I have an idea. Instead of a bailout, let's give the Big 3 Detroit automakers a clue. It won't cost anything and it might be more useful in the long run.
The big quandry these days is whether we should give GM, Ford and Chrysler $25 billion to tide them over until... until what? Until they start making cars people actually want to buy? Until they stop paying people ludicrously high salaries to screw door handles on trucks? What do they think is going to change six months from now? They're not going to suddenly become viable companies with a good business plan and stellar products.
$25 billion doesn't sound like a lot considering Congress just voted to give financial institutions $700 billion. But the banks know what they did wrong, and I seriously doubt they're going to be writing a lot of subprime mortgages now to people who can't pay them back. Letting a few banks go under may not be a tragedy, but letting a lot of them go under would have been. So what will happen if the Big 3 suddenly become the Big 2? Yes, there will be jobs lost, but there will be anyway. Nobody seriously thinks all three of these companies will go under, particularly Ford, which seems to be in a much better position than GM or Chrysler.
Chrysler is already owned by a private equity firm. GM has been horribly mismanaged for decades. If one of these companies goes belly up, it may give Ford enough new business that they could hold on through this economic slowdown without any help. But Ford would need to get its act together as well -- why, for instance, is there a Mercury brand? Like GM, who needs to jettison Pontiac, Buick and Saturn, I can't figure out why they haven't ditched all these different name plates and their individual management groups a long time ago. These automakers will have to streamline no matter what; it would make sense to me to get rid of these redundant brands which just don't make good business sense and never did.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used to buy nothing but GM cars. My now ex-husband also had Ford trucks. Then one day I went to look at the new models and was so disgusted by them that I took off for the nearest Honda dealership. I have never looked back, and that was 20 years ago. They lost my business like they lost a lot of other people's business through poor design and worse reliability.
In this age it's entirely possible to buy an American-made Toyota that has a larger percentage of parts made in the U.S. than your neighbor's Chevy, which was made in Mexico with an engine from Japan. If you want to be patriotic and "buy American," there is no longer a clear definition of what that means in the auto industry. BMW is expanding its plant in South Carolina; VW is looking at building a plant here because labor is actually cheaper here than in Germany. There will be jobs for auto workers, the only question is what companies can make cars that are reliable and that people want to buy?
The Big 3 need to learn another lesson -- they made a lot of money for many years from the explosion in SUV and truck sales, all the while paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists to keep Congress from legislating higher fuel mileage standards and bypassing the ones that did exist by getting them to exclude SUVs from the mix. Now the consumer is also to blame here, as they bought these monster SUVs and trucks and said "I don't give a damn" to the environment (while conveniently forgetting that our dependence on foreign oil is also a national security issue). It's now time for Detroit to own up to their own sins and create some fuel-efficient, reliable, well-designed cars. Maybe then we'll have American automobile manufacturers to be proud of.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Review of Quantum of Solace
Ohhhhh!!! I soooo wanted to love this movie like I loved Casino Royale, its predecessor. Man, this hurts, but I have to give it only a B, and possibly a B- at that.
This film picks up a few minutes after the last scene in Royale. Bond is out to avenge his beloved Vesper’s death and find out who and what she was involved with.
First, though, just a few words about the theme song and the opening credits. Ugh. OK, one word, 'nuff said.
Marc Forster directed a movie that many critics have said wants to be a Bourne film, and I have to agree with that. The action scenes are filmed with so many quick cuts I thought I might be nauseous. Barbara Broccoli, you've made a boatload of money with these films -- I say pay him whatever you have to pay him, but get Martin Campbell back for the next one.
That said, there is a lot to like here, especially if you were a fan of the last Bond film. Daniel Craig is back and hot damn, that man is smok... er, I mean, as usual he brings the acting chops, not to mention no small dose of cool. Judi Dench is back as M, and as far as I'm concerned she can have this job for as long as she wants it. MI6 has some nifty new tools, and just like in Royale Bond doesn't get any of them. But that's all right, the only tool he seems to need this time around is... wait a minute, you naughty reader... I was going to say the only tool he needs is his gun, which he uses frequently, racking up such a large body count that M (gasp) cancels his credit cards and various passports in the hope she can corral him before he kills all the leads they have.
There is a scene with the only babe in the movie who gets to do the horizontal tango with Bond that's a nod to Goldfinger. I won't spill the beans here, you'll have to see it.
But what I didn't like, outside of the horrible opening credits, was pretty much everything else other than the main cast. And it took me a while to realize what was missing (outside of a decent script)... the glamour! Bond spends most of his time getting shot at, being pursued in car/boat/plane chases, scratched up, bleeding, and looking like hell. Even the beloved Aston Martin ends up in critical condition in the first 10 minutes of the movie and not surprisingly never makes another appearance. The villain in this one isn't very villain-y... he looks like I could take him out with no problem. And his henchmen look like doofuses. Who did the casting for this thing anyway? On top of that, the script is as bland as the would-be villain is.
Let's just say that, if you were feeling the need for a little revenge for Bond's sake after Casino Royale, or if you're a completist who wouldn't miss a Bond film, go for it, but I'd pay matinee price. I hope Craig is back (with a better script) in a couple of years. In the meantime I'm going to go dig out my DVD of Casino Royale.
This film picks up a few minutes after the last scene in Royale. Bond is out to avenge his beloved Vesper’s death and find out who and what she was involved with.
First, though, just a few words about the theme song and the opening credits. Ugh. OK, one word, 'nuff said.
Marc Forster directed a movie that many critics have said wants to be a Bourne film, and I have to agree with that. The action scenes are filmed with so many quick cuts I thought I might be nauseous. Barbara Broccoli, you've made a boatload of money with these films -- I say pay him whatever you have to pay him, but get Martin Campbell back for the next one.
That said, there is a lot to like here, especially if you were a fan of the last Bond film. Daniel Craig is back and hot damn, that man is smok... er, I mean, as usual he brings the acting chops, not to mention no small dose of cool. Judi Dench is back as M, and as far as I'm concerned she can have this job for as long as she wants it. MI6 has some nifty new tools, and just like in Royale Bond doesn't get any of them. But that's all right, the only tool he seems to need this time around is... wait a minute, you naughty reader... I was going to say the only tool he needs is his gun, which he uses frequently, racking up such a large body count that M (gasp) cancels his credit cards and various passports in the hope she can corral him before he kills all the leads they have.
There is a scene with the only babe in the movie who gets to do the horizontal tango with Bond that's a nod to Goldfinger. I won't spill the beans here, you'll have to see it.
But what I didn't like, outside of the horrible opening credits, was pretty much everything else other than the main cast. And it took me a while to realize what was missing (outside of a decent script)... the glamour! Bond spends most of his time getting shot at, being pursued in car/boat/plane chases, scratched up, bleeding, and looking like hell. Even the beloved Aston Martin ends up in critical condition in the first 10 minutes of the movie and not surprisingly never makes another appearance. The villain in this one isn't very villain-y... he looks like I could take him out with no problem. And his henchmen look like doofuses. Who did the casting for this thing anyway? On top of that, the script is as bland as the would-be villain is.
Let's just say that, if you were feeling the need for a little revenge for Bond's sake after Casino Royale, or if you're a completist who wouldn't miss a Bond film, go for it, but I'd pay matinee price. I hope Craig is back (with a better script) in a couple of years. In the meantime I'm going to go dig out my DVD of Casino Royale.
Monday, November 10, 2008
One step forward, another step back
It feels like we have finally taken a historic step toward equality for all Americans with the election of our first African-American president. And in a lot of ways, we have. This is a moment that a lot of people thought was not possible. Just a few short months ago Hillary Clinton was calling super delegates asking them to back her, arguing that Barack Obama was “not electable.” That coming from a woman whose own husband was referred to as America’s “first black president.” Even they did not think it possible for a black man to win the White House, much less with such a large margin of victory.
But there are other segments of society that still face tremendous discrimination, namely gays and secularists. Do you think a gay person could become president? Or a non-believer? Despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly states that all men are created equal, and that we have religious freedom in this country?
Those of us who are not gay do not have the right to tell those who are that there is something “wrong” with them for having been born that way. We may not understand it on a personal level, but we don’t have to -- we just have to accept them as they are, the same way they accept that we are heterosexual. It is un-American, un-Democratic and just plain wrong to enforce your personal beliefs on others’ lives. Yet it seems that believers are determined to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone, as if only they know what’s best for the people of this country.
I remember when John McCain guested on Ellen DeGeneres’ show, before California allowed gays to marry (a law which unfortunately has apparently now been overturned). When she asked him how he felt about gay marriage, he gave the standard line about not having an issue with gays visiting their partners in hospitals, etc. etc…. and Ellen responded that it sounded to her like he was saying “You can sit there, you just can’t sit there” (gesturing to one chair in the audience and then another). And she’s right. It’s a halfway measure that isn’t really fair. Obama hasn’t been in favor of gay marriage, either, so this isn’t just a Republican prejudice. It does make me wonder, though, if the majority of the electorate were in favor of gay marriage, would that change whether Obama publicly came out in favor of it? Maybe… it’s certain that McCain would not have, though, lest he lose his evangelical base.
As for secularism, the right to this is already guaranteed by the Constitution (see Article VI and the First Amendment). Yet I think it would be virtually impossible to elect a non-believer President, just as it would be almost impossible to elect a Jewish person, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist. Remember when Mitt Romney was running… the question became whether or not his Mormon faith (which some still consider to be more of a cult than a true religion) would hold him back from being elected. Candidates from Barack Obama to Kay Hagan felt they had to stress their Christian faith in order to be elected. Why is there a religious litmus test for office when this is clearly anti-Constitutional? Moral fiber is not determined by whether or not a person attends church or believes in a supernatural higher power. There have been many politicians who claim to be good Christians caught doing very non-Christian things.
On the very same day that we took a big step toward racial equality in this country, California took a step backward by overturning gay marriage. In the same month, Sen. Elizabeth Dole put out two shameless ads trying to win reelection by pointing out Kay Hagan’s slim ties to an atheist PAC, as if being a non-believer was something so horrible than anyone who even broke bread with such people could not be trusted to be a United States Senator.
Obviously, we still have much work to do to make this country a place where everyone truly has the same opportunities.
But there are other segments of society that still face tremendous discrimination, namely gays and secularists. Do you think a gay person could become president? Or a non-believer? Despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly states that all men are created equal, and that we have religious freedom in this country?
Those of us who are not gay do not have the right to tell those who are that there is something “wrong” with them for having been born that way. We may not understand it on a personal level, but we don’t have to -- we just have to accept them as they are, the same way they accept that we are heterosexual. It is un-American, un-Democratic and just plain wrong to enforce your personal beliefs on others’ lives. Yet it seems that believers are determined to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone, as if only they know what’s best for the people of this country.
I remember when John McCain guested on Ellen DeGeneres’ show, before California allowed gays to marry (a law which unfortunately has apparently now been overturned). When she asked him how he felt about gay marriage, he gave the standard line about not having an issue with gays visiting their partners in hospitals, etc. etc…. and Ellen responded that it sounded to her like he was saying “You can sit there, you just can’t sit there” (gesturing to one chair in the audience and then another). And she’s right. It’s a halfway measure that isn’t really fair. Obama hasn’t been in favor of gay marriage, either, so this isn’t just a Republican prejudice. It does make me wonder, though, if the majority of the electorate were in favor of gay marriage, would that change whether Obama publicly came out in favor of it? Maybe… it’s certain that McCain would not have, though, lest he lose his evangelical base.
As for secularism, the right to this is already guaranteed by the Constitution (see Article VI and the First Amendment). Yet I think it would be virtually impossible to elect a non-believer President, just as it would be almost impossible to elect a Jewish person, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist. Remember when Mitt Romney was running… the question became whether or not his Mormon faith (which some still consider to be more of a cult than a true religion) would hold him back from being elected. Candidates from Barack Obama to Kay Hagan felt they had to stress their Christian faith in order to be elected. Why is there a religious litmus test for office when this is clearly anti-Constitutional? Moral fiber is not determined by whether or not a person attends church or believes in a supernatural higher power. There have been many politicians who claim to be good Christians caught doing very non-Christian things.
On the very same day that we took a big step toward racial equality in this country, California took a step backward by overturning gay marriage. In the same month, Sen. Elizabeth Dole put out two shameless ads trying to win reelection by pointing out Kay Hagan’s slim ties to an atheist PAC, as if being a non-believer was something so horrible than anyone who even broke bread with such people could not be trusted to be a United States Senator.
Obviously, we still have much work to do to make this country a place where everyone truly has the same opportunities.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
To Gov. Palin - please run in 2012!!
I am one person who is hoping for a Sarah Palin candidacy in 2012. See, I have heard that several comedians are fearing a dearth of material for the next four years. To them it's looking like the Sahara Desert out there. We have elected an intelligent, serious President in Barack Obama, a man who knows how to pronounce "nuclear, " for crying out loud! All of a sudden their chances for good comedic material has shrunk dramatically! This is serious, we are in an employment crisis already, what if we add comics to the ranks of the unemployed?
Besides, sales at Neiman Marcus have slumped 27% since the end of the RNC shopping spree, which is about how much Saturday Night Live's ratings will drop post-Palin. So give it some serious thought, Governor, and let us know sometime 'long about 2010. In the meantime we'll try to make do for entertainment by watching your party melt down.
Besides, sales at Neiman Marcus have slumped 27% since the end of the RNC shopping spree, which is about how much Saturday Night Live's ratings will drop post-Palin. So give it some serious thought, Governor, and let us know sometime 'long about 2010. In the meantime we'll try to make do for entertainment by watching your party melt down.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations, Obama and Biden!!
The presidential race is now over. Congratulations to Senators Obama and Biden for their victory in this historic election!
Now the hard work begins, and there will be plenty of it. The landscape is much more difficult for President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden than it was when this journey started 21 months ago. However, the Democrats have expanded their lead in Congress, and this should help get things done. Washington has become so divisive that gridlock has become the norm. Let's hope that some important things from Obama's to-do list can finally get done (and I hope alternative fuels and the environment is somewhere close to the top of that list).
Democrats have a golden, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a majority that will last quite a while. The Republicans have tried to win this election by pandering mostly to their white evangelical base, and it didn't work. This base will shrink as time goes on. If the Republicans want to be a viable party they need to abandon the divisiveness and negativity of this campaign, and quite possibly also abandon their voters on the far right. They need to stop worrying about cutting taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. And they need to stop trying to use social wedge issues to win elections.
John McCain chose a running mate that he thought would help get him elected; Barack Obama chose a running mate that would help him govern. I believe this was recognized by many voters and is one of the reasons why Obama and Biden won. They will make a great team.
Now the hard work begins, and there will be plenty of it. The landscape is much more difficult for President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden than it was when this journey started 21 months ago. However, the Democrats have expanded their lead in Congress, and this should help get things done. Washington has become so divisive that gridlock has become the norm. Let's hope that some important things from Obama's to-do list can finally get done (and I hope alternative fuels and the environment is somewhere close to the top of that list).
Democrats have a golden, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a majority that will last quite a while. The Republicans have tried to win this election by pandering mostly to their white evangelical base, and it didn't work. This base will shrink as time goes on. If the Republicans want to be a viable party they need to abandon the divisiveness and negativity of this campaign, and quite possibly also abandon their voters on the far right. They need to stop worrying about cutting taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. And they need to stop trying to use social wedge issues to win elections.
John McCain chose a running mate that he thought would help get him elected; Barack Obama chose a running mate that would help him govern. I believe this was recognized by many voters and is one of the reasons why Obama and Biden won. They will make a great team.
Thanks to everyone who voted, regardless of who you voted for!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)