Jump to content

Lance Truthhammer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Lance Truthhammer

  • Rank
    Stock Member
  • Birthday 08/08/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Chicago, IL
  • Interests
    Reading, Writing, Drawing, Water activities, Thinking
  1. I used to love the design competitions here. If I weren't currently busy studying for the bar exam, I would give it a shot. It's been a long time.
  2. This is probably a good thing. Since Buick offers cars in that liminal area between luxury and value it kind of limits what Chevy and Cadillac can offer, you potentially have divisions competing against each other. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I suppose there will always inherently be some overlap, but I imagine this kind of move would allow for more focused products from Chevy and Cadillac. Personally, I think GM should get rid of GMC. There is no reason to have two divisions with such similar vehicles; and it is probably not a great idea, given current trends, to have a division that makes only trucks and SUVs. I would like to see GM keep Pontiac for niche and sporty cars (Vibe, Solstice, G8?). But, I wouldn't lose any sleep if they decided to get rid of Pontiac.
  3. I saw the Stingray at the Autoshow today. I think it is an awesome concept and I voted for best in show. To me, there was simply no contest, and I tried to be impartial. However, I think that it falls far short of being a great concept. Two things seriously detract from the design. First, I think the minimalist headlights and taillights are missed opportunities to add to the beauty of the design. They really don't fit the in-your-face character of the rest of the car. Second, and perhaps contradicting what I just said, I think that maybe the front intakes and rear exhausts need to be toned down. Really the car has amazing lines, these only seem to detract from the shape of the car without really adding anything. If GM can work with this a little more it would be up there with the Sixteen, Solstice, and G6 concepts in my book as the most beautiful ever. I would not be surprised to see many design elements from this in the next generation Corvette. - E.S. Mail
  4. I think he will be rightly missed. If you look at the products GM was offering before his tenure and what they are offering now, then you see the impact he has had. I think GM's exterior designs are now cleaner and more focused, and the interior designs now exhibit better fit and finish. I think the biggest difference is with Cadillac. Many people were excited about the art and science design theme. But the application of it originally left much to be desired (the original CTS). But Lutz infused the theme with elegance. Despite the criticism of some, the results speak for themselves (Sixteen Concept, CTS, Escalade). Hopefully his replacement will share his vision.
  5. I recently discovered Microsoft Photo Zoom. I thought it would be really cool to put all my art online in one album in their original high quality forms. But I don't know if there is a real point to this if other people cannot see it easily. So I am trying this here to (1) see if this even works, and (2) see if it is as cool as I originally thought it would be. I originally intended to put my entire art folder online, but I realized this was tedious and decided to see if it worked first. So here's the link. If it asks you to install Silverlight 2 but you don't want to, don't worry you're not letting me down, there really isn't much to see anyway (nothing new). I know this works on my computer, but I have found in the past that that is not always representative of how things will come across elsewhere. Anyway, if you've read this post thanks, and if you've tried it and can give me some feedback thank you even more. E.S. Mail http://photozoom.mslivelabs.com/Album.aspx...mer&album=1
  6. The title of this pretty much captures my reaction. -E.S. Mail
  7. Part of my post-Easter plans are to start checking C&G again. I had given up C&G for Lent, it was by no means easy.
  8. I was a founding father of Alpha Sigma Phi at Miami University before I transferred to Notre Dame. It was the highlight of my time there,and I would have become involved much earlier if I could go back and do it again. Of course, Notre Dame does not have a greek community. And, having transferred away, I am no longer a member of ASF. I was able to attend the chartering ceremony last fall which reminded me of the enriching experience of it all. It is one of the things I miss the most about MU. - E. S. Mail
  9. I hunt deer, but for me I hunt dinner not trophies. Many of my friends cannot understand this and think it is barbaric, but they fall into two groups (my friends - not everyone opposed to hunting) that is: those from the city, and those who have never tasted venison. One of my friends often says to me that it is cruel to the animals. Perhaps. I would not want to get shot either. At the same time, Indiana, like other states faces decreasing natural habitats for deer and rising deer population. This means an increasing likelihood of diseases - diseases that could be transferred to cattle and even humans. We can see the dangers of an excessively large population in Wisconsin (wasting disease) where they have had to pay hunters from out of state to kill dear they can never eat. -E.S. Mail
  10. Can't tell for sure but it seems like the grille design borrows a bit from Cadillac (which isn't to say that Cadillac invented the style). I am looking forward to seeing it without the camo. - E.S. Mail
  11. I would just caution anyone from adducing this to show that Iranians are "the lowest form of human beings", not only is that patently false, but such rhetoric prevents us from seeing the big picture as well as the real hope for defusing this situation. Clearly, no rational person of pure conscience could look at the holocaust and think it was funny. I assure you that the vast majority of Iranians would agree on the inappropriateness of such a contest, just the way the vast majority of Danish people gasped at the inappropriateness of the initial cartoon. So we should not be too quick to label an entire nation as fanatic. Especially in the case of Iran, the truth is more complicated, and cultural similarities more prevalent than conventional wisdom in the West acknowledges. Before blaming the Iranians entirely for the situation in their country, we should, as Martin Luther King suggested from his cell in a Birmingham jail for a very different clash of cultures, purify ourselves. What this means as we should acknowledge the ways in which our actions have contributed to the problem. We cannot look at the Iranian anti-Western anti-American attitude (again not held by every Iranian) without admitting that our support for the overthrow of the popular Iranian regime in the 50s, followed by our propping up of the repressive and unpopular Shah, our later arming of Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons, and our long-standing support of Israel (seen by many Middle Eastern states as violating international law by not pulling out of the occupied territories and honoring UN mandated borders) has contributed in some way to the sentiments. This is not to argue that any of these actions were unjustified, just that they had an effect. We must also shy away from simplistic portrayals that say Iranians are all violent fanatics, all anti-Western, all anti-Democratic, and all anti-Israel. For few claims does actual evidence more strongly refute. The hope for a democratic and peaceful Iran has never been greater. Currently more than 60% of Iranians are under the age of 18. Among this group there are strong democratic tendencies. Also, this group has shown a major interest in Western culture, such as music and movies from the United States. At no time in the past has the United States' entertainment industry been more popular in Iran than it is today. At the same time, most Iranians would accept a one or two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Iran also, I believe, leads the Middle East in the number of female professionals, and I know for a fact that 60% of college students in Iran are women, and 25% of government seats are occupied by women. Furthermore, support for the US in Iran, while low, is at 19 percent, which is more than more friendly nations like Saudi Arabia (12%) and Egypt (15%) which happens to be the biggest recipient of US Aid. While these are good signs, we must understand that we cannot afford to alienate these progressive trends from the mainstream. In other words, cartoons like the Danish cartoon probably don't make the case of the moderate minority with pro-Western (or at least not anti-Western) positions to defend the West. A hard-line policy that isolates Iran in response to the proliferation crisis would likely do more harm than good. It is true that most Iranians support the aquisition of nuclear weapon technology (55%), and an even larger number wants nuclear technology for energy. Now, it is also true that an Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable. At the same time, their desire for nuclear weapons can be reduced through practical means, although it would not be easy. First, we need to understand that, from an Iranian point of view, nuclear weapons would enhance their security. They see US action against Iraq, a country without nuclear weapons, and the lack thereof with regards to North Korea, a country with nuclear weapons, as a sign that nuclear weapons mean you don't have to worry about war. This is bad logic, but nonetheless prevalent. Moreover, Iran sees itself surrounded by nuclear powers, Israel has an unofficial number of weapons, but it is clear they have them, Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers. They also face a US controlled Iraq. They also see it as a matter of fairness (why can we have them and they cannot - this of course ignores the fact that they signed the NPT). It would be foolish to think that the US cannot act to reduce the fears that lead to the desire for nukes. However, the desire for nuclear power is practicle for a country that makes billions selling oil. We should work to help Iran with its energy concerns while at the same time ensuring any nuclear program remains peaceful. This has been a failed challenge in the past with countries like Pakistan. However, that doesn't mean creative solutions won't work in the future. Ultimately. when we look at the situation closer, the problems seem less intractable, the "others" turn out to be more like "us", and the reasons to hope and the prospects for peace brighten considerably. - E.S. Mail
  12. I think people who have never been through abject poverty combined with a disaster of epic proportions, and a loss of property and loved ones should withhole any criticism of the emotional conditions and actions of those who have. Furthermore, I think someone who has not lived in the inner city, seen the daily struggle and heartache, whether they asked for it or not, should eliminate the phrases "junglebunnies" and "worthless pieces of ____" from their vocabulary. I think we all have a hard time understanding anyone's actions in the aftermath of Katrina, but there is some virtue in trying to understand. Ultimately, anyone in their situation probably would have reacted the same way. Your are lying to yourself if you say otherwise, or to say that the actions we witnessed reflected in any way on color, race or ethicity. On the question of the topic though: My belief is that New Orleans should be rebuilt, but rebuilt better. Clearly this is not the current policy. At most, it appears, New Orleans will achieve half of its previous size. To me, this is a great tragedy in and of itself. Part of what it means to be human is the ability to shape our world to allow for ever increased human thriving. New Orleans was a fine example of what it means to be human. Had human innovation not taken place, New Orleans would have never become a booming metropolis. It would take a grim view of human potential to say that Katrina (that is, the damage of Katrina) was inevitable. The fact is, the whole thing was avoidable. That would have been like early settlers in the New Orleans area saying the flooding of the Mississippi was inevitable. While these things do happen, they can be battled as history has proven quite plainly for all to see. We could have built levees that would have withstood a catagory 5 storm. Indeed such action had been advised for a long time. Instead, the opposite happened. Instead of upgrading the strength of the pumps and levees, funding was cut for the maintainence of what was already there (in the face of changing world conditions that should have told policy makers that was manifestly stupid). We should rebuild New Orleans, not just to make sure the people who lost property and loved ones find new homes in the city they loved, which is, ultimately, a matter of justice, but also so we can all learn how to thrive in an ever changing world - to overcome. We will all be better for it. - E.S. Mail
  13. I listened to the speech last night, and yes that sounds good, end dependence on Middle East oil. Both parties say this. The problem is that, while it is good rhetorically, the benefits of doing so are not so clear. First, the US gets most of its oil from Venezuela (I believe), very little of it comes from Saudi Arabia. Sure we can reduce the oil we get from SA, but it does little to end our dependence on OPEC. Still, reducing dependence on oil has inherent economic benefits (not necessarily national security benefits). Second, concerning the war (or wars) in the Middle East, a reduced dependence on foreign oil holds little value in reducing terrorism. There are a lot of ways that terrorism can be reduced, but I won't go into them here because of the politics of it all, but, suffice is to say, not depending on SA or Iran does not decrease the necessity of pursuing a war on terror. Third, say you did lessen everyone's business with the Middle East thanks to a new technology. That would likely make economic situations much worse. To the extent that it might cause more suffering than what is already experienced in many of those countries that could make matters less stable. To the extent that it might weaken existing regimes to the point that they are replaced by democracies, it could stabilize things in the long term. Essentially, I have trouble seeing what clear benefits arise from eliminating the allegedly huge dependence on the Middle East - at least in terms of stability over there. - E.S. Mail

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets


  • Create New...