Hey Don.... thanks for the compliment!: "..you have one hell of a way to play with words..." I practice a lot.... you're right - social equality or at least working towards social equality is important... however, it has been demonstrated in the past, and even currently in some countries, that "forced social equality" or socialism does not work... an economy can not support it. Why?.. because there are not enough "rich" people to give to all the "poor"... if you take all the money and distribute it to everyone, then everyone will still be poor... just a little less poor, but still in the "poor" bracket.... so what's the answer?... Canada thinks it has it (as do several other european countries), but the reality is that our health-care sucks: I just heard today that the average treatment wait time in Ontario is 16 weeks.... 4 months!... I could be dead by then!... so could my kid!... sure, fast response of private systems is much better but not affordable for all.... the answer is somewhere in the middle I guess.... not sure if it is practically possible tough... I agree with you with respect to children.... as far as I am concerned, there should be zero reservations with respect to providing care etc. for children, senior, and disabled citizens - reason being that they can not provide for themselves.... But welfare is much more than providing for those that can't provide for themselves... it's for people who don't want to provide for themselves.... this issue gets even more silly when you think about the fact that Canada has a very robust welfare system, and yet there are homeless people on the street!... how can that be?... all they have to do is walk into a welfare office, and they will get a free place to stay, and a small pay-cheque (for food, beer, and booze)... free!... so why would these people live on the street?... because they choose to do so.... similarly then, there are those who choose to live on welfare, yet they are fully capable of getting a job and working... I have no time for those folks..... system abuse is what it's called. so job creation by government grants is good in principle, but it too gets abused... you can't win... but if I had to choose between welfare abuse, and job-creation abuse, I choose the latter... because at least some people will benefit from having a job... and society benfits from the "value added" activity & products that the work force creates.... as for the 6% of ethanol supplied by corn?... of course... who could eat that much corn on the cob?... no-one grows it, because no-one wants it... another economics concept is "supply & demand"... just create the demand, and very quickly the supply base will provide it.... it's quite trivial... and if you think there are not enough farms to grow corn to provide all the supply, then maybe some third-world country in africa can provide the land - industry will provide the irrigation systems and the corn-seeds (all driven by "demand"), and all of a sudden we fix 2 problems for the price of one!

When I worked as a mechanic at a Buick dealership, some of the old mechanics would pour water down the carburetor VERY SLOWLY. The water turns to steam and the shock knocks off the carbon. When the old ladies would bring in those beautiful Buick Electras and Riverias because they idled rough,the Service Manager would take the car out on the freeway and really get after it. I went with him once and you could actually hear the carbon particles tinkling out the exhaust pipes. He would ask if they were burning Ethel as recommended in those 11:1 high compression engines. The customers jaw would jut out and they would say they will only burn regular. Idiots. I think adding transmission fluid to your gas would only carbon up your engine even more, if it did anything. Sorry off topic. I use Stabil and fill the gas tank to the top to prevent condensation from forming when I park my GT for the winter. (I empty my weedwacker,leaf blower and chain saw whenever they won't be used for several weeks.) Six months later the GT starts right up. I don't have any experience with SEaFoam.

Here's a more complete EPA list of the new 2005 vehicles....probably substract ~10% for real world numbers. 2005 Model Year Fuel Economy Leaders MPG Rank Manufacturer/Model city/highway 1. Honda Insight (hybrid-electric, manual) 61/66 2. Toyota Prius (hybrid-electric) 60/51 3. Honda Insight (hybrid-electric, automatic) 57/56 4. Honda Civic Hybrid (automatic, lean burn) 48/47 5. Honda Civic Hybrid (automatic) 47/48 6. Honda Civic Hybrid (manual, lean burn) 46/51 7. Honda Civic Hybrid (manual) 45/51 8. Volkswagen New Beetle/Golf/Jetta (diesel, manual) 38/46 9. Volkswagen Jetta Wagon (diesel, manual) 36/47 10. Honda Civic (manual) 36/44 Highest Fuel Economy by Vehicle Class 2005 Model Year MPG Class Model city/highway Two Seater Honda Insight (manual) 61/66 Minicompact Car Mini Cooper (manual 5-speed) 28/36 Subcompact Car Volkswagen New Beetle Diesel (man.) 38/46 Compact Car Honda Civic Hybrid (automatic, "lean burn") 48/47 Midsize Car Toyota Prius (hybrid) 60/51 Large Car Chevrolet Malibu Maxx 22/30 Small Station Wagon Volkswagen Jetta Wagon Diesel (manual) 36/47 Midsize Station Wagon Passat Diesel Wagon 27/38 Sport Utility Vehicle Ford Escape HEV (2WD) 36/31 Minivan Honda Odyssey 20/28 Pickup Truck Ford Ranger Pickup 2WD 24/29 Mazda B2300 2WD Cargo Van Chevrolet Astro 2WD (Cargo) 16/22 GMC Safari 2WD (Cargo) * Passenger Van Chevrolet Astro 2WD (Passenger) 16/21 GMC Safari 2WD (Passenger) Lowest Fuel Economy Models* 2005 Model Year MPG Rank Manufacturer/Model city/highway 1. Dodge Ram Pickup 2WD (automatic) 9/12 2. Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago (manual) 9/13 3. Dodge Ram Pickup 2WD (manual) 9/15 Lamborghini L-140/141 Gallardo (automatic) " 4. Bentley Arnage, Arnage LWB 10/14 5. Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago (automatic) 10/15 6. Ferrari 360 Modena/Spider/Challenge (automatic) 10/16 Ferrari 575 M Maranello (manual) " 7. Ferrari 575 M Maranello (automatic-3mode) 10/17 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti (automatic) " Lamborghini L-140/141 Gallardo " 8. Ferrari 360 Modena/Spider/Challenge (manual) 11/16 9. Ferrari 612 Scaglietti (manual) 11/17 10. Bentley Continental GT (automatic) 11/18 Aston Martin DB9 Volante (automatic) " *Trucks over 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating are exempt from federal fuel economy requirements. Lowest Fuel Economy by Vehicle Class* 2005 Model Year MPG Class Make/Model city/highway Two Seater Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago 9/13 Minicompact Car Aston Martin DB9 Volante 11/18 Subcompact Car Maserati Coupe & Gransport 12/17 Compact Car Bentley Continental GT 11/18 Midsize Car Bentley Arnage 10/14 Large Car Bentley Arnage LWB 10/14 Small Station Wagon Audi S4 Avant (manual) 15/21 Midsize Station Wagon Mercedes E55 AMG Wagon 14/21 Sport Utility Vehicle Mercedes G55 AMG 12/14 Minivan Kia Sedona 16/22 Pickup Truck Dodge Ram 1500 Pickup 2WD 9/12 Cargo Van Chevrolet Astro AWD (Cargo) Conv 14/17 GMC Safari AWD (Cargo) Conv " Ford E150 Econoline 2WD " Passenger Van Ford E150 Club Wagon 13/17

Cars will last a lot longer than most people will take the time and effort to make them last. It appears that many people have a lot more money to buy new things than they have time to take care of things, or at least they pretend that's the case. As gas prices have spiked up again lately, there is a lot of interest in smaller and more fuel efficient cars, which in itself is a good thing. But if a person trades in a 20 mpg vehicle for a 30 mpg vehicle, and if they drive 15,000 miles a year, that's a savings of 250 gallons of gas a year. Certainly that's worth considering IF you need a new car anyway, but even at $3 a gallon, 250 gallons a year is only $750. The sales tax alone on the new car is likely to take all of the first year's savings, and even much of the second year savings if you live somewhere with a high sales tax. Then there's the interest you pay, higher insurance, etc. The bottom line is, the best way to save the most money is to keep the car you have for a long time and drive it in as efficient a manner as possible. It's amazing how many people are literally "car poor." If you trade yours in for a new one every two or three years, you're always paying interest on loans and always absorbing big depreciation losses. Consider a $20,000 car that's purchased new and kept for three years, and traded in for $9,000 (in many cases that's an optimistic figure): Sales Tax @6%: $1,200 Depreciation: $11,000 Interest: $2,500 Total Cost for Three Years: $14,700, or just under $5,000 a year. Many people go through this with not one but two cars, raising the yearly cost just to have these vehicles parked in the driveway to $10,000. And that's before they pay the first insurance premium, perform the first maintenance service, or buy the first gallon of gas. Even if you go from two new cars to one new and one old one that's paid for, that's $5,000 a year in savings. So if you have an older car that's paid off, there's just no earthly way to save any money by trading it for a new one, even if the new one gets double or even triple the gas mileage of the old one.