There are basic human forces of psychology that lead to nepotism and the establishment of aristocracy: the (natural) desire of parents to help their children as much as possible, the ease with which family connections allow succeeding generations to climb the ladder, and the "brand name" phenomenon which allows political families to remain popular long after their brightest lights have left the stage.

I attended a relatively prestigious college and it was explained to me that, among the 100+ freshmen on my floor, exactly one had any chance to be elected to Congress and for him it was a lock. Because he was a Kennedy. Sure enough, when he graduated from college (after moving to Rhode Island), he was set up in a very safe district which is giving him a job for life.

What is disturbing about this is that there were at least 10 others on my freshman floor who were considerably brighter and more talented than this current representative, but the possibility that any of them could run for office without family connections was dismissed as ludicrous.

And no, this kind of nepotism isn't widespread in other industries, and that fact highlights the realization that the vast majority of elected politicians are simply placeholders, not subject to real evolutionary pressures that test their merit.

The example of Hollywood was cited, but even a super-powerful producer like Aaron Spelling can only get his daughter jobs, and cannot make her acting abilities lucrative.

My conclusion from this observation is that the industries where nepotism is the worse are those industries where failure is tolerated the most. Meritocracy only works where failure is punished by the evolutionary pressures of whatever arena is in question. In political punditry, there is virtually no evolutionary pressure, as pundits who espouse ludicrously stupid ideas are never held accountable for their stupidity. Either that, or they are simply empty talking heads.

I don't know if the aristocracy is growing or not. After all, we've had the Tafts, the Cabots, the Lodges, etc. for quite a long time. But I do wish there would be a little less family name worship.

I, too, am baffled by the fact that Fords built in Germany have been better than those built in the US.

I tire of seeing the blame put on the UAW. From what I can see, the marketing strategy of the Big Three in the US has been based almost entirely on guilt and misplaced patriotism.

I do not quite understand why cars today are much less fuel-efficient than those built in the 80s. Apparently everybody in positions of power decided that fuel efficiency was a sign of being a fan of Jimmy Carter.

Either that, or they simply encouraged the SUV fad as much as possible, since SUVs have a higher profit margin and fewer environmental regulations than compact cars.

In any case, I've been driving Nissans for quite some time (2 decades now) and they have an excellent record for service and durability. American cars do not. This difference has been well-established by Consumers Union in all of their surveys of this issue over the years.

And no, I do not understand why it is necessary to "bail out" failing industries. Our current economic model appears to socialize all the risk while privatizing all the rewards. That hardly seems fair.

As for the TV season, the only new show that interested me at all was "True Blood", and I have to say I'm getting a bit tired of the glorification of vampires. I'm glad to see that Anna Paquin has a gig worthy of her talents, but the consistency of the plot is a bit lacking. Sookie's mind-reading ability feels like Jamie Somers' bionic hearing: it's just a plot device to be used occasionally, when it suits the purposes of the author.

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

I'm referring, of course, to picking the Saints over the Bucs.

The rest of the column seems unremarkable. That Lizzie gets embarrassing when she's lit up, doesn't she?

As a Pats fan, I think I can say that real Pats fans have kept an eye on the Dolphins for a long time. It seems that in recent years, sweeps of the Dolphins have been less common than splits. Usually, Jason Taylor would beat up on Matt Light and thrash Brady for a few sacks in at least one of their two matchups.

Having said that, it is worth mentioning that the first game featured the Wildcat for Miami for the very first time. Belichick has had about two months to think about defending against it. I'm not saying the Pats will win, but you seem to be taking the attitude that the Dolphins should definitely be favored, which seems odd to me.

Anyway, I'm glad you're not buying into the media hype surrounding the Jets. They were one blown coverage away from losing in overtime last week, or one dropped pass, or one bizarre penalty. They are not yet at the level of the Steelers, Titans, or Colts in the AFC.