Is fuel price the major cost of owning a car?

I am not an economist--in fact I am the polar opposite of an economist.

I struggled to get a C-minus in Macroeconomics at my nebulous Big Ten school.

However, I did pass Seventh Grade math.

Let's take a look at car ownership--

The average American has a 26-mile commute. I will also give you 45-miles a week to do whatever--like take Junior to football practice or whatever you do.

That's 175-miles a week.

(Note: This is America--we use the English system of measurements around here, soldier! Just like Jesus of Nazareth, Elvis of Tupelo, and Our Mama of Grand Rapids taught us to! If you want to know how far it is in wussy, Socialist Canadian "kilometers," go HERE.)

Times 52; that's 9,100 miles per year that a typical American drives.

###

Assume you get 17 miles per gallon--for the purposes of argument.

(They always say you get more than you really do on the sticker. I think they test these cars driving them in the Nevada desert in Winter with a wind at their back on a flat surface with no stoplights or something. And a professional driver...not the jackrabbit maniacs that most Americans are.)

You are using 535.29 gallons of gas.

Gas is $3.79 per gallon at the national average.

Ergo, gas cost is $2,028.75 per annum for the average American--assuming it does not go up even MORE.

###

If you just buy a new car from a dealer--and I know you are Mr. Negotiation Hotshot--but I would say it is a safe bet to say that you will lose 65% of the price you paid in depreciation over the first five years.

It is VERY safe to say you lose 13% in the first year.

(In fact, I think you lose about $3,000 driving off the dealer's lot, but I want to give my argument's contrary opinion the benefit of the doubt.)

Let's say you bought a 2008 Mitsubishi Eclipse.

Since we have established that you are such a bad-assed negotiator and the dealer "hates to see you coming," let's assume you paid a flat $20,000. That would be a fairly optioned-out Eclipse if you were a REALLY good negotiator--like you had a suitcase full of cash and somebody needed to win a sales contest.

13% times $20,000= $2,600. That is your depreciation for the first year; conservative estimate.

###

Ergo, driving your car off of the lot and parking it in the acid rain in your driveway and just leaving it there will cost you $571.25 more in depreciation, as opposed to the cost of gasoline for actually driving it and burning gas.

(I am being very conservative here. The reason just leaving it in your driveway and not racking up miles will still cost you is that they are coming out with "new, improved!" models with more gadgets and shit on them in more modern body styles while your car is just sitting there.)

We should be more mad at fat car dealers in lime green blazers surrounded by balloons and clowns and screaming at us on TV than we are at oil company execs, I guess.

I realize that $3.79 per gallon is a national crisis to the families on the lower spectrum of the socio-economic strata who are just trying to hold on with a wheezing 1991 Crown Victoria held together with duct tape.

Those people aren't concerned as much with depreciation, and I guess I could go into maintenance and repairs--but that is a wild card; sometimes you get lucky and don't have to many.

The depreciation factor is relatively consistent--like I said, unless you get lucky with a Corvette or whatever.

Just through anecdotal observation--driving around major Southern cities like Memphis, Atlanta, Jacksonville, and New Orleans--I see a lot of bright, shiny new cars: And they seem to outnumber the old clunkers. I think this is partially nouveau riche consumerism--a "keeping up with the Joneses," if you will.

So by and large, I think my cost comparisons have merit.

My theory is that the world would be a better place if most people drove earlier models and just tried to find a good mechanic to keep the car running (and drove more defensively and tried not to wreck)--the bankruptcy courts would be less full, that's for sure.

But they don't.

So depreciation outweighs gas cost for most Americans.

Has anyone seen those new Hanes "Wedgie-Free" commercials on TV?

Oh, that's right: You guys are TOO COOL to watch TV--you are too busy getting tag-team hummers from twin Wilhelmena models from Kazakhstan and stuff...

Well, anyway, you can see the commercials and even some behind-the-scenes stuff HERE.

I was thinking the first time I saw this commercial: Why don't they make these for guys?

I hate to admit it, but--well, we're buds here, okay? And it's not like the whole world can read this--but I was thinking if I wasn't so huge, I might buy the Hanes Wedgie-Free for Women and see if they work.

I get more wedgies as I get older--what's up with that?

Does your ass crack get more magnetic, or something, as you age?

Could some neurologist weigh in on this issue?

FOOTNOTE: As I recall back in the Sixties, there was a "Gentlemen Prefer Hanes" campaign and jingle. The commercial showed men eye-balling women because they wore Hanes pantyhose.

Wouldn't it be cool to come out with GUY'S "Wedgie free" underwear, and then have "Gentlemen Prefer Hanes"-commercials of guys, like, standing before the Supreme Court and doing the Elvis-cum-funky-chicken-release-the-Wedgie, shake-a-leg dance?

Or, like, have a waiter in a five-star restaurant with the pepper grinder and he's got a wedgie.

Then he discovers Wedgie-Free.

Like the guy he is waiting on gets some Wedgie Free Hanes from the woman he is with, in exchange for a flower that he gives her. Something romantic and funny at the same time--like that.

Or, like, have a scene where the guy is doing that, "Propose at halftime at a basketball game," and he gets a Wedgie. And the ref brings him some Wedgie-Free Hanes.

Stuff like that...

Anyway, this Wedgie-Free for Men is, I believe, one of the best idears I have thunked up in a while.

I'm not sure at this point what the "technology" of Wedgie-Free is...is it Dupont Teflon or something? Do really gnarly ass hairs slide off of it?

Whatever--there is a lot of potential for some creative marketing here.

(The old "Gentlemen prefer Hanes"-jingle is HERE.)

Wouldn't that be cool?

The International Male "Pocket Thong" Swim Bikini.

This is not suggested, because if you are a frequent visitor of this blog, I would say the statistical probability is that you do not look like Sebastian, here.

In fact, you probably look more like Larry the Cable Guy, and you are on break at Instant Oil Change. And the last thing you, "had waxed" was a 1998 Chevy Camaro.

International Male--and I, as a subscriber, was first to be made aware of this--has a new "Zoom in"-feature on the clothing items.

This is also "Not suggested." (Well, maybe to see the detailed stitching on the Poet's Shirt, but not for the swimwear.)

Especially if you are at work like I am...

Because you might feel the hot, slightly garlic-laced breath of your boss on your shoulder at any time, like I am right now...

That guy is like a ninja in a pinstripe suit...

...a really smart ninja, with lots of great marketing ideas, did I ever tell you that?

Yea, I was just gonna get around to that paperwork...

Somebody sent me this email and I didn't know what it was till I opened it...that's happened to you, I'll bet!! Heh, heh...

###

More International Male swimwear is HERE: http://www.internationalmale.com/dept.asp?dept%5Fid=10400

Warning: Some of these are "hard to un-see," as you kids say nowadays.

If you clicked on the link, you know that anything called, "The Greek Bikini" is probably--also--a bad idea.

I could never come to terms with wearing something called a "Greek Bikini." Maybe it was how I was reared...

(I should really hit "Publish Post" while I am on that high note.)

More bad ideas:

1) Any male swimwear that comes in a tube.

2) Anything that has the word, "Thong" in the title. E.g., "The Fire Island Thong."

3) Anything that the salesperson tells you is, "...really popular in France..."

4) Anything that summons the word, "codpiece" into your cerebellum. The last guy to successfully wear a codpiece and be taken seriously went through six wives. And there was a reason. Know a guy who stayed married to the same woman for thirty years? Did he wear anything that looked like a codpiece?

Okay, well, Dubyah--but any guy besides that?)

5) Anything by Aussiebum. Unless you are really Australian and you really work, say, as a gigolo or other type of bum.

If you MUST wear Aussiebum and you are not Australian, this is ONE TIME I would suggest a fake Australian accent with some Down Under slang salt-and-peppered in there...or, hell, go to the beach with a kangaroo on a leash.

Still--don't be surprised if the only thing you will be "Down Under" is some bikers kicking your ass...

6) Don't watch this at work, either, if you are up for a performance review pretty soon. It's footage from the last on-site shooting of the Undergear.com catalogue.

Sounds like something "Dennis Finch" would get sent on as a joke episode.

The video is NOT NSFW. I know that's a double-negative. Is there a NRFW? Not RECOMMENDED for work? Because I don't think your boss catching you watching it would be GOOD--but it probably would not be FATAL. Unless your boss is the Randy Quaid character in Brokeback Mountain...or some other Dickweed of the Universe...

I think "Undergear.com" is somehow affiliated with International Male. Like, if you work for Undergear.com, you can probably go to the International Male Xmas party and not get kicked out. But you might have to pay, like, a discounted rate for that "Ocean cruise with the International Male models."

I dunno, for some reason--I forgot--I subscribe to both so I will try to find out. Stay tuned!

I think I subscribed to both magazines the last year I could have pulled off the "Pocket Thong," which was circa 2002. That was forty pounds ago. Law school will do that.

And that also to wear the Tactic Athletic Swim Brief in Cancun where I don't care what anyone thinks. If they were making fun of me, it was all in Spanish.

Speaking of the presidential race:

If you are in America, and someone starts a conversation about the presidential race and you don't want to talk about it, I have come up with a good strategy:

Ask the person: "If you had a residence right here where we are standing, who would your Congressman be?"

It's WAY more than a coin-flip chance they won't be able to answer.

This is strange when you think about it, because:

1) All spending starts in Congress; and,
2) You have greater access to your Congressperson than you might think. For instance, unless you have a real "Rock Star"-Congressperson like--I dunno, Nancy Pelosi--they often answer their OWN PHONE when you call their office. (In other words, if the $H!T really hits the fan, your Congressperson is more likely to be there for you than someone in the unaccessable Executive Branch, in my opinion.)

Congress just lacks the "beauty contest"-cachet of the presidential race.

Anyway, I use this trick so much, THIS WEB PAGE comes in handy: You type in your address and it tells you who your Congressman is.

Kudos to Obama on flag pin:

I ragged on him for not wearin' it.

Now he's wearin' it.

So major props.

Relevance?

Goes to flexibility, humility, responsiveness to voter concerns, etc.

To wit: A substantial number of Americans told him they had a problem with an aspect of his behavior, so he swallowed his pride and accomodated the concern.

Plus, it shows he really wants the job...

I would really want that job: The fifty-foot commute, the Secret Service agents who would pick up your dry cleaning, the chauffeured helicopter in the front yard, etc.

Hell, I would wear a gay rainbow lapel pin if it meant I could get that job. Or a set of Telebubby pajama bottoms to bed every night.

(The only thing you have to "give up" for that job is getting laid, and I ain't getting laid anyway...Well, and you can't always say the first stupid joke that comes into your mind. But you can't do that in white collar middle management anyway.)

Anyway, props on the flag pin Obama.

Word.

(Contrary OPINION HERE.)

Did I tell you I bought some American flag CUFFLINKS? Those are pretty cool. Plus I figure it's twice as patriotic because there are two of them.

Side theorem--It is unreasonable to ask a normal Congressman or whoever to wear a flag pin EVERY DAY--because there are some colors that just don't go with blue and red that are acceptable politician wear. Would a flag pin go with a pink shirt, for instance? Of course, you can only be PINK SHIRT GUY once a week--that's a Man Law--but wouldn't pink shirt, pink tie, and red, white and blue pin on a light gray suit be, "mismatched reds?"

Does a flag pin therefore put Our Lady of Pink Pantsuit in a disadvantaged position?

I am just askin'...

I concede, for the record, that blue suit, white shirt, red tie, and flag lapel pin is 'fly as hell.

You can see on the link, for the record, that Hillary also has a lot of khaki and greenish pant suits and an American flag pin would seem to go with that.

Story HERE.

(I would love to read the actual OPINION and especially DISSENT--which I think the Supreme Court will probably publish in a couple days...)

It's hard to imagine I actually started this out as a "law blog"--but the cultural and random thoughts about lifestyle stuff got a lot more feedback. To wit, jokes about midget porn generate ten times the Comments that well-thought-out posts about Scalia's opinion on something does.

Maybe if Scalia ever writes about midget porn...no, I don't think that "best of both worlds" will happen...

Anyway, a couple important points on this issue:

1) Under the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, I would assume that two California citizens who are married in California and move to a "gay hostile" state like for instance Georgia--would have to still be married whether the latter state likes it or not. In other words, Adam and Steve or whoever are GOING TO inevitably move to a "gay hostile" state, they are GOING TO assert their rights, and this will eventually be a US Supreme Court case.

Under the 14th Amendment, the gays who are "Asserting their fundamental right to interstate migration" have a profound case. (Under the 14th Amendment, it's a minor point but at least one of the gays has to be a citizen. Privileges and Immunities are only for citizens. "Equal protection" is for everyone [Plyler v. Doe.])

2) Forget the law nerd stuff for a moment: Is there a risk of, if you will, the "Cosbyfication" of gays?

I would call, "Cosbyfication": "Well, welcome to the American middle class. Now meet your ball-buster, know-it-all, smart-assed wife; who will make your life miserable in a power struggle that will last the rest of your existence. Want to put your feet up on the coffee table and watch sports? You better ask permission!"

In other words, as Kinky Friedman says, "Gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us." Or something pretty close to that effect.

3) The third point I must bring up--not speaking for myself; I have absolutely nothing against gays, but--some people are VIOLENTLY OPPOSED to gays. Most of them, thankfully, are not in California. But when two citizens (did I mention you must be a citizen to invoke "Privileges and Immunities?") excercise their right to interstate migration, which is inevitable, the proverbial ordure is going to hit the fan.

Included in the "violently opposed" coalition: The Christian Right, Closet Queens, Homophobes, Women Who Feel That Gays Usurp their Power, etc.

We are in denial if we deny that these people are out there, and sometimes there is no court baliff to protect the gays from their wrath.

4) Minor point: This forces the presidential candidates into talking about "lifestyle bullshit," and I hate to belabor the point, but I want more "nuts & bolts" out of them personally--especially Obama.

This might force McCain into a token, "I am against gay marriage--but deep in my heart, wink wink, you know I really don't give a crap"-speach, which does not move the political dialoge one inch towards the CORE ISSUES, e.g., gas prices, housing crisis, unemployment, etc.

###

Anyway, on a purely academic level, I can't wait to read the actual opinion: Those California judges--if nothing else--certainly can write...

Study shows today's American immigrants assimilating faster than immigrants of the early- to mid-Twentieth Century.

Study HERE.

This would be counterintuitive to the feedback you would get if you asked the proverbial "Man on the Street" this question.

The modern presumption would be something like, "The modern immigrant stays 'ghettoized,' due to the proliferation of immigrant neighborhoods and communities, and the ease with which the immigrant can 'get by' in his own language."

Probably helping the situation is things like language classes and other information on the Internet, and charitably or publicly subsidized language and other assimilation programs.

(In other words, the much-aligned social programs, perhaps, DO in fact "work.")

###

Canadians are the best assimilators into US culture. The study did not measure tendencies to say, "uh-BOAT" instead of "about," and inclination to end a sentence with, "Eh?"

Or the frequency the immigrant wears flannel shirts and hats with fold-up ear muffs to their job.

But anyway: Way to go, Canadians!

###

Cubans are also good assimilators.

In Jose' Canseco's case, "Sharing with others," "Telling the truth at Congressional Hearings," and "Getting bestseller books published," would probably be factors.

###

Anyway, seriously, this is refreshing news, and the study is HERE.

Reference.

What is up with that? In Venezuela, gas is cheaper than gourmet bottled water.

I am not saying we should copy ALL of Venezuela's policies--but if we could somehow surgically remove THIS policy and implement it in part--or just move a little closer to it...

I actually stumbled upon this researching gas in Brazil.

Gas is about $3.12 in Brazil.

There are problems with smuggling between the two countries, obviously.

Brazil's solution is politically attractive, since they have been quite adept and using less of other types of fuel (other than fossil fuel) to get ethanol from the parts of the sugar cane that are not sucrose (about 65% of the plant.) In some cases, it's my understanding that they burn parts of the sugar cane plant to make part of the electricity to distill the ethanol.

I am not saying the US should nationalize the oil industry, I am just saying that there are other countries who seem to be dealing with the crisis way more adeptly.

A bar in Cobb County close to where I am sitting is distributing these T-shirts.

This is a national news story, because I saw it last night on that Chicago Super Station.

Well, I paid circa $15,000 to learn the answer to the second question I am posing.

It's almost certainly, "fair political discourse" that is "constitutionally protected" from--I dunno what Tort--"Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress"? Definitely not "Defamation," because no reasonable person who would be a recipient honestly thinks that Obama is a monkey.

Emotional distress of the Senator, that is...

The case I would cite is Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. In that notorious case, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was shown "drunk" outside of an outhouse in some gawd-forsaken Appalacian setting, "recounting the time he had sex with his mother." [sic] This was in a Hustler Magazine cartoon--a place where a significant percentage of us males got our political news in the Eighties.

Anyway, back to the T-shirt, is it (the T-shirt), "racist"?

I am not sure...I know one thing, this bar owner has received priceless international advertising for questionably witty and clever signs and $17.95 T-shirts that he probably had made on Cafe Press. To determine if it is racist, we probably need to go into the mind of the bar owner who made the shirts. What, exactly, is he trying to say, and what motivated the shirt?

General subjective dislike of Obama, or racism?

Notwithstanding Senator Obama's specific positions on narrow issues of how he would run the executive branch--and I hope he gets around to telling us what those are, someday--that is one goofy lookin' dude. The ladies on "The View" might think he's sexy, but if I was their vibrator, I would make sure their credit cards cleared before I started buzzing. So that is not a fair test. Women think anyone who gets his mug on TV is sexy. Even if THEY are on TV.

Anyway...

But being "goofy looking" should not be a disqualifier for the presidency: It's a shame, for instance that Phil Gramm--who looks rather, in my opinion, like the Yertle the Turtle cartoon I used to enjoy as a kid--was never seriously considered for the presidency, because he has tangibly shown that he has a lot of good ideas.

(I realize that a ship on the Gramm presidency has long ago left the dock...)

Betraying my age here, but my grandmother used to say that she would never vote for Johnson because he looked like a donkey.

More to the point on donkeys--a cartoon cited in Hustler Magazine by the justice who wrote the opinion cited an ancient cartoon that depicted George Washington's head on a donkey.

###

Here's my question: Does the T-shirt, "further the political dialogue"?

Probably not.

When Obama sees it, it will just make him MORE DEFENSIVE, and it will make it LESS LIKELY that he gets around to, say, telling us EXACTLY where that "$150-billion for alternative energy" is going to go. (ConAgra? Monsanto? Farmer John in Nebraska? Where, exactly?)

As you can see, this bar owner is at least GENDER EQUAL in his insults:

I guess he's a Republican.

He seems to be against illegal--or at least, undocumented--aliens.

Believe it or not, there WOULD BE more "Border Patrol" [sic] agents in Atlanta than you might think, because of the airport.

Here's another controversial point--"Fresh Veggies" are only served from 11-2?

What if a bar patron wants fresh veggies at 2:05?

And how does Mulligan's feel about people who take one stroke off their golf score on a difficult hole?

Reference.

"I warned him that Shout ® would remove the farticles in his underwear, and that women don't like to see that $H!t in the hamper.

Now he's consulting a divorce attorney..."