Monday, February 23, 2009

Come Home, America

The Detroit News reports today that most of The One's new auto industry secretariat drives -- wait for it -- foreign cars! And, at least a couple of them don't even own a car!

Look, I am all for the free market, and if American companies don't measure up, people should vote with their pocketbooks and go elsewhere. The judgment of the marketplace can be harsh, but it is what it is, and that's what drives improvement.

That said, American cars these days are just as good as the stuff being churned out by foreign competitors. I have never owned anything except an American car and, except for the one that was totaled in an accident, all lasted well in excess of 100,000 miles. So don't tell me that American cars aren't as good as foreign cars, particularly the models in which the auto panel tools around -- e.g., a 1995 Mazda Protege (Lawrence Summers, Director of the National Economic Council) or a 1998 Subaru Legacy Outback station wagon (Lisa Heinzerling, senior climate policy counsel to the head of the EPA).

The head of the EPA drives a Prius, for crying out loud -- what hope do American manufacturers have?

In some ways, there's a sweet irony here. The UAW has been in bed with the Democrats since dog was a pup, and the Democrats have eagerly courted UAW manpower, votes, and, most importantly, money. When it came time to walk the walk, however, the Democrats headed straight to their local Toyota, Mazda, and Subaru showrooms, rather than buy the products manufactured by their most ardent supporters. Nice, huh?

Can anyone trust the Democrats? They have destroyed countless black families through their misguided social policies; succeeded in keeping us dependent on foreign oil by thwarting any attempt to develop fully America's coal, oil, or nuclear power capabilities; and now shown that they are incapable of even the slightest act of loyalty to the union that is responsible for delivering millions of votes and tens of millions of dollars.

To the UAW, to black families, and to everyone who wants clean, cheap, plentiful energy -- come home. Come home to those of us who believe in personal responsibility and accountability, who value loyalty to America, and who want to build a foundation for freedom and individual innovation and enterprise.


  1. Who doesn't want to drive an American car? They are the COOLEST - except that people want vehicles that are clean and efficient, & save them money in the longterm, not just a rebate at time of purchase. See end of comment for more...

    Still, that there was even a question over whether the auto companies should be bailed out was shocking to me; a clear signal that the salt of the earth (workers) are considered as naught.
    (And - I beg you, o Wiz, out of context, please blog about why the Madoff character isn't in jail?)

    OK, now you wrote advocating to "...develop fully America's coal, oil, or nuclear power capabilities". Even if any profits were put in a trust to benefit the general populace, I would be against it as
    dirty (coal), filthy(oil), and suicidally stupid (nuclear). Solar baby! or freedom fry oil, please! (I don't think devoting cropland to biofuels is the answer...}

    One last item from online Media General News Service, Washington Bureau, from June 2008: A new law, slipped into an energy bill that passed Congress in 2005 and now taking effect, mandates that members of Congress can only lease fuel-efficient, low emission vehicles.

    Out: many mid-size and most large SUVs, like the Lincoln Navigator or Ford Expedition. In: hybrid SUVs and sedans, small cars, and flex fuel vehicles.

    Lawmakers can keep their old vehicles until the lease expires.

  2. K-Roll -- Sorry for not responding sooner.

    First, don't ask me to explain Madoff's freedom. That's New York, and it's probably an example of the elitists protecting the elitists. In any event, you can't blame the Republicans for this one -- the magistrate judge who refused to jail Madoff is a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

    As for fuel and energy, you need to catch up. Even Obama claims to love "clean coal," the environmental bleating over oil is ludicrously overblown, and nuclear is about as safe as it gets. Even the French believe in nuclear power, and you know how they are about danger!

    I can certainly understand those who think the auto companies should reorganize through bankruptcy (I am not one of these), but I cannot understand the blatant double standard -- banks get hundreds of billions with no strings attached while auto companies, on whom millions depend, have to grovel and jump through hoops on fire to get a few lousy billion. Oh well, that's the Washington elite for you.

    Keep those cards and letters coming!

  3. Yes, and Obama is wrong!- there is no such thing as clean coal! aside from all the other havoc any coal operation causes, ask Tennessee how clean it is...and nuclear plants release radioactive gases when routinely operational as there is no filter in existence that can capture them - and oil dependence has got to change. I understand the strategic brilliance of using 9/11 in order to plop ourselves down in the Middle East to stake our claim of the bubblin' crude: it's the execution that blew, and the rank and sinful consequences that blew more. RE America's own oil: "[nw Colorado's] deposits of oil shale are believed to be larger than all the oil reserves of the Middle East. But past attempts to get at this oil locked in tarry rock have cost billions of dollars and raised the prospect of strip-mining large areas of the Rocky Mountain West... Shell and other companies say they have developed techniques that may extract this treasure with much less environmental impact.

    Shell's project is stunningly complex. Instead of strip-mining the rock and then processing it, Shell plans to superheat huge underground areas for several years, gradually percolating oil out of the stone and pumping it to the surface.

    Years of testing still lie ahead. Shell's heating process risks polluting local water supplies, and the enormous amounts of electricity needed would require construction of the West's largest power plants.

    But even opponents say the new technology might just succeed.

    "It's a very high-stakes gamble," said Randy Udall, an environmentalist who is director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency in nearby Aspen. "It's probably folly, but if not, it's brilliant inspiration." ...Though often compared to the oil sands being mined in the Canadian province of Alberta, oil shale is much more difficult to extract and to transform into crude.

    To coax the oil out of the rock, it must be heated to high temperatures. In the 1970s and early 1980s, companies including Exxon, Atlantic Richfield, Unocal, Shell and Chevron spent billions on strip-mining large volumes of oil shale and then cooking it in huge retorts, or kilns.

    The process disfigured the landscape, spewed out vast heaps of slag and sucked up tens of millions of dollars in federal synthetic fuels subsidies -- but produced only a poor-quality crude that required costly refining.

    When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he eliminated the subsidy." (SF Chronicle, 9/4/06)

    We are so good at despoiling our own nest - why can't the equivalent amount of dollars be pumped into science education and research into other methods - it is as if we are on this track because that's all we know. We need more of an Imagineer culture (and not the Disney kind).