Couldn't sleep and couldn't see the sense in laying there awake so I was on the road a bit before 4 a.m. That got me through Portland before 6:00 and the thick of rush hour traffic. This Nissan Maxima drives like a Barco-lounger but for this drive it's fine; 300 miles of straight ahead doesn't exactly make for sports car driving.

It has blind spot warning. An orange light located at the base of the A pillar comes on when a car is alongside me. That's fine, I guess, but I wonder how many people grow to depend on that feature instead of checking their mirrors carefully. In this car you'd better check your mirrors because looking over your right shoulder shows you nothing.
I'm in the habit of looking over my shoulder before lane changes, something left over from my motorcycle days. This car has a giant blind spot over my right shoulder. Can't see a thing.

I don't understand. Honestly. I don't get it.

Several states announced plans to sue the President over the decision to include a question about citizenship on the next census form. I haven't read anywhere the exact wording of the question but let's assume it's a simple, "Are you a citizen of the United States?"
What's the problem?
It seems to me a good thing to know how many of the total population are citizens and how many aren't. Those who check "no" might be here on any number of legal and legit visas and if they are they'd have nothing to worry about.
If they are not here with a legit visa - i.e., if they're here illegally either because they entered the country illegally or overstayed a legal visa - it seems to me they should understand the potential outcomes of their decision.
If I read the news stories accurately the Democrats' opposition to the return (!) of this question to the census form has to do with their fear that illegal immigrants won't return their census forms and that in turn will reduce the federal funds allotted to districts with a higher percentage of illegal immigrants.
Anybody else see a problem here?

In today's pipe dream department, there's a growing chorus calling for the repeal of the second amendment. Yeah, like that's gonna happen.
I suspect the people who think repeal is a real option live east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason Dixon, or in L.A. They do NOT live in the midwest (or in Elmira).

We sometimes read about people in European countries who cannot figure out our fascination with guns. Methinks there's a reason it seems so strange to them.
If you've been to Europe you know how small those countries are. In the six hours it takes me to drive from our home in the middle of Oregon to my mom's in the middle of Washington I could drive through two or three countries in Europe. And one of my take-aways from reading three Zane Grey novels (I'll go back for more) is the history of make-your-own justice that was a part of settling the west. That plus protection from predators made carrying a gun a fact of life in the 19th century.
The second amendment applies equally well whether you live in Wyoming or L.A. That said, I understand why people wonder why big city residents need a gun, never mind an AK47. (I wonder why anyone needs an AK47 anywhere.) But life in the wide open and vast rural areas is something Europeans, and apparently people who live in U.S. big cities will never understand.

That '78 Honda Civic is holding steady at $3,400 with two days left in the auction. It's a no reserve auction that I'll watch closely near the end. I expect it to quickly surpass our threshold but every once in awhile a sleeper slips through. With only 30,000 miles it has a lot of life left in it, offers great reliability and very good mpg.

Walmart is removing the magazine Cosmopolitan from racks at their checkout lanes because the covers are too salacious to display there and, per a Walmart statement, are inconsistent with the current rising awareness of sexual exploitation. They'll still sell them in the magazine section of the store.
Hmmmm. Raunch and exploitation is OK so long as the littles can't see it.

I realized this morning that next Wednesday is the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination. Does not seem like it's been that long.
I wonder what he would think about the state of race relations now? Would he think we've made progress? Would he be pleased, frustrated, or both? What would be his priorities for moving forward?