Along with many others who hold conservative views, anti-gay people often are hard-pressed to support their views with good, logical arguments.
Someone else--a frequent poster and commenter on HuffPost (formerly Huffington Post) who has, to my mind, intelligent and progressive views—pointed out that if you ask anti–gay marriage people how or why a same-sex couple getting married will affect them, they typically will simply change the subject. Because they can't show any way in which it would affect them, let alone hurt them.
Similarly and again on HuffPost, I challenged a woman (I think the person in question is female but it's often hard to tell their gender from people's online handles) to answer this question: If being gay is a choice, as she maintained, explain to me why anyone would choose to be gay—when being gay means discrimination in many spheres, being told you're a sinner from the pulpit, and even being physically attacked.
Her reply was that people "choose" to be gay to shirk responsibility or avoid pregnancy.
I assume that the responsibility she refers to means the responsibilities, etc., of being a parent. Well, many gay couples these days—mainly lesbian couples but definitely gay male couples as well—do want to be parents and do so through adoption or other means.
Second, many gay men are in fact married and may have fathered children in those marriages. Particularly among my generation, many gay men got married when they were young. (These marriages sometimes are successful but frequently end in divorce, so I'd say that generally it's not a good idea. Still, in these cases you can't say they have shirked the responsibilities of marriage and/or parenthood.)
As to her other argument, about avoiding pregnancy. That's simply silly. People can (and of course do) avoid pregnancy and conception, both within and outside marriage—and that has absolutely nothing to do with being gay.
So, my point is, press these people to back up their opinions and you get replies that are lame at best, totally nonsensical at worst. I have a feeling that, even as they are saying these things, they know they're not making very good sense. But is that going to make them open their minds? You know my answer to that question. Post a comment if you believe I'm wrong.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
SUVs Are Destroying the Planet
I have written numerous times about how I hate SUVs. I am sure also that I've given numerous reasons and recounted how, in addition to my original reason (they have high headlights that hurt my eyes when they shine in my rear-view mirror), I have pretty much continually found more and more reasons to dislike them.
A couple of my current gripes: Several manufacturers of SUVs (and pickup trucks as well) have begun giving their vehicles very aggressive styling. One manufacturer started it and at least two others have followed suit. Presumably this is a selling point with some buyers; but these vehicles deliberately are made to appear intimidating to other drivers, and especially when one of these is following my car too closely—almost literally driving right on my rear bumper—I do in fact find it intimidating. It's as if that huge thing behind me wants to swallow up my car. (Not to mention that following too closely is unsafe, and it almost ensures that my car will get rear-ended if I should have to stop abruptly.)
And I think that intimidated is exactly what the SUV driver wants to make me feel. In this situation I will sometimes make a gesture to convey to them to "back off"; but sometimes that driver can't or won't get the message. A few of them seem genuinely clueless about how intimidating their vehicle, and their driving habits, are.
And—number two—I believe that SUVs are destroying the planet. Well, they and their owners are doing a lot to destroy the planet.
You don't hear this but my logic, I believe, is unassailable. The greenhouse gases that a vehicle emits are in proportion to the fuel consumed. Therefore, the poor fuel economy (and thus, of course and very simply, a lot of fuel burned) translates to high greenhouse gases emission. (See "Update," below.)
People who drive uneconomical vehicles think (and probably will tell you, if you give them a chance) that if they can afford the gas, their vehicle's fuel economy is their business and no one else's. But then, the people who drive enormous SUVs are probably not "green" people nor people with an acute social conscience.
Update, October 4, 2012.
The new vehicle label from the government (EPA/DOT) displays the statement, "Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of climate change and smog." Of course I am happy to see this information being made more available to car buyers. Also, the new labels give an indication of just how much greenhouse-gas emissions the prospective vehicle will produce. So now car buyers will be better equipped to contemplate this aspect of the consequences of their vehicle purchase.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
A couple of my current gripes: Several manufacturers of SUVs (and pickup trucks as well) have begun giving their vehicles very aggressive styling. One manufacturer started it and at least two others have followed suit. Presumably this is a selling point with some buyers; but these vehicles deliberately are made to appear intimidating to other drivers, and especially when one of these is following my car too closely—almost literally driving right on my rear bumper—I do in fact find it intimidating. It's as if that huge thing behind me wants to swallow up my car. (Not to mention that following too closely is unsafe, and it almost ensures that my car will get rear-ended if I should have to stop abruptly.)
And I think that intimidated is exactly what the SUV driver wants to make me feel. In this situation I will sometimes make a gesture to convey to them to "back off"; but sometimes that driver can't or won't get the message. A few of them seem genuinely clueless about how intimidating their vehicle, and their driving habits, are.
And—number two—I believe that SUVs are destroying the planet. Well, they and their owners are doing a lot to destroy the planet.
You don't hear this but my logic, I believe, is unassailable. The greenhouse gases that a vehicle emits are in proportion to the fuel consumed. Therefore, the poor fuel economy (and thus, of course and very simply, a lot of fuel burned) translates to high greenhouse gases emission. (See "Update," below.)
People who drive uneconomical vehicles think (and probably will tell you, if you give them a chance) that if they can afford the gas, their vehicle's fuel economy is their business and no one else's. But then, the people who drive enormous SUVs are probably not "green" people nor people with an acute social conscience.
Update, October 4, 2012.
The new vehicle label from the government (EPA/DOT) displays the statement, "Vehicle emissions are a significant cause of climate change and smog." Of course I am happy to see this information being made more available to car buyers. Also, the new labels give an indication of just how much greenhouse-gas emissions the prospective vehicle will produce. So now car buyers will be better equipped to contemplate this aspect of the consequences of their vehicle purchase.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Crimes Against Civilization
There probably have been countless times when Humanity (or a segment of it) has wiped out a significant portion of our collective, accumulated literary and scientific record.
But here are four that might be some of the more egregious ones, at least insofar as what is known to me.
Remember Cleopatra? She was the last Queen of Egypt. I think it's historically pretty certain that she had affairs with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, but she may have had a political motive. She saw the writing on the wall and was trying to be on the winning side (when the Romans conquered Egypt) and thus save some of her own power.
Well, the reason for bringing her up is just to set the stage. While all this was going on and Roman soldiers were in Egypt, the great library at Alexandria—a depository of much of the then-world's learning—burned. It's not clear whether the Romans torched it or if there was an accident involved; but the fact that we today have only thirty-some extant ancient Greek plays (out of hundreds that were written) probably is just one small part of the immeasurable loss to civilization that was the burning of that library.
Second, Islamic civilization was not only largely heir to much of the learning of the ancient Greeks but had made brilliant progress in mathematics and astronomy. It is fortunate that at least some of that eventually was transmitted to the West (initially via Venice); but again, much has surely been lost. The glorious empire that Islamic rulers had achieved, spreading over much of the world, came under attack from several sides. When the Mongols invaded from the east, they tossed innumerable books into the river. It is said that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers ran black from the ink of the books that had been thrown in.
In Spain, Islamic caliphates were also part of the brilliant world of Islamic learning. In 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella II, with their united forces, completed the reconquest (so-called Reconquista) of Spain by Christians over Muslims. Among innumerable bad consequences (by today's lights)—including the end of tolerance of Jews and Muslims, all of whom had to get out or be killed, often in a painful and horrible way—the new rulers also destroyed all Islamic books except some medical texts.
Oh, and maybe I should mention the Vikings. In the era of Viking raids (starting around 800 AD or earlier, and lasting for a couple hundred years), the Vikings pretty much destroyed a civilization in the north of England and wiped out monasteries. This resulted in the destruction of manuscripts and learning in general, along with the monasteries' scriptoria and schools that taught writing, Latin, and choir. As a witness to the results of this, King Alfred the Great, writing in the 9th century and in the South of England, which had not directly suffered from the Viking raids, lamented the sad state of learning and literacy in England, stating that even many of the clergy were illiterate.
The march of civilization, if it's mostly been forward, has certainly had many, many steps backward, from the fall of civilizations, the sacking and burning of cities, the destruction of libraries, etc.
Update, November 19, 2012
Another destruction of learning, in the form of books and music manuscripts, occurred during the World War II Allied fire bombing of Dresden, Germany--which, by the way, killed tens of thousands of civilians. According to Wikipedia, and despite efforts to move much of the library's collection to less vulnerable locations, some 200,000 manuscripts were destroyed. And then the Soviets, who occupied the eastern or Soviet zone of post-War Germany, plundered another 250,000 volumes, just as they carried off machinery from German factories and personnel such as German rocket scientists; but that's another story.
Update, July 4, 2013
Yet another tragic loss of a great library occurred in 1258 when invading Mongols destroyed the library at Baghdad. The Tigris river was stained by the ink of the books that were thrown in it.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
But here are four that might be some of the more egregious ones, at least insofar as what is known to me.
Remember Cleopatra? She was the last Queen of Egypt. I think it's historically pretty certain that she had affairs with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, but she may have had a political motive. She saw the writing on the wall and was trying to be on the winning side (when the Romans conquered Egypt) and thus save some of her own power.
Well, the reason for bringing her up is just to set the stage. While all this was going on and Roman soldiers were in Egypt, the great library at Alexandria—a depository of much of the then-world's learning—burned. It's not clear whether the Romans torched it or if there was an accident involved; but the fact that we today have only thirty-some extant ancient Greek plays (out of hundreds that were written) probably is just one small part of the immeasurable loss to civilization that was the burning of that library.
Second, Islamic civilization was not only largely heir to much of the learning of the ancient Greeks but had made brilliant progress in mathematics and astronomy. It is fortunate that at least some of that eventually was transmitted to the West (initially via Venice); but again, much has surely been lost. The glorious empire that Islamic rulers had achieved, spreading over much of the world, came under attack from several sides. When the Mongols invaded from the east, they tossed innumerable books into the river. It is said that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers ran black from the ink of the books that had been thrown in.
In Spain, Islamic caliphates were also part of the brilliant world of Islamic learning. In 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella II, with their united forces, completed the reconquest (so-called Reconquista) of Spain by Christians over Muslims. Among innumerable bad consequences (by today's lights)—including the end of tolerance of Jews and Muslims, all of whom had to get out or be killed, often in a painful and horrible way—the new rulers also destroyed all Islamic books except some medical texts.
Oh, and maybe I should mention the Vikings. In the era of Viking raids (starting around 800 AD or earlier, and lasting for a couple hundred years), the Vikings pretty much destroyed a civilization in the north of England and wiped out monasteries. This resulted in the destruction of manuscripts and learning in general, along with the monasteries' scriptoria and schools that taught writing, Latin, and choir. As a witness to the results of this, King Alfred the Great, writing in the 9th century and in the South of England, which had not directly suffered from the Viking raids, lamented the sad state of learning and literacy in England, stating that even many of the clergy were illiterate.
The march of civilization, if it's mostly been forward, has certainly had many, many steps backward, from the fall of civilizations, the sacking and burning of cities, the destruction of libraries, etc.
Update, November 19, 2012
Another destruction of learning, in the form of books and music manuscripts, occurred during the World War II Allied fire bombing of Dresden, Germany--which, by the way, killed tens of thousands of civilians. According to Wikipedia, and despite efforts to move much of the library's collection to less vulnerable locations, some 200,000 manuscripts were destroyed. And then the Soviets, who occupied the eastern or Soviet zone of post-War Germany, plundered another 250,000 volumes, just as they carried off machinery from German factories and personnel such as German rocket scientists; but that's another story.
Update, July 4, 2013
Yet another tragic loss of a great library occurred in 1258 when invading Mongols destroyed the library at Baghdad. The Tigris river was stained by the ink of the books that were thrown in it.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Wherefore Born to the Manor?
O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
We all know that line. It's Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene ii. Unfortunately, many a Juliet—aspiring, wannabe, or otherwise—has delivered it incorrectly. (The showbiz term for how a line is delivered is the "reading," and it includes intonation which in turn is bound up with the meaning: how the actor understands the line and how line will be grasped by the audience.)
The mistake has to do with the meaning of the word wherefore. Note that, as I have (correctly) reproduced the line above, there is no comma after thou. That should be a tipoff.
That is because, contrary to what many people believe, wherefore is not synonymous with where. Wherefore means 'why'. Think of the old phrase "the whys and wherefores." These are two pretty much synonymous words. (Legal usage is the model for giving two essentially synonymous words: it often was felt necessary to give both an Anglo-Saxon and an equivalent French word, in the days when in England both languages were in use, and we still find this in our legal documents.)
In the line from Romeo and Juliet, if you go on and read (or listen to) the rest of the soliloquy, it should be clear that Juliet is not wondering where Romeo is. The meaning is, Why do you have to be Romeo, and a Montague, when the Montague family are my family's enemies? (I would hope that many professional actresses and directors who have put on Romeo and Juliet realize this.)
Language changes. English has changed in the 400 years since Shakespeare, and many words, and meanings of words, have become obsolete. We continue to use words in what you might call ossified or frozen phrases: that is, a phrase may be current but it contains a word with a meaning that has become obsolete.
Some more examples: "Time and tide wait for no man." This does not mean the tide of the oceans, rising and falling. It means 'season', as in Yuletide, Whitsuntide, Easter tide.
What about the phrase, spic and span? Who knows the meanings of the component words? (As a partial gloss, at one time the phrase was more fully, spic and span new, with span being a form of the word we have in brand new.)
Yet another example, this one also from Shakespeare: The phrase is often quoted as "to the manor born"; but in fact, it's manner (Hamlet, Act I, scene iv, line 15). Hamlet is talking about the king's reveling (drinking), and says that he was born to the manner (custom) but does not do it.
So we may hear and even utter phrases that contain words with meanings that are now obsolete or otherwise obscure, and we—perhaps in a very human attempt to make sense out of the language we hear—misinterpret.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
We all know that line. It's Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Act II, scene ii. Unfortunately, many a Juliet—aspiring, wannabe, or otherwise—has delivered it incorrectly. (The showbiz term for how a line is delivered is the "reading," and it includes intonation which in turn is bound up with the meaning: how the actor understands the line and how line will be grasped by the audience.)
The mistake has to do with the meaning of the word wherefore. Note that, as I have (correctly) reproduced the line above, there is no comma after thou. That should be a tipoff.
That is because, contrary to what many people believe, wherefore is not synonymous with where. Wherefore means 'why'. Think of the old phrase "the whys and wherefores." These are two pretty much synonymous words. (Legal usage is the model for giving two essentially synonymous words: it often was felt necessary to give both an Anglo-Saxon and an equivalent French word, in the days when in England both languages were in use, and we still find this in our legal documents.)
In the line from Romeo and Juliet, if you go on and read (or listen to) the rest of the soliloquy, it should be clear that Juliet is not wondering where Romeo is. The meaning is, Why do you have to be Romeo, and a Montague, when the Montague family are my family's enemies? (I would hope that many professional actresses and directors who have put on Romeo and Juliet realize this.)
Language changes. English has changed in the 400 years since Shakespeare, and many words, and meanings of words, have become obsolete. We continue to use words in what you might call ossified or frozen phrases: that is, a phrase may be current but it contains a word with a meaning that has become obsolete.
Some more examples: "Time and tide wait for no man." This does not mean the tide of the oceans, rising and falling. It means 'season', as in Yuletide, Whitsuntide, Easter tide.
What about the phrase, spic and span? Who knows the meanings of the component words? (As a partial gloss, at one time the phrase was more fully, spic and span new, with span being a form of the word we have in brand new.)
Yet another example, this one also from Shakespeare: The phrase is often quoted as "to the manor born"; but in fact, it's manner (Hamlet, Act I, scene iv, line 15). Hamlet is talking about the king's reveling (drinking), and says that he was born to the manner (custom) but does not do it.
So we may hear and even utter phrases that contain words with meanings that are now obsolete or otherwise obscure, and we—perhaps in a very human attempt to make sense out of the language we hear—misinterpret.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Further to My May 27, 2012 Posting, "Some Anti-War Thoughts on Memorial Day"
I just read something interesting. This guy writes,
An interesting and provocative idea. I felt the finger was pointing to me as one of those who don't "get it," and that maybe I should re-examine my thinking on the subject.
Well, I feel that I might do so, at least to the degree of making a distinction between the "grunts" on the one hand and the generals (whom I still hate heartily) on the other.
My first-hand experience of the military consists of having been a cadet in Basic ROTC while in college. (I had to take ROTC. I was attending a land-grant college, and two years—that is, "basic" ROTC—was compulsory, though I tried to get out of it. I did manage to graduate with one-half credit hour less of ROTC than was required; it's a long story, how I managed that.)
I chose Air Force ROTC out of the choice of Army, Air Force, and Navy, simply because Air Force ROTC cadets did not drill with a rifle—and I didn't want to touch a gun, even a mock one.
In the late Spring, when the weather might be quite warm, we Air Force cadets had to drill in our heavy wool winter uniforms—the only ones we had—and it was not uncommon for a cadet to collapse from heat on the drill field. So much for "caring" on the part of the higher-ups.
I don't think I would personally like very many military people or veterans. Statistics show that veterans (and, even more so, veterans' organizations) are politically conservative and they vote Republican. And I believe they are consistently hawkish and they love war. They get together to share nostalgic recollections of the good old days of bombing the shit out of tens of thousands of civilians. (I know, that's harsh.)
Even if the lower-ranking personnel are deserving of my sympathy, I think maybe I can draw a parallel with the Catholic Church. I have a friend who is a former Roman Catholic priest. We don't talk very much about his having been a priest and not at all about his leaving the priesthood; it probably had to do with his being gay.
But he has been telling me that it's the Church hierarchy—bishops and so forth—who are conservative and opposed to a lot of social changes both within and without the Church; and—again according to my friend—even the rank-and-file priests are critical of the position of the bishops and the Church hierarchy, and at least in their hearts oppose those conservative forces in their church.
So maybe it's similar with the military: maybe there is a wide chasm between the higher officers and the men in the lower ranks.
My most popular (in terms of number of pageviews) posting on this blog has been the one I titled "The Military Dehumanizes People," posted on May 25, 2009. And I stand by every word of what I said there.
Update: Expanded on June 10, 2012.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
I think half of us understand firsthand the caring that is at the heart of the U.S. military, but for others of us who are not part of the tradition, we just look from a distance and don't quite get it.
An interesting and provocative idea. I felt the finger was pointing to me as one of those who don't "get it," and that maybe I should re-examine my thinking on the subject.
Well, I feel that I might do so, at least to the degree of making a distinction between the "grunts" on the one hand and the generals (whom I still hate heartily) on the other.
My first-hand experience of the military consists of having been a cadet in Basic ROTC while in college. (I had to take ROTC. I was attending a land-grant college, and two years—that is, "basic" ROTC—was compulsory, though I tried to get out of it. I did manage to graduate with one-half credit hour less of ROTC than was required; it's a long story, how I managed that.)
I chose Air Force ROTC out of the choice of Army, Air Force, and Navy, simply because Air Force ROTC cadets did not drill with a rifle—and I didn't want to touch a gun, even a mock one.
In the late Spring, when the weather might be quite warm, we Air Force cadets had to drill in our heavy wool winter uniforms—the only ones we had—and it was not uncommon for a cadet to collapse from heat on the drill field. So much for "caring" on the part of the higher-ups.
I don't think I would personally like very many military people or veterans. Statistics show that veterans (and, even more so, veterans' organizations) are politically conservative and they vote Republican. And I believe they are consistently hawkish and they love war. They get together to share nostalgic recollections of the good old days of bombing the shit out of tens of thousands of civilians. (I know, that's harsh.)
Even if the lower-ranking personnel are deserving of my sympathy, I think maybe I can draw a parallel with the Catholic Church. I have a friend who is a former Roman Catholic priest. We don't talk very much about his having been a priest and not at all about his leaving the priesthood; it probably had to do with his being gay.
But he has been telling me that it's the Church hierarchy—bishops and so forth—who are conservative and opposed to a lot of social changes both within and without the Church; and—again according to my friend—even the rank-and-file priests are critical of the position of the bishops and the Church hierarchy, and at least in their hearts oppose those conservative forces in their church.
So maybe it's similar with the military: maybe there is a wide chasm between the higher officers and the men in the lower ranks.
My most popular (in terms of number of pageviews) posting on this blog has been the one I titled "The Military Dehumanizes People," posted on May 25, 2009. And I stand by every word of what I said there.
Update: Expanded on June 10, 2012.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, June 4, 2012
Used-Car Buying 101
A friend needs a new(er) car and I've been trying to persuade him that buying a used car is much better for his financial health. In fact, Money magazine recently said that, if you're over 50 years old, you should buy a used car every five years (and I'm not sure what age car they're recommending but I think it's also five years). And financial advice in other places as well has cautioned against sinking a lot of money into a depreciating asset--a new car.
Also, if you want to have a nice car but don't have the price of admission, consider buying used. Maybe you can have a used Audi for the cost of a Ford Focus. A lot of people have known of this strategy for a long time.
My father always used to say that if you buy a used car, you're buying someone else's troubles. And the friend I mentioned is very apprehensive about buying used.
The fact is, cars these days are more reliable, and last longer, than they used to. A couple of the Japanese makes such as Honda and Toyota are legendary for their reliability and will last much longer than 100,000 miles—and can even still be virtually trouble-free at that mileage. So you can buy a used car without much anxiety, at least if you choose the make and model wisely. (There are some turkeys and even lemons out there!)
I myself have not bought a new car since 1989. My last three cars—a Toyota, an Acura, and another Toyota—were bought used, with low mileage and in very nice shape, and have been very reliable.
I'd say I have a definite (used)-car buying strategy, and I feel it's been successful in that the cars I've bought have been virtually trouble-free. With three cars, in 14 years and I don't know how many miles, I've had--except for expenses like replacing tires and batteries, which might be considered more maintenance than repairs--only one major repair I can think of, and that was for a water pump.
First, before deciding which make/model you're interested in, check Consumer Reports. They have an annual report on used cars with reliability ratings, by model. Remember, it's the model that's important, not the make. And go by Consumer Reports rather than what your brother-in-law or your neighbor says about his experience with the make (or model): The experience of many owners, collectively, as in the Consumer Reports ratings, is better than what just one person says.
Moreover, I try to follow a number of do's and don'ts when buying a car. I shared all of this advice with my friend and felt I should also share it with my readers.
It's in Q & A format:
Q: Where did you buy it? Dealer?
A: I'll only buy a car from a new car dealer--on the presumption that they have some concern for their reputation--and even then, only a dealer that I've checked out with the Better Business Bureau beforehand. Before I settled on the present car (Toyota Solara) I in fact found an Acura similar to the car I'd had previously, and at a dealer fairly close by--but they had a bad rating with the BBB so I wouldn't even consider dealing with them.
New car dealers offer for sale cars they took in as trade-ins or which they leased. Cars they take in but which are not top-notch they may sell via auto auctions. But used-car dealers always acquire their cars at auction, and even they may not be certain of what they're getting.
Q: Did it have a guarantee of any kind?
A: With the Acura I had, since it was a certified car, I got the balance of the original warranty plus 1 year. A very good deal, I feel.
With the (present) Toyota I paid about $400 extra for the car being "certified"--which was probably stupid of me since the work of "certifying" the car had already been done--whether I paid for it or not after the fact.
Other than buying a certified car, or paying for a (not worth it!) aftermarket warranty, you don't get a warranty with used cars anymore. However, getting a certified car is a very good idea. You pay, I figure, about $1000 more.
When buying from one of those used-car supermarkets, like CarMax, you also pay about $1000 more than you might at some other places. But their cars have been checked over, so presumably that is roughly as good as buying a certified car (I have no personal experience with them).
Q: What percentage of the car's original price did you pay?
A: The used cars I've bought were typically around 3 – 4 years old when I bought them, and a car that age—depending on make—might retain 50% or more of its original value. Of course used-car prices depend heavily on the mileage, and I paid a bit more for low-mileage cars. I'm not interested in buying a car with 100,000 or even 60,000 miles on its odometer. I'm looking for maybe 40,000 or so miles on a three-year old car--which would be a bit less than average annual mileage. (Average is supposed to be 15,000.)
When I bought one car, the dealer had quite a few examples of the model to choose from, probably all having recently come off lease. Start out your shopping on the Internet and you'll see what dealer has what, and what the range of prices is. I use autotrader.com, but there are other, similar sites. You can start your in-person shopping with the car that looks like the best deal for the price (best ratio of mileage to price)--after, of course, you've checked out the dealer with the Better Business Bureau.
Q: Did you have it checked by a mechanic before you bought it?
A: No. Though everyone says it's a good idea to do so. Whether you do or don't do this, always insist that the dealer show you the Carfax report on the particular vehicle. That can rule out many of the cars you were initially considering if you reject a car for anything on the report that's not ideal (e.g., too many owners, having been in an accident, a suspicious drop in the odometer reading which could mean that the dealer rolled back the odometer).
For readers in countries outside the US: I apologize for my US units (miles). To convert, 1 km is about 0.6 mile. Also, some businesses like CarMax and Carfax may not be present outside the US and Canada.
Update, June 17, 2012.
For a guide to what prices on a used car ought to be, you can look at Edmunds.com or Kelly Blue Book (link: http://www.kbb.com/used-cars/). However, if you are looking at the listings of what's for sale in your area on cars.com, that site has the helpful feature of displaying the highest, lowest, and average asking prices of the cars of the make/model you have displayed. And you know these are at least actual asking prices for your area.
Update, January 19, 2013
I failed to mention one possibility for the used-car shopper: the car sales units of the major car-rental companies.
First, I'd say that if you want to buy one of these cars (and the rental companies sell off their cars when they're still pretty new), be aware that they are likely to have a rather basic trim level; that is, the smaller or smallest of available engine options, and only basic levels of interior appointments and options.
Second, in my (limited) experience of shopping at these places, my feeling was that you don't get that good a deal.
Third, my uncle always used to say that it's hard on a car to have a lot of drivers. I don't know if that's true. But, while the rental companies probably maintained the car pretty religiously, on the other hand you don't know how hard some of the renters might have driven it.
Update, January 20, 2013
For more car-buying tips--which apply to buying both a new or a used car--see my January 20, 2013 posting, "Used (and New) Car Buying 102."
And I'd like to elaborate on the reasons for my suggestion to check the dealer's ratings with the Better Business Bureau before going there in person. First, if they have a bad rating, my feeling is that you might have a greater chance of being sold a car that is not a good one--a lemon. Even more likely is that if you do have any problem, you'll have less chance of getting a resolution to the problem that is to your satisfaction. But they all have their means--subtle or not--of trying to get the better of you; so, with car shopping as nowhere else, you just can't be too alert and on the lookout for whatever a fast-talking salesman might try to put over on you.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Also, if you want to have a nice car but don't have the price of admission, consider buying used. Maybe you can have a used Audi for the cost of a Ford Focus. A lot of people have known of this strategy for a long time.
My father always used to say that if you buy a used car, you're buying someone else's troubles. And the friend I mentioned is very apprehensive about buying used.
The fact is, cars these days are more reliable, and last longer, than they used to. A couple of the Japanese makes such as Honda and Toyota are legendary for their reliability and will last much longer than 100,000 miles—and can even still be virtually trouble-free at that mileage. So you can buy a used car without much anxiety, at least if you choose the make and model wisely. (There are some turkeys and even lemons out there!)
I myself have not bought a new car since 1989. My last three cars—a Toyota, an Acura, and another Toyota—were bought used, with low mileage and in very nice shape, and have been very reliable.
I'd say I have a definite (used)-car buying strategy, and I feel it's been successful in that the cars I've bought have been virtually trouble-free. With three cars, in 14 years and I don't know how many miles, I've had--except for expenses like replacing tires and batteries, which might be considered more maintenance than repairs--only one major repair I can think of, and that was for a water pump.
First, before deciding which make/model you're interested in, check Consumer Reports. They have an annual report on used cars with reliability ratings, by model. Remember, it's the model that's important, not the make. And go by Consumer Reports rather than what your brother-in-law or your neighbor says about his experience with the make (or model): The experience of many owners, collectively, as in the Consumer Reports ratings, is better than what just one person says.
Moreover, I try to follow a number of do's and don'ts when buying a car. I shared all of this advice with my friend and felt I should also share it with my readers.
It's in Q & A format:
Q: Where did you buy it? Dealer?
A: I'll only buy a car from a new car dealer--on the presumption that they have some concern for their reputation--and even then, only a dealer that I've checked out with the Better Business Bureau beforehand. Before I settled on the present car (Toyota Solara) I in fact found an Acura similar to the car I'd had previously, and at a dealer fairly close by--but they had a bad rating with the BBB so I wouldn't even consider dealing with them.
New car dealers offer for sale cars they took in as trade-ins or which they leased. Cars they take in but which are not top-notch they may sell via auto auctions. But used-car dealers always acquire their cars at auction, and even they may not be certain of what they're getting.
Q: Did it have a guarantee of any kind?
A: With the Acura I had, since it was a certified car, I got the balance of the original warranty plus 1 year. A very good deal, I feel.
With the (present) Toyota I paid about $400 extra for the car being "certified"--which was probably stupid of me since the work of "certifying" the car had already been done--whether I paid for it or not after the fact.
Other than buying a certified car, or paying for a (not worth it!) aftermarket warranty, you don't get a warranty with used cars anymore. However, getting a certified car is a very good idea. You pay, I figure, about $1000 more.
When buying from one of those used-car supermarkets, like CarMax, you also pay about $1000 more than you might at some other places. But their cars have been checked over, so presumably that is roughly as good as buying a certified car (I have no personal experience with them).
Q: What percentage of the car's original price did you pay?
A: The used cars I've bought were typically around 3 – 4 years old when I bought them, and a car that age—depending on make—might retain 50% or more of its original value. Of course used-car prices depend heavily on the mileage, and I paid a bit more for low-mileage cars. I'm not interested in buying a car with 100,000 or even 60,000 miles on its odometer. I'm looking for maybe 40,000 or so miles on a three-year old car--which would be a bit less than average annual mileage. (Average is supposed to be 15,000.)
When I bought one car, the dealer had quite a few examples of the model to choose from, probably all having recently come off lease. Start out your shopping on the Internet and you'll see what dealer has what, and what the range of prices is. I use autotrader.com, but there are other, similar sites. You can start your in-person shopping with the car that looks like the best deal for the price (best ratio of mileage to price)--after, of course, you've checked out the dealer with the Better Business Bureau.
Q: Did you have it checked by a mechanic before you bought it?
A: No. Though everyone says it's a good idea to do so. Whether you do or don't do this, always insist that the dealer show you the Carfax report on the particular vehicle. That can rule out many of the cars you were initially considering if you reject a car for anything on the report that's not ideal (e.g., too many owners, having been in an accident, a suspicious drop in the odometer reading which could mean that the dealer rolled back the odometer).
For readers in countries outside the US: I apologize for my US units (miles). To convert, 1 km is about 0.6 mile. Also, some businesses like CarMax and Carfax may not be present outside the US and Canada.
Update, June 17, 2012.
For a guide to what prices on a used car ought to be, you can look at Edmunds.com or Kelly Blue Book (link: http://www.kbb.com/used-cars/). However, if you are looking at the listings of what's for sale in your area on cars.com, that site has the helpful feature of displaying the highest, lowest, and average asking prices of the cars of the make/model you have displayed. And you know these are at least actual asking prices for your area.
Update, January 19, 2013
I failed to mention one possibility for the used-car shopper: the car sales units of the major car-rental companies.
First, I'd say that if you want to buy one of these cars (and the rental companies sell off their cars when they're still pretty new), be aware that they are likely to have a rather basic trim level; that is, the smaller or smallest of available engine options, and only basic levels of interior appointments and options.
Second, in my (limited) experience of shopping at these places, my feeling was that you don't get that good a deal.
Third, my uncle always used to say that it's hard on a car to have a lot of drivers. I don't know if that's true. But, while the rental companies probably maintained the car pretty religiously, on the other hand you don't know how hard some of the renters might have driven it.
Update, January 20, 2013
For more car-buying tips--which apply to buying both a new or a used car--see my January 20, 2013 posting, "Used (and New) Car Buying 102."
And I'd like to elaborate on the reasons for my suggestion to check the dealer's ratings with the Better Business Bureau before going there in person. First, if they have a bad rating, my feeling is that you might have a greater chance of being sold a car that is not a good one--a lemon. Even more likely is that if you do have any problem, you'll have less chance of getting a resolution to the problem that is to your satisfaction. But they all have their means--subtle or not--of trying to get the better of you; so, with car shopping as nowhere else, you just can't be too alert and on the lookout for whatever a fast-talking salesman might try to put over on you.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
