I really hesitated to join this conversation. I could debate these types of things all day, but I greatly dislike presenting points without some type of data to support them, and I certainly don't have time right now to dig up statistics. But, before trashing my message I decided to post with the disclaimer that these are my thoughts based on past experience, and I cannot provide links to support them, etc. But, these are my thoughts. Big business loves big government. Monsanto is powerful. It would be a miracle if the free market system actually applied to Monsanto. With government regulations and agencies on their side because of power, millions donated to politicians, it doesn't matter what the average joe or the struggling farmer thinks. Monsanto can call the shots. They purchase smaller competitors to get rid of competition, and they have plenty of hands in Washington, DC, supporting them. They, and other big corporations like them, do it partly in the name of the "public good." I am reminded of the wonderful legislation that made it illegal to sell toys unless they had had extensive lead testing. Didn't matter how very rarely lead is found in toys. Mattel was a big proponent of this legislation. Why? Why would they support legislation that adds money to their total cost, drives up the price of their toys to consumers, and basically addresses a non-problem? Now it's illegal for thrift shops to sell second-hand toys unless they've been tested. Mattel just eliminated a huge industry that competed with them. I know of small publishers that had to trash their entire CD/DVD industry because they couldn't afford lead testing on their already-printed products. Some went out of business. When do babies chew on CD/DVD's enough to justify regulation? Some states have even said they are going to police/monitor garage sales to be sure no untested toys are sold at garage sales. Big $$ for Mattel if you can only legally buy new toys. Same goes for Monsanto. I believe only in the free market, and I believe government manages to cause everything in which it is involved to decline. Monsanto isn't truly operating in an only-free-market system. Politically I am a strong conservative. I used to champion private companies. Now in my old age I am seeing how large corporations are able to manipulate markets through their connections in government. I am greatly disturbed. Monsanto could do with some good competition, but it's hard to compete with a corporation so big they can control the people who make the rules. It would also be a breath of fresh air if states would begin fighting/nullifying federal agricultural regulations that hurt their farmers but increase the market share of Monsanto and other ag companies like them. We as people have such a smaller voice in Washington, but sometimes our local reps listen to us.

The author obviously didn't do his homework or was just doing a puff piece because he neglected to ask Mr. Carl about Viking's recent relationship with Asian juggernaut LG. I see a few problems with their strategy long term: watering down a high line or luxury brand rarely works, you ruin the very thing that got you to the show - quality and exclusivity. while they claim to practice kaizan - I just think those country boys can't figure it out. Many of their products still have quality issues. Their built in fridges still have defects that were in the product from day one. Not good for image as a "quality manuf. " they've done a piss poor job marketing their metal cabinets - I see more LaCornue metal cabs than I do St. Charles/Viking and they cost 5 times as much. Still unclear what their Asian partner strategy is.

I live in MD by the Chesapeake Bay in what is fondly known in this area as "the bubble" b/c just north of us, the Baltimore area often gets snow while we just get rain as does the western side of Wash DC. We have had several "snow" days in my county when all we had was rain b/c the school system made one bad call this winter, starting school on time when every county around us had a delay due to an ice storm that arrived just when buses were headed out. We have had countless delays for a variety of "no show" predicted weather. Just over a week ago, we had a 2 hr delay b/c temps were in the single digits. That caused a huge debate. Then for school yesterday, another 2hr delay was announced Sunday night b/c temps were predicted to fall below freezing and cause black ice from melting snow. And yet temps did not fall below freezing until mid-day. One local FAcebook page had one woman all upset b/c there was ice on the school sidewalk which she thought was dangerous. The hilarious part was that she posted a picture of the sidewalk, 3/4 of which was heavily sanded for pedestrians. There were cones along the side to mark where people should walk. I was astounded that she was upset b/c the sidewalk was properly treated! Yet she wants schools closed b/c despite being heavily sanded, they were not cleared to pavement. I'd hate to be the decision maker b/c they can't win...they will never please everyone. I do agree that we are coddling our kids. The only ones complaining on Facebook around here are the ones whose kids have the means to be properly dressed, are dropped off at school or have a quick school bus ride. I'm sure the ones who can't afford proper winter clothing most likely *want* their kids to have school b/c they have jobs that either won't allow them to take time off or they can't afford to b/c it means they don't get paid. It also means their kids will have a meal/free lunch, something they might not get at home if there isn't much money. Funny thing is, my neighbor has discovered that on most of the local Facebook pages, the majority of people complaining that school should be delayed or closed are people who are employed by the school,system so it isn't an inconvenience to them like it is to other working parents.

After the first hundred miles south of the Oregon border (like to Eureka), Hwy 101 in California leaves the coast. While it is the highway of the "coastal region", it's often a good distance from the ocean itself. Peeks of SF Bay (not Pac Ocean) views are visible along the stretch from 30 miles north of to about 30 miles south of San Francisco, and it's then an inland freeway (no ocean views) until just before Santa Barbara. As lars describes, the actual coast road is Hwy 1 and it's mostly a 1 lane in each direction road with very slow going until SoCal. Where it gets wider once back in civilization but has more traffic. I think of the coast area north of SF as being quite foggy and damp for much of the year. "Summer" corresponds to late summer, early fall. We once drove up to Portland, intending to come back driving down the coast. With all due respect to Oregonians, we didn't find the Oregon coast much different from the coast area from SF to Oregon that we were more familiar with and it was similarly damp. We wound up altering our plans and left the coast. We visited the two college towns in the Willamette Valley, went to Crater Lake, and then made a beeline down Hwy 5 (the inland freeway) so we could spend the extra time planned but unused for the trip at an unscheduled stop of several days in the Napa Valley. We liked that a lot better. Edit to add - Yes, as Lars said, PCH (Pacific Coast Hwy) when so-named from its northernmost end I think beginning just south of Ventura, is numbered as Hwy 1, not 101. Hwy 101 in Ventura is a freeway and turns inland there toward LA's San Fernando Valley. It doesn't see the ocean again, staying inland thereafter until it combines with Interstate 5 in southern Orange County (near Irvine) and ends. Hwy 5 survives as the highway designation thereafter in the south direction to the border. Along many stretches before La Jolla and San Diego, it has ocean views. Some Bay and Harbor views after La Jolla enroute to the border.