Trivial Pursuits

Best Site Ever

For you fellow Office Space fans, is here.  A collection of all of Lumbergh's sounds.  Fabulous.

See

More proof that Scarlett Johansson rules.

As if any more was needed.

Cars, Cars, Cars

So, ok, one of my gym memberships is with a gym located in one of the ritzier neighborhoods in Houston.  I've gotten used to the collections of Porsche 911 Carreras (and not infrequently, 911 Turbos), the Cayennes, Lexi, Mercedes, and other garden-variety luxury cars.

But this morning was an all-time record.  I haven't seen a collection of cars like this since . . . ever?

TP Loves Satellite Radio

TP loves satellite radio.  I may -- sacrilege, I know -- love it even more than my Mini iPod.

Effective April 1, XM upped their price to $12.95/mth, which is absolutely bupkis for what you get.  Commercial free, uninterrupted music for the price of one CD? You've gotta be out of your mind if you think that's not a good deal (of course, it isn't for everyone, but I'm shocked when I hear people saying, they don't think it's good value).

However, as part of their price upgrade, they extended their internet broadcast, previously a premium service for $3.99/mth, for free to all XM subscribers.

This morning, here's what I've listened to: Nice N Smooth, Mobb Deep, Grandmaster Flash, Sir Mix-A-Lot, Coleman Hawkins, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Dvorak, J.S. Bach, the Misfits, the Ramons, Alan Jackson, Clint Black, Kenny Chesney, Cooder McGraw, Randy Travis, Miriam Makeba, Ali Farka Toure.

So good.

I also recently purchased the XM Delphi Satellite Radio and the Boombox, which means I now get 24-hr, commercial free satellite radio in my home.  I flip it on on Saturday morning, and turn it off when I go to work on Monday.  Sublime!

Ferris Bueller said it best: if you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.  They are so choice.

I've read some articles detailing the declining revenues of commercial radio, and the incipient threat posed by satellite radio, which is really just getting started, and the arrogance and delusion of the radio execs is staggering to me.  They are so obsessed with pricing, they pay no attention to valuation of the product.

A bag of dirt may be free, but that has nothing to do with whether I'd pay $10 for a nice sandwich to eat for lunch instead of chowing on said dirt.  Of course price is relevant, but valuation has got to be part of the equation.

"For most of their listeners, traditional radio companies say, the tradeoff of a few ads for free content will be worth it. 'You can buy satellite,' says David Field, chief executive of Bala Cynwyd, Pa.-based Entercom Communications Corp., 'or you can pay nothing for us.'

This guy just doesn't get it.  If you paid me $5/mth, I still wouldn't listen to the utter Crapfest of music that passes for commercial radio these days.  I love listening to car dealerships screaming at me for 15 minutes every hour, too.

Satellite radio.  As that noted prophet Judge Reinhold said in FTARH, "Learn it. Know it.  Live it."

Good Point

The Sports Guy doth query:

Shouldn't Matt McConaughey be legally required to say "All right, all right, all right" every time he starts speaking in public?

Yes.  Most assuredly, yes.

Reason No. 423 Why TP Loves Satellite Radio

The Super Bowl Shuffle.

Let's Be Clear

I DO NOT like Shaquille O'Neal, ok? In fact, I loathe him, and have loathed him since he started playing in the NBA. I think he's a total jack@ss.

I'm not happy that I have to root for him, now that he's being traded to the Heat. And I love Lamar Odom, and was impressed with the maturity and good judgment he displayed this past year in Miami, not to mention his stellar play. It's sad to see him go elsewhere.

Ditto for Caron Butler, who played through an extremely tough first half of the season to finish very well.

All in all, I'm not pleased with this trade.

But of course, that doesn't mean it was a bad trade. O'Neal and Dwyane Wade? That's a good nucleus. Shaq is still the most dominating player in the league, and if he gets in shape, he could be even better. Maybe the Heat has a real, legitimate shot now.

But I'm still not happy I have to root for him.

Escapism

In case you can't tell from my reading list, I absolutely adore medieval history. The last six books I've read have all been about medieval history. I consider myself an amateur medievalist, with the emphasis on the adjective. By my count, I've probably read over sixty books on the Middle Ages. Of course, seeing as how I don't read Latin, Occitan or langue d'oc, Old French, Norman French, Middle English, or Middle German, I've read exactly zero primary sources, which is why I'm nothing if not an amateur.
But that doesn't stop my fascination--almost my obsession--with the medieval world.

"My" time period, as I like to call it, is the High Middle Ages, in particular the Twelfth Century Renaissance, and the subsequent reign of the Plantagenet kings through Edward I (the Longshanks, yes, the same one from Braveheart, of whom there is a wealth of contemporary documentation and sources). I'm actually fascinated by the Early Middle Ages, beginning with the inception of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD, which, incidentally, saw the beginning of the Viking invasions. I find Scandinavian history and lore endlessly fascinating, and have always been interested in these Viking times.

Following the grant of Normandy to Rollo (né Hrolf) in 911 by Charles the Simple(Carolingian King of the Franks), my interest in the dukes of Normandy begins, obviously including high interest in William the Conqueror, who overcame extraordinary odds both in Normandy and across the Channel to establish Norman sovereignty over England (contrary to popular belief, William actually did have a claim to the English throne, albeit a controversial one). William's son, Henry I of England, named his daughter Matilda (or Maud, which is the same name), former wife of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry V, as his sole heir. The notion of a Queen governing England was too difficult to bear, so her cousin Stephen of Blois seized the kingship under her nose, which prompted nineteen years of horror, war, and anarchy, referred to by chroniclers as the time "when Christ and the Saints Slept."

In any case, Matilda retired to her unquestioned inheritance as Duchess of Normandy, and married, not happily, the powerful Count of Anjou, Geoffrey the Fair. She fathered three sons, one of whom, Henry of Anjou, is at the center of the most fascinating time period in all of Western medieval history, IMO, the Twelfth Century Renaissance. Henry married Eleanor of Aquitaine, one of the most extraordinary women in all of history, IMO, after she had had her marriage to Louis, King of France, and managed to wrest inheritance of England from Stephen with little bloodshed.

Enough of the history lesson (see, I get so absorbed in this stuff). In spite of my strictly amateur status, if you pick your readings carefully (I prefer serious history to popular stuff), you can actually learn a great deal. Now, if I close my eyes, I can take myself back 850 years ago to England or what we now call France, and I can (in my mind's eye only, of course) see a typical day for different classes and persons in 12th-century society. What they wore, when they rose, when they prayed, how they worked, what they ate, what languages they spoke, how they fought, how they played, how they laughed, how they sang and danced, how they wept and mourned, how they trained, if they read, what they read, etc., etc. How they died and how they lived.

I can smell the smells, hear the voices and the sounds, see the sights. I love it; there is little else in this world that takes me so far away as a good book about the Middle Ages. Escapism is nice.

Funny thing is, I've had thoughts, from time to time, about eventually pursuing an advanced degree in medieval studies. But I realized something, after talking to Ms. TP about it: if I intellectualize this passion, if I turn into something academic, then it would, in all likelihood, cease to operate as the escape that I so love. So, in a way, this is something I should never formally study, but be content to remain an amateur in for the rest of my days.

In honor of the world I often see as I drift off to slip, the tagline for TP reads, honi soit qui mal y pense. This is the motto of the Order of the Garter, the chivalric order established in 1348 by Edward III of England (1348 was an auspicious year for another reason entirely--the Black Death first struck Europe that year).

It means, "Evil to he who thinks evil of it."

Manual Transmissions

Dear Milbarge,

I am one of those 'guys' who refuses to buy a car with an automatic transmission. There are multiple reasons. Cars with MTs are generally cheaper as you note. When you downshift, you force the engine to decelerate; this saves wear and tear on brakes. My new Acura TL has a short-throw shifter standard on the car, which decreases the ratio between gear shifts significantly. This has multiple effects: one, it makes a bad@ss 'snick' noise every time you shift--highly satisfying. Two, it enables you to shift gears much quicker than in an automatic car, and faster than a MT car with no short-throw. Three, it makes it feel like you are driving a race car (even if you are no speed demon, which I am not, the feeling is awesome).

But the biggest reason is that it actually feels like I am the one doing the driving, instead of passively sitting back and letting the car dictate all the gears, etc. The gears shift when I tell them to.

Example: Ms. TP drives only automatic cars, and could not understand why her heavy car struggled so mightily to go up the lone hill we have in Houston. If you drive a manual, you understand you have to put the car in a lower gear to increase the torque. Now, of course, you can do this in an automatic car, too, but my point is that driving a manual forces you to understand a bit more about the actual process of driving, rather than simply being driven (letting the engine dictate the gears, torque, etc. of the car).

To be clear, I'm not one of those who thinks MT is absolutely necessary, or that you are a girly man if you don't drive MT (although, of course, Milbarge, you are in fact a girly man for wholly independent reasons). There are all sorts of good reasons to drive a car with an AT, as Ms. TP explained to me just last night, and she is right, of course. Different strokes for different folks.

But I find that driving a MT really makes me feel like I am actually doing the driving; it's an active process that way, and I will never, ever drive an AT car as my main automobile.

Therefore, I say to you what Col. Rhombus said to your eponymous heroes 20 years ago:

Col. Rhombus: Listen, it's my job to get you prepared to go out into the field for combat. Now, I must know right away what I have to work with. I have made my decision.

Emmett Fitz-Hume: What's it say?

Austin Millbarge: "*ssy."

A New Car!!

So, the @ssclown who hit me is sponsoring a rental car for me while my truck is being fixed. I drive a 1998 Ford F150, as stripped as any automobile can be: manual (won't drive stick), basic cab, manual locks, manual windows, cassette player only (I'm generally a radio guy). The truck doesn't even have a tachometer, for crissake.

I pick up the rental car, a Dodge Intrepid, and like a bullet it hits me that the car is appreciably nicer to drive than my truck.

Obviously, this won't do at all.

Being highly financially risk-averse, I'm loathe to sink funds into a depreciable asset like a car, but as a friend of mine remarked, 'you can't drive a mutual fund.'

How true.

My truck is all paid off, is highly reliable, and everything like that, but it is so basic and so simple. Maybe I'm becoming more of a puss in my old age? My dream car still is, was, and always will be a loaded Jeep CJ-7, but seeing as how I'm going to be sitting in traffic for ages next year in the commute, I think I need something a little bit more luxurious to drive.

Ms. TP and I ran the numbers, and we're good to go. So, I have narrowed it down to 2-3 cars. Advice welcome and desired, keeping in mind I have not test-driven any of these cars.

The frontrunner right now is the 2004 Acura TL. Acura completely redesigned the TL for 2004, and it is bad@ss. It boasts a 270-HP 3.2L V6, with Honda/Acura's kick@ss VTEC vvt, stiffer suspension, and an impressive 238 lbs-feet of torque. It's an @sskicker on the roads. The exterior underwent a complete transformation, and only by looking directly at the back can you see the Honda Accord basis for the design. The car sits on its haunces a little bit more, with a raised back, a tapering front, and headlamps aggressivly shuttered, almost like a predator's eyes.

Cool.

The interior, however, is where the Acura makes its hay. Acura's sales strategy is clever, IMO. Everyone who knows beans about new cars knows that options are where car dealers really make money; the price can go up all too quickly, especially if you want a near-luxury feel to the car. Acura knows this, and offers consumers an alternative by loading up their cars with awesome standard features. As one review I read put it, the Acura TL only comes one way: LOADED.

Standard features on the car: moonroof, plush grain leather seats with 10-point power memory, dual zone climate control, in-dash 6-disc CD changer, eight speaker SURROUND SOUND capable of playing DVD-audio (only production car of its kind with surround sound), Bluetooth mobile technology (get a Bluetooth mobile phone and your car becomes your phone, you talk into the steering wheel--no headsets here), and XM satellite radio (standard!). That all of this is standard is mindboggling.

There are really only two options for the car: manual or automatic, navigation system or no-nav (if you get this, it includes voice recognition software that responds to about 293 different commands).

TP does not drive automatic cars, because they suck. The six-speed manual version of the car also includes 17-inch wheels (TP wants 18s) and, even cooler, bad@ss Brembo brakes at no extra cost.

Downside to the TL: it's a front-wheel drive car, based on the Accord platform. Adding a 270-hp engine to a FWD car is definitely pushing the envelope. Torque steer is a problem when cornering fast (car leans to the right because the back wheels lag behind the front, driving wheels in turns), and it just isn't as tight and clean as some of the RWD sport sedans.

Running a close second right now is the Infiniti G35. Performance-wise, it's easily #1. Utilizing the awesome Nissan front-midship engine placement (in which the engine is located behind the front two wheels), coupled with AWD, and a 280-HP 3.7L V6 (in the coupe), the Infiniti freaking MOTORS. All of the car magazines rank it as their favorite sports sedan, which is unsurprising, as the the G35 is tops in driving performance, and the reviewers are professional drivers.

Added to which is the fact that I love the way the coupe looks. Smooth, very aggressive, reminds me of a chiseled football player in a four-point stance, ready to burst off the line.

Problem is that Infiniti skimped out on the interior. Even people who love their G35 admit that it doesn't compare to the TL. Plus, when you add options (satellite radio, 6-disc changer, leather seats, moonroof, etc.), the price goes up by at least $1500 over the TL. Not chump change.

Running a distant third to either of these is the Audi A4, a longtime favorite of TP's. Base A4's start cheaply, but prices goes up rapidly with options. The A4 is a beautiful looking car, and though it has a fine engine, is seriously underpowered compared to the G35 or the TL (1.8L T inline V4 pushing 170-hp). The 3.0 V6 adds 6k to the price tag--no joke. The interior is probably the best of the 3, though the TL is, for the first time, really challenging it. But the A4 is surely the least reliable of the 3 (Audi is good, it just isn't Acura or Infiniti-reliable), the most underpowered, and it's a German car (TP inherited this prejudice from his parents. It's not that TP won't buy a German car; if he had 100k to spend on a car, he'd buy a Porsche 911 Carrera tomorrow; but other things being equal, TP will buy a different brand of car).

No BMWs. Amazing cars, but everyone and their mother has a 3-series. If and when I got a Bimmer, it's going to be at least a 5-series, or better yet, the amazing new 645c. What a sweet car.

I'm leaning heavily towards the TL. It's interior and features are unparalleled, and that's where I'm going to be spending most of my time. It's got a sweet engine, and in 95% of the driving I do, I'll never notice the FWD problems, and the 5% of the time I do notice it, I'll get used to it.

I have a friend who just bought one, and based on my analysis (TP has some experience negotiating prices of new cars; he is very good at it), I should be able to get one including TTL for sub 33.

And don't talk to me about leases. Most people lease cars because they wouldn't be able to afford them otherwise. Can't afford that Mercedes you want? Don't worry; just lease it. And in 3 years, you've got nothing to show for it. Yes yes, cars are depreciative assets, but that doesn't change the fact that in 3 years, I will have equity invested in a nice car that runs well, and you won't.

Leasing does make sense for some people in some situations, and I'm not criticizing those who understand the business and the advantages and disadvantages of leasing. My statements here are cast directly towards the fiscally irresponsible.

Thoughts, criticisms, suggestions all desired.