How We Think - Status

Do you buy a fancy car for your own enjoyment, or because how you think others will perceive you?

NOTE:  This is an older posting from 2020 that I just completed today.

Human nature is a funny thing, and often best left unexamined.   It is like turning over a rock and seeing all the creepy-crawly things underneath.  Gross!  Yet confronting this reality - the reality of life - is often more instructive and useful than living in a pretend world.

Take something as simple as a car.  When you think about owning a fancy car, do you think about it in terms of how much you would enjoy it, or how others would perceive you going down the road?  Seems like a dumb question, and 99% of people would answer the former and not the latter, but 99% would be liars.

I've owned a lot of "fancy" cars over the years - maybe not a Ferrari or a Lamborghini, but fun cars, cars that were fun to drive, had convertible tops, and looked nice.   Cars that got you noticed - and that was part and parcel of the fun, but also sometimes a detriment.  There are times - other than robbing a bank - when you don't want to get noticed.

When we had the M Roadster, it attracted a lot of attention. And sometimes, you don't want a lot of attention. Kids in clapped-out economy cars would try to race you - and nearly kill themselves or others trying to catch up.  It wasn't worth it. That and while some might say, "nice car!" as if you built it by hand, others would just write you off as a "jerk with a fancy car."

Quite frankly, I was more satisfied with older cars I had fixed up.  My old Fiat was more rewarding (if not more frustrating on occasion) because I had brought it back from the brink.   The M Roadster?  I put gas in it, such was my interaction with that car.   And merely using a product is not as interesting - nor does it provide one with any sense of accomplishment.   Actually doing things, instead of just owning things, is one way to avoid learned helplessness.

We sold the M Roadster and bought the hamster, and we love the hamster more. Why?  Because it "blends" in more.  No one is jealous of someone in an economy car. No one resents you as an evil 1%'er.  No one wants to drag race you.  That and it is cheaper to own, by a factor of two.

But getting back to the original question, we all think, when buying a car, a house, a boat, a fancy purse, a nice jacket, or whatever, as to how others will perceive us by dint of owning or appearing with that object.  Even a Starbucks cup-o-coffee is this way - which is why people hold the cup with the label facing out, so everyone knows they didn't buy gas-station coffee or bring their own from home.

Think of a jacket for example. You want one for warmth and comfort, of course.  But clothing is sold on appearance more than practicality. So you spend $1000 more for a jacket that says "Canada Goose Arctic Program" - if you are particularly dense - because you want to impress others.  It long ago stopped being about warmth.  In fact, so many "designer" or "fashion" clothes are wildly uncomfortable - women's clothes in particular provide little or no protection and expose far too much skin - hence the thermostat wars in many offices, as overdressed men in suits sweat profusely, while women in mini-skirts and low-cut tops shiver at their desks.  It is style before substance.

I noted before that women dress for other women for the most part.  When you put on that fancy new outfit you bought at the mall, are you thinking about how men will notice you (they likely won't, unless it exposes a lot of breast meat) or how jealous your girlfriends will be of your new outfit?  Sounds like an ugly question - the answer is even uglier.

Men are no better.  Do men buy a $5,000 watch to impress (and intimidate) other men?  Or do they do it to impress women?  And no, "To tell what time it is!" is not even on the list of suggested answers.

This is not to castigate men or women or you or me - we all do this sort of thing and the best and only thing you can do is to realize that we do it, and act accordingly.  You can't prevent yourself from being human and acting human.  We can realize of course that we are doing it, and at least salvage something from it.

Again, getting back to the M Roadster, we finally woke up one day and realized that it was a wildly impractical car to drive - just as a mini-skirt is a wildly impractical piece of clothing to wear. So we sold it, and got good money for it - enough to buy the hamster, almost.  Could we have avoided a lot of trouble by not buying that car?  Probably.  But I guess sometimes in life you have to have experiences like that, in order to learn.  And I guess also you have to learn to forgive yourself for being human and acting dumb.

I enjoyed owning convertibles.  It was nice, in Florida, as the sun set and the temperatures cooled down, to ride along A1A among the fancy houses and feel the cool salty breezes.  It was nice to ride along the Mt.Vernon Parkway along the Potomac on a cool day with the top down.  It felt good and was fun.  There was that aspect to it. But another aspect was, well, one feels more attractive, sexier, and of course projects wealth and sophistication (or so we think) when riding along in a fancy set of wheels - or a fancy suit of clothes, or carrying a take-out bag from the gourmet store.  There are two sides to this - the practical and the status.

As I get older, I find I crave status less and less - but still crave it.  We eschew status as we get older as it is expensive and we have limited means.  I think we also learn over time that it is fleeting and worth nothing.  Whether someone you don't know is impressed by your car, your boat, your coat, or your shoes, is really irrelevant.  Yet, we still crave it.  When we bought the truck, I was shopping for a new stripped 2-door XL with a tow package.  Mark saw the King Ranch and "had to have it."  It has a nice features and is comfortable - and yes, we look down our noses at those plebes in their XLT's and Lariats.  Someone please remove these poors from the road, they are hampering my progress!

So it is not avoidable, I guess.  Like a chronic illness, the best you can do is manage it.

Walmart Kimchi

A tasty addition to any food, and it is good for you!

Recently, we have been buying Kimchi at Walmart in the fresh produce section (refrigerated). Kimchi supposedly has probiotics in it, but I don't know about that.  I have read online that Kimchi sold in jars (at room temperature) may have been pasteurized, which kills off the probiotics.   Make your own conclusions.

All I know is, it tastes good on just about anything.  I am sure it is not as "authentic" as what Eomma made, but it is good and a little spicy, too.  If you grind it up in the food processor, it makes a nice spread for crackers or a relish on a hot dog.  Or you can use it as-is on sandwiches, including a breakfast sandwich.

It is funny, but people have food prejudices.  I noted before how Americans will recoil in horror about how people in foreign countries "eat with their hands" when Americans today eat most of their food with their hands (pizza, hamburgers, fries, hot dogs, chips, snacks, etc.).  Similarly, there is a lot of food prejudice about Korean food, beginning with the trope that "they eat dogs" which is true for a small portion of the population, and not only in Korea.

Kimchi is singled out as being "too spicy" or claimed to have a bad smell.  Maybe during the fermentation process when it is made, it could be odoriferous, but once prepared, it is appetizing.  Funny thing, that, people will go to a "Korean BBQ" and at the same time make jokes about stinky Kimchi and dogs-for-supper.   Food prejudice rarely gets anyone anywhere.

Like I said, I am not an expert on Korean cuisine, so I don't know how "authentic" Jongga Kimchi sold at Walmart is.

All I know is, I like it.  And it seems to be a healthy choice, too!

Pedantry - "Motor" versus "Engine"

Even Jay Leno gets dinged by pedantic people!

Jay Leno has a YouTube channel and it is interesting to watch on two levels.  First, you can see, episode-by-episode, how he has succumbed to incipient dementia brought on by old age.  It is sad to see, but he is getting on and getting confused more and more.  He's also a horrible driver, with poor lane control.  But you can't help but like him - or at least his on-air personality.  Maybe he is an asshole in person, but I doubt it.

The second thing is that his YouTube channel, with its low production values, is very low-key and down-to-earth.  You feel like you are listening to Jay and not some actor.  He also has a cable show (some episodes appear on his YouTube channel - worth skipping), and the difference is startling - weird noises and music and jarring graphics interrupt each scene. And like with "reality teevee" they edit with sharp cuts to create artificial controversy.  It sucks.

But one comment Jay made on his YouTube channel was that people were correcting him in the comments for calling an "Engine" in a car, a "Motor" as "Engines burn fuel, motors are electric!"

Ahh... pedantry strikes again!

It will come as a sure surprise to General Motors Corporation that the term "Motor" means only an electric motor.  While GM makes (or made) various kinds of electric motors, it is not their primary product.  No, no, their big deal is making Motorcars.

Yes cars, short for motorcar, which at one time in the States (and apparently still in England) were referred to as "motors" before "cars" became more popular.

Of course Ford Motor Company would surely find this pedantry ridiculous and no, they have no plans on changing the company name to the "Ford Engine Company" particularly as they are morphing into an electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer.

UPDATE:  I might also add that Chrysler products have been historically referred to (since the 1960's at least) as "MoPars" after the name of Chrysler's "MoPar" parts division, which is a portmanteau of "Motor Parts."  And no, Chrysler isn't selling electric motor parts at MoPar - other than starter motors and power window winders.  Motor here also, refers to car engines - or motors.  Note also that the same is true overseas - Toyota Motor Corporation, Bavarian Motor Works, and so on and so forth.

If you go to Walmart or any auto parts store, they will sell you motor oil but if you asked for "engine oil" they would surely give you sideways looks.  When you go to register your car, you might want to visit the "Department of Motor Vehicles" and if you asked the nice man at the door where the "Department of Engine Vehicles" was, he would probably throw you out.

If you don't want to paddle or row, you might want to buy an outboard motor and turn your boat into a motorboat.  But don't bother asking your boat dealer for an "outboard engine" or an "engine-boat" - you may leave him scratching his head.

In short, there is really no "official" designation of whether a "motor" refers exclusively to an electric power plant, or whether "engine" is the only correct term for an internal combustion.... motor.  The people who make motor vehicles seem to think so, anyway.  So does the dictionary.

It is only stupid know-nothings who want to appear to be smart who makes these stupid pedantic games.  My dipshit brother (the other one) used to say this to me - he knew nothing about cars and yet was lecturing me about the correct use of "motor" versus "engine" while I was attending General MOTORS Institute!

So why do people do this - be pedantic, that is?  It is the same motivation for conspiracy theories (which my dipshit brother is knee-deep into as well).  It is a chance for stupid people to feel smart - to "correct" others who actually know more than they do.  Like some lame YouTuber commenting on a Jay Leno video about the correct usage of "motor" - correcting a guy who owns a collection of 100 or so motorcars, no less!  Kudos to Jay, though, for letting it it slide, like water off a duck's back.

Myself, I am not so kind.  Bullshit is bullshit, and no one gives a rat's ass if you call your car engine a "motor" or not.  If someone says, "Small-block Chevy motor" you only come across as a pedantic asshole by correcting them.  Chances are, they know more about motors than you do.

Happy Motoring!

Electric Bikes

This is not a bicycle, it is a motorcycle!

e-bikes are everywhere, it seems, and RV'ers seem to have taken to them.  If you have a motorhome, you can hang an e-bike off the back and use it to putt into town to get groceries.  If you are out of shape or elderly, the idea of not pedaling (or not pedaling very hard) is attractive.  But with this "new" technology comes problems.

I put "new" in quotes as these are really nothing more than mopeds.  Back in the 1970's when the gas crises was on, people looked to mopeds, which got 100 miles to the gallon, as a means of tooling around town.  They had been popular in Europe for ages, but were relatively new to America - in recent years that is.

Yes, the original "motor-cycle" was a motorized bicycle, and even Harley-Davidson started out with what was a bicycle (complete with pedals) with a motor added.    That quickly went away, of course, but the motorized bicycle never entirely went away.  Back in the day, you could motorize your bicycle by attaching a small "whizzer" engine to the rear wheel (friction drive, no less).  But America, being a car culture, never took to these sort of things.

In an eerie parallel to today, proponents of mopeds argued that they should get special licensing and registration status and not be registered as motorcycles.  Under existing laws, anything with a motor on it was a "motor vehicle" (at least in New York State) and had to be registered as such - as a motorcycle or car.  So special legislation was passed, State-by-State to legalize mopeds and allow teenagers to drive them with a learner's permit (but no motorcycle license).

And they were dangerous as fuck.  Since they went far slower than traffic, you were always being passed by cars, who were as courteous to you as most car drivers are today to bicyclists.  Which is to say, they tried to run you off the road.  Like any real motorcycle, they were a fair weather friend and of limited utility.  As gas prices came down, the moped movement died off and you rarely saw on one the road by the mid-1980s.

Motorcycles are, of course, a lot of fun, and if there were no such thing as cars or trucks and it never rained or snowed and there were never patches of loose gravel or sand or oil slicks on the road (sounds like motorcycle heaven!) they would be great.  The reality is, of course, that the minute you get on a bike, it seems everyone wants to kill you - or so it feels.  And you realize that human flesh versus 4,000lbs of car or truck is a losing proposition.  Or just falling off and becoming a "meat crayon" on the pavement is no fun at all.  Road rash is nothing to laugh at.

But with motorcycles - real ones - the cost of ownership and the hassle of getting a motorcycle endorsement on your license does limit the audience to the hard-core bikers.  Motorcycling is brutal on neophytes.  Talk to any EMT and they will tell you horror stories of mangled bodies and mangled motorcycles with temp tags on them.

So, fast-forward 40 years from the moped era, and today we have e-bikes.  They are bicycles with electric, not gas, motors.  But other than that, they pretty much look like mopeds, or at least some do.  Early e-bikes looked more like bicycles and were lightweight and had bicycle running gear.  But lately, the DOT-approved look has taken over - with wide motorcycle (or at least moped) wheels and tires, and DOT turn signals and lighting.  While some e-bikes use an electric "assist" which adds power based on how hard you pedal, these more modern counterparts use a traditional twist-throttle like a motorcycle or moped.

Back in the 1970's, they had to pass laws legalizing mopeds, such was the state of "big government" back then.  As I noted before, in New York State it was beaten into our heads that the moment your car registration or insurance expired, your car became an immovable block of metal - suitable only for towing.  Imagine my shock moving to the South and seeing people with cardboard signs in their rear window, saying, "Tags applied for!"  That would never fly in New York State, even under our Republican Governors!

But with e-bikes, something weird is happening.  In the Silicon Valley (Bullshit Valley) tradition of "Move fast, break things!" they are just selling these as bicycles and people are riding them without insurance, registration, motorcycle license, helmet, or anything.  And some are riding them on the road or on the shoulder, or on dedicated bike-paths and bike-lanes.  Many of these modern e-bikes can go close to 40 mph - I am sure some go more.  It is kind of unsettling when you are riding on a bike path (or worse yet, walking) and someone whizzes by at 30+MPH with no warning.  If they hit you, they could kill you.

Yesterday, I saw a lady riding an e-bike,pedaling slowly (but going fast) with no helmet and talking on her cell phone the whole time.  For like an hour, too!  Granted, she was cruising the campground, but some of the car drivers here fly down the campground roads, which have blind corners and intersections (we are parked at one of the latter).  She could have been t-boned at any time.

e-bike riders are an interesting lot. I am sure it is like smart phones, too - I can say I would never ride an e-bike like they do, but within a month, I would become an e-bike zombie just as I became a cell phone zombie - despite my best intentions.  But it is funny, when you are walking or riding a real bicycle on the bike path, you see an e-bike coming and they start pedaling furiously.  As soon as they are out of sight (or think they are, anyway) they stop pedaling and go back to full electric mode.

e-bikers have the best of both worlds - or want the best, anyway.  They can ride in traffic like a  car or real motorcycle, and they can park at a bike rack like a bike.  They can ride on the sidewalk (or do anyway) or the bike lane or bike path. They can weave in and out of traffic and "lane share" - or at least try to, until they get hit.  And they do all this without any training, registration, insurance, or licensing.

What is weird to me is that back in the 1970's, this was a big deal to pass legislation to register and regulate mopeds - legislation that is still on the books in most States.  e-bikes, particularly the more robust-type, would seem to fit the definition of "moped" but I have yet to see a moped plate on an e-bike in any of the several States we have visited in the last two years or so.  Maybe they are supposed to be registered, but it doesn't seem like cops are enforcing the law.

Funny, too, because people today - born after 1980 - claim we are being "oppressed" by onerous government.  The reality is, it seems like many laws that were strict back in the day, are ignored, even by the Police, today.  In the 1980s, a friend of mine put "straight pipes" on his Harley - and took them off a week later.  He had a sheaf of noise violation tickets to show for it.  Today, off-duty cops have these on their bikes, and no one issues noise violation tickets anymore - as you may have noticed.

Speaking of Harley-Davidson (arguably the inventor of the moped!) that company has come under a lot of criticism by trying to attract a younger audience by selling smaller bikes and even electric motorcycles.  It went over like a lead balloon - or more precisely like Bud Light.   The "traditional" Harley riders felt betrayed, even as their demographic shrinks from year to year.  Harley had to do something to increase its audience, and their expensive union contracts meant that their bikes were expensive, too (more than a car!) and thus limited the customer base to boomers with disposable income.

I have noticed some ham-handed attempts at SPAM-ing on motorcycle sites.  On one "crotch-rocket" discussion group, a "random person" opines that after test-riding his boomer Uncle's old Hog, it "wasn't all that bad!" and once you get up to speed, it hardly vibrates at all!  Nice try, SPAM-Bot!   I don't think the Ninja drivers were buying it, though.

Electric scooters bear mention as well.  We saw a young man tearing along at at least 25 MPH on one, with no helmet, just one pothole or small rock away from doing an end-over-end and becoming a poster boy for The Brain Injury Institute.  Worse yet, they rent these things, again, unregulated, and it is causing a real problem in cities as they pile up in neighborhoods and get tossed in canals and lakes and rivers.  Years ago, you would see bumper-stickers saying, "Ban Moped Rentals!" because a lot of people were killed or maimed after renting mopeds on Caribbean islands.  We saw one such grisly accident in the Bahamas - a man with a bloody head, laying on the pavement.  All fun-and-games until you leave "Senor Frogs" after three margaritas.

The same idea applies to scooter rentals - someone in silicon valley is making a lot of money and literally killing and maiming people.  The scooters are rented to tourists, who don't know their way around or even how to ride the scooter - and of course, helmets are not provided.  Class-action lawsuits have been filed, of course, but those will only profit the lawyers.  If you are killed - or worse, paralyzed for life - it is little comfort that as part of the settlement, you or your heirs get a free Lime scooter rental.

So what's the answer?  Well, I hate to be one to break up a party, but there are laws already on the books for mopeds.  Whether they need to be amended to include e-bikes, I do not know.  And helmet laws for motorcycles and mopeds exist (in States with helmet laws).  Sometimes it is best if "big nanny government" protects the ignorant from their own folly.

I say this as an elderly friend (who has balance problems) just bought an e-bike.  After wiping out a 50cc scooter, you'd think they would have learned a lesson.   I fear for their life, quite frankly.  But an e-bike, even a nice one, is still a motorcycle, and motorcycles are not for the feint of heart, or those with balance issues, or slow reaction times.  That is one reason why I am glad I gave up motorcycling when I did.  At my age, I would be dead within minutes!

All that being said, I guess these e-bikes are here to stay.   But expect to see a lot of bloody e-bike accidents (which, like with Tesla, the industry will sweep under the rug).  It wouldn't be so awful if it was only the e-bike riders hurting themselves.  But I suspect that there will be a wreck on our idyllic bike path on our island, and some nice old lady will get run over by a 150-lb e-bike, with a 200-lb rider, who will at the very least, break that old lady's hip, if not kill her outright.  Motorcycles don't belong on bike trails!

Too Much Ice?

Americans love their ice, but how much is too much?

Europeans make fun of our obsession with ice and cold drinks, as well as the serving of water with meals.  In a country with excellent tap water (places like Flint, Michigan, excepted) free water is seen almost as a right - and should be. Sadly, public drinking fountains are becoming scarcer and scarcer - and bottled water more prevalent.  Gee, that just happened by accident, right?

But seriously, cities like New York have some of the best tap water in the world, and that is due to the foresight of our forebears who dammed up lakes in the Catskills and preserved the aquifer, and dug amazing tunnels all the way to the city to carry this water - a task that is still ongoing to the present day.

But I digress.

The problem I have with ice is that many places will fill your glass with ice and then pour the drink into it.  As a result, a 12-ounce glass may contain only a few ounces of actual drink, and an 8-ounce cocktail glass, even less.  Again, this just happened by accident, right?  Now, granted, in a lot of places, they offer "free refills" on fountain drinks, so there is no dark conspiracy to cheat you out of your 12 ounces of Co-Cola.  But in other places, refills are not free, and getting people to order two or three drinks is a pure money-maker.

With cocktails, even moreso, as they cost nearly ten times as much as soft drinks.

I was curious as to whether with soft drinks the restaurant is really saving money.  After all, ice costs money and soda-pop drinks (particularly fountain drinks) are cheap.  But the point isn't that ice is cheaper than the fountain soda (it likely is) but that it encourages the consumer to order two or three fountain drinks, or if in a fast-food or convenience store, to opt for the larger size soft drink, as they know that most of the drink will be ice.   Of course, today, many of such outlets are self-serve (and offer free refills) so the point is moot.

You don't need to fill a glass with ice to cool a drink, but rather only half-fill it.   Nevertheless, every bartender I see fills the glass to the brim with ice before adding liquor and mixers.  Maybe again, this makes little difference - if you pour in the liquor first, it will reside at the bottom with the ice and if the bartender is looking at the side of the glass (as opposed to measuring shots) the amount of "fill" will be the same, whether the glass is half-full of ice or full.  With a full glass, well, you are just using less mixer, I guess.

Of course, for me, the point is really moot.  I have tried to avoid high-fructose corn-syrup drinks for the last 20 years or so.  Before then, I was like most Americans - a soft-drink fiend, gulping down big gulps as though a 500-calorie "drink" was something normal to consume.  Over time, though, you accumulate a spare tire that is very hard to get rid of.

Why do Americans love ice so much?  Well, it is a local custom, just as countries all over the world have local customs.  Ice was a big deal in America even before the invention of ice machines and mechanical refrigeration (or evaporative, for that matter!).  During the winter months, ice would be harvested from lakes in the North and Northeast United States and stored in ice houses, sometimes buried undergound and insulated with sawdust.   Ice stored like that could last all summer long and be used to keep food fresh or put into the "ice box" in the kitchen to keep food cold.  Ice was even shipped to Southern climes in ships stuffed with sawdust for insulation.

I am not sure if that was a tradition in Europe.  I am guessing that England didn't have a lot of lakes that froze over.  From what I have read, America and Norway were centers of the "ice trade" and maybe that is why many Western European countries didn't fancy ice as much - it was an expensive commodity.  I would have thought that Germany and Holland, where rivers froze over, would have their own ice harvesting, and perhaps they did.  But for whatever reason, the idea of icing drinks never really took hold.

My Mother grew up with an icebox, and the day they got their first GE "Monitor Top" mechanical refrigerator was a big deal.  Now they could buy frozen "Birdseye" vegetables like the rich people did!  Before then, the "ice man" came every day, in his wagon, with blocks of ice he would deliver with big steel tongs.  He would carry it right into your kitchen and put it in the ice-box to keep your food cold.  On hot summer days, if you asked nicely, he would chip off a sliver of ice for kids and they would suck on it to keep cool.  That wasn't that long ago.

But as a major producer and exporter of ice, Americans became use to it as a cheap commodity.  And maybe that explains our preference for iced drinks and cold beer.  Or maybe not.  It's just a regional custom and people in other countries, with other customs, are no better or worse.  So I fail to understand when people in Europe mock us for icing our drinks, or Americans mock Europeans for serving "warm beer."

I had a client from Sweden once, and he came to visit.  I asked him if there was anything he wanted to see or do in Washington and he said, "I want some of that lager beer you drink here, served ice cold!  And those huge onion rings!  Battered and deep-fried!" So I took him to The Wharf in Old Town - a tourist trap, arguably, and they brought us huge glass goblets, frosted from the freezer, full of Miller Beer - along with a basket of scalding hot giant union rings, deep-fried in a beer batter with panko crumbs.  He was in heaven and I had a new appreciation for our native cuisine.

He claimed that you can't get these things in Sweden, and I have no reason to doubt him.  But I am sure they have other things there that are just a good and probably better.  Different countries, different customs.

It reminds me of the conversation I had once with someone about an Ethiopian restaurant in Crystal City. "You know, they eat with their hands!" he said, in horror, as he mashed a greasy cheeseburger and fries into his gaping pie-hole.  "Really!" I replied, "how interesting!"

Funny how that works.