Latest Posts

It Ain’t That

Drive Time

The Car God opines:

Jeremy Clarkson blames “idiot” climate change activist Greta Thunberg for killing the car show.
The former Top Gear presenter, who is returning with another series of Amazon Prime motor series The Grand Tour, claimed young people have been turned against cars by the 16-year-old environmental campaigner.
Clarkson, 59, told The Sun: “Everyone I know under 25 isn’t the slightest bit interested in cars – Greta Thunberg has killed the car show.”

Most of the time, I agree with Clarkson, but I’m not so sure about this one.

My opinion is that young people aren’t interested in cars for two reasons:

  • They all look the same.  (I’ve ranted and raved about this situation so many times, I’m starting to bore myself.)
  • New cars cost too much, and youngins don’t have the cash to buy them — hence the popularity of the “no-car” ownership and Uber.

Much as I detest her and her ilk, neither of the above is the fault of that little bint Thunberg.  The real fault lies with government — our government, European governments, all governments — who have mandated expensive changes to cars in the name of SAFETY and CLIMATE.  The first is arguably a good thing, but the second a lot more questionable.

But when an “entry-level” (i.e. modest) secondhand car like this one costs nearly 20 grand…

I’m not sure that many under-25s are going to want to spend this much even if they have it.  College loan repayments, ObamaCare medical insurance, under-25 auto insurance rates… even if they’re filling the stereotype and living with Mom and Dad, money is going to be tight, assuming they’re pulling in the typical youngin annual salary of $24k – $36k.

(Yeah, I know  you can get cheaper cars — the Son&Heir scrimped and saved out of his paltry waiter’s income until he could afford to buy a twelve-year-old Oldsmobile Beater from a friend for $1,500, but his maintenance costs almost killed him.  If he’d had more money, it would have saved him money to buy a Honda like the above;  but he didn’t have the money.  I don’t think today’s kids are any better off — they may even be worse  off, come to think of it.)

Of course, adding the Blame Game onto all that via Thunberg and the other EarthFirsters doesn’t help — nor does it help that the under-25 group are malleable and vulnerable thanks to their crap secondary education and foul neo-socialist tertiary education, so they’ll believe anything and hope that Mommy and Daddy (or Big Brother Gummint) will bail them out.  But that’s not the primary reason for their lassitude in matters automotive.

In my day, boys had wall posters on their bedroom walls which featured supercars (and supermodels).  Nowadays?  They can’t afford the fucking posters.  They can’t even afford the ticket price for the car show.

And that’s because their priorities have changed.  Why spend money on a four-wheeled money pit when they can spend as much or more each month on a money pit which can fit in the hand?

And why drag-race your buddy down Main Street (à la American Graffiti ) when you can play Grand Theft Auto?  Or pick up your girlfriend and take her to the movies, when she can catch a Lyft over to your place and the two of you can “Netflix and chill”?

It’s not just the money.  Times and priorities have changed.  And as with all this stuff, it’s not just one thing (like Greta Thunberg) that has caused the change;  it’s everything.  Our kids live in a different world;  and in that world, the car isn’t important anymore.  Too bad.  Here’s a pic of my teenage dream car:

In today’s dollars, the Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GT  would have cost about $14,000 — brand new.

Here’s #2 Son’s dream car:

Brand new, the Honda Fit costs about $17,000.  He has less chance of getting this econobox than I did the Alfa Romeo.

Undecided

Freaks & Loonies, Veggies & Vegans

There are things that are crimes (e.g. murder, acting like a Clinton etc.) which carry penalties and punishments.  Then there are things that are sorta-crimes (like spitting on the sidewalk, or voting for a Socialist) which carry few if any penalties.  Then there are things that are technically  non-crimes, but which should  carry a penalty.  Like this one:

PARENTS were left furious after a nursery [preschool daycare] banned meat and dairy and instead force children to eat from a completely vegan menu.
Mums and dads have blasted the controversial move to switch their kids to an entirely plant-based diet which they claim was done without consulting them first.
Meat, fish, eggs and dairy products will be completely off the menu from January for 260 children, aged 0-4, at Jigsaw Day Nurseries in Chester.
Instead, staff at their two nurseries will offer the likes of a lentil-based “Shepherdless Pie”, coconut rice pudding desserts and cereal served with soy or oat milk.
Some parents say they are fuming at the decision to “impose a lifestyle choice” which “discriminates” against their meat-eating children.

Here’s the loony boss’s opinion:

Claire Taylor, founder of the nurseries, which is Chester’s largest private childcare provider, defended the decision which she says was “made with the children and the planet’s future in mind.”
She added: “We appreciate that this is a decision that comes with a business risk associated, however we feel passionately that a sustainable path is the one we wish to follow for the benefit of our children’s future.
“The food that the children eat within our nurseries not only has an impact on everyone in the setting but also on the health of our planet.”
…
She cited the “overwhelming” evidence published over the past few years highlighting the impact of animal farming on the planet.

So my question, O Gentle Readers, is this:  what this stupid bitch is doing is clearly not illegal.  But other than withering scorn, what should the penalty be for this kind of idiocy?  (And don’t say, “Just pull the kids out of the school” because some parents have no choice in the matter.  Myself, I’d just feed my kids steak every night and give them biltong to take to school to make up for the nutritional shortfall, but that’s not the matter under discussion.)

It’s not an infringement worthy of scourging or suchlike;  but I feel that it should  be punished in some way.

I welcome suggestions in Comments.

Monday Funnies

Funny Stuff

Aaaauuuuuurgh it’s the Monday after Thanksgiving… and we’re still full:

So as we’ve just survived Black Friday, today will be Black Humor Day:

And for the Monday pick-me-up:

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪ Oh, Canada…♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

Unfamiliar Territory

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

As Longtime Readers know full well, I have fairly set opinions when it comes to firearms:  .45 ACP good, 9mmP bad;  Browning High Power good, Glock Mod [anything] bad;  mil-surp bolt-action rifles good, poodleshooter rifles bad;  and so on.  Sometimes an exception to all this may come up, to be sure, but not that often that I have to change my opinions.

One of my prejudices is in the area of shotguns — and it’s purely a personal one — where I firmly believe that shotgun barrels should be side by side (like a man and his dog), and not over and under (like a man and his mistress).  It’s a very old-fashioned viewpoint — like so many of my others — but I have to tell you that in this case, I may be steering newcomers to the field in a direction that may not be the better.

However, this is based on my own preference and shooting habits.  Truth is that unless I’m Over There, blazing away at clays with Mr. Free Market, I hardly if ever shoot shotguns.  Once again, this is just a preference, or even a habit.  Not having grown up with shotguns (as many have), shotgunning is more of an occasional indulgence than a regular outing.  This is not true of any other firearm type, where I can be found at DFW Gun Range most weeks, burning out the barrels of my Springfield 1911, AK-47 and any number of .22 rifles or pistols.

And this is where I may have led some astray, because pithy throwaway comments like the shotgun barrel-orientation one above are fine as far as they go — but they’re not appropriate.  How so?

The plain fact of the matter is that if you shoot shotguns a lot — never mind people like Kim Rhode, I’m talking people like Mr. Free Market, who orders shotgun ammo by the pallet every year  for his birdshooting escapades — that amount of shooting is going to destroy your side-by-side shotgun’s action, as any competent gunsmith will tell you.  The firing of an off-center barrel puts a great deal of torque onto the action, and even guns made with the most modern steels and alloys are going to deteriorate more quickly than their over-and-under cousins.

The proof of the above statement can be seen, quite simply, in Olympic- and championship skeet and clay competitions, where everybody uses an over-and-under gun for the simple reason that they expend tens of thousands of rounds in practice;  and that amount of shooting would reduce any side-by-side shotgun to tangled metal in short order.

So if you’re a keen nay even rabid shotgunner, I’m saying, you may be better off with an O/U gun than the old SxS bangstick.  Even more telling, if you’re going to shoot off that many rounds each year, you need to spend maybe a bit more than you expect on your shotgun — right now, that might be $1,500 and preferably more for a second-hand model, and a great deal more to be on the safe side.  Rule of thumb:  shoot more rounds, spend more on the gun.

All that, so I can show you pics of beautiful O/U shotguns.

Now when it comes to brands, you pays yer money and you takes yer choice.  As the title of this post suggests, I’m way out of my comfort zone talking about this part of The Gun Thing, so let me just post a couple of unsolicited testimonials.

The aforementioned Mr. Free Market shoots the Beretta 686 Silver Pigeon exclusively.  He wore out one pair of 686s after a few years.  After his second set, he had to quit shooting 12ga because he was sick of having shoulder repair surgery every three or four years, and simply replaced his guns with the same model in 20ga.  Here’s what we’re talking about:

Right now, you can get this gun at Collectors for just under $2,500.  If your preference is for Moar Beretta, there’s the 695, at $4,250:

Another guy who shoots the hell out of his shotguns is former POTUS George W. Bush, who publicly announced his preference for the Weatherby Athena:

Collectors price:  just under $2,000 (although this particular piece is an older one — the more recent vintages can be quite a lot more expensive).

Noted Brit shotgunner Dave Carrie refers Browning O/Us (I think Miroku, or else the Citori models).  Here’s one of the latter:

 

And speaking of Dave Carrie, here’s a side-by-side shoot.  (Good luck with the accents… and I should point out that shoots like those of the Dave Carrie type are as yet unchecked on Ye Olde Bucquette Lyst.  That’s just in case Mr. FM happens by this part of the front porch…)

As with all things pertaining to shotgunnery, you can get guns priced out to the stratosphere, e.g. the usual suspects such as this mob, these guys and of course the Germans.  Here’s a Perazzi SCO Galeazzi:

How much?  Well, as they say, “If you have to ask…”

All comments on this topic gratefully received.

The Dirty Half-Dozen

Gratuitous Gun Pics

These are the guns which sold as a lot for a total of $1,100 at a recent auction.

Now granted, they all look rather well-used (rode hard and put away wet, as the saying goes), and I suspect most will require some serious gunsmithing to get up to snuff.   Nevertheless, I for one would welcome any one  of them into Ye Olde Gunne Sayffe (especially the 1897 pump at the top), let alone all six.

Yummy.

Advance notice: tomorrow’s GGP post will contain MOAR shotguns.  You have been warmed.