Mark,

Hey buddy, perhaps I'll see you over at the arena in March. I have tickets to a few games, but they are down near the ice. I had the opportunity to visit a luxury box at Fenway quite regularly and it was wonderful. Open bar with top shelf alcohol. A table full of good food, lobster rolls, shrimp, roasted pork, veggies, and all kinds of munchies. Every other inning a woman knocked on the door and asked us if there was anything we needed. Then after the third inning, she brings in two trays of pizza, and at the seventh inning stretch she brings in a tray of your favorite-hotdogs. We had a nice half-circle couch with closed circuit TV. You could sit inside and watch the game or outside. It was really nice.

There was a guy on Sue's show yesterday that had me in stitches. He was very sincere and sounded like a gentleman. It was his comments to Sue that got me. The topic was on the list of the worst cars that has been bouncing around the net (how did the GTO get on that list-I would love to have and old goat). Somehow gas mileage came up and the caller told Sue: "How about tanks, they get terrible gas mileage-4 gallons to the mile." It must have floored Sue because she was quiet for a moment before responding. He said, "Tanks are too heavy. They don't get good gas mileage." Well, perhaps we should make them smaller, lighter, with less armor, no bombs or munitions and four cylinder engines. IT'S A TANK. I'm not sure if he knew what he is talking about. Four gallons to the mile? So lets see, checking the specifications of an M1A1 Abrams tank, the most sophisticated tank in the world, we see it has a cruising distance of 275 miles on a tank of gas. Some quick math: 1 mile/4 gallons x # gallons = 275miles, or it would need an 1100 gallon gas tank, a small swimming pool, and at about 8 lbs/gallon, this fuel would weigh 8800 lbs or 4.4 tons. This could be true, but looking at the tank inside and outside, where would all that fuel be stored. Perhaps someone out there knows the fuel economy of a tank. But I can't imagine someone saying, "I understand it has depleted uranium armor, can do 45 mph, and can still lock on target, but how is it's fuel efficiency?"

My own two entries into the worst car list: My first car, a 1969 Simca 1118. It was a Chrysler product that I think was built in conjunction with a French company. It had an inline 4-cylinder engine and the transmission was connected to the shifter by a mass of cables running underneath the car. It was great on level land and it would actually go the speed limit downhill, but I was passed by several, very rude caterpillars that gave me the finger when going uphill. One day I shifted it into first, stepped on the gas and went backward, and that was the end of that. However, it would go forward in third gear, but it probably would have needed a nitro assist to actually get it rolling. It did have the nicest bucket seats I have ever sat in-very comfortable.

Second on my list was my 1988 Chevy Beretta. Some callers yesterday also had this on their list. It was a nice looking car, bright red, and quite quick. But within 6 months it started falling apart. First the door pockets fell off, the plastic just snapped. It was fixed, they broke again, it was fixed again this time using 1 1/2 inch fender washers and large sheet metal screws-boy did that look nice. I took it back and told them to fix it properly or keep it. Finally they replaced the whole inside of the door. Then one day it would not start-something with the computer. Then it had a problem with one of the chips that I think controls the diagnostics. Then the radio mounts went and the radio rattled around-plastic again. Then the engine started knocking. All this was covered under warranty, but finally I had it and told the dealer to keep it and I bought a Ford Ranger in 1992, which now has 183,000+ miles and is going strong still.

We have Tennessee doing away with the honor roll in schools because it might hurt the feelings of other students-they might be embarrassed. So, I had a strange thought, actually I have lots of strange thoughts, but I digress... In keeping with Tennessee's choice to do away with awards for achieving students, and in keeping with this long growing liberal mantra of not offending the non-achievers for fear of hurting their feelings, which also extends to sporting events (let's not keep score at the soccer game), I think we should abolish the following as well:

Teacher of the month/year
The Oscars (seeing that it is that time of year)
The Grammys (sorry Copper Dude-we would miss Amy going across stage in a skin tight half-shirt showing off her belly ring)
The Golden Globes
The People's Choice Awards
The Emmys
The Tonys

We wouldn't want to offend or hurt the feelings of any poor actors or actresses, or singer/songwriter/musicians would we? In the words of Bono-"F@&$ing brilliant." Also, eliminate any other stupid, self-serving award shows that offer nothing more than an opportunity to bask in self-aggrandizement. And we haven't even got to the sports awards. I find it absolutely hysterical that the same group of folks (liberals) that say lets do away with these awards that are going to "hurt" our kids, stand up and say "I deserve the best actress award or look at my song writing talent, recognize me, look at me, look at what I'm wearing on this red carpet." Utter hypocrisy. Why do we want to keep lowering the achievers, rather than elevating the underachievers? Is it too much work? For my part, I think I may have made the honor roll once by some mistake and I didn't know how to even study until my second year of college. I did make the dean's list several times, but so what. Thank goodness my kids go to a school where achievers are rewarded every week and the teachers then work more with those students that are not achieving to elevate them to a higher level.

By the way, did anyone catch the story on Entertainment Tonight? They spent a whole segment on discussing those actors and actresses that got snubbed by the Oscars. See, I told you there would be hurt feelings.

Kurt called in to WILK to announce that he was running for some other office and to bash the Republicans (some of which could actually use a good bashing about now) and to call for legalizing drugs and having it run by the state. What makes folks believe that suddenly, if drugs (like pot) were legal, people would stop obtaining them they way they are currently doing? Does anyone out there think that our government would do a good job offering cheap pot? Hey, why grow or import your own when you can buy a dime bag for $37.50 from the State Store, $15 of which would be Federal Tax, $7.50 State Tax, $5 Local tax and lets not forget $2 Entertainment Tax. We all know what the government has done for cigarettes.

Here's a little secret that many folks might not know. My best friend, a smoker, makes his own cigarettes. He buys a one-pound bag of tobacco for $13.71 and two cartons of tubes for $1.45 and the total price for two cartons of cigarettes with tax is $17.31. There is something like $0.60 cents in tax. His press cost about $50. It costs him under $0.90 to make a PACK. This whole anti-tobacco mantra is nothing more than a huge money grab against these businesses. Okay, I'm not a smoker so I don't care. But why the $2.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes made by Camel, but $0.60 cents on two cartons if you make them yourself? And the money awards that were pulled in from the huge lawsuits against the tobacco companies didn't even get to the smokers. The states used the money for everything from new roads to parks to perks, everything but the smokers. Could you imagine how bad it would be if our government got involved with pot?

Lastly, has anyone seen or heard the new "Bush Hater" ads. More name-calling and hate speech. The creator of the ad, heard yesterday on Hannity, says it was satire and it was funny. It was hateful and hurtful, but they will get away with it. Funny how every time liberals make satire they are bashing someone and it's not called hate speech, but Rush spanking the sports media for giving Hall of Fame status to an average QB that happens to be black is. So, in keeping with this brand of satire, here's some more. You will need a six-sided die to fill in the blanks below. Roll once for each blank.

________________ is a __________________ ___________________.

Roll------Blank 1--------Blank 2--------Blank 3

1-------Howard Dean--------fat---------pothead
2-------John Kerry------flatulent-------a$$hole
3-----Michael Moore---goose-stepping-----commie
4----Hillary Clinton------flaming------child molester
5------Ted Kennedy-------f&%@ing---------drunk
6----Terry McAuliffe----disgusting--------Nazi

Ha, ha, ha, that is so funny. What satire. Not.

Keep the Faith.
Private Sector Dude.