brick-a-brac

Mine was PUMPKIN - great fall color Now THERE'S a color from the 70s!

I see you got the 74 -- good looking color and very, very clean. I trust you're bringing it to Carlisle.

Well, anything can be modified, but the extent of the mods required here would mean I would be completely upside-down on this piece, and it would still not have airflow from the fins in the lower valance (another post 1970 change ...).

I think the early sheet metal for the rear is available through GCP. I have just learned, however, that one must be very careful about getting these pieces, as I'm now stuck with an early nose section that I can't use (67-70 has slightly different upper radiator mounts, and pushes the radiator too far toward the fan). I'll keep an eye out for a 73 bumper.

I like what you're doing with this, Greg. Have you considered a 73 rear bumper?

Greg -- you may have to bite the bullet and get a new radiator from VP Auto. They are pricey, but no more so than a genuine Volvo radiator for your T5M and you won't have to worry about pinhole core leaks. Do you need a master cylinder? I may be able to help.

Where did you get the radiator, Greg?

Do you have power steering in that, Greg? If so, are you thinking of going to a manual box?

From 72 on these had the short shifter and Greg's is a 74. I think he mentioned he was going to run an M40, though I don't know why he wouldn't want the overdrive for family cruzin'.

Sure hope that's a 142. 74, of course, was the year they went to the 8 bolt crank and K-jet. I'm curious what kind of shape it's in overall, and what the plans include. I, for one, would lose the humongous bumpers and swap 'em with a 73. More pics?

Well, I am also no leftie - I have found I live longer and with less stress if I avoid extremes ... My intent is not to refute CPA; I am merely debunking the idea that a so-called "cabal" can change the overall nature of the way in which that cumbersome beast we know as our federal government is run. I tried to do this by illustrating that the previous "cabal" was also ultimately ineffectual in realizing their goals, whatever they were. But I will say that I AM troubled by the previous administration's policies with respect to terrorism, as I feel that the expanded incursion into Iraq, coupled with those who were wrongly victimized by extraordinary rendition actually helped to spread the appeal of extremist zeal among the Islamic nations. As to this: <<no one died by Islamo facist actions.>> -- I think you will have to qualify that statement, as it sort of ignores what happened in London and Madrid a few years ago, or Mumbai, or what happens on the streets of Baghdad and Kabul on a regular basis. That there has been activity within the last nine months indicates that terrorist plots that were launched some time ago are now coming to fruition.

No, they simply wanted to create an imperial presidency by misconstruing the Constitution while dismantling civil liberties in an atmosphere of a constant state of war against an amorphous enemy. Of course, David Addington, one of the architects of the warrantless wiretapping policy, carried a copy of the Constitution around with him. It will be hard to know how history will judge the last administration -- especially the office of Vice President -- because Addington was rather effective at elevating executive privilege to a level never before seen in the history of this Republic. Oh, and while we're talking about redistribution: Facts.

I would answer by saying that there are idealogues behind every administration. Consider the influence wielded by Project for New American Century, Kristol, et. al. on the previous eight years. Did this amount to a takeover of anything? Hardly. Did those on the left point this out as something of a takeover conspiracy? You betcha. Lately, I've found myself in a position to rebut the most outlandish claims based on internet sources that turned out to be largely misinformation that sounded really convincing. I regard most everything I encounter on the net as something that requires additional verification. Usually, it does not stand that test. Bottom line: don't believe everything you read. Verify.

Hmmm -- citing a completely unbiased source, I see: Red baiting R Us

You might feel differently if you were the person on the other end of the electrode and you actually did not commit the crime that put you there. But hey, if you're in prison, you must have done something to get there, right? No one goes to prison because they had a lousy public defender. Not here. I'll give you three words to explain our absurdly high incarceration rate: mandatory minimum sentencing. For those in California, I can sum it up in two: three strikes.

I figured you wouldn't do that, as this conversation has been pretty civil all along. That was the first rating of any kind I've had here since Chuck inaugurated this system after the site upgrade, so it was a little jarring. The Mass plan is a failure for the reason I am not optimistic about the one that is heading for a vote tomorrow: it does absolutely NOTHING to contain costs. Health care and college tuition in this country constantly outstrip the pace of inflation by a wide margin and we sit back and take it. This keeps us in debt and complacent, and this is a problem. A little background: from 1998 to 2000, I lived and worked in Portugal. This was before the introduction of the Euro, so this was under the old currency which traded quite low against the dollar. Portugal has a progressive income tax which can be punitive for high earners, but for most people, it is generally around 25%. Add to this a social security tax of 11% and you have 36% of your income going to the state. What does not exist there, however, are people going into bankruptcy for health-related problems; you do not have a system by which people cannot get coverage because they have a "pre-existing condition"; you do not have elderly people having to choose between their meds and their meals, because the state subsidizes meds and controls pharmacies. You can also go to the state universities for basically nothing, but that's a discussion for another day.

No, I did not single out Joe-mentum because I'm from CT -- I'm from Mass, actually -- I singled him out because he enjoys a rather nice health plan subsidized by the American people: <<Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it. Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers. In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management. Generous plans are available in private industry. But the federal coverage far surpasses that enjoyed by 70 million Americans who are underinsured and at financial risk in the event of a major health crisis -- not to mention the estimated 46 million who have no medical insurance. "For the average worker, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan would probably look quite attractive," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a pinch-penny advocacy group. Indeed, a question often surfaces: Why can't everyone enjoy the same benefits as members of Congress? The answer: The country probably couldn't afford it -- not without reforms to bring costs way, way down. Given their choices, lawmakers can tailor coverage in a way most Americans cannot. If a child has asthma, for instance, a federal employee might opt for coverage that costs a little more but has a bigger doctor network and lower office-visit fees. The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit.>> So who gave me the -1 for my last comment?

It's fortunate that Joe-mentum and all his Senate colleagues get a comprehensive health care package paid for by the American public, isn't it?

It is worth noting that the Mass program, which I will not defend, was signed into law under presumptive 2012 GOP contender, Mitt Romney ... ;)

I just wanted to make sure everyone can reference the relevant post, as I'd hate to gain a reputation as a cherry-picker. For what it's worth, I am pretty far from being a socialist myself: government does not do things well, but I also believe there are things that cannot be left to laissez-faire free-market capitalism, either. Can you name a profitable transit system anywhere in the country? You reference the postal service: how would you run this to make it break even, let alone turn a profit? The U.K. tried this with Consignia about five years ago, and it was a colossal failure. You asked me to <<name one Govt program that has done what they said it would do, didn't exceed cost estimates, died a timely death, or created an impenetrable bureaucracy that wasn't cloaked in BS and red tape? Just one.>> I will do this when you can tell me what private donation got the country out of the Depression.

Have you ever been told by an insurance company that you wouldn't be covered for a pre-existing condition? I have. Do you know what it is to live in a place where health care is provided to all citizens? I do. Perhaps if everyone ate healthy foods, didn't smoke, worked less and therefore did not live in a constant state of stress and sleep deprivation, we would all be sharp, self-sufficient types who invest their money intelligently and can live a life that is not dependent on the notion that government is the last resort for everything. Of course, banks and investment firms would also regulate themselves, manufacturers and heavy industries would not pollute, no company would send jobs to third world countries in order to maximize profits, and we would all gather together and sing "Kumbaya".

Ah, the old "right versus privilege" argument. It sounds as though many of you would rather have a private insurance company decide just how much health you are "privileged" to enjoy? Very interesting. Perhaps we should allow the privatization of FEMA, so that when the next huge disaster hits and your home is leveled, someone whose company's profits depend on NOT paying out claims can tell you how much rebuilding you are privileged to receive. Here in the U.S., we will fight to the death for the "right" to own guns, but apparently we insist that being healthy enough to fire them is a privilege.

That's it. I can't imagine that this sort of thing is happening anywhere now ... :o

While I'm sure Orwell is turning in his grave somewhere, I'm not certain that what we're seeing here is a modern exemplar of what he was allegorically protesting in 1984. The book was a reaction to state socialism, especially as it existed in the Soviet Union under Stalin, though Orwell certainly saw bits of that spilling over into English political life. Under Ingsoc, there was not enough freedom to publish a book or give a lecture that would offer the keys to the destruction of the system, which is a pretty significant point of departure. Having lived in another country, I see the error in "accomodating" non-English speaking immigrants: bilingual signs, bank tellers, etc. I could find work as an English teacher, but I still had to know the local language in order to get things I needed. I also could not aspire to anything else if I did not speak the language fluently, which is why I wound up coming back to the U.S. However, I'm not prepared to embrace Lou Dobbs and the whole wave of anti-immigration sentiment that seems to be in vogue. Knee-jerk xenophobia has been with us throughout history: it is the positing of "the other" and placing the blame for everything that is wrong on that group (see Germany in the 1930s for an illustration of this principal at work).