http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/The (almost) daily writings of columnist C. Brooks Kurtz and occasional guest writers.en-USSquarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/)sundayTue, 09 Mar 2010 23:24:09 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/3/8/a-1426-word-open-letter-to-kathryn-bigelow.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7725383EricThu, 04 Mar 2010 15:39:38 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/3/3/979-words-about-the-solution-to-the-inevitable-passage-of-a.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7646471
Although, I gotta admit, I have zero confidence that the Repubs, should they regain power, will wield it much-if any-better than they did last time. I think the Tea Parties are likely to help get some new conservatives elected in place of incumbent Dems (and also plenty of moderate Scott Brown types, formerly known as RINOs), but for a major sea change to take place, they also need to replace most of the sitting Republicans during the primaries, and that just ain't happening. For example, you and I live in one of the most conservative Congressional districts in one of the reddest states in the nation and it is almost a given at this point that we'll be sending Tom Cole back to Washington to represent us. Tom Cole is no Tea Party candidate, he is a big spending, big government, social conservative who has been doing his best to stay out of sight since he voted for TARP. And we are going to re-elect him.

What we are likely to end up with is a Republican majority that is just as conflicted and powerless as the current Democratic majority.]]>EricThu, 04 Mar 2010 15:18:00 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/3/3/goodies-boom-taste-her-nightstick.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7646221ericMon, 01 Mar 2010 17:10:29 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/2/28/1177-words-to-close-out-the-tiger-woods-thing-until-somethin.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7620153
-That it was inherently dumb for Woods to get married. We've covered this ground before, but I stand by my statement that marriage-done-right (with or without children) has virtues and rewards that are worth pursuing regardless of one's celebrity status, athletic prowess, or bank account. None of us can say for sure why Woods got married in the first place, but if he got married in order to pursue the benefits of family life and marriage, that was a smart thing to do... it was the cheating that was inherently wrong, immoral, and stupid. (and as in all such cases, there is a -smaller- share of blame, immorality, and stupdity to be cast towards women who pursue married men).

- I also disagree that you or I either one have enough knowledge to say why his wife is staying with him, but I suspect you are wrong about the reasons being purely financial, because I'm sure at this point she could leave him and still be set for life in the "pretty shiny things" department. It is certainly within the boundaries of reason that she wants to patch things up with him for the sake of the children they created together, or even that she actually cares for him, enjoyes his company, and/or values their marriage. If the reasons for her willingness to continue the marriage do lie in this direction, then it isn't such a stretch to see her as a victim in the relationsip.

Things your post alludes to that I agree with:

- "misandry is the American cultural norm that flies under the PC radar." While I certainly don't want to live in a world where insecure men walk around constantly looking for reasons to get offended about any negative comment made about maleness, the truth of the matter is that it is undoubtedly the inherent stoicism of the male species that has allowed misandry to become sucha common and unchecked practice. A little back-and-forth banter between the sexes keeps life interesting, but it can also be overdone, and "overdone misandry" is practically a given in modern culture (granted, 10 seconds of watching MTV will allow one to make the same statement about misogyny... leading to another disussion about how our culture is leading men and women to have less general respect for eachother). I can appreciate a well placed "men are pigs" joke in the right company and the right conditions. Women who have been cheated on by men who promised never to cheat on them usually get a pass from me... but their "you go girl" BFFs, whose shrillness virtually guarantees that no man would ever give them enough of an investment to make such a commitment in the first place, do not.

-"...it culminated with her clubbing him with a … club. And people cheered." Regardless of your thoughts about cheaters and victimhood, cheering for such an assault is beyond the pale. I wouldn't be opposed to laws that, in certain cases, criminalize adultery (if marriage was properly treated as a civil contract by government, then adultery could properly be treated as a breach of contract, with well defined penalties agreed to in advance by both parties), and I feel for men and women who get cheated on by their spouse and often have no real course of justice available to them, but physical assault (or, one could argue, attempted murder) should not be celebrated, and doing so sets a dangerous mood and precedent.]]>sgtbozSun, 28 Feb 2010 21:06:00 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/2/27/goodies-doctor-zero-regarding-depression-and-suicide.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7613325King KurtzFri, 26 Feb 2010 22:16:38 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/2/24/1091-words-about-my-computer-problems-cpac-beck-teh-gehys-et.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7598324
Another thought regarding any company who makes things that can kill people: if they are interested in making money, it serves them zero purpose to ignore flaws that could kill their customers. The safety features in automobiles were not created by government bodies, they were created by ingenuity. The unibody design of passenger cars, airbags, seatbelts ... the list goes on. BMW has innovated a device in headrests (themselves safety features meant to prevent whiplash) that has a propellant that ignites in a head-on collision, thus further minimizing a chance of whiplash/neck injury in a high-speed impact strong enough to deploy airbags. Volvo and Mercedes-Benz have for years been at the forefront of making cars safer than any govt entity could dream.

Previously obscure and quizzical, most people whose cars have floormats may notice that their floor mats are now "hooked in" to their vehicle's carpet. It never occurred to me why in the Ford Escape I drive for work and the Toyota Yaris I drive for non-work have those hooks - now we know: It's to prevent the floormat from making its way beneath the break and accelerator. There are dozens, hundreds of safety features in vehicle that weren't mandated by the government - it's in the best interest of companies who make cars for everyday usage to make them as safe as possible.

I'd add that this isn't just for everyday cars. The future of how vehicles handle and perform can be seen in the exotic car market. I watched a video awhile back at Jalopnik of a professional driver testing the traction control system of a Lamborghini Diablo on a track covered in snow. Lambo and Ferarri (and Porsche, to a lesser extent) are clearly not in most people's budgest, yet the systems they use for controlling their vehicles at high speeds in inclement weather eventually filter down to the everyday car market. Watching the driver navigate the Lambo with and without the traction control system was, well, breathtaking, in part because a Diablo is a beautiful vehicle, but also in part because unless one is a professional driver, a Diablo owner would be insane not to use the system (you can turn it on or off) in inclement weather. Come to think of it, you'd be insane to take a Diablo (or an Enzo) out in inclement weather at all - the point is that innovation isn't top-down, it's bottom-up - the extremes of any industry innovate and those innovations gradually make their way down. Just as seeing an airbag in a non-Volvo in the 1980s would be odd, I'd be surprised if in 20 years that every popular passenger car in America doesn't have some form of high-end traction control.

Finally, I noted in my update that I've found no numbers regarding fatalities in Toyotas. At the conservative site American Thinker, there is an excellent piece regarding these statistics. You can read it following the link below.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/congress_toyota_and_cafe_stand_1.html]]>sgtbozThu, 25 Feb 2010 16:12:50 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/2/24/1091-words-about-my-computer-problems-cpac-beck-teh-gehys-et.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7583656
Faulty Crash Sensors Force Chrysler To Begin "Safety Improvement Campaign."
The AP (2/25) reports, "Chrysler Group LLC on Wednesday asked the owners of more than 355,000 of its popular minivans to take them to dealers...to replace crash sensors that help to control the air bags." The company announced that "the sensors can crack and fail in 2005 and 2006 Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan models." But, Chrysler "is asking owners to wait until June to contact dealers because it needs time to distribute repair parts." The automaker is describing "the move a 'safety improvement campaign' and says it is not a recall. But National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokeswoman Oliva Alair says the agency considers it a recall and is monitoring repairs to make sure they are carried out."]]>sgtbozThu, 25 Feb 2010 15:57:00 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/2/24/1091-words-about-my-computer-problems-cpac-beck-teh-gehys-et.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7583538
I'm a life-long Toyota fan and I also own a company that makes automotive components. We have conducted recalls in the past and each were voluntary. Meaning at great expense to ourselves we initiated contact the Department of Transportation and told them of the problem. How that massive, gigantic, bloated department runs is sometimes despicable but our master nonetheless. Being fairly intimately familiar with the recall process, albeit on a much smaller scale, the hoopla is sickening and in no way indicative of one company's manufacturing capability. These recalls are based on the most obscure of statistics combined with flawed human judgment. Toyota, as with all auto manufacturers, have voluntarily conducted numerous recalls when they felt a product was unsafe. Seldom has the government ever had to demand a recall. Perfectly safe cars would weigh 10,000 pounds and be unattractive, unusable, and unaffordable. This is all a statistics game. Much like aircraft. They have a decent idea how many people will die in a crash every so many million miles. It's called economic utility.

For what it's worth, I think Toyota would recall anything that is not genuinely 'reasonably' safe. The fact that this is a major news headline only confirms why I have no faith in the media and very seldom give them more than one ounce of my treasured attention.]]>sundayThu, 25 Feb 2010 03:16:31 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/2/24/1091-words-about-my-computer-problems-cpac-beck-teh-gehys-et.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7579914sundaySat, 20 Feb 2010 22:31:51 +0000http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2010/2/19/scout-kurtz-and-the-enduring-power-of-animals-over-the-peopl.html#comments79774:752122:comment/7528399