority of Perot voters to push Bush over Clinton, which is illogical.

 A lot of polls have been taken reporting head-to-head between Clinton and Trump as well as Johnson (LP) and Stein (GP). In every case the margin between Clinton and Trump is the same with the minor parties counted, maybe a 1% difference.

 Clinton has been regularly beating Trump over the past year in head-to-heads over 80% of the time. If the Republicans wanted to win the WH in Nov., they shouldn't have nominated the one guy who loses to Clinton, with an almost 70% unfavorable rating.

 To pro-liberty conservatives like me who believe in a small federal government, both Clinton and Trump are Big Government liberals, but I consider Clinton like Obama, bad but containable with Congressional opposition. Trump is a risk to our form of government. He is incompetent, unprincipled, ill-tempered, impulsive, economically illiterate. His anti-trade and anti-immigrant policies could spark a global Depression. He is threatening to do things that are illegal and/or unconstitutional. So I would be happy to see Trump crash and burn; conservatives will survive like they did after Teddy Roosevelt ran third party in 1912. There are valid issues for the middle class, but Big Government is part of the problem, not the solution. If Trump gets clobbered in Nov., the Trump cultists will have no one to blame other than themselves.
I really liked your last paragraph, about the consequences of Trump. I don't like either, but definitely won't vote for Clinton. Wondering if a vote for Johnson or write in would be a vote for Clinton though. Really really can't stand Trump, but like some of his views better than Clinton. I've voted for lesser of the two evils in the past, but it's a stalemate. Don't like any or Obama. Just praying our president doesn't arrange something to ensure martial law by November and him not leaving office..
Well, there are a lot of people who feel the way you do. But both Clinton and Trump are Statists. Trump has an authoritarian streak you don't have with Clinton. I literally know vastly more than Trump on any issue; I don't like Clinton, but assuming the GOP maintains control of at least the House, Clinton is limited in what she can do, like Obama who has found himself handcuffed the last 5 years. So from my perspective, you play for 2020. Trump is a problem like George W. Bush, who ran against nation building, increased domestic spending by 50%, added an unpaid for benefit expansion to Medicare, and led the offensive TARP package in 2008. These were essentially Dem policies from a GOP President. Trump is like Bush on steroids, except he's mentally unstable and a narcissist. Trump is unacceptable to me, period, worse than Clinton in every way; he's like Richard Nixon on steroids; Nixon almost destroyed the GOP. You are entitled to your vote, but I'm giving you my take--and I'm absolutely convinced I'm right.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Michael Ramirez via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson, "Black or White". One of Jackson's most compelling hits.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Miscellany: 7/23/16

Quote of the Day
The reason why we have two ears and only one mouth is that 
we may listen the more and talk the less.
Zeno of Citium

Earlier One-Off Post:  Is It Still Government Motors?

Tweet of the Day
Image of the Day


#NeverTrump: We Have Only Just Begun



 Torture Is a Violation of Human Rights



 This Elephant Will Never Forget



Facebook Corner

(Catholic Libertarians). "If anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not a Catholic." ~ St. Augustine ("On Heresies," no.88; PL 42)
Actually, GOP.com has a clip identifying Kaine as pro-life. What Kaine says is that he won't let his personal beliefs interfere with his legal responsibilities. (Obviouly I believe in equal protection of life under the law.) I think the GOP for some reason is trying to stir the pot of radical Dem feminists.

Political Cartoon
Courtesy of Henry Payne via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Michael Jackson, "Smooth Criminal". Jackson's final Top 10 off "Bad". He would then take a 3-year hiatus from the Top 10 until the release of his final major album, "Dangerous". For the most part, most artists maybe charted up to 3 or 4 singles per album. During his prime, Jackson nearly doubled that, making his releases de facto greatest hit compilations. However, after a red-hot 80's, Jackson's popularity was less dominant; he would chart only 2 more #1's, including his lead single off  "Dangerous" and only 2 more Top 10's after 1995 until/after his untimely passing in 2009.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

Is It Still Government Motors?

Obama finally sold off the remainder of GM stock some time back at a net loss to the tax saver. As a matter of principle, if and when I do buy a new car, it will not be with a company that was bailed out by the USG. In the meanwhile I'm driving a 15-year-old car (I still have less than 100K miles on the car), but GM abandoned the make and model several years back. Until recently, that abandonment was a minor issue for most maintenance issues.

I personally dislike getting my car serviced at dealerships. To give an example, I had purchased a routine maintenance policy for my last new car (covering things like oil changes). It ended up being a hassle because I've often had hour-long commutes and the service departments had business hour schedules.  So I would have to rearrange my work schedule; now I've had to do that for physician appointments, but not for oil changes.

Probably the most notorious repair job has been power windows. I don't know what the world record is, but I've had 6 repairs, each one of the 4 windows at least once.  This is one of my most telling encounters: I had just moved to Maryland and came back to my car after grocery shopping to find q rear window down 2-3 inches. Uh-oh! I knew I hadn't touched the window control. If you haven't had the problem, you can try to manually close the window, but it's futile: the window will eventually sink into the door frame. This is on a Thursday, and heavy rains were expected over the weekend.

This repair was covered under my contract (although I had something like a $150-250 deductible for the repair; the maintenance agreement probably expired around 2008, and I've had to pay full price since).  But I was told they couldn't fit me in until next Wednesday. What am I supposed to do given the forecast?  I was told to duct tape something over the window.

The last time I had a window repaired, the local Chevy dealer pulled the same Procrustean policy.  Luckily I lived maybe a mile from a Pep Boys, and they took care of me almost immediately. I had to walk back after dropping off the car and it was available a day later.

Some dealers are better than others. When I had my oil changes done in the NW Chicago suburbs, the dealer tossed in a complimentary car wash, nice touch.

My local one in South Carolina is interesting. Lots of creature comforts: complimentary WiFi, a popcorn machine, a soda fountain and coffee machine, large-screen TV, cushioned chairs. If it's a long repair, they'll also give you a complimentary ride home. It certainly beats those small thinly-padded chairs with months-old magazines and vending machines I was used to at other dealers.

But this dealer got on my nerves for 3 basic reasons.  I think I've mentioned one in passing in one or 2 posts. There was a recall on my ignition keys. It had something to do with a slot on the key; apparently people would try to attach other things to the slot (which I never did), which caused safety issues. So my understanding was they had to attach a plastic piece to reduce the slot. Now I had been getting spam-mailed by GM  just before I left WV, and I decided to get it done soon after moving to SC. I got it done--or they told me it had been done, but for some weird reason, GM was still spamming me with postcards to get the repair done. I contact both GM and the dealer, saying why do they think it hasn't been done? No response. I run into another issue affecting fueling. and took the car in last March, also have them change my oil. They did the pricey oil change; I asked about the recall issue, and he assures me it was a bureaucratic error and he would take car of it. (I should note that FINALLY the postcards stopped coming.) Oh, and by the way, your control problem; we can't do it, don't have the parts. (Note: no follow-up on the control problem.)

So a couple of weeks back I'm headed to do one of those ubiquitous drug tests related to a future job assignment and I have a brake line problem. I limp into a gas/convenience center and call to have my car towed to the dealer. Long story short, after 5 days, they refuse the repair, claiming they can't get the parts. I end up paying $60 to get my car towed to a brake shop which makes the expensive repair.

In what only could be classified as chutzpah, the same dealer that rejected the repair soon peppered me with emails about time to come in for scheduled maintenance. This brought to mind that fuel-related control issue which they had never followed up on. So I sent a query about the deferred repair, setting up a potential repair date, somewhat constrained by my business travel schedule. One of the service people responds they (still) don't have that part in stock; it costs (over $100); am I sure I want it? When I confirm, she reschedules for the next day. I try to ask: are you sure the part will be available in time? She basically says, "Assume unless I call you back by 5PM, there won't be a problem." She talks over me for the rest of the call, claiming she can't hear me over the phone connection, and ends the call.

So if you've read to this point, you can probably guess what happened. After I go to my Friday appointment, the service agent, after about an hour of my waiting, informs me the repair part is not in stock and takes 5 days to order: reschedule for next Wednesday? Nope. What happened to the promised call if they couldn't do the job Friday? "It doesn't matter; the reality is this is how long it takes to get the part from Detroit. On the bright side, we've taken care of your recall problem." What the hell are you talking about? You guys claimed to have done it on 2 prior occasions I brought in the car. "Well, it's really done this time." Nice to know it takes an hour to put plastic on an ignition key.

Oh, why did I really go to the dealer in March as I described? Somehow my dashboard mirror fell off my windshield. The agent told me (after finishing the $45 oil change) that it couldn't repair the mirror; it required special tools they didn't have. "Go see a windshield repair shop." I ended up going to one which fixed it in about 15 minutes and charged me about $7.

In contrast, the brake repair shop followed up with a call this week to ask my feedback with their repair.

Now I'm sure that there are a million prospective readers with worse horror stories. It's not even so much the repairs themselves as the bureaucratic arrogance. The check on hapless dealer service departments is the independent auto repair shop, in the context of this post Pep Boys, the windshield repair shop, and the brake repair shop. There are clear similarities to Big Government which, for example, pushes compliance costs on employers, may mandate occupational licenses, etc. The system is at the convenience of the State. Independent services, like package deliveries and private schools,  have to compete for consumer dollars because they do not have mandates guaranteeing customers.
Posted by at
Labels:

Friday, July 22, 2016

Miscellany: 7/22/16

Quote of the Day
Do not value money for any more nor any less than its worth; 
it is a good servant but a bad master.
Alexandre Dumas fils

Tweet of the Day
Law and Order: Trump



What Republicans Really Thought of the Orange Fascist Before Nomination



John Galt



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Ken Catalino via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

 Michael Jackson, "Another Part of Me"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)