Ben

A: That is awesome and I want one (though I honestly have no idea what I'd do with it). B: Flight time is not super terrific. C: Did anyone else notice that it's got a little face?

I guess we're not big fans of the presumption of innocence here. The paper tells one side of the story. I wonder what the other side is? As several people have pointed out, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attack a police officer just because he tells you you are trespassing. That's a pretty serious crime and not something you are likely to get away with. Most people (even criminals) would need a pretty good reason to ignore the consequences and act violently against an officer. Not saying it didn't happen that way. Maybe it did and these folks are just crazy. But I wonder . . . .

Maybe I'm just too stuck on the years when Cadillacs were granny-mobiles with bumpers that regularly fell off and cracking plastic bits on the exterior... But $27k for a five-year-old 100,000-mile Cadillac?!?!?!

Does it HAVE to be true in the sense of pure metaphysical necessity? No. But according to Richard Nisbett, a professor at the University of Michigan (I know, Michigan, boo!) a professional parent speaks about 2,000 words per day to a young child. A child born to a parent on welfare will hear about 600 words per day. By age 3, the child of a professional person will have heard about 30 million words. The welfare child will have heard less than a third that many. By the time the child of professionals is 3, they will have been given about 500,000 encouraging statements and about 80,000 reprimands. By the time the welfare child is 3, they will have been encouraged about 75,000 times and received about 200,000 reprimands. The results of this are obvious. Children born in to poverty tend to have stunted language skills, stunted intellectual growth, and stunted emotional growth. Imagine having feelings but not having the concepts to describe them. Does this mean no poor child can succeed? No. But it is a helluva disadvantage. Then factor in other difficulties like violence, lack of good role-models, and lack of opportunities that plague high poverty areas and you have an almost certain recipe for failure. I had a teenage client one time who literally didn't know a single person in his neighborhood who had a job. You really think a "fire in the belly" and some "good ole gumption" is going to cure growing up in a situation like that? Yes. Progress is supposed to make life easier and better for everyone. That's why it's called progress. If the struggle to survive is getting harder as time goes by something is not right. I don't advocate a cap, more like regulating a different set of incentives. But you're on wrong side of history about right-sizing. The trend has been toward less accountability, not more. Executives are compensated based on short-term goals which incentivizes irresponsible behavior. Boards don't exercise rigorous oversight because they are usually friends with the top execs or because (like Jeb Bush on Lehman Brothers) they sit on so many boards they don't know what's going on. And most shareholders don't vote anymore because they are either institutional holders who just sell stock if they don't like what a company is doing or individuals who don't have the time to learn the intricacies of every business in which they own a few shares and couldn't make an impact even if they did. Sure. Living beyond your means is bad. But income disparity and background, not overspending, are the primary drivers of wealth inequality. This "irresponsible poor people/personal responsibility" narrative just doesn't explain or appreciate the depth of the challenges in our economy and it distracts from the real issues. It's a bit like focusing in a rape trial on whether or not the victim was dressed provocatively.

Roll has knowledgeable people but only sells Giant and prices are not cheap. Performance Bike probably has the best prices around but sales people are sometimes in short supply. Most of them are knowledgeable though once you corner one. If you know your stuff though, get on Craigslist. Wait around long enough and you'll get a steal.

Agreed. Looks to me like maybe he got confused and thought he was supposed to take the turn-off? Otherwise, I can't figure how you lose it like that on the straight...

Thanks. You made some strong points also. Yeah, there is a great untapped middle in America that agrees on much more than the news media would suggest. The trouble is, the folks at the fringes are louder.

OK. D. Wiggs as I understand it, is a trust fund baby. But who is this other guy. Have people actually invested in this shit? How the hell did that pitch meeting go?

Ask, and ye shall receive: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/24/death_of_meritocracy_how_inheritance_is_poisoning_the_american_economy/ http://www.demos.org/blog/1/21/14/reality-wealthy-inherit-ungodly-sums-money http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/ http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/24/self-made-hallucination-americas-rich Let’s be honest, I could go on ad-nauseum and so, probably, could you, citing articles for each side of this debate. But here’s the bottom line as I see it. I know a quite a few wealthy people and they all have at least one thing in common – they were born to money. Not necessarily rich. But at least middle to upper-middle class. I’m not a 1%er, but I’m perfectly willing to tell you that I wouldn’t be doing half as well as I am now if I didn’t have the good fortune to be born to a pair of smart relatively well-off parents who treated me right, read me books, and sent me to good schools. Not all inherited wealth comes in the form of a trust fund. Really? I didn’t realize people in the early 19th and 20th century were quite as tech savvy or productive as today’s workers. But even putting aside the snark for a moment. In 1950 a worker with a high school degree could afford a decent standard of living – not a luxurious one, to be sure – but decent. Give that a try now and see how you fare. CEOs don’t micromanage their employees, they manage a team of executives, communicate with the board, and handle PR. Maybe there are more layers to the pyramid today between CEO and worker, but the CEO job is pretty much the same. If anything, they have more support now. I don’t see any justification for the level of salary inflation they have enjoyed. A. As you correctly pointed out in your prior post, the truly “average” American doesn’t have investments or savings for that matter. They have to spend all their income to live. So let’s drop the faux concern for “average Joe” please. B. Pull your money out and put it where? If tax rate on income were the same regardless of source, you would still invest your money, you just would do it wherever it would be most productive without worrying about different tax rates. (Even if the tax rate went up a bit here I’m not about to move to China and take the risk of their markets). C. Capital gains has not always been what it is now. When the income tax was first created it was taxed as ordinary income. It has hardly gone a decade without change since then. Admittedly, most of the changes have been downward adjustments (which plays into my theory that money often drives politics). But in 1986 it rose from 20% to 28%. I don’t remember a market crash resulting. Yes. I think it is relatively clear that quite a few politicians have largely sold “we the people” downriver in favor of lining their campaign coffers in order to buy continued reelection. Honestly, I’m not sure, it would require more study than I am prepared to devote to an online debate. Yes. If you need a refresher I published a paper in 2005 on currency devaluation and its interaction with American Hegemony for the Roosevelt Institution. You realize the companies are headquartered in America because their employees like to live here right? It doesn’t have much to do with taxes at all really. But seriously, I don’t advocate closing loopholes blindly and I admit that our corporate rate is too high. We ought to tax overseas dollars so it doesn’t matter where companies hide their money but do so at a reasonable rate. Honestly, if we simplified the process, companies would come here just for the transaction costs savings. You know why every company is headquarted in Delaware? It’s not because of incentives. It’s because the Chancery Courts in Delaware are reliable and lucid. In short, they go there for certainty. Businesses and markets crave certainty far more than they crave tax savings. As someone who does a bit of trading, I like dividends just fine (except when the company can do more profitable long-term things with the money and turn it into multiplied gains in stock price). One example, I think, of more profitable long-term behavior is paying your work force well in order to cultivate a healthy business culture. You and I apparently differ on this point, but I think history will vindicate me. In any case, a CEO who makes quarterly numbers (and gives himself a big bonus in the process) by cutting expenses and undercutting his business’ future will not earn a “buy” recommendation from me. Tax incentives are a zero sum game. If New Jersey gives big tax breaks to induce business to move to New Jersey and they do, New York loses jobs and New Jersey gains them. Net regional job gain = 0. Net tax result = negative whatever incentive New Jersey gave. Net result for company = windfall at the expense of the public! (Yes, companies could move overseas. But remember how people actually like living in America because it’s pretty nice here?) Actually, though I wouldn’t describe it in such torrid terms, I think that is pretty much how it works. A policy maker makes a deal (slick politician with waxed palm) and then employs some eggheads to justify the result he wants (maths and stuff). Well of course not! Welfare and handouts are for poor people. When rich people get free money we call them “subsidies” and “incentives.” Well I don’t know how similar our incomes are. They may be. Seems we both have pretty nice cars. So obviously, neither of us starving. I accept responsibility for my economic status. I made a decision to keep score in my life by means other than pure dollars and cents. Doing a bit of good, as I see it, figures pretty highly in my goals, for instance. I am not “hung up on” or jealous of the rich, as you seem to imply. But I don’t worship the rich as politicians (particularly Republicans) seem to do; I don’t think their disproportionate influence in the governance of our country is a good thing; and I remember that reckless greed has never done our country any good. And in case you’re wondering, the top marginal tax rate in 1955 on income over $300,000 was 92%. In the post-war years, we didn’t call it socialism, we called it patriotism.

No offense... But this is deeply misguided. A. Most rich people alive today inherited their wealth or at least a healthy seed from which to grow their wealth. B. Wage growth for middle and lower income jobs has been largely flat for decades. Wage growth for top earning positions has skyrocketed. This is largely due to irresponsible short-term greed on the part of executives, apathy by shareholders, and complicity by boards of directors and lawmakers. C. Our tax system rewards market investment - not working for a living. So people who have money can make more of it while contributing essentially nothing of value to our economy. (Before someone argues with this let me just head you off. Venture funding does contribute to the economy. What I'm talking about here is rich guy A who buys 100,000 shares of Microsoft from rich guy B, lets them gain $8 per share, and then sells the to rich guy C a year later and pays only capital gains tax on his $800,000 of income). And before we all start whining about how taxes are too high, a little history lesson might be in order. Can anyone tell me what the top marginal tax rate is now and what it was in 1955? (I'll give you a hint. If Obama is a socialist, then I don't know what you'd call Eisenhower). D. Our government is hell bent on increasing these inequities because the same people who benefit from lackadaisical regulation, low wages for workers, and giant tax loopholes are the same people who have money for campaign contributions. E. I just know someone is going to bust out the "job creators" argument so let me just stuff that one right here. Rich individuals don't create jobs. Companies do. There is NO benefit to the larger economy to giving a rich individual more money. Also, companies create jobs based on need, not excess of capital. During the last recession many companies had huge stockpiles of cash but they didn't hire and they didn't increase wages. They either sat on it or gave it to shareholders (the largest of these are usually their own executives and board members) in the form of dividends. Companies hire people when demand for whatever they do causes them to need to do so. Demand spikes when there are consumers with cash in the market. The one thing you said that was actually correct was that poor people and middle class people spend money. Why? Because they don't already have everything they need or want. So, if you want to really create jobs, you don't give money to a bunch of rich individuals in the form of tax breaks so they can squirrel it away and become richer, you put it in the hands of people who will use it. Henry Ford wasn't a bleeding heart but he paid his employees a good wage. Why? So they could afford to buy his cars. F. This narrative, about how poor people and middle class people could become wealthy if they weren't so entitled, is utter garbage. I'm not saying people don't sometimes do self-defeating things. Hell, this is a car forum. Everyone on here loves expensive four-wheeled-depreciation machines. But the story that massive entitlement and bad morals gives rise to 99% of our country being SOOOO much poorer than 1% of our country is a fairytale that the richest of us tell ourselves to mask the truth - the wealth gap is caused by unrestrained rapacious greed.

I love that there are no pictures of the interior or the engine but four pictures of the legend, "Heavy Chevy," in what is apparently every place it appears on the car. Also, at risk of sounding like a "crybaby," why the hell would you want to advertise that your car is heavy. Weight is bad in pretty much every driving scenario. Unless they mean heavy like, "Woah man. This is heavy." Or, "Heavy metal, bro." In which case, I think I've decided it is even worse advertising.

Fixed.

[quote=Doc;1831076 Stay away from the wines [/i] Yeah. But what's a good meal w/o wine?

Refectory is awesome. Agreed. Probably easiest way to empty your wallet though....

For meat, Hyde Park on the cap. For a more hip experience try Lindy's. For a unique upscale diner-style faire try Cap City.

I would cheerfully have killed for this as a child.

Well yes, if they get it right. My point was mistakes are sometimes made. I didn't see a portable breath test or roadside sobriety test get administered did you? It looked to me like everyone just assumed she was drunk. Bottom line: I agree that the most obvious explanation is probably correct here. But there are other explanations that are possible. Could even be a combination situation - voluntary plus involuntary intoxication. That is, she wouldn't be the first woman to have something slipped in her drink. Anyway, yeah, she was probably just shitfaced. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt before condemnation, even on teh internets.

She did look like she was done up for a night out on the town. Hence, my supposition would be drunk. But I have seen some cases where medical issues (diabetic imbalances, neurological disorders) have caused people to pass out and act drunkenly. So I'd hesitate to conclusively judge this woman in the court of internet until I had a few more facts.

Grandview and U.A. have pretty much the highest suburban real-estate prices around and Northwest runs through the heart of both. You probably can't find a safer or more placid place in Columbus.

Wrongful imprisonment, kidnapping, assault... All things you could plausibly be accused of if you took such a course of action and were wrong. Imagine if you thought the guy was drunk and he just had a speech impediment. Sounds strange, but stuff like that has happened before. In addition, physically restraining drunk people is kinda dangerous if you're not trained for it and don't have police tools (i.e., mace, cuffs, TASER). People tend to fight back when grabbed. In short, even with good intentions, laying hands on someone else is risky business. That said, I think instead of filming the shit in voyeuristic fashion the camera wielding twat probably could have done the decent thing and tried to buy the guy a cup of coffee and talk him into calling a cab or Uber. One final thought... Clearly the guy was drunk. But damnit all, don't do roadside sobriety tests. If an officer asks you to do them, they already think you're drunk and they're just asking you to provide ammunition to confirm their suspicions and justify the arrest they're already hoping to make. Don't give it to them. There's no penalty for refusing a roadside test. (Although there is a penalty for refusing a breath/urine/blood test at the station. Don't get the two confused). *Not legal advice. Just my .02.

I don't know about getting out of a ticket if you've earned it for other reasons. But we've had historical/antique plates on our 1979 Beetle (currently in Florida) for quite a while and we've never had a problem. Granted though, the Beetle puts a smile on most faces. Also, I don't know what experiences others have had. But most of the patrol officers I've met in Columbus seem like good guys. My less optimal traffic-related experiences have all been outside of the downtown in the peripheral communities (U.A., Worthington, etc.).

Good looking car! If I wanted a convertible (or another vehicle for that matter) I'd be sorely tempted.

OK. I'm not saying this with the intention of being a dick although I'm cognizant that I may seem like a dick for saying it. But here goes: Why would you not just get a hood made out of carbon fiber? Why you would want something to look like carbon fiber but not actually be carbon fiber?

Quote: Disclaimer: Due to the popularity of our brand and our builds it has come to our attention that individuals and/or companies are falsely taking credit for work that has been performed, and intellectual property that has been created, solely by our present CTD team members. It is unlawful for any person/entity/company that is not presently employed by Covert Tuning Dynamics to claim any credit (partial or otherwise) for any project/design/build of CTD's. Swift and emphatic legal action will be taken against all violators. Thank you. This is hysterical. Apparently they don't understand that in order to have intellectual property rights in an invention (like a car tuning device or part) they would first have to invent something (you know, new, novel, non-obvious) and would then have to patent it. (Or I guess they could keep it a trade secret but then posting about it on the internet probably isn't the best move). I suppose they could be trying to implicate some form of trademark dilution. But they've got it completely ass backwards. Anyway, when they try some "swift and emphatic legal action" I hope they're ready for their suit to be dismissed equally swiftly.

As much as I'd love to believe talking would work here it may not because I can only think of three likely scenarios that would explain your neighbor's behavior and in two of them talking just makes things worse: 1) They are doing on purpose because fuck you. Talking to them here will just start shit which is exactly what these folks want. 2) They are doing it because they are sloppy asshats. If you talk to them in this scenario, then you are an overly touchy whiner whose yard must be trashed more. 3) They are parking like that because your yard is already a muddy mess and they figure you don't care. In this case talking might work but a couple of stakes and some grass seed will work better. Frankly, I'd just wait until they really park in a way that is deplorable and then call the cops. A ticket will let them know their behavior is unacceptable and they don't have to know it was you. The thing you really want to avoid, however, is starting a feud. I worked in a low level court one semester in college and we would hear restraining orders on Friday. You would not believe the kind of diabolical shit neighbors do to each other when feuds escalate over time.