There’s no such thing as Opel of America, at least not right now, but Saturn is the next best thing. A few months ago GM announced the Opel Vectra would be rebadged and sold in the US as the Saturn Aura. Now GM announced they will import the Vectra wagon and sell that as a Saturn too. I assume this wagon is the same as the Vectra Estate sold in Ireland.

Before I critique the vehicles, I’ll critique GM’s business sense. All in all this seems like a sensible idea. Opel sells millions of vehicles across the eastern hemisphere, but Americans never see them. Why should GM develop a completely different vehicle for the US market when they have a full line being sold elsewhere? Unfortunately GM has not taken the last step that I wish they would. GM should kill Saturn and bring Opel to America. What value does the Saturn brand have? After years of neglect, Saturn means little to Americans. GM should save themselves the trouble of running that brand and just let Opel sell its vehicles here.

Now on to the cars! Take a look at some photos:

2007 Saturn Aura / Opel Vectra / Opel Vectra Estate

I hope my anti-Saturn bias isn’t coloring my judgment but I think the Aura is a weaker car than the original Vectra. The styling cues that were changed when it was brought to the US are very disappointing. The Vectra has a modern, powerful appearance. It looks like it’s ready to bolt down the highway, even if its body is a little squarer than I like. I say the Aura is weaker because when I look at it I feel like it’s a neutered Vectra. That speed demon feeling is gone. The Vectra sprints, while the Aura ambles along.

I’m guessing GM wanted to make this a low end luxury car. The interior really shows this point I think. The Vectra is all black and silver. The designer here was clearly going for modern elegance. The Aura is attempting to pull off classic luxury. The burled wood is a dead giveaway. Compare the two stereos. On the Vectra you have a very geometric design. The Aura goes back to a very common, standard layout. The display is even moved back. The Vectra has it raised closer to street level to make it easier to glance back and forth. Saturn moved it back to near the controls, probably because they were worried Americans would find it too unexpected. I can’t say I blame them for that decision. Americans freaked out because the original Ions moved the speedometer to the center and the Nissan Quest had the shifter on the console. Arguably those are bigger shifts but GM probably wanted to play it safe and stick with the least offensive design. The wagon won’t come to Saturn until 2009 and I’m sure they will make similar changes as they did to the sedan.

I will say one thing positive about the Aura. I love the seating. They look very comfortable and stylish. I almost want to steal one, put it in the corner of my living room under a lamp and read a book. The leather trimming next to that cloth material is very sharp. Is it tweed?

Another big deposit of oil has been found. This time though it does not please me. That’s because this time the deposit has been found in Cuban waters. If you know your history, you should know we’ve had an embargo on Cuba since 1961.

What bothers me so much about this oil discovery is that if we lift our embargo now, the US only underlines what all those leftists around the world say; that the US only cares about oil. Yes oil is a very important commodity but to say it is the sole driver of our foreign policy is just myopic. However a bill proposed in Congress just emphasizes this idea. The Western Hemisphere Energy Security Act (House version H.R.5353.IH) (Senate version S.2787.IS) will exempt American oil companies from the embargo. Granted there’s no assurance this will pass. There’s a House bill (H.R.5292.IH) and two Senate bills (S.2682.IS, S.2795.IS) that will deny visas to people who work for companies that are developing Cuban oil resources; still though it really presents a pretty sleazy message.

I wanted us to lift the embargo years ago. It’s a pointless relic of the Cold War. Sadly politicians are held hostage by Florida Cubans who stubbornly insist on keeping it in place. I just don’t understand how they justify it to themselves. The embargo has been in place for 45 years with no sign the Cuban government is set to topple. Yet we should keep it in place because the forty-sixth year will push Cuba over the edge.

If we had lifted the embargo before this oil discovery, we could have claimed some altruism. We could have talked about a fresh start with Cuba. It would have at least bought us some goodwill overseas at least. If Castro spurred relations with us he would look like the bad guy. That chance is over now. This only makes those shrill communists right. We hear of oil, and then we’re ready to talk to Cuba again. The worst possible thing is if we keep the embargo but exempt our oil industry. That would just be too disgraceful for me to contemplate.

Asking ‘what is art‘ is a good way to start a pretentious argument. I’ll take that risk right now. I just found out about something called the Fine Art Adoption Network. This group connects artists with art collectors who are willing to willing to care for their work. The art is “adopted” meaning it’s free. However the artist can put restrictions on the resale of it.

I thought it was a great idea. Original art is often very expensive and well beyond the reach of most people. This way people of average means can have the pleasure of owning a piece of high art. I checked out the website, filled with excitement, but soon I was crushed to see what passes for art.

Why is this art? This is a picture of dirty dishes. Is there something magical about the light and shadow my Neanderthal eyes can’t see? Is a cruddy pan a dear subject to the art world? I just don’t understand it.

Maybe this group is just a collection of lousy artist wannabes. I hope so because otherwise I am quite dismayed.

The minimum wage is starting to shake up the political scene. Congress is still arguing about raising the minimum wage. Chicago’s City Council has just passed a bill raising the minimum wage in the city to $9.25 an hour, with benefits equal to $1.50 an hour. Boston, inspired by Chicago, is looking to ramp up its minimum wage. Meanwhile in the Massachusetts statehouse the legislature is fighting over the state minimum wage. The legislature wants to raise it to $8 an hour, while Gov. Romney only wants to go to $7. All this activity has left me flabbergasted. I had no idea this discontent was brewing under the surface.

The Chicago and Boston proposals share an interesting stipulation. The increased wage only applies to large businesses. In Chicago it would be companies with over $1 billion in annual sales and stores over 90,000 square feet. These restrictions were tailored to keep Wal-Mart out of the city. Already Wal-Mart and Target have released statements they will reconsider building any stores in Chicago.

This “living wage” fight does raise some interesting issues. On the one hand it calls into question the relevance of the $5.15 an hour minimum wage. Does that fulfill the purpose of the minimum wage? What even is the purpose of the minimum wage?

The minimum wage started at 25-cents an hour back in 1938. I find it most interesting that wage was the lowest in real terms that the minimum wage has ever been. In 2005 money that quarter is $3.22. It’s not until 1950 that past real wages were higher than today’s figure.

Unfortunately I couldn’t find any debate in the 1930s about a minimum wage (damn primitives and their lack of computers). If anything though I would guess the argument for it was not very different from today’s argument to raise it. It was probably created to maintain a minimum standard that would protect workers from the worst excesses of the labor market. This would be most acute during the Great Depression.

Looking at that graph should tell you today’s politicians are not to blame. Sure they’re a popular target especially among the progressive set who hate Republicans. However you’ll see the most damage to purchasing power of the minimum wage was done in the 1980s. Blame the old Democrats for allowing the minimum wage to become the crap wage we all expect it to be today.

So if Congress decides to hike the wage how will that affect our economy? Raising wages definitely does stop some companies from hiring. The question is are the jobs that are lost worth more or less than the value gained from setting a minimum wage. I wish I could answer that once and for all but considering economists with decades of experience and lists of degrees are still arguing about it, I doubt I’d be successful.

That doesn’t stop me from getting on my soapbox and telling people what I would do. To start with I don’t like bills like the one in Chicago that sets a different wage for big box stores. It’s a disingenuous way to pursue an anti-Wal-Mart strategy.

In the real world I wouldn’t expect a rise in the minimum wage to have a huge effect. Back in 2001 when I was unemployed I found a cleaning company ad in the newspaper that paid $10 an hour. I’ve heard In-n-Out pays $10 an hour too. The other fast food stores already pay $7 to $8 an hour. Wal-Mart already pays $7.25 an hour to start. Maybe these higher wages are because I’m in California. If Congress hiked the wage to $7 an hour, there would be virtually no change here. The effect would probably be felt in states like Nebraska and Oklahoma. For that reason I would compromise on a small adjustment in the wage. I would raise it to $7 to minimize harmful effects on the low paying job market but also to restore some of the lost purchasing power.

By the way, here’s something for you progressives in favor of a higher minimum wage to think about. Consider that illegal immigrants always take jobs at the bottom of the job market. Since the numbers of illegals have been rising, the low wage job market is flooded with cheap labor. You could improve wages at the bottom by restricting the amount of labor. You do that by putting an end to illegal immigration. So which is more important to you – letting illegal immigrants enter the country or improving wages at the bottom of the labor market?

I want to start with an example. Let’s say your father hit me with his car. He got out, saw I was injured and sped off. A kind bystander wrote down his license plate so we know it was his car that hit. Unfortunately he skipped town and the police can’t find him. Would it be justified then for me to expect you to pay for his crime? You get sent to jail for hitting me and running, and I sue you for my medical bills.

I would say no, and I hope I live in a world where the majority of people would also say that’s unreasonable. When I read news like this I have to doubt that hope. I furore has started over whether Germany should contribute to a peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. The fear in Germany is that a German soldier may end up in the position of confronting an Israeli.

The impression among a lot of people in Germany seems to be that because of the Holocaust a German can never commit violence against a Jew no matter the circumstances. So if Israel wants to start bombing German cities, morally, the Germans can do nothing to defend themselves. I have to assume that’s the sort of claim being made because the German troops in question would be sent to Lebanon as peacekeepers and peacekeepers never get to fire unless they’re fired upon. So if these hypothetical German peacekeepers are being attacked, mistakenly or not, by Israelis they should not fire upon them. As Elmar Brok, the leader of the Christian Democrats in the European Parliament, said, “It is impossible for a German soldier to use force against an Israeli soldier.”

To me, this is lunacy. Today’s Germans are treating themselves like they’re criminals. It’s as if the Germans now have this racial sin all future generations must atone for. I’m sorry but wasn’t one of the lessons of World War II that we shouldn’t blame an entire race for something? The Germans from that first half of the 20th century should accept the blame for what they did. Those Germans that came later should not have to pay for the crimes of their ancestors.

If you’ve ever been to Houston Street in Manhattan you know it’s big and busy. All the years I lived in NYC I’ve never known that street to have any empty, quiet time. Cars, taxis, trucks and buses are always rumbling through.

Last year the city’s DOT began to reconfigure Houston. I would have expected the neighborhood to be happier that the street was being repaired. With all that traffic, Houston gets pretty damaged. However the forces of NIMBY, god of the status quo, are strong in New York. Community Board 2 and a couple of anti-car lobby groups continue to complain about the DDC‘s plans for Houston.

The contentious work on Houston involves the roadway configuration and sidewalk sizes. The DDC plan will create left turn bays at five points along Houston and widen some sidewalks near SoHo. The critics seem to be complaining that the DDC’s priority is to move more vehicle traffic through Houston. Here’s a quote from StreetsBlog:

The death of Derek Lake, killed one month ago at age 23 when his bicycle tripped a metal plate on Houston Street, hints at a tragedy shared by all New Yorkers: City Hall’s continued insistence that the ultimate goal of a New York City street is to move as many cars and trucks each day as physically possible.

Umm, isn’t that what a street is for? The asphalt part is to move motor vehicles while the concrete part is to move pedestrians. They each get their own spot so they don’t interfere with each other. If you neglect motor vehicles, the whole city suffers. As much as these anti-car groups would like to fantasize, New York City still needs cars and trucks. Virtually all goods we buy need to be delivered and trucks are how the last mile to the store is reached. You can’t build railroad tracks to the door of every store in the city, and cyclists can’t carry enough to replace trucks.

As wild as it sounds, sometimes your everyday New Yorker needs to drive a car around the city too. My sister used to run a small jewelry business. Each week she would pack up in her car a large tent like you see at many street fairs and several bags of her inventory. In a city without cars how is she supposed to run her business? That’s too much stuff to take on the subway. Is she supposed to pull a trailer with her bicycle like a pack mule? Forget commerce for a second. New Yorker’s need cars for their personal lives too. What if I’m bringing food to a potluck dinner? I’ll have to let my food get cold while I lug it through the subway and street. God forbid I make my life easier and drive somewhere. Sometimes a car is necessary for living and in a crowded place like NYC there is a lot of living going on. There are dinners you need to bring food to and laundry that needs to be dropped off and moving that needs to be done. A car can make life easier.

That doesn’t mean you should only use a car. New York has a great subway system that very convenient for getting around. Plus the city is so dense; many times you don’t need to drive to run errands. You can just walk around your neighborhood. That is only sometimes though and it’s myopic to declare you’re going to neglect motor vehicles to suit your dream of a car-less world.

Anti-car organizations like Transportation Alternatives are being dictatorial. Never mind your opinions. They have decided that since they can live lives without a car, you will too. I think that’s just unfair. Shouldn’t using a car be my decision? Traffic is a hassle and that’s part of car ownership. If you absolutely can’t stand traffic, then you should decide not to have a car. If you feel guilty that cars pollute, then you should decide not to have a car. The important thing is that it’s your decision. The city’s DOT has to respect the life decisions of its citizens and should build to accommodate them. People in New York City drive because they have to or they want to. The DOT needs to design ways to make their driving more efficient.

I don’t see why adding left turn lanes will hurt pedestrians on Houston anyway. Since I moved away from NYC, I’ve lived in the land of left turn lanes. Here’s the secret to crossing the street. Use the Walk/Don’t Walk sign. The transportation planners time them to coincide with the street lights. When these cars are making left turns, the sign will tell you “Don’t Walk”. The street light will change and the left turn lanes will have red lights. Then the sign will change to “Walk” and you can then walk across the street. I know it’s revolutionary to ask pedestrians to obey traffic laws but it’s just crazy enough to work.

Oh and a suggestion for you cyclists. When I was first learning to ride a bike my dad told me to avoid riding on busy streets. So let me pass that on to you. Avoid riding your bike on busy streets. If you need to bike across Manhattan, don’t take Houston! Go a block north or south and ride there. You’ll still get where you need to go and it’s less risky. When you need to cross a busy street like Houston, walk your bike. You can just hop back on after you get across.

This Houston reconstruction is necessary because it’s such a major road. If the anti-car lobby gets their way and cancels the left turn lanes, adds a physically separate bike lane, widens more of the sidewalks where is the traffic going to go? I’m sure they would be happy if it disappeared, but that’s not without consequences. If business is hurt because of inadequate transport, the local economy suffers. People lose jobs and prices go up. More likely traffic is just going to spill over on to residential streets. Like it or not, cars are a part of the mix of NYC and we all need to live with each other.

I’ll say it again. It’s wrong for government to pass a law that criminalizes most of its population. For years we suffered under low speed limits. Finally a handful of states are moving towards sensibility. Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Texas and Virginia are raising their speed limits along some highways. Most of them are going from 65 mph to 70 mph, but Texas is going from 75 mph to 80 mph. I don’t think 80 is enough but it’s certainly an improvement. On some days I hit 85 mph driving to work and that’s on Hwy 101; hardly an empty, rural road.

Every time speed limits are discussed you get the same driving-nerds out of the woodwork complaining. They have two arguments that can be easily dismissed. On one side they worry over the increase in accidents that comes from faster speeds. Then they complain about the reduced gas mileage you get at higher speeds. These issues ignore a basic fact. People drive at these higher speeds already! Just setting a speed limit doesn’t change people’s behavior. All it does it make them spend their time looking in the rear view for cops.

These rises in speed limits are a nice start. I am happy states are getting a bit closer to normal speeds. I hope California will catch on soon.

Yesterday talks in the WTO collapsed. The Doha round, which began in 2004, has led to the EU and the US trade representatives blaming each other. The US is saying the Europeans lack the ambition to make serious cuts in farm subsidies. The EU is hiding behind the third world. The US insisted any cuts we make in farm aid must be met dollar for dollar with access to developing markets. The Europeans say this is unfair to developing countries and blame the US for being inflexible.

The reason US negotiators were so firm on this issue is because third world countries have hugely protected service sectors. These are industries like telecom, IT, consulting, transportation, etc. In years past developed countries had loosened rules on their agricultural and industrial sectors. This was a boon to the developing economies who, by definition, would have their economies rooted in agriculture and, to a lesser extent, manufacturing. However these developing countries had never opened up the service sector to the US or the Europeans.

You might be questioning why we should care since this sector is so small and why should it be a sticking point. Aside from fairness, which counts for little in international relations, we should care because our companies have the resources to expand these industries. It would provide us with enormous growth potential.

I think the Europeans are hiding behind the third world to shift blame off them. The EU has always protected its farm sector. Thirty five percent of the EU’s budget is spent on farm subsidies. EU negotiators know cuts in agriculture are political death back in Europe so their hands were tied before negotiations began. Acting like they are the great protectors of the third world plays well back home too.

The third-worlders aren’t saints either. They bitch and moan about fair trade but they’re just looking out for themselves. Naturally they want us to open our agricultural sector because they can flood our markets with their cheap food and fill their coffers. However they have no desire to liberalize the rest of their economies and let our companies operate freely. In the third world the service sector is populated by government monopolies or zombie companies that survive thanks to generous subsidies. If American and European companies were allowed in, they would dominate.

These trade talks are one issue where the US is totally right. Letting the third world have access to our markets without them allowing us in, is a raw deal we shouldn’t accept. If we allow that to happen, how will we ever get the third world to embrace free trade?

NASA will soon officially announce the name of the project to return to the Moon. Orion has been registered with the US Patent & Trademark Office for “space vehicles, crew launch vehicles, command modules, crew capsules and cargo launch vehicles”. I am relieved to hear this news. I was so sick of reading about CEVs and CLVs. Happily the CLV project has been christened “Ares“.

People don’t get inspired by acronyms. If the public is going to have any chance of being enthused about space again they need to feel connected with the equipment. A name makes it easier for people to anthropomorphize. Remember those two rovers that were sent to Mars? Spirit and Opportunity were touted in the media as a big success for NASA. Would that really be the case if they were given some technical acronym? If anything they would just end up referred to as “the rovers”.

As excited as I am about this, I have to doubt that Project Orion will develop the same cultural significance as Project Apollo. If Orion ends up being an Apollo redo, it be an obscure footnote like Gemini and Viking; something only space nerds remember. If future Congresses maintain NASA’s budget, and Orion actually does lead to a permanent Moon base, it will be a huge milestone.

This year my employer switched to a new health plan. Part of this is a wellness program that’s supposed to encourage all of us to get more fit. Oddly enough it’s worked a little bit with me. I’m down to eating fast food just once a week and I eat much more fruit. I do have more work to do though. I’m having a lot of trouble getting vegetables into my diet.

Although this wellness program has guilted me into slightly better lifestyle, they could be doing so much more. If they can’t pay for a gym membership, couldn’t they subsidize one? Maybe wellness program participants should get 25% of a gym membership covered. There is one thing my office could be doing a better job with. Like many offices we leave out snacks for staff and guests. People have their choice of candy or fruit. Sounds fair but it’s not really a choice.

Here’s the candy…

And here is the fruit…

Which would you choose when you want a quick snack at the end of the work day? Before you ask, no that green tinge is not an artifact from my phone’s camera. That fruit is well past its prime. How am I supposed to eat healthier when my office is pushing candy on me?