The company I work for has fleet of I/C powered forklifts. In 1989 & '90, we switched from diesel engines to LPG fueled engines (which are gasoline engines converted to propane). A few years later, the company selected a "test group" of forklifts to run in an extended oil change evaluation. The test was conducted in alliance with an "oil testing laboratory". The lab had to agree to use the same test procedure on "our" oil samples for the duration of the test. We did not know how long we would be testing. Our previous oil change interval was "Every 750 hours" (using the OEM hourmeter). This interval was in place when we ran diesel and gasoline powered I/C 'lifts. We wanted to determine how long we could safely run the oil between changes without harming the engine. The guidelines for the test were pretty simple on our part, the forklifts in the test group would not have their oil changed "Until further notice". Instead, we were only to "top off" the oil level when we drew an oil sample for the lab every 750 hours. Our 'lifts operate 24/7 with an average daily run time of 18 hours per 'lift, so we were pulling an oil sample about every 6 weeks (where this would have been an "oil change" prior to the test). The lab reported the test results of each sample to our corporate headqurters. Corporate only told us whether or not, to continue the testing of each 'lift, based on the report. At about 20 months into the test, we submitted a sample to the lab that had 10,000 (ten thousand) hours on it. Corporate headqurters informed us at that time to remove that 'lift from the test and change the oil based on the lab report that the oil "was degrading" and it's continued use was not recommended. We were instructed place the unit on a "tentative" 3000 hour oil change interval until the testing was ended on all 'lifts. By 24 months since the onset of the test, the oil in all the 'lifts had reached the 10,000 hour mark. The lab reports on a 10,000 hour old sample was very near the same for all 'lifts. The company ordered each 'lift that was part of the test to be placed on the same "tentative" 3000 hour oil change interval until further notice. It took the company almost a year from the end date of the testing to make all the changes to the inspection forms (for our PMs) and put the new standard of 3000 hours between oil and filter changes into effect. Our 'lifts remain in service at the "large distribution centers" for about 6 years (from the "new vehicle in service" date) at which time they will have accumulated from about 30,000 to 36,000 hours. At that time they are transferred out to "small town" locations where they may only get 2 to 4 hours run time per day. On these 'lifts we change the oil annually by the calender instead of going by the hourmeter. When a 'lift reaches 12 years old, it is sold on the public market. We have yet to "wear out" an engine. In fact, the only engine failure our location has had was due to the forklift operator continuing to run the 'lift after the water pump/alternator belt broke. We periodically check compression on our engines (24 month intervals) and I see engines near the 36,000 hour mark with 160 to 170 P.S.I. readings on all cylinders. Each owner of any equipment must decide what kind of oil change interval they want to use for their machines. I think it is safe to say that most of us can change the oil in our L&G equipment annually without worrying "if I'm doing it enough". I prefer to change the oil at the end of the season. I don't want that "contaminated" oil just sitting there in contact with the works of the engine for 6 months. I drop the oil (and filter where applicable), put in the fresh oil and run the engine for about 10 minutes (to make sure I get the oil "hot", gets rid of the moisture from the cold start up) before putting the machine away for the "off season". I feel that the fresh oil clings better to the engine parts than the old oil for the duration of storage. No matter what the "Oil experts" may say, some of us will continue with our own practices. For the people who lament that we are changing the oil "too often", well......there are some people out there who "never change their oil", so don't their habits offset the overall consumption average??

Pat, before taking on your issues, let me distill my philosphy in one sentence: the individual reigns supreme, but borders matter. Without much exposition, this means that every person has value, but even the US has limited resources, so we need to take care of ourselves first, and expect other countries to take care of thiers. And then help where we can. But in real life, there is a power struggle between groups that want power. Republicans-Democrats, China vs. US, US vs. Radical Muslims, corporations vs. government, rich vs. poor, etc.. The last one is probably more misunderstood than most people realize. I was raised in Texas, my family was laizze-faire in their outlook. I was raised middle class Baptist, and "the Lord helps those who help themselves." My mother never has understood that isn't a Bible verse, but rather a saying from I believe Benjamin Franklin. (Too lazy to look it up right now.) We had a good life. And I feel lucky because I still do. From this, I do think everybody ought to do the very best they can to support and help themselves. It matters. But the first eye opening book that I read was a paper back my dad got in 1973, maybe 76, titled, "Why SOBs succeed and Nice Guys Fail in Small Business" (perhaps slightly different from this). This book showed how the laws, even in that time, were manipulated to favor those in power. It gave an example of a boondoggle bill that was passed by congress and signed by the president that affected only ONE company. And saved them millions. Additionally, it showed how laws were passed to keep competition low in certain industries. It also pointed out how a rich person may give a million to charity, and be hailed as a great philantrophist, but still be worth $100 million more and get a tax break to boot! Rare is the rich person who really hurts his financial position for charity! The best example of this today would be Bill Gates. I think he gave some few hundred million for immunization of the poor. Maybe it was a couple of billion. Wow, how generous! In the meantime, he was just estimated to be worth $52 billion! He didn't really hurt hisself. And he never will. Anyway, before I buy hook, line, and sinker into something, I like to look at the power-money trail. What does it gain the person pushing an agenda? This is why I have a healthy mistrust of environuts, oil execs, and even doctors. I have nothing against Marshall, but he runs an organic farm. Any wonder why a lot of his posts deal with GMOs and Monsanto? Doesn't mean he can't have good information. But I temper his information with his motives, and want hard data to support his stance. Of course, that's from everybody on everything. Finally, I'm human. I have my own motives. I want cheaper gas. I want more money. I want, I want, I want, I want. But I try to temper that with caring for others. Most people do. And being human, I have limited intelligence. I get things wrong sometimes. Right now, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if their were alternative energy sources for vehicles that are not being developed and marketed because of the oil/auto industry. In 2000, Toyota made the Insight. A/C, room for 2 plus a small trunk, and 70+ miles a gallon. But sales have lagged. Even now. And the Prius and others that followed have gotten worse gas mileage, not better. Anyway, windfall profit tax has Carter written all over it. But that name works for me. Instead of taxes, how about freezing the price, or having a SIMPLE (no political boondoggle) formula that sets prices? That would benefit most people. Although, not the poorest people. I wouldn't suspend tax cuts for those who make less than $100,000.00. The truly wealthy make much more than that. I'd probably graduate the increase until you reached $160,000.00 or so. These numbers are arbitrary, but they are fairly high because of people who live in expensive areas, such as San Fran, New York, and the like. Unlike O'Reilly and most Republicans, I realize income redistribution happens. Unfortunately, it seems to be going to the wealthy too much, and not to the middle class and poor. But I want to protect jobs, and the private sector, so I don't think I'd be too radical. Just some quick thoughts...

"...I can understand buying a truck if you have a large trailer to pull..." Thank you for allowing me to keep my truck. I am forever in your debt. Well, if you think being childish will help... "...But where I live, most of the pickups and SUVs don't tow large trailers (they don't even have hitches) and they have never been off-road (unless you count sliding into the ditch because whoever was driving it "lost control" of it)..." Did these vehicles do things on purpose to make the drivers "lose control"? It is well-known (except in the he-man hinterlands, I guess) that SUVs have a much higher center of gravity than cars. They are far more likely to tip in an extreme maneuver than a passenger car. They also are heavier than many cars, which means they take longer to stop. This is all basic physics, but maybe not everyone took that class. In addition, many SUVs come with "all-season" tires which really aren't good on packed snow and ice. Couple trucks with less of a dynamic with drivers who don't compensate for the fact that this vehicle doesn't drive like their old Cavalier and people end up in the ditch. But I suppose they're all smarter where you live. "...Those trucks are sold on the basis of how tough the buyer thinks it makes them look; they certainly not being used to carry the people and stuff that even a mid-size Ford or Chevy could handle..." The largest purchasers of Hummers are women. Big and tough?Yeah! Right! If you don't think there's an appeal to women in appearing strong and invulnerable, you need to join the 21st century. "...You have no idea who you're talking with, do you? I am one of the "rich" people you talk about. I get taxed plenty, thank you..." And you feel you should pay more taxes? If you do and are serious about griping about the "tax breaks for the rich" silliness there is a form published by the IRS that allows you to pay more money to the government than your tax bill indicates. Normally I don't talk about my finances because it's no one else's d**n business. But I'll tell you that my entire Dubya-ordained tax cut went to charity as soon as it showed up in my paycheck. There are many people out there who need that money far more than I do. And, IIRC, you were the one who was griping about taxes ("And who may I ask is the one to cause this "disincentive" other than your pals in the Government by using taxes or the courts to regulate things? (TAX THE OTHER GUY! NOT ME!)") I never claim to be a friend of big government. I don't want to pay more taxes any more than anyone else does. I just realize that there are matters that the Almighty Market does not address. Who will address them but the government? You and the rest of the "compassionate conservatives" certainly won't. You may not think so, but we all have a stake in providing physical safety and security, a basic education, and economic opportunity to all citizens. No one is holier than anyone else. What I know is it doesn't come free. It also doesn't have a payback sometime within the next fiscal quarter, which is why the Almighty Market doesn't deal with it. Spend the money carefully, but spend it. Not doing so is penny-wise and pound-foolish. "...No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." First, 1,300 years ago (one of your "earth nanoseconds") is about 65 human generations. Put things in human terms and they sound quite different. Second, you're displaying the same kind of binary logic you did with your trailer example. We may not be able to stop the cycle of global warming or cooling or whatever is going on. But, in the face of much independent scientific research that confirms problems in the ozone layer and increased rates of melanoma and weather extremes, does it not seem like long-term thinking to do something that can delay our effect on that phenomenon? Do you let your toddlers play in the street, on the theory that -- statistically -- they'll be involved in a motor vehicle accident at some point in their lives anyway, so why worry about it now?..." You dodged the question. I'm still waiting for an answer. What caused the massive global warming and cooling in the past? Fish. That's at least as logical an answer as your question. I don't know what caused climate change in the past; none of us was around to observe it. 65 generations is a long time to suffer through anything. If your entire argument depends on the answer to this question, you're hanging by a thread. "...If there was a true free market in vehicles in the U.S., though, there would be a lot of used pickups and SUVs around. Several lots of them, in fact..." Free markets mean lack of government intervention. I think you want LESS of a free market so the vehicles you don't like are not sold. No. You went to Civics class, but you obviously failed Economics. In a truly free market, we would not be subsidizing cheap oil with a fraudulent war that all of us pay for (especially the tens of thousands who have died fighting it). We would not be paying by-the-head for the EPA or for crash standards or the fire departments and ambulance corps which have to respond to accidents caused by big trucks. Business owners who bought big trucks would not be getting tax breaks for buying them (as they have over the past years). People who buy big SUVs would be charged for the additional damage those vehicles do to roads and other common property -- as well as the costs of trucking additional fuel to stations because they're so thirsty. That is a free market -- not taxing everyone per capita regardless of their actual use of resources. If the people buying big SUVs and pickups had to pay what they actually cost, many fewer people would own them. You don't like certain body styles because they "use up resources". I hope you don't live in a home larger than say... 1500 square feet. And if you do I hope you aren't using up all the resources by heating it with gas or oil. After all you don't "need" a large home. You need a bedroom for you and your spouse and a bedroom for each of your kids. Add a living room, kitchen, maybe a dining room and a basement for storage and anything more than that is wasteful. I know you agree. These McMansions are the SUVs of the housing world. I was doing a craft show last fall and I was talking to the exhibitor next to me about the price of oil and she said she just built a 4300 square foot house in NJ and she was frightened as to how she was going to pay to heat it. I went back to my booth and just shook my head at the total waste of energy that is being used. Ha! I happen to live in an 1800-square-foot house (including basement, which is largely unused). It is heated with natural gas but all of the electricity is from wind power. No, I don't "need" a large home. And I don't have one. In fact, the only reason I have a house as large as I do is that it's difficult to find a smaller one that I could make handicapped-accessible. So let's use those "disincentives" you like to force the owners into more sensible houses. Right? See, we CAN agree. PS. I live in a 3 year old 1300 sq ft ranch style home that I had custom built on 2 acres here in Vermont. I use wood as my primary heat source and oil for hot water and backup heat. I'll use MAYBE 300 gallons of oil this year. And I stay nice and comfy even when it goes to minus 30 in January. You seem to like twisting what I have to say. I don't need to spend any more time undoing the pretzel you're creating. My contention remains that, if people had to pay the true costs of the vehicle they drove, the only people driving large SUVs and pickups would be the ones who need to drive them, not the poseurs who hope that such a vehicle will substitute for their personality. Considering the real cost of buying anything -- even what we "buy" with our taxes -- would be a valuable exercise and no doubt would transform a lot of purchasing in this country. It's the folks who believe that everything is free who really are deluding themselves. Merry Chrismahannakwanzakah to you.

Another story: To be told at night at camp. I was walking along a path that was leading me up the side of a mountain. As the path steepened and I was moving out of an easy grade to a more steeper one, I heard a rustle in the bushes. I turned to look, but saw nothing. The trail now became a ledge on the side of the mountain and again, I heard the same noise and this time when I spun around, I did detect some movement of leaves on the brush alongside the path. I became concerned, but not fearful yet since no threat was detected. I did, however, began to look for possible cover places to defend myself. Unfortunately, these places were diappearing as the path rose ever higher on the side of the mountain. I realized that, at this point, I could not reverse course without confronting whatever was behind me, be it a prankster or beast. My hope was to continue and maybe the path would top out into a better landscape, but such was not the case. The path narrowed and soon it was not more than a few feet wide with a drop off of a 1000 ft or more down the side of the mountain. I was trapped! Vegtation on the drop off edge had thinned to nothingness, not even a strong sprout to grab, nothing but some grasses. And now, my pursurer came into view. It was huge grizzly bear ambling up the path behind me. Now, I was scared. The perceived threat was real; My hide tingled; My mind raced - what to do. I hurried up the path and the bear began to close the distance between us. My heart pounded. At last, the path dwindled to a mere 2 ft wide with no more in sight. The bear was upon me. [At this point, the storyteller stops and waits. If no one takes the bait and asks, "What happened?", you have a plant in the audience who does. When asked, "What happened?", you reply, He ate me!" An alternate ending is, "I woke up!"]