Re: Italian Know How v US no how

[bearbvd@domain.elided (Greg Hermann)]

>By now everyone who is interested will know that the Italians blew the
>Americans out of the water on the Hauraki Gulf in New Zealand. AmericaOne
>was VERY lucky to win any races, no matter what the 5-4 margin appears to
>indicate. The Italians were just faster and smarter. The US team got lucky,
>beating the Italians soundly only once when, unaccountably, the Italian
>afterguard went brain dead on the first beat. Prada will challenge New
>Zealand for the America's Cup.
>
>   America is falling behind... even though an American coached the
>Italians, an American helped design their boat, etc etc , the world is
>shrinking and the US is showing signs of withdrawing from the competition.
>BTW, the Americans had several "foreigners" on their teams as well,
>including a couple of New Zealanders, one a helmsman and another a
>strategist.... hmmmm.
>
>Ferrari is on top of the Formula One circus with its constructor's title,
>narrowly missing the driver's title with Schumy hitting the wall at
>Silverstone. By comparison, CART is for kids. Formula One drivers clean up
>when they come to CART, the reverse doesn't happen except for one notable
>exception: Jacques Villeneuve proved he can really drive, if he gets a car
>that is strong enough.
>
>Sorry to those Americans I may have offended but the US is travelling down
>a very risky path, especially auto wise. The clean air and crash regs have
>long since ceased to represent real concern for the consumer and now
>represent substantial trade barriers, protecting the domestic auto
>industry. The SUV fiasco just underlines this obvious fact. A significant
>proportion of US built passenger vehicles (i.e. vehicles in fact used as
>passenger vehicles, often with only one passenger, whatever official
>category they fit in ) do not comply and do not have to comply with the US
>regulations applying to passenger CARS. No one else in the world makes
>these ridiculous vehicles in significant numbers. Does anyone care to pick
>up this particular gauntlet? If  a Chevy Tahoe pollutes more and protects
>its passengers less than an ALFA 166 just how does the US government
>justify excluding the latter? It is excluded because although it has
>adequate crash protection and is clean running, no ordinary person can
>import one.
>
>And don't try the tack that the SUV protects better than a passenger car,
>they don't, unless of course you happen to collide with a passenger car
>which then is sacrificed to the non crushable SUV which does protect the
>occupants of the SUV at the expense of the  law abiding occupants of the
>car.Try rolling an SUV or hitting a tree or a bridge and check out the
>survivability...
>
>
>Michael Smith
>Calgary, Alberta
>Canada
>91 Alfa 164L, White, original owner

Michael--you are spot on with this. As one from north of our border, I am
sure you not only see our forest better than we do (our view being blocked
by the trees), but I am sure that you have had first hand experience with
the pitfalls and frustrations of living under the type of system that our
list "liberals" and "humanists" seem to think it would be grand to impose
on those among of us who prefer freedom to security!

As some of you know, I am fond of FUNCTIONAL utility vehicles -the kind
whose interior can be cleaned out, without fear, using a steam cleaner and
which have drive lines of somewhat stronger consistency than a slightly
used tootsie roll (with  a particular nod to any Rover fans out there!)--as
well as of Alfas. Both have their technical merits. But the sort of plush
carpeted, oversized Nile barges that Michael is talking about have little
excuse for existing beyond conspicuous consumption!

Believe me, shutting down a "most powerful sport ute on the planet" Lincoln
Navigator with a boxy little old '69 Scout 800A (which happens to have 850
lbs. of hot-rodded, cast iron 392 cid IHC V-8 (couldn't possibly make any
real power, could it?) crammed under its funny square bonnet) might even be
more fun than dispatching a Bimmer whilst driving an Alfa!!

I personally believe that a stiff national sales tax on NEW MANUFACTURED
GOODS ONLY (accompanied by no income or other taxes at all) would be a far
better way to restrict wasteful consumption of resources than the
continental way of taxing the p*ss out of everything, especially fuel and
income. If you think about it, common sense will tell you that such a tax
structure, so long as it were not applied to used goods, food and medicine,
would be non-regressive (buy used if you cannot afford the tax!), and would
also be _VERY good for the environment--by encouraging everyone to make
EVERYTHING last longer!

But, of course, I am the list redneck, one who probably would be so bold as
to keep a Glock 9mm in a holster under the seat of his Alfa, because he
doesn't trust the cops to "serve & protect"!!! So the self-annointed among
us need not feel any guilt for not listening to me!

As for me--I am sick to death of ALL of the various aspects of the "nanny
state"! And our NHTSA is absolutely one of the most obnoxious
manifestations of it! Just because the poor Germans have a worse version of
it, does not mean it's right--or even vaguely useful or justifiable--after
all, the Germans fell for Hitler's carp, too! (Not to mention that he is
really the one who first thought up most of this kind of unnecessary,
intrusive governmental regulation!)

And, yes, I do think that Ted Kennedy, Dollar Bill Klinton, and Tony Blair
and many others of their ilk think almost exactly as Adolph and Joe Stalin
did, that they are every bit as feral as those two were. Furthermore-- I
would also be glad to have a chance to tell each of them so to their faces!

End of rant, back to reasonably competent engineer mode!

Regards, Greg
(Gun control is putting two bullets in the same hole from 25 yards!)

------------------------------