A prediction of future paleontolgy

There will be a day, somewhere in the future, where future archaeologists dig up the remnants of our society and try very hard to understand us. I suspect the most confusing thing they will find is the battery operated paper towel dispenser. The following is an excerpt from Future Earth paleontologists:

...and much in the same fashion that 20th century humans failed to understand that spending $300 in fossil fuels to drive a recycling truck in order to pick up $8 worth of raw recycled materials isn't really "conservation", they totally went off the deep end when it came to conserving paper. When archaeologists first unearthed what is now commonly referred to as the "hands free towel dispenser" they were absolutely and totally confused. Many, many theories arose as to the purpose and origins of this apparatus:

• It was theorized that primitive 20th century man did not have fully working elbows, which did not allow him to raise his arms more than 8 inches above his waist. Later skeletal discoveries have proven this theory unlikely.
• It has also been theorized that this primitive man had a very flawed idea on germ theory. It was believed that they were so terribly afraid of touching surfaces after washing up that they required automatic dispensers so as not to touch the towel dispenser as we do today. The very sad irony of this is that the combination of touch free dispensers and increased use of hand sanitizer left their immune system ripe for destruction during the age of the Purellic Plague.
• Another popular theory is that primitive man was just so absolutely lazy that he could not be bothered to turn on faucets or dispense paper towels. Archaeologists have searched for an automatic poo extraction device where these machines are found, under the theory that anyone too lazy to dispense paper towels is also too lazy to actually defecate.
• The most popular theory is that primitive man did not understand basic mathematical principles. The device was designed to "save paper" by only dispensing a worthless 6 inches of towel. Also required for this theory to be viable is that primitive man had extreme short term memory. It was assumed that if he could get a 6 inch towel to dispense that he would forget the mechanism he used to dispense it and walk away... rather than actuating the dispensing mechanism a second or third time.
• It is also generally understood that primitive man had regressed by the time they were using this odd machine. Archaeological digs show that the walls contained some sort of copper electronic wiring that would generally allow powering of lighting and machines. Yet man in this age was unable to understand that mechanism and defaulted to powering this worthless gizmo using 12 caustic acid-filled battery devices. It is estimated that the power to run this machine cost roughly 300 times more in power generation, natural resources and environmental damage than the paper it saved....

Message from the Board of Directors

We here at Spork Industries (a SporkCo Company) have made a decision to do away with the traditional "Rant" section on the left sidebar. Rest assured, you will still get your dosage of crazy lunatic rantings. The format of blogspot seems to lend itself better to actually including the rants inline as opposed to off to the side. This makes the RSSification (or is that Areessessification?) of the rants possible, as well as searching.

And with the new introduction of SporkTags® you can still find all the rantiness of both the minirant and the full fledged "Spit flying from my lower lip rant."

As for the existing rants, they will carefully be folded back into the existing Sporkives on the day of their rantastic introduction using time travel. We here at Spork Industries take the space time continuum very seriously and would not normally time travel for just any old reason. Time travel is serious business and has serious risks. But we, the members of the Board, feel the benefits in this situation outweigh the risks.

What you dont believe in still matters

I am amazed at how often people are unable to look at the big picture. Its not that I care that their world revolves around them -- that is how it should be. If you are not the most important person in your world then there definitely is a problem. The issue I have is the inability to see that other folks' worlds revolve around them as well. And as long as you are not aiming guns at each other (or passing laws doing so) then it just doesnt matter what the other folk do.

I just dont see why folks get so worked up over gay marriage. (Well, I guess I know why, but lets assume I dont at this juncture.) For the purpose of this rant, and for full disclosure, I should mention I am a heterosexual white male. Not because it should matter, because it shouldnt.

Why are people gay

Before we delve into the whole marriage thing, I think its appropriate to discuss why people are gay in the first place. I must state up front: I am not a psychologist or a biologist or really anyone qualified to speak here. In fact, I'd like to list some reasons may or may not even agree with here, just to have a list:

1. They were born that way. We all have bits and pieces of both sexes floating around in us. We all have both male and female hormones. We all have them in differing levels. Is it remotely possible that some folk just have "too much" or "too little" and waver in the middle of the two distinct sexes?
   
2. They have evolved. This is just an offshoot of the one before -- and mentioning the "E" word might just make some of the ultra religious prickle, but I think its a viable possibility still. The world is getting more and more populated. Evolution might be saying "slow down" and making a bunch of folks that are biologically not likely to make babies. Of course, science has really mucked this up if this is the case since it is now possible to make the little critters in test tubes and implant them. (This is also a self-refuting bit. If you can't reproduce, you can't pass on the "can't reproduce" gene.)
   
3. They just want to shock people. You know, the Madonna Syndrome. (Not the "holy mother" -- the "trashy singer"). Some folks just thrive on attention, be it negative or positive and shock makes a good attention grabber.
   
4. A psychological problem. I know psychology has removed homosexuality as a disorder long ago. But I think it is still possible a trauma could cause an extreme reaction. For example, if her father beat her as a child, a girl might become predisposed to having mistrust for men and would gravitate toward women.
   
5. A developmental issue. What if something were missing at a critical stage of development? Improper nutrition, improper role models... hell anything. And they just "missed" some "normal" part of life.
   
6. Satan. Okay, I can't disagree with this one enough... but I know there are some that think it, so I list it.
   
7. An injury or brain malfunction. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just that some part of the brain might be injured or malfunctioning or malformed and the "normal" signals are not getting across.
   
8. insert reason here. Yes, the catch all. There have to be a thousand other theories.
   
9. My theory. I really think we've been going about it all wrong. I think the idea of finding "the reason" is totally the wrong approach. Lets face it. There are millions of gay folk on this planet (except for in Iran, which we know has none.) Isnt it remotely possible that with a million people there might be more than one reason? Isnt it remotely possible that there might be people with multiple reasons? And some with one? And some with reasons we havent even thought of? Its obvious that the reason people are "straight" is "to reproduce" -- but some of us dont reproduce. Are we childless bastards just as "broken"? Maybe. Would you deny us rights for the inability or undesirability of children?
   

Why people hate them there homos

You will hear multiple reasons for hating gays:

1. they are out to convert us - And to this I have to think... really? Have you really ever talked to a gay person that wanted to recruit you for their team? And if so, who the hell cares? You can just add this person to the list of "people that are attracted to me that I do not find attractive." You can say no if the ugly outcast girl that never bathes asks you to the prom. Now, I might add it isnt nice to make fun of her -- but its okay to say no.
2. they are child molesters - I think you should do a little more research. I dont think you will find statistics back you up on that.
   
3. ewww. Ick. - Yeah, okay, I see your argument. For any person there are things others do that are icky. So what? I love oysters. I like them raw and slimy. I like the way they almost slither down my throat (followed by a nice cold beer.) I totally understand that lots of people think this is gross. So is that any reason to hate me? Or deny me individual rights? Personally, I dont think so.
   
4. they are rampant disease spreaders - You'd better think before you go here. This is a bad road to go down. Especially if you add in that the disease is a punishment from god. If you believe this, and I know some do, you have to take both sides of it. If, for example, AIDS is punishment from god on those awful homos.... then you must also accept that the lowest percentage of AIDS (and other sexually transmitted diseases) is among lesbians. Does that make them god's chosen?
   
5. god told me to hate them - Honestly, I think 90% of it boils down to this. The bible clearly calls homosexuality "an abomination" (Lev 18:22-23) and clearly condemns you to hell for being gay (Jude 7, 1 Cor 6:9 and I am sure countless more). But it also clearly commands you to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13) -- and are you really willing to do that? It also has some other wacky ideas like avoiding menstruating women (Leviticus 15:19-30), killing non-believers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13) and oh-my-god avoiding pork. And as I recall, it also talked about forgiveness. I believe it even goes so far as saying "judge not lest you be judged" (which is a particularly offensive phrase, but it works here. More appropriate would be "judge fairly and prepare to be judged by others.") The whole idea of hating gays because you are religious does nothing more than show how irrational your religious beliefs really are.
   

Mistakes people make in demanding gay rights

I dont mean to pick on the gays here. Because really the issue here applies to every single group of people that wants "X rights." It probably dates back to the origins of our country. The problem was a bunch of really smart guys finally understood individual rights. They finally understood the rights to own ones own life. They understood property rights. And then the smart guys totally misapplied them. If they had only gotten that "individual" meant everybody, we wouldnt have had a problem. But they limited it to white men.

And then instead of correcting the original issue, we have since been trying ever since to apply various rights to various groups -- making the same mistake over and over again. Now first off, groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. And if you give one group a set of rights while denying another group -- well you missed the concept. And rights dont conflict. If one person's right to health care takes away another person's property to pay for it... well you missed the concept again.

So gays really should not be arguing for gay rights. I know, its what's important to them. I get it. They should be arguing for unified application of individual rights.

It all boils down to marriage

I think the central issue here is gay marriage. Its what sets both sides off. We can argue about "shall not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference" all day long... but discrimination that is based on emotions is stupid. And no matter how hard you try, outlawing stupidity doesnt work. (On the opposite side, discrimination based on rational thought is actually a good thing -- like picking food that is nutritious over food that is full of E. Coli.)

This leads me to ask: what is marriage? I mean, what is it really?

The religious zealots among us will say it is a contract before god where one man and one woman unite in holy matrimony.

But it isnt. First off, this is a secular country. We do not make our laws based on a contract before god. If you, as an individual, would like to enter such a contract with god or the flying spaghetti monster -- you just go right ahead.

Let me let you in on a little clue here: marriage is a business contract. I know, very non-romantic. But that is what it is. Your "wedding ceremony" may be religious. But the "marriage" is atheist. It is without religion. In a "traditional marriage" there is a legally binding contract where two people have a business partnership. There can be contracts on what assets go in and what assets come out. But that is all it is. More often than not, this is a business partnership where the partners are sleeping together -- and you might argue that this is bad for a business partnership. But that is a different topic entirely.

To deny someone the right to enter a business contract based on sexual preference or race or religion -- well that's just a stupid idea. This is the government. They don't get to choose what's a good idea or a bad idea or moral or immoral. In this case, they are nothing more than a big filing cabinet for contracts.

Oh, I know the next argument: It's a slippery slope... next you will have marriages with more than 2 people or people marrying animals. (And yes, I have actually heard this as an "argument".) As for multiple people in a marriage... so what? There can be multiple people in a business contract. There can be corporations of thousands of people. This is not necessarily how I would choose to live, but why does the government get to choose? And as for marriage to Fido, that's just stupid. There is no precedent for contracts with non-humans.

Now if your church does not want to host these weddings -- okay. I know some churches will deny you to marry if the music is not approved. They make all sorts of odd decisions... and its their church. So be it. But that doesnt mean they get to meddle in contract law.

Not in front of the children

And the other issue: Kids. We just are not comfortable with gay people raising children. I say bollocks. Oh, I understand your argument. It is long and convoluted and references all those reasons why you hate gays. But it boils down to this: "I think the gay lifestyle is damaging to children." Really? Other than asking for proof of that statement, I think more importantly you should think long and hard about what is behind it. Are you really willing to say the government has the right to choose what is or isnt an appropriate environment to raise children? Oh, don't give me the crap about child abuse or molestation. Yes, we can agree on some extreme cases that the government may step in.

I have read more than one (in other words many) article depicting how various religions may be damaging to a developing child. Do you really want the government taking away the children raised in a religious environment? Or denying a religious couple (one man and one woman, of course) the right to have children? Is the threat of eternal damnation in fire a "terroristic threat"? Maybe homeland security should get involved.

Get serious. Just because you dont believe the same way doesnt mean its against the law. You can disagree. You can use rational argument (well... some of you can.) But you cant make it illegal. Period.

Conclusion

The important thing I want to get across here... more even that gays should be allowed to marry, get sick of each other, fight, scream, divorce and take them for all they have... The main thing you should get here is that you dont even have to agree with the "gay lifestyle" or "gay agenda". Who cares. Damn them to hell. But it still matters. A whole lot even. The important thing here is individual rights. And as a subtitle: what are you willing for the government to decide? The question isnt about the "sanctity of (straight) marriage". The question is whether the government gets to have a vote at all.

There are loads of "traditional couples" that should not marry. I have been one of those (as has my ex-wife). Should the government have used its wisdom and stepped in and stopped it? Do not try to apply laws to others that you do not want generalized and applied to yourself. You may not believe in it... but it still matters.

Fun with math

Note: the price has risen a bit since I wrote this. But it stands for the time it was written.

Lately I have been rantier than a bottle of Dr Bronner's soap. This double header doesnt even make a dent.

Part One

Take the following assumptions:

• it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuel to make 1 gallon of ethanol
  
• 1 gallon of ethanol is 15 percent less mileage
  
• the current summer gas blend is 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol. (Lets assume last year was 100% gasoline, though that wont be quite true I am sure).
  
• average annual inflation rate for US is 3.42 percent
  
• average cost of gasoline in the US on Apr 28, 2008 was $3.61
  
• average cost of gasoline in the US on Apr 28, 2007 was $2.96
  

Okay there are 2 important computations here: cost and value. Lets tackle both.

Cost	Value
1 gallon fuel = ( 9/10(gasoline) ) + ( 1/10(ethanol) )	1 gallon fuel = ( 9/10(gasoline) ) + ( 1/10(ethanol) )
1 gallon fuel = ( 9/10(gasoline) ) + ( ( 1/10(ethanol) ) * (1.3(gasoline) / 1(ethanol) ) )	1 gallon fuel = ( 9/10(gasoline) ) + ( ( 1/10(ethanol) ) * 0.85 )
1 gallon fuel = (90/100 (gasoline)) + (13/100 (gasoline))	1 gallon fuel = (900/1000 (gasoline) + (85/1000 (gasoline))
1 gallon fuel = 1.03 gallons gasoline	1 gallon fuel = 0.985 gallons gasoline
in other words, you are really paying for the cost of 1.03 gallons of gasoline for each gallon you buy (not counting the price of corn or the processing of corn)	in other words, you are getting 0.985 gallons of gasoline in value for each gallon you buy

So, we are getting 1.5% less mileage out of burning 3% more gasoline (all in the effort to "conserve" and "use less foreign oil".

Now, last years gas was $2.96.
Add in inflation, you get $3.06.
Add in the 3% extra gas you buy (burn) for ethanol, you get $3.15 per 0.985 gallons
Adjust that for actual gallons and you get $3.20 per gallon of gasoline.

And that is before you pay for the raw materials of corn, the knowledge of processing it, the labor to grow/process. 1 bushel of corn costs $5.50 and will make about 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Thats about $2.20 for a gallon. Our blend uses 1/10 of a gallon for about 22 cents. That takes us up to $3.42 for raw materials. That leaves 19 cents to pay for processing and shipping (remember, it wont go through a pipeline, it has to come on a truck).

Yep the current cost of $3.61 is probably about right. I think you can pretty much equate the rise in cost of gas to ethanol.

And now the presidential candidates -- all of them -- want to tell you how to fix the cost of gas:

• McCain - Dont pay the excise tax (18 whole cents of savings vs 55 cents difference of last years price vs inflation adjusted this years price). Oh, and dont worry, the government just will skip the taxes. Now I am no fan of taxes. In fact, I am pretty much opposed to all of them. But I know enough business to know that you have to bring in at least as much as you pay out. FAIL.
  
• Obama - Dont do anything. FAIL on principle. If you cannot figure out this is out of control, go home.
  
• Clinton - Dont pay the excise tax, but make the oil companies pay it. Now I did not major in economics, but I believe if you discount a product by 18 cents, then ask the producer to pay 18 cents extra, that producer will have a cost of 18 cents extra. And I think costs are part of the price.... which will be a net zero. This is a DOUBLE FAIL on principle.
  

The bad part of this is that there are so many cascading, synergistic, almost exponential side effects here that this is pretty much going to drive the economy for a short while... and while most
economic situations want to meet a stable center, it cannot happen when the economics are being government dictated. Noted side effects here are:

• wear on car, lawnmower, weedeater, chainsaw engines due to ethanol (with emphasis on the small engines -- it harms them even more)
  
• increase in cost of transportation drives up the cost of everything
  
• increase in the demand for corn drives up the cost of all food. And this is pretty serious. It is actually really bad that our entire food supply is based on corn. Its like investing all of your
  money in one stock -- or worse investing it all in one stock and working for the company that stock represents. (Ask an Enron employee if that is a good idea.)
• Not only is a monoculture of corn bad, but the resulting foods made from it have typically been extremely calorie dense. Could it possibly be why Americans are so fat? No, couldnt be.
• And just to point it out (and say I told you so to a few folks) the latest studies showed that Americans overall health is terrible as compared to the rest of the modern world and that it was directly related to weight, smoking and high blood pressure -- NOT due to lack of national health care. But I am sure we will fix this with a higher corn subsidy and a good national health care plan.
  

Part Two

About once a year, there is a shocking story about how much better first born children do than the rest of us. (I am 3rd if I am showing bias.) I will both agree and disagree. (Its bad math). In fact, I will categorically state:

• The majority of successful people are first born
  
• The majority of abject failures are also first born
  

You see, whomever does this study has really not spent much time thinking about this. Allow me to extrapolate some data. I will make some assumptions because I do truck driver math.

According to 2006 US statistical data:

• 1 person households: 27%
  
• 2 person households: 33%
  
• 3 person households: 17%
  
• 4 person households: 14%
  
• 5 person households: 6%
  
• 6 person househouds: 2%
  
• 7 person households: 1%
  

Now I will make wild incorrect assumptions to make my math easy for me. After all, I am lazy and finding good data is hard work. I am just going to assume a Leave It To Beaver world where all families have 2 parents. So I am going to throw out the 1 and 2 person households and assume the 3 - 7 person households have 2 parents and 1 - 5 kids. No disrespect to you single mothers -- its just easier this way. Really. And I guess according to my simplistic ways, we pretty much discard all the Catholic families too. Sorry about that.

With these assumptions, lets see how many first borns there are:

Kids	1st Borns	2nd Borns	3rd Borns	4th Borns	5th Borns
1 kid	17	0	0	0	0
2 kids	14	14	0	0	0
3 kids	6	6	6	0	0
4 kids	2	2	2	2	0
5 kids	1	1	1	1	1
Totals	40	23	9	3	1
Percentage	52%	30%	12%	4%	1%

So, you see, you are more likely to be successful if you are first born because you are more likely to be first born. EVERY family that has a child has a first born child. Not every family has a 3rd. Or a 5th.

So, yes, you are more likely to succeed. And you are more likely to fail. Because you are dealing with the majority of the population dumbass.

And the shocking statistics from the story I heard today was that:

• 50% of US presidents were first born - this is probably margin of error, which says "birth order doesnt matter"
  
• 43% of all CEOs are first born - which pretty much says first borns suck at being CEOs. If 52% of the population is 1st born but only 43% were able to make it to the top of the corporate ladder.

It aint easy being green, part 2

If I have to hear someone brag about how superior they are because they recycle I think I am going to puke. Oh sure, I have done it too... mostly because I think its funny to make other people feel bad... but really lets just agree to stop, okay? I am also going to have to call foul and introduce a rule:

• If you are required by law in your municipality to recycle, you cannot brag that you recycle.

I dont mean stop recycling. Or to be more specific, I dont mean stop recycling entirely. I mean to recycle where it makes sense.

You might ask: How, dear Spork, do I figure out when it makes sense and when it doesnt make sense to recycle? There is one answer, but it has a few corollaries.

• It makes sense to recycle when the recycling pays for itself. Or even better, when it makes a profit.
• A major corollary here (and it applies to almost anything) is this: If the government mandates it, then it wont make sense. The bad thing here is that even if it did make sense, once the government gets their grubby paws on it they will find a way to make it lose money.

I know, I know. What I am saying is heresy. Why in the world would anyone say NOT to recycle? I think its best not to start there. I will instead start with what it does make sense to recycle:

• Iron/Steel - in large quantities make perfect sense. And in fact this has been going on for years and years without any prodding from the government. There is almost no steel product made that isnt made of some amount of recycled iron/steel products. It pays about 14 cents a pound so you had better have a lot. It may or may not make sense to have a special truck just to pick up your tin cans. (The price is "last I checked..." I dont update stuff I rant about so this may be way off in days, months or years.)
• Aluminum - absolutely. Aluminum is really expensive to extract from bauxite and it takes a whole lot of stuff to make only a little stuff. It might make sense to drive a truck around to pick this stuff up. But you really should do the math and figure it out. On the plus side, the recycled cans are infinitely recyclable and are much cheaper to process than digging it out of the ground.
• Glass - probably is okay to recycle. It is an infinitely recyclable product and it is somewhat cheaper to melt the old stuff than to start from scratch.

But I think we might have to stop the list there.

Dont get me started on plastic.

Plastic is basically made from crude oil. And you might say "we need to reduce our oil consumption." Okay, maybe. But it isnt like if we stopped making plastic we would actually reduce the amount of oil we consume. They break oil down into various components. Some are used to make gasoline, some go into Quaker State, some goes into diesel. And some is used to make plastic.

In essence, it is a clever use for what used to be a waste product. This is the ultimate in recycling. This is the "everything but the oink" that we apply to the pig except applied to raw crude. (Mmmmmm, pork.)

Recycling plastic would make sense if it made money. It doesnt. You see as long as you are driving your car or heating your house or leaving on a jet plane, you are driving the use of oil. As long as they make fuel out of oil, there will be raw materials for plastic.

But you might point out that manufacturing of new plastics from recycled saves oil and saves landfill space. No, I dont think it does. It doesnt save oil because its a by product. We still are using the same amount of oil as before.

It doesnt save landfill space because you still have a by-product. You either have to make something with it (that goes in a landfill) or put it in a landfill as a by-product.

And if you dont like plastic (because it is related to oil or it makes your grandmother cry or whatever) then by all means: recycling isnt the answer. Recycling plastic is nothing more than a government subsidy to the plastic industry. While it is true that making new plastic from recycled plastic requires less raw materials (that have to go somewhere). Making plastic from recycled material means your tax money is going to pay for the manufacturing of plastic. Why you say? Because recycling plastic costs more. It costs more because you have to have a special truck (which uses fossil fuels) drive around and collect it. You then have to sort it. And clean it. And process it.

They will tell you that it is cheaper to make new plastic from recycled plastic. And in some ways that is true. It is true because the horriffic cost of the recycling truck and the processing plant is taken on by you when you pay your garbage collection bill. This makes a super cheap raw material that is already preprocessed. So yes it is cheaper.... for the manufacturer. But it is not cheaper overall. It is only cheaper because a government has collected an involuntary tax (tacked onto your garbage collection bill) and used that money to subsidize the plastics industry. And they didnt even send you a thank you card.

There is also a huge glut on the market for all the municipalities that are trying to sell their ultra cheap subsidized pre-processed plastic. And it is not uncommon that the plastic you put in your recycling bin today actually gets trucked around town in a special truck, sorted, washed, processed, baled.... and put in the landfill. Your tax dollars at work. Wouldnt it have been easier to just put it in the trash in the first place?

Trees. They are really pretty. I personally love them a whole lot. That is one reason I moved out to live in the forest area. So of course recycling paper makes sense. You dont cut down the beautiful trees. You couldnt be more wrong.

They dont cut down huge pretty mature trees to make paper. They cut down huge pretty mature trees to make houses. And furniture. But it is rare you hear people rant about how you should live in smaller houses (which in turn use less furnishings). In fact, it is usually the ones living in the biggest, newest houses that make the biggest noise on recycling.

Let me let you in on a secret: If you are really into saving trees, the ultimate in recycling is to buy a small house that already exists in an established neighborhood.

Paper does come from trees. Just not mature trees. It comes from farms that plant trees, cut them down young, pulp them and plant new ones. Its like growing wheat. In fact, if you didnt grow the trees for paper, the farmer would likely plant a different cash crop. And you still arent going to have trees there.

And paper recycling isnt all its cracked up to be. It is a nasty dirty business. A business that actually generates toxic waste. If you throw an ink stained bit of paper in the trash, it goes to the landfill in a tiny quantity.

If you chemically wash the paper with harsh chemicals, you get a mass amount of toxic sludge. But that is okay, because it is "good for the planet."

And if you listen to Al Gore (whom I might have mentioned, I think is an airbag) you will hear him say how new growth forest is good for the planet and reduces carbon. Yadda yadda yadda. Okay, so if you were to invest in new growth forest to help the planet, what do you think you would be investing in? That's right: paper production. Paper is a constant supply of new growth forest products.

So if you recycle paper, you generate toxic waste and you are using subsidies to decrease new growth forests -- that thing Mr. Gore so admires. In effect, you are spending your tax dollars to do the OPPOSITE of what you intended.... which is quite often the case of how government works.

So please. PLEASE. Stop bragging about recycling until you stop driving your car, stop heating your house and stop using electricity from the grid. And if you live in a big new house, you are a tree killer. Oh, and thanks for killing the earth.

Earth hater.

Expedition Blend Door

[Edit about 6 months later: oddly enough I find that this post is actually somewhat popular. And by "popular" I mean "people actually google and jump to it." Whether they actually find it useful is another thing entirely. Anyway, with 6 months time gone by, this fix (and the sister fix to the broken odometer) have performed perfectly. I am also amazed at how often the physical location of the googler is within 100 miles of me -- almost as if this is related to the heat of the summers here. Anyway, you can fix this yourself. Set some time aside. Prepare for the first time to not work perfectly. But you can fix this for way less than you think.]

[Edit again... 5 years later:  And at almost exactly 5 years post-fix... we have a failure.  Oddly, it was not my fix that failed.  The entire door sheared into 2 pieces.  The rebuilt "spine" shown below was still in place, turning almost nothing.   When I originally did this, I couldn't find any other option.  On the re-fix, I found both a NAPA part (with a metal socket) that was remanufactured and solid freaking metal part.   The plus side of the solid steel part is that they've also come up with a better way to install it (due to their ingenious 2 part construction).  No more removing the dash!  Video:  Part1 Part2.

Not really a rant... but sort of.

Ok, I have already touched on it, but here is the quick and short attempt...
Almost every Ford made after sometime in the 90's has a fatal flaw. The little plastic door that mixes hot and cold air for the heat/AC is run by a crappy little servo motor. Instead of the tried and true cable (and usually a metal door) you have this awful remote motor. And pretty much all of them break. Thanks Ford.
The fix is awful. You have to rip the entire dash apart. And when you do, and call the parts store, they tell you "we dont sell that." It turns out, the junkyards wont sell them either. I guess a $10 part isnt worth their 8 hours of pulling the part.
Here comes Bubba engineering.

1. Steering wheel dropped, dash completely ripped out.
   
   


2. The magical blend door. Enjoy its spendor. It clearly is worth $350 in parts alone. It is beautiful and oddly arousing.
   
3. And here is the defective end. You cannot expect this to be heated to 200 degrees in the summer then be turned 5 degrees past its design limits without eventually breaking. Get this Ford?
   
4. So I reached into the air handler box and fished out the bits and pieces. This should be enough to glue together to approximate the size/shape of the new part.
   
5. Here it is all glued together. I was missing one piece, but its the general size/shape I was trying to figure out.
   
6. I got an approximately sized brass fitting and brass thrust washer. I pressed the thrust washer onto the fitting. This is approximately the same size as the end bit. The only gotcha here is that the air handler really needs to be taken apart (which means pulling the heater core and the AC evaporator. No thank you.) I decide I will notch the brim of the tophat after I solder it together.
   
7. I cut back the excess of the bottom of the door to make the tophat fit in.
   
8. And here is my finished bit of wonderment. I took a 5/8 copper pipe and cut long grooves in it to match the spine of the blend door. I then soldered the tophat into the butt end of it. Even though I clearly marked which groove was the door side and which was the hinge side, I still soldered the cutout part of the tophat in bassackwards. I ended up soldering it 4 times before I was done. I vaguely remember from my plumbing days that brass was a little trickier to work with than copper. I think it not only requires more heat, but more finesse and more evenly distributed heat. My solders are really ugly, but they dont have to hold water. They only have to stay together. I press on.
   
9. The completed brace next to its new home.
   
10. I slid the brace in place and bolted it down for good measure. It was pretty darn tight before I bolted it, but why stop at halfway when you can over engineer?
    
11. I drilled a hole in the blend door servo motor and inserted a little pin.
    
12. Here is the little beauty with a slot in its bottom sitting on the motor, happy as a clam.
    
13. On my first installation attempt I found that there was, in fact, no way to get the top and bottom pins of the hinge in place without taking out the air handler box -- further dismantling the dash and draining the heater core and AC evaporator. So I cut the top plastic pin off flush and replaced it with a screw. Is there anything a drywall screw wont fix?
    
14. And now for the money shot. Here you see the air handler box pried halfway open and the door is installed. It is "closed" or cold -- capping off air through the heater core.
    
15. Another angle of the money shot with the camera held inside the air handler box. You might notice I had to remove the little pin and nuts on the shaft. They interfered with the hinge operation on the inside of the door.
    
16. I managed to close off the air handler and with much MUCH MUCH finagling I got the servo bolted on the underside of the box.
17. ...and at this point I realize a couple of things. First, a mechanic had told me a long time ago that the door warps with time and this was part of the problem. The door closes at the bottom fully, but not at the top (on full cold). This explains why my AC hasnt been supercold in a long while (before it broke entirely). Second, my actuator motor was just tired and worn out. It works. Sort of. Most of the time. I am sure pushing on a broken door had a lot to do with this. So I begrudgingly buy another motor for about $65.
18. ...and the Bubbagineering department starts again on the door. Here is the before pictures. Hot...
    
    
    ...and cold
    
    
    So I beefed up the foam...
    
    
    and now... Hot...
    
    
    ...and cold
    
    
19. Ambient temperature
20. Heater +50 degrees. Sweet.
21. AC -21 degrees. Not awful.
    
22. Tada...
    

I just sent this letter to Honda corporate. It wont really accomplish anything, other than maybe take my blood pressure down a few points...

March 30, 2007

Dear Sir or Madam

I purchased a Honda lawnmower (HR215HXA model) almost 4 years ago. The reason I bought a high end lawnmower was based on the immaculate reputation that Honda has for its mowers and small engines. The reputation (and the sales pitch at the store) is that they are bullet proof. I really did not like the “no published price” policy – much like that of buying a new car – but it was worth it to get my hands on a mower that I could possibly be still using 20 years later. I was sold.

All my previous lawnmowers were either bought used for nearly nothing or were purchased from one of the big department stores. There was never anything notable about them – good or bad. They ran. They lasted about 7-8 years and then the chassis would wear out. But when amortized over their lifetime, they cost me $20 a year. Not bad, really.

Now back to the bullet proof Honda. I spent over $1000 for this mower. Wow. I have had cars (plural) that cost me less than that. But it is worth it for that bullet proof mower, right? Well, as mowing goes, you do come upon unexpected objects. It has happened with every mower I have ever owned. You get into tall grass and hit something lurking beneath it. In the case of the Honda, I hit a stump. It started right back up, but there was a noticeable vibration and upon inspection, it appears I bent the blade. This, too, has happened with every mower I have ever owned: you hit a stump or a large rock or some other immutable object and it costs you a mower blade. I didn't think about it...

...Until the next time I ran the mower. The engine ran fine at first. Then it started losing power and RPMs. I put it on the driveway to listen to it. Then I heard the distinctive crack of a rod breaking. I looked at the oil and it was filled to capacity, but smoking hot and burned to a crisp. My conclusion: the crankshaft was bent by hitting a stump, causing it to drag hard on the bearings and snap the connecting rod. That doesn't sound bullet proof to me. Amortizing this lawnmower over its lifetime gives me a $250 yearly cost. For that money, I could have someone mow my yard for me.

I took the mower to my local Honda dealership and they verified my suspicions. They rough guessed that this was about a $500 engine replacement. They also assured me that any lawnmower would do the same thing and they all would require an engine transplant. From my experience, that is just not so. I have always had the chassis fail well before the engine, irregardless of the number of immovable objects I hit with the mower. But, for the sake of argument, lets assume this is true. As a manufacturer of high end lawn equipment, would it not make sense to put a fusible link between the engine and a high carbon steel blade spinning at 2100 RPM? Think of how great a sales pitch that would be. Think of how many $38 fusible links you could sell – each with a $50 installation fee.

This whole story leaves me with a decision and a really bad taste in my mouth:

1. Buy a Honda replacement engine for $500. Expected lifetime based on experience: 4 years.

2. Buy 4 cheap lawnmowers for $500. Expected lifetime based on experience: 28 years.

3. Buy 25 garage sale lawnmowers for $500. Expected lifetime based on experience: 25 years.

I assure you I will not choose option 1. Based on my experience with Honda, I will also not be purchasing any other small engines produced by Honda. Ever.

Your former customer

SPORK

What really pisses me off here is that I fell for it: the idea that expensive is better. I rant and rant about people that fall for this... And I admit that SOMETIMES you can pay more for tools and get a better return out of them. But not in this case.

Go Green

I havent ranted in a long time.

What's that Ellie Mae? Oh, yeah, I guess I should clarify... I havent ranted here in a long time. Ellie is lucky enough to hear me rant each and every day. You should envy her.

A very respected famous man once said "It aint easy being green." Okay, it wasnt a famous man, it was a famous frog, but what Kermit says is very true. It aint easy being green. But there is a huge movement to make everything green. And while that is a fabulous sentiment, they are missing one small thing: facts. It just crawls up my ass for everyone to rant and rave about being green when in reality it is all mostly media hype. I suspect a whole lot of people are making fabulous money off of it. And I suspect a new kid will come along in about a year and the media will turn their head and bow to the new kid, leaving the poor green envionmentalists stuck in the mud. That is just the cycle of "How stuff works."

Now dont get me wrong: I love the planet. I think it is the most beautiful place on.... well earth, I guess. There is more gorgeous nature to be seen than a lifetime allows. And I do think saving it is good. I am all for it.

I am also, as you well know, a cheap ass bastard. And anything that conserves is by its definition a thing that saves me money. (Or at least, that is what they tell us. I am highly suspicious most of the time.) If I can recycle and make end products cheaper for me, I am in! If I can spend a little more money on insulation and save lots of dollars over the next thirty years of electric bills, then sign me up. That's a no brainer. But dont ask me to adopt first generation new products that are more expensive. I will let some other schmuck do that. I dont need to pay a 30% premium for a hybrid car to "save money." I am going to find it hard to swallow that you could save more money on gas to equate to the total operating cost of my $25 ugly pickup truck from 1981. I challenge you to prove its cheaper... especially if you are leasing it or financing it or selling it in under 10 years. And you know there isnt really any technology that is stable and "good" before about the 3rd generation. You are the guinea pig. Have fun.

And there really isnt anything that sticks in my bootie more than Al Gore. Why in the world does this guy think he is a scientist. I am not even debating his science. I have read a handful of "alternative viewpoints" ^{(see note 1)} on global warming and I pretty much know I dont have a big enough picture to have any definitive viewpoints. But this guy takes the cake. He can vote on a technology funding bill and suddenly think he invented the internet. I have been around the internet block a while and I am pretty familiar with a bunch of internet pioneer names. I have even met some of them. Never, in years of attending geeky conferences with inventors of protocols and fathers of innovation, never, NEVER has his name been mentioned. He is less important to the internet than the pointy haired boss is to the success of Dilbert.

Given that perspective, it is truly and terribly hard for me to believe this guy knows anything more than where the "next powerpoint slide" button is on his remote control. He is a windbag that loves the sound of his own voice more than life itself. And lets assume for a moment that everything he says is absolutely true. I am admitting here I dont know if it is or not, so lets just give him a benefit of a doubt. Now, explain to me how His Windiness gets a Nobel Peace Prize. Surely, if the science is true, he could qualify for some sort of prize in physics or some branch of science. But Peace? Solve the entire global warming, energy crises puzzle... is the world at peace now? I really dont think so. I think some idiot will still fight some other idiot and they will both bring their friends and there will be a grand old war. But, I am sure they will use biodegradable bombs, so everything will be okay.

And what right does Al Bore have to say he lives a zero carbon foot print? How in hell does he think, as he flies his private jet only to get out and get into his hybrid car,^{Note 2} that he isnt one of the worlds biggest consumers and thus one of the worlds biggest polluters? This guy lives in a house the size of a WalMart. Tell me, in truck-driver's english, how he really thinks he has a zero carbon footprint. How does his 10,000+ square foot house leave less of a footprint than my little 600 square foot shack?

Oh, I know, you are going to explain to me about carbon credits. Carbon credits may in fact be good for the planet. I like trees. Planting trees is good. But if you bulldoze a forest to have a good place to build your WalMart sized house, then bulldoze another forest to get the lumber to build it, then pump a few hundred thousand barrels of oil to heat and cool it... you are still a positive footprint. I am pretty sure carbon credits are little more than a good tax shelter for the very rich. But they dont just erase your stinky bits off the planet. And the fact that his "credits" are bought through Generation Investment Management is a very very strange thing indeed. Since this is a company he owns and is chairman for, the whole carbon credit thing is really a way he can buy stock in his own company and get a tax write off for it.

I never said he was stupid.... but god he is a waste of space.

And dont get me started about ethanol. Ethanol is one of the poorest energy sources there is.... but it is "green." How is it green? It provides 15% less energy than gasoline. So right off the bat you are at a loss. But, you say, it is made from natural and replinishable products. Bullshit, I say. First off, here in the USA it is made from corn. If you look at ethanol, which is a crappy fuel anyway, there are lots of things to make it from and corn is by far the worst possible choice. Other folks make it from sugar beets and a variety of other things with a little more success, but corn blows. If you planted the entire USA in corn, you would not have enough to power our cars. Why then? Why in the world would we use corn? Well because our fine government has a long history of giving corn subsidies, thats why. Thats why there is corn sweetener in every damn thing in the grocery isle (and probably a good reason why we Americans are so fat!). We make ethanol out of corn, not because scientists have found it works or because the market dictates it. We make it because our taxes pay people to make a crappy fuel out of a product that doesnt even make a good crappy fuel. And while I am ranting... I'd like to point out: the tractors that plow the fields run on diesel. The trucks that ship the corn: diesel, the plants that process it: fossil fuels. In fact, if you compute how much gasoline it takes to produce a crappy fuel from a crappy product that you are subsidizing you will find it takes more fossil fuels to produce this garbage than the damn stuff puts out. All the while, the stuff we used to use corn for.... like food (or food for food) now has to pay more for corn. So not only are we subsidizing this on the front side, but also on the back side every time we buy something from the grocery store... which we have already pointed out is approximately the same size as Al Gore's house. Al Gore should be standing up and screaming how bloody awful this is and how it is destroying our planet.... but he might actually run for office sometime, so that would be dangerous. Maybe he will just invest a little more money in his carbon credit tax shelter and it will cover it. Whew. Catastrophe avoided.

Not to change the subject, but I have heard at least a hundred times over the past year what could I do to save the environment. Without a doubt, the one most powerful thing I can do -- the one thing that will save the planet -- is change my damn light bulbs. In fact, I am told over and over and over that I will reduce the world's fuel consumption by 25% if I just buy new light bulbs. Are you freaking kidding me? You know, they could have probably bullshitted me through that by saying 3% and I would just have bought it hook, line and sinker. But 25%? Come on, pull the other one. Who the hell in the media bought stock in Sylvania?

Now first off, I have a forward thinking conspiracy theory that all these compact florescent bulbs, each with a miniscule drop of mercury in them, will be the enviro-nightmare in the year 2045. They will persecute any of us that still have them and a big truck will come to your house to gather them up. Men will get out in tyvek suits and complicated breathing aparatuses (aparati?) just to take these things and destroy them properly. But lets ignore that for now (and I will tell you I told you so in 2045.)

But enough conspiracy... Lets actually talk about lights. Lights just are not a huge bit of electric consumption. It really is all that other crap that spins the meter around. A 75w light bulb will cost you about $7 to run for an entire month. By that I mean 24x7x30. I could turn on every light in my house for the entire month and it would cost me about $140. Sure, it is cheaper to run a CF, but it isnt going to reduce your cost by 25%. An equivalent bulb to a 75w is a 25w, so it is 2/3 cheaper... but unless you live in one of those This Old House houses that had a "lighting designer" you probably don't have enough bulbs in the house and dont run them long enough to really matter.

What does matter is all those pesky things like heating and air conditioning and cooking and continuous running refrigerators and freezers and computers and tivos and water heaters.

Oh, and just by the way... My average electric bill is close to $200. We actually did switch out all our bulbs to CF bulbs over time. My average electric bill is still about $200. The only savings here is that the damn things last a long long time and you dont have to stand on a wiggly chair and try to change them. So maybe, just maybe, you will save on medical bills by not falling off the chair.

---

Note 1: For an interesting read on other possibilities of global warming, read Micheal Crichton's novel State of Fear. This uses the exact same data, complete with all sorts of charts and graphs, to say the whole global warming thing is somewhere between "bad science using inconclusive and incomplete data" to "a terrorist conspiracy". Somehow, I suspect it falls somewhere in the middle of those 2 choices.

Note 2: A correction here is in order. I used the "drive a hybrid to the airport to get aboard a private plane" as poetic license. The idea here is that don't tell me you are saving 2 gallons of gas then burn 40,000lbs of JetA. The real truth of the matter comes from a friend that actually does work piloting charter jets. The real truth here is that Mr. Gore does NOT drive a hybrid to the airport. He drives a caravan of big black SUVs. I never meant to imply he actually was doing something to conserve fuel. I promise.

(entry 2)

In order to present this, I have purchased a flux capacitor (on advice of a friend) traveled back in time and entered a diary entry in the past (March 10 to be specific). Poison ivy update. Of course, this is nothing compared to my favorite pic on poison-ivy.org.

Democracy

I dont know how many times I have heard it: "We need to bring democracy to the middle east ... or the far east ... or South America ... or .

This mindset could not be further from the mark if they tried. There is NOTHING inheritly good (or evil for that matter) in democracy. Democracy is not an ideal or even a philosophical entity. Democracy is really almost mathematics applied to government. Count votes, make laws. It says nothing for quality of a government. It says nothing for if it is or is not friendly to the US. Why in the world would you fight and die for someone else to have democracy?

How well has democracy worked in Lebanon, where Hamas is now the legal ruling party? How well has democracy worked in Iraq? How well has democracy worked in Venezuela, electing Hugo Chavez? How well did democracy work when pre-war Germans elected Adolf Hitler (with the complete knowledge of what his plans were)?

What really is needed is individual rights, not democracy. The concept of individual rights is an ideal. It is a philosophical principle. Individual rights, properly implemented, would make the government slave to the individual. It would structure laws such that the rights of the individual would not be superseded by the rights of the majority.

The individual rights concept is exactly what the US government was based on, though assuredly flawed in its implementation. (How in the world could you make an individual supreme and then go and remove rights for a particular sex or for various racial classes? But that is another problem and another rant...) In short, if you can accept individual rights, we can make pretty much ANY controversial right wing or left wing argument go away. Completely. And then maybe Congress can get back to important things like having hearings on professional baseball players.

We have the prettiest little plant growing wild here. I just love it. I want to transplant it everywhere! Dang, my arm itches. Does anyone want some rooted plants? Dang, I mean it REALLY itches. If you want a sprig of it, let me know and I will have Ellie Mae root one. DOGNABBIT IT ITCHES.

Just as an FYI. Chicks really think it is sexy if you put socks on your arms to keep the goop off of your clothes. It TOTALLY turns them on. Guys: try it. I assure you she will think it is HOT.

Oprah's Spork's Favorite Things

Ok, I gotta say Oprah is sexy. Yeah, she is good looking, but that isnt it. Sure, the self confidence, the winning attitude -- it all helps, but that isnt it either. Compassion? No. Let me just stop you there. It is because she has a trillion dollars.

Now Oprah would pick only the finest, most expensive things.... and then give them to 400 people. In my case, this is Spork's Cheap Ass Bastard favorite things. You have to aquire them yourself. But they are dirt ass cheap.

As an aside and for comparison: There is no amount of money on this planet that would make Bill Gates sexy.

No particular order is implied here...

• Single malt scotch whiskey - Now there are tons of good Scotches out there. I only wish had tasted them all. If I live long enough, maybe I will. The best probably has to be Glenmorangie 18. But this isnt about being the best. This is about favoritism. That award goes to McClelland's Highland. It is a cheap ass release of Glen Garioch 5 year old. Yes, that is McClellands, not Macallan. I am sure the sound-alike-ness is purely accidental.
  
• Box wine - Yes, box wine. I said it. All the super snob wine bastards out there can just go hump a rock. If you havent tried it, don't knock it. In particular, put on a fake nose and glasses and drive clear across town so no one can identify you. Go into the Costco and get you a cheap ass bottle (err... box) of Black Box. Just because it doesnt cost you $50 doesnt mean it isnt drinkable. Oh, yeah, I forgot: for the cost of one bottle of wine, you get 4. And if you drop it, it doesnt break.
• Linux - Ok, I totally am an operating system bigot. I know I am. So let me set the record straight. I do hate Windows. It is big and cumbersome. I personally dont think it is very secure. If you look at it on the inside, it is overcomplicated and it just doesnt make sense. Can it be configured to be satisfactory: usually, yes. Can Linux be configured to be a big snotty mess: absolutely. That said, I still think Linux is heads above the rest. And the price is right. And with Linux, you are not just getting the OS -- you are getting the applications too. It may not play your favorite game of Duke Shootemup, so if that is your primary focus, then move along.

  I have heard it said that Unix is too hard to use. Well my 70-something year old mother uses it without a problem.^*
  

  ^* Ok, well she has some occasional problems... but I assure you it has nothing to do with the fact there is a penguin on the screen.

• TiVo - I dont mean "a pvr" I mean Tivo. And not that set top box either. I mean DirecTivo. For 1/2 the price of a regular Tivo you basically get 2 Tivos. It has dual inputs for 2 satellite feeds. You will never watch live TV again. The best geeky thing about Tivo is that it is entirely built on Linux. A couple of little hacks and suddenly the world is your oyster. Or maybe the TV is your oyster. Why do they compare the world to oysters anyway? (Sadly, I believe this product is no longer available. Write your congressman. Call out the militia. Take no prisoners.) And if you are a real cheapskate, just install one Tivo and rebroadcast it to the entire house. Why would you ever need a second one unless you want to record three things at once?
  
• Atlas Shrugged - Its a book for those of you non-literary geniuses out there. Its more than a story, it is an entire philosophy. At the risk of sounding like a religious zealout, I will stop there. If you dont like it, dont read it. If you think both the left-wingers and the right-wingers are idiots that always misrepresent you... maybe you should check it out.
• Cesar Millan - Speaking of religious zealotism... This guy is a graven image of the lord my god. No I am not a Homer sexual. But I am awe inspired watching him wrangle dogs. Are my dogs well behaved? No*. Are my dogs a zillion times better than they used to be before I saw Cesar? Absolutely. The cool thing is that technically all your problems with your dog are your fault. Yes, that is a good thing. If it is your fault then you have the ability to fix it.

^* Yes, I know, this link goes to a nice 404 error. But it used to go to a link to a graph for the last time my dogs peed on the floor. Sadly, with dialup ISP status now, I cannot bring you up-to-the-moment breaking news like this any longer. If you really want this function, make sure I get broadband. Quickly.

• Netflix - This beats the hell out of Blockbuster any day of the week. The last trip to Blockbuster left me with the impression that they have all the current releases (but they are currently checked out) and pretty much nothing else. Bah. Netflix has it all and if you are not afraid to go to the mailbox in your underwear, you dont even have to get dressed to rent one. The next one shows up as soon as you return the first. They rock.
• Rush - The band, not the pill-popping Limbaugh guy. Note the link goes to Amazon, not to the official site because the official site is just too damn irritating. So you are probably thinking one of 2 things based on your age:
• They are still around? Boy, I picture a bunch of bald headed men with ponytails sitting in their Mom's basement playing D&D singing like a 12 year old girl. Sadly, this is partially true.
• Never heard of them. I'll ask my dad.
  
But seriously, a rockin band with lyrics that sound like someone that has a brain wrote them.

Pretirement

Several times I have heard folks gasp (or scoff) in wonderment of how in the world could I afford to quit. Well, if you really want to know, here's your lesson.

Lets start with a few definitions of what I am talking about:

• pretirement - a period BEFORE retirement where you take time to pursue other interests. This may imply you still work -- and probably at a lower income.
• retirement - a decision to stop "work" entirely. Like pretirement, this doesn't mean you are not doing something productive. It means you are not getting a traditional paycheck.
• financial independence (aka FI) - a level of net worth that allows you to decide whether or not you WANT to work. This is determined by both your net worth and your expenses. In other words, maintaining a 5000 square foot house and an always new car may take a net worth of 5 million... while living on the cheap might be maintainable with MUCH MUCH less.

First off, I really haven't quit forever. If nothing else, I plan to work at least enough to be able to put the maximum dollar amount in a Roth IRA. My understanding of the tax laws are that you cannot deposit more than you earn. So, you cannot totally quit if you want to keep building your Roth. But I am getting ahead of myself... This is what I did... I am sure it isnt the only road. I am also pretty damn sure that other folks are on the wrong road(s). I digress.

PICK A GOOD PARTNER

This has to be the absolute most important thing for me. When it comes down to it, marriage is nothing but a legal business partnership. Granted you may be sleeping with the boss (or one of you is) but from a legal standpoint, it is important not to over romantasize or over religiousize. (Hey, look, I made up a new word.) If you want to pretire or be financially independent, you had better pick someone that also has that goal. The opposite of financial independence is to be in debt. If you compromise between the two, that just means you have zero equity and you live paycheck to paycheck. You have got to be on the same page if this is your goal. If you have a bad business partner, your business wont be profitable. If you have a bad spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend, you wont reach independence. Financial dependence means more than debt, too. It points towards all sorts of self esteem issues. If you notice someone is bad with money, that is probably a big warning sign in other parts of their life too.

LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS

This is just simple math. If you want to be FI, you have to spend less than you earn. Its like going on a diet: calories in has to be less than calories out. There is no quick plan or easy way to do it. My savings rate varied month to month. And there are always unexpected expenses (like foundation repair!) I cannot stress enough that spending (or not spending) is more important than your income level. It is not how much you make, but how much you keep. My savings rate was pretty consistently 50% or more.... sometimes peaking as high as 80%... and yes, sometimes it bottomed at zero. And yes, I tracked this -- even graphed it automagically. More on that later.

AVOID DEBT

This sort of follows with living below your means, but some folks dont get it. What I mean here is: if you do not have the cash, do not buy it. Do not put it on a credit card and expect to pay for it later.

More than that, this means do not go to the BMW dealership (or Ford for that matter) and buy a big expensive car that will take you 7 years to pay off. If you cannot buy a BMW outright, then it just isnt the right time for you to have one. This means you have to buy a car you can afford, even if it is a 10 year old Ford.

If there is something you want/need (that BMW, for example) then start paying for it BEFORE you buy it. Pay that $500 a month to yourself into a savings account (or money market or CD or T-bill or ...). When you have the cash, buy it outright.

This may be a little harder with a house, so it is probable you will have to get a loan for that. But -- quite honestly -- it is in the realm of possibility to buy a house the exact same way as that BMW: save up and write a check. The belief that you can buy it now and pay later -- and that it wont catch up with you -- has got to be one of the biggest irrational mistakes Americans make. It is pervasive from the bottom consumer all the way up to the Federal government. Just look some day at how much GWB has run up the national debt. And when taxes go up in the future to pay for it, that will of course be someone else's fault!

REQUIRED FUNDS

By "required funds," what I mean is: what different accounts you will need. Basically, this means: you have to start really looking at what you are saving and where that savings is going.

• first and foremost, you need an emergency fund. This is what keeps you from having to put those unexpected large charges on your credit card. This is also an insurance fund that lets you live if you lose your source of income. This should be in some sort of liquid asset: like a savings account, money market, rotating CDs, etc. In my opinion, you need a year's worth of expenses.
• secondly, you need retirement savings. Lots of it. If your company matches 401k (or 403b), then put every penny there up to the match point. Do not get suckered in to putting the max percentage here (unless you are going nuttier than I did on savings.) There are better places to put your money. Remember, you are putting pre-tax dollars into a 401k and you WILL BE TAXED at whatever the going rate is when you take it out. If you look at how the government is currently writing checks it cannot cash, you can assume that the tax rate will go up.
• Roth IRA. Max out this puppy. If you are married, then max out 2 of them. This is the greatest tax scheme you will ever find. You WILL NOT BE TAXED on the principle or the interest when you start withdrawing. Given the previous assumption of a rising tax rate, this is the best deal going.
• HSA. These are really new and so far, the pickings are slim. But if you were to get you a very high deductible health insurance policy that is HSA compatible, you can contribute to an HSA. This sounds like it will one day be as good a tax scheme as the Roth IRA. You can roll unspent funds forward and eventually use this as a retirement account. And if you plan on pretiring, you are going to need health insurance anyway.
• Pretirement fund. Lets face it: you cannot really take anything out of any of the above funds without serious tax implications. What this means is that if you want to pretire (or early retire) you are going to have to have a big sack of cash that you can get to before you turn 65. Way before you turn 65. So you have to save a big chunk. I might suggest mutual funds. Find a low cost online broker and start investing in no load funds. Index funds are the dummy's friend. The price is computed off an index. Instead of being managed by a highly paid manager, it is managed by a low paid computer.

OWN A HOUSE

By "own" I do not mean "go through a realtor and buy a house." I mean: OWN a house. Get a house you can afford, negotiate the absolute shortest length of a mortgage you can find with a fixed interest rate and pay it off.

If you need a 30 year mortgage to afford it, you cannot afford to buy it. If you need an 80-20 loan, you cannot afford it. If you need an interest only loan, you cannot afford it. That doesn't mean dont buy a house. That means dont buy THAT house.

Imagine for a moment how much you are paying in monthly mortgage payments and imagine that money going straight into a retirement or pretirement fund. Imagine the interest payments that YOU pay the bank being reversed and that the BANK pays YOU. At $1000 (or $2000 or $3000) a month, you could save a LOT of money. Fast.

Now, I cannot tell you how many folks will argue that you want a big payment so that you get an income tax deduction. That has to be the dumbest argument ever made. That is like saying you will give me a dollar to buy 3 shiny quarters. Paying a lot to save a little doesn't make sense. True, if you legally have deductions, you should do what you can to maximize them... but spending money in one place for the sheer purpose of saving (and saving less than you spent!) does not make mathematical sense.

NEVER RENT WHAT YOU CAN BUY. NEVER BUY WHAT YOU CAN RENT.

What I mean here is: if there is something you are going to use -- really use -- dont rent it. I do not care if the car salesman tells you it makes sense to lease a car. It doesn't. Oh sure, he can show you how your monthly cost is lower. Whoopie. But look at the cost of ownership. Isnt that really what matters? Furthermore, as I mentioned above, if you have to finance a car then you cannot afford it. I know that flies in the face of 99% of all Americans. I know they always finance. But a car is a constantly depreciating asset. Outside of a few highly collectible cars (which does NOT include Triumphs) you will never make money on a car unless you are a car salesman.

This means: buy what you can afford to buy outright. If you cannot afford to buy a car, this means you are going to have to buy a real clunker. Then make "payments" to yourself. That car fund will pay for repairs to your clunker and will eventually pay for a real car -- once you have saved up enough to buy one. And once you buy one, drive it until the wheels fall off. (If it is a Triumph, you are allowed to drive it PAST the point where the wheels fall off.) Do not tell me that it costs too much to repair a clunker. It costs less than a car payment.

And to never buy what you can rent... For me, the big draw here is tools. I collect tools the way chicks collect shoes. I have the urge to buy big tools to get a particular job done. I finally had to make myself a rule: If you are going to rent it 3 times, buy it. Otherwise, rent it. This, of course, applies to the midsize tools. Larger tools will have a longer payback.

LISTEN TO ADVICE, BUT CHOOSE YOUR ADVISERS CAREFULLY.

This boils down to "emulate success" -- but with a corollary: evaluate your criteria for success very very carefully. Driving a Beamer and living in a beautiful house may look successful. But if the balance sheet has a net value of zero (or negative) it is NOT successful. My first real lightbulb moment with this was reading The Millionaire Next Door where the author does statistical analysis of real millionaires. They are NOT Donald Trump. They are every day working stiffs. They do NOT drive Beamers. The statistical majority (by a huge margin) drove 10 year old Ford Pickups. Seriously.

Ellie Mae got me to read Millionaire. And she also got me listening to a variety of radio/TV talk shows. Each of them has something to offer and most have a common theme. They are all common sense people.

• Suze Orman - She is a harsh mistress. I like her "tell you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear" style. She is a little too worried about "whats my FICO score," but if you can ignore that part, she is pretty good to listen to. Really: If you are financially independant, who cares what your FICO score is? FICO is just a measure of whether someone wants to loan you money. Wouldnt it be better if you didnt NEED to borrow money? Her show is on CNBC on Saturday night.
• Dave Ramsey - Dave's main thing is debt and how to get rid of it. He is also very into personal responsibility for one's actions. He is a little too tied up in religiosity for my taste, but if you can ignore that (or latch onto it if that is your thing) he has very sound advice. Dave has a radio show (times vary by market) and you can also listen to it online.
• Michelle Singletary - Her advice is based on growing up with a common sense grandmother. She was poor, yet never had financial problems. Her bills were always paid and she always had food and shelter. Michelle has since become quite financially successful, all based on the advice of her grandmother. She writes a syndicated column and also has a TV show.
• Clark Howard - The ultimate cheapskate. Mostly he is a consumer advocate and a proponent of how to do things cheaply. He has a radio show, which can also be heard online.

DO IT YOURSELF

Okay, it isnt always cheaper, but it usually is. It doesn't matter if the project you are going to tackle is something you know how to do or not. You really CAN learn as you go. You will make mistakes. Sometimes costly ones. But you will learn. And the next project will be easier and will have less learning overhead. And most of all: I get more pleasure from looking at a project that I did myself that is merely 'adequate' than I would from looking at a project someone else did that was masterfully crafted.

TRACK YOUR PROGRESS

On this point, I have become obsessed. I have been obsessed for well over a year. We used to sit down and figure out our progress every couple of months. Ellie Mae would put a dot on a bit of graph paper and we would watch ourselves slowly eek up (usually) towards our FI goal. Then I thought: hey, we are using an open source program to handle our finances (GnuCash) -- I wonder if I could parse the file. I started parsing the gnucash file and spitting out "digested" data. From that, I started automatically generating graphs. And I mean all kinds of graphs: Asset v. Liability, Asset Types, predictive graphs, etc. Last I counted there were probably 50 or 60 different financial graphs. Now this obsessive-compulsive type of tracking is probably not necessary. But it was what really pulled me into the finances. It was no longer just something Ellie Mae handled well... it was something I was really a part of.