Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I just finished a car-shopping experience for the first time in many years (more on this later), and I was pleasantly surprised about what’s available. I even had to eat a few of my own words about the newer cars; things are not the way I had imagined them to be.
The supply differs strikingly from the demand. If you want a car that gets 35 miles a gallon, you can have it right now. And you don’t have to sacrifice anything at all.
But that isn’t what people are buying. When I look at a highway, there’s really no way to misinterpret what’s going on there. Navs. Explorers. Hummers. Trucks that you can’t possibly call “pickups,” because a pickup is something that holds half a cord of wood and can be parked fairly easily. That simply isn’t what a “truck” is today. In this era of Inconvenient Truth when we’re all oh so worried about polar bears losing their ice, a truck is a gargantuan beast that requires a stepladder even if you’re Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. And nobody bats an eyelash at you for driving to work in one, five days a week, with no cargo in tow whatsoever save for a possible “chocolate bar” cell phone.
But the gas prices, they are to ruin us are they not?
A Wall Street Journal reader writes in with a dose of badly needed perspective…
In 1960 cars got an average of just over 14 miles per gallon and gas cost around 31 cents per gallon, making for a cost per mile driven of about 2.2 cents. Today with gas around $3 and cars getting an average of 22 miles per gallon, it costs nearly 14 cents per mile to drive. But from 1960 to 2006 consumer prices went up around seven times, which means that 2.2 cents in 1960 now equates to more than 15 cents.
Virtually nobody talked about “high” gas prices in 1960. Today, alas, that is all we hear from all too many people, even though driving is actually cheaper.
I do have to take issue with part of this — the logic depends on the improvement in gas mileage over those 48 years, to 22 miles a gallon. Now, I think 22 is a reasonable estimate of the average rating of what I saw in the lot over the weekend, available for my purchase — it is not a reasonable estimate of the average of what I see prowling the highways. Don’t believe me? Try it yourself. Go to a shopping mall. Okay maybe that’s not fair…those people expect to carry something home.
So just go to work. Go to a place that employs a couple hundred people, and go to the employee parking lot — see what’s there. Now, you take that 1960 average of fourteen miles a gallon. Would that be out of place among the gleaming metal beasts you see parked side by side? It looks to me just about dead-on, as a ballpark average. Sure, some of the “mid-sized” vehicles get 19 or 20. There are far more that get 11. Some get 8.
But the letter still makes an important point, one not commanding all the attention it should while we bitch about gas prices. The size of our cars is decisional.
We make conversation with each other by pissing and moaning about gas prices.
Our cars are freakin’ huge.
They aren’t all necessarily built that way. We buy ’em that way. For the purpose of carrying…no freight. None at all most of the time — very little, some of the time.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.