Your Car is UgLEEE!

I'd guess your significant other is fairly good looking.

Maybe pretty even, or handsome, as the case may be.  That's likely why you chose to marry them, am I right?

So considering that marriages that end in divorce last an average of 7 years, and new car loans are made for an average of 7 years, with monthly payments averaging $755.00 a month, why did you choose to buy an ugly vehicle?

Think of it this way:  Divorces can cost up to $30,000 or even more.  And new cars cost on average $50,340.  And that $50,000 car will lose half it's value before your loan is paid off.  Making you lose about $30,000.  So the spouse you divorce will still be pretty, but why on Earth would you buy a vehicle that's as ugly as sin?

Did you know that 59.2% of all new vehicles are so-called SUV's.*  And if you add in pickup trucks, which are what SUV's are made on, it's up to 80.4%.  That's 4 out of 5 new buggies that are nothing more than 6,000 pound rolling behemoths.  And from 50 feet away, I'd defy you to tell me who made them.  

Or why...

And don't think I'm leaving 4-door sedans out of the mix.  From that same 50 feet of distance, there's no telling which manufacturer screwed them together.  They all look alike, and that's not a compliment.  Yet they all represent the second largest purchase you'll likely ever make.  

Do you buy an ugly house?  No.  So why buy an ugly car or truck?

Back in my day (I know, there's that 'way back when' thing), cars were beautiful.  They had to be or folks wouldn't buy them.  The designers penned them and the engineers were required to stuff all the bits and pieces into their designs.  Cars like the '57 Chrysler 300C, and the '57 Ford Thunderbird, and the '58 Studebaker Golden Hawk, and the '58 Plymouth Sport Fury (Christine), and the '65 Buick Riviera, and the '58 Chevy Chevelle, and the '60 Ford Starliner, and the '61 Chevy Impala "Bubble top," and the '62 Chevrolet Corvette.  

There are many, many more that I could list here, but suffice it to say they're all selling for 20 or more times their original sticker price on the auction circuit as this bit of fluff is written.

Notice nobody's rehabbing old Teslas.

And to top it all off, each of these '50's and '60's manufacturers had to bring out a brand new car every September.  An all-new model, with an all-new design.  Google the '58 Chevy Impala and then the '59 Chevy Impala.  No two cars could look more different one from the other.  And they both sold in the hundreds of thousands.  Today?  The engineers are in charge.  They tell the design team what to build, and then they do a "refresh" every five years or so.  Just to keep them from updating their resumes and moving on to greener pastures.

My suggestion?  Buy a completely reconditioned '68 - '70 Chevrolet Chevelle for $30,000 or so.  Everyone will drool over your ride, you won't have any trouble at all getting a date, banks will fall all over themselves to grant you the loan, and they're as simple as a rubber.  And if it breaks down, there are more than 120 different companies making replacement parts for those cars.  Plus, you won't lose 50% of their value through depreciation when you drive it off the dealer's showroom floor.  In fact, it will go up in value.  Like Faberge Eggs, they aren't making them any more...

*   Stands for "Sport Utility Vehicle."  Pickup trucks way back when were cheap as dirt.  So to fatten up manufacturer's profits, they started putting van bodies on the back of pickups.  And giving them quasi-sexy names, like SUV's.  And filling them full of options.  And then packing the window sticker with prices upwards of $100,000.  Having owned 127 cars, including most of those listed above, I feel qualified to offer an opinion:  People who buy Chevy Suburbans for $100k need a cranial exam...   

It's Time to Decontigu-ize.

The idea that America is United does not depend upon us being contiguous.

We're not contiguous right now, as Hawaii and Alaska are not physically connected to the other 48 states.

But the idea that our Country should all be physically connected goes all the way back to President James K. Polk in 1845.  He decided that We had a mandate from God to expand all the way to the Pacific Ocean.  That mandate was called "Manifest Destiny."  And we ran over dozens of Indian tribes* and a bunch of Mexicans in our headlong quest to honor that belief.

We then displaced the Queen of Hawaii and welcomed into our bosom while our gunboats were in their harbor.  And then bought Alaska from Russia for the princely sum of $7.2 Million Dollars.  Or, roughly $0.02 cents per acre.  

But through our ensuing near 250 years it appears that some of our citizenry has decided that Conservatism is not their cup of tea.  They've adopted Liberalism, or even Progressivism, as their clarion call.  They've decided that they won't accede to all the principles written down in our Constitution.  They've decided to "pick and choose" which of our Amendments to follow and which to ignore.  Thus proclaiming themselves to be rabid anarchists.  

To put it more succinctly, 256 of our villages, hamlets, townships, counties and states have decided to proclaim themselves "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens.  Meaning that those who are here illegally, lawbreakers all, are welcome to travel there, live there, work there and even vote there.  In direct violation of America's laws. 

More broadly, those states are located to the left of the Rocky Mountains (Taxifornia, Oregon and Washington), in the top dead center of our map (Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota), and our original 13 colonies (you know them). 

Presidents before Trump have chosen to simply ignore their lawbreaking.  To simply continue shipping them our tax money so they can spread it among their illegals (they call them "undocumented workers").  To the extent that they even award them with work permits and drivers licenses.  Even to drive 80,000 pound semis without knowing how to read or speak our language.  And to kill many of our motorists as a result.  And now Minnesota has been proven to allow some 100,000 Somalians to raid our Treasury to the tune of more than $9 Billion Dollars.  With a "B."

That would be bad enough, but Joe Biden permitted more than 12 (some say 20) million illegals to pour over our border during his 4 years of chaos.  And Trump is trying to rid America of the felons among them.  And there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of felons among them.  If those sanctuary cities would turn over those felons to our ICE officers when they've captured them, just hand them over from their jails when ICE submits a detainer, like 27 of our States do, the problem would be minimized.  But they won't.  They let them out the back door while our ICE officers are out front.  Awaiting their detainer to be honored.  Clearly illegal.  But so is being a sanctuary.

So ICE has to scour their communities looking for those felons.  Meaning that other illegals they find may also be arrested in the process.  Risking the health and welfare of those officers.

The City of Minneapolis has decided not to accede to our ICE officers.  Minnesota's Governor, "Tampon Tim" Walz and Minneapolis' Mayor Jacon Frey, are actively fomenting chaos by setting their residents upon our ICE offciers.  Resulting in riots and vehicle ramming and even gunfire.  They apparently don't know about Article 2 in our Constitution, the "Supremacy Clause," giving the Federal Government the right to do what it's doing.  They prefer to relive 2020's George Floyd riots when the City was nearly burned to the ground.  A situation Donald Trump has stated might call for instituting the Insurrection Clause.  Enabling him to bypass "Posse Comitatus" and order in the Military.

All this could result in another Civil War.  But I prefer a simpler idea.  Let's give up on the idea of a contiguous United States and offload some of our dumber states to Canada.  Which has its own problems similar to our own.  Their Provinces on the extreme right of their map, principally Ottawa and Quebec, and British Columbia on the far left, are hard left in their ideology.  With more conservative Provinces located in the middle.  

So I'd suggest we trade Canada our CA, OR and WA, plus IL, WI and MN, and those original 13 Colonies, for Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, all would be well.  There would be no more riots and vehicle ramming and paid protestors.  There would be no more ignoring ICE detainers for hardened felons.  There would be no more sanctuary cities, counties and states.  There would be no more problems of any kind.

What do you think of my idea?  Hit me with your ideas and let's start a movement.  Let's get our elected leaders to do something positive for a change.  And be sure to have a nice day... 

*  We now call them "Indigenous Personages."  Because they were here before our boy Christobal Columbo "found" America.  BTW, it wasn't lost.  The Vikings "found" it 1,000 years ago.  In fact, America is named for Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian hot shot whose ideas permeated the thinking of our Founding Fathers at the time.  

Just WHO do They Work For?

According to a Harvard Business Review article a few years back, one out of two new restaurants go bankrupt within the first year of operation.

And four out of five of them go upside down by the end of the fifth year.

And nineteen out of twenty go tits up by the tenth year.*

So why, I would ask, would anyone with even a modicum of horse sense decide to risk all the time, effort, energy and money necessary to open and run a restaurant, if they knew the odds were so stacked against them?

Because everyone wants to own a restaurant, apparently.  And many put their cash on the line to do so.  Historically, the "30-30-30" rule has been operative.  That rule states that restaurants should cough up about 30% of their operating expenses on food and related products.  And 30% on labor and related costs.  And another 30% will be spent on rent, insurance, phone and other overhead.  The last 10% has historically been expected as before tax profits.  Meaning a restauranteur should expect to pocket about 5% net as his operating profit.  

Rigggggttt!

No longer.  The cost of meat has skyrocketed of late, up some 36%.  Resulting in the cost of a steak on the plate costing the diner $60.00 or more.  Often mucho more.  

And labor has jumped up to as much as 38% - 40% of operating expenses, especially in Blue States like Taxifornia, Massachusetts, New York and Illinois.  There's a little town outside of Portland which just adopted a Minimum Wage of $21.16 per hour.  Our Federal MinWage is still $7.50, BTW.

All of this puts extreme pressure on the guy running your local restaurant to try and make ends meet any way he/she/it can.  And one of those ways is to try and shift the cost of labor from him/her/it off to the diner.  By adopting new charges and tipping policies.

Let's take a trip back in time and look at tipping and how it came to be.  The "tip" starting in Merry Olde England back in the 1750's.  If a guy felt his serving wench brought him his cup of mead in a timely fashion, he would toss her a tuppence.  For tipping means "To Insure Promptness."

Now?  A fat tip is now expected.  Nay, DEMANDED!  And the restauranteur has endorsed this expectation.  From 15%, which used to be the tippy top tip, to 25%, 30%, or even more.  The owner pays his wait staff a piddling hourly rate, and then convinces his staff that the diner will cover the rest.  So much has this become expected that the waiter and waitress gets pissed if the diner chooses to tip less than the now expected 20% or more.  And this often results in mediocre service based on that expectation.  There's even a case on the books of a waitress calling the cops in NYC for a diner having chosen not to tip at all.  

Really.

And then the owner is now slapping a charge on the bill of 20% or more so to cover his costs of labor.  Stating it will be spread among the staff to cover "a living wage."  As if that your obligation.  And then stating it's in addition to the tip, which you're expected to pay.

The MickeyD's and Burger Kings and Wendy's will still sell their burgers.  Some will continue to pay $15.00 for a BigMac, even though that number is declining.  

The high-end restaurants will still sell their meals for $100.00 a plate to those celebrating birthdays and wedding anniversaries.  

It's the mid-range restaurants which will suffer.  The Chili's and the Applebees and the Chipotles which used to be affordable, and are no longer.

I predict that the 95% failure rate will increase over the coming months.  The owners will rob peter to pay paul until peter squeals like a stuck hog.  That 5% net profit expectation will evaporate, leaving the owner to head out the back door, throw his keys over his shoulder and head on home.  Wishing he'd never acceded to that universal wish of restaurant ownership. 

Better either head on out to your favorite watering hole soon to get that overpriced steak you love so much as it may soon be unavailable.  The only guy who may win in this situation is the bankruptcy attorney.  But they always win, now don't they?

What a shame.  This has truly become a recipe for disaster...

*  I ran an NCO/EM club while serving in the Army way back when.  It was a converted B-29 hanger, seating 450 hungry, thirsty soldiers.  We had a kitchen and wait staff of 60 on weekend nights.  With a revolving stage, with one band playing off as another played on.  So I have a bit of experience in this whole restaurant managing bizz.  Enough to analyze our current situation and put forth my opinion as to how it's likely to end up.  And it's not good, Fellow Patriot.  Not good at all...