i have been looking out for a while to see if Mahindra was still planning on entering the US auto market as they had announced early in o8. i for one, was excited about the prospects of small, fuel efficient, low emitting pick ups and SUVs. i loved having a truck, but i wouldnt want a gas one for the crazy inefficiency, and for whatever reason Detroit and Japan dont seem to be inclined to put deisel engines in small vehicles and Germany is just catching up to pent up European and US demand and they dont really sell trucks here.
is still welcome Mahindra and hope that they bring the innovation to the market that they promise. i dont know how they will sell because the styling of their vehicles is distinctly foreign. for me the promise of a torquey, fuel efficient (the Appalachian, will get about 30 miles per gallon in the city and as much as 37 on the highway) little truck is enough. form follows function. evidently Mahindra still plans on coming, so get ready to see some wacky little trucks out there breezing pass gas stations and pulling hummers out of the mud.
its still too bad Detroit has already done this...
Monday, December 22, 2008
hey, banks! die in a fire.
Detroit got fucked by the Senate. the the White House pulled down Detroit's pants in order to get them some cash. now all those banks that got a piece of the banking bailout billions either cant account for what they did with the money or simply wont. read more here if you can stomach it. total bullshit. further reinforcing my decision to be a credit union member.
LaHood update
GGW has a good intro to our next transportation secretary. there are still a lot of unknowns...
Friday, December 19, 2008
if you read this blog at all regularly youve noticed by now that i get much of my news from the Detroit Free Press and that i care about Michigan and Detroit a lot. well lately there has been a lot of union bashing in the forums at Freep.com. people are throwing around words like corrupt, greedy, lazy like the Lions throw games. so i want to pause and take a look at whats at work here.
last night as i was making my way home NPR had and economics professor from Berekely on, and he made some damn good points. (i would provide citations here, but i was driving and i couldnt find it online) its like the guy took all the thoughts that were bouncing through my head and tied them together into a complete coherant thought and argument. im glad he did, becuase by the time that i got it together... well, we'd be waiting a long time.
heres the gist. slashing wages isnt good for the economy. when Henry Ford started paying $5 a day people flocked to Detroit, made good money, bought cars, homes, and other goods. the producers of those goods made money which they used to buy similar things. the economy grows. so you cut a guys wages, he buys less, the economy shrinks, you lose buisiness, you cut his wages more, he defaults on his mortgage, the ecnomy slips more, you lose more business, you lay him off, he stops spending entirely, the economy grinds into recession that only massive government spanding can counteract.
slashing wages and jobs is tempting in the short term to save money, but takes a toll on the larger economy as a whole. but this quickly turns into a chicken vs egg argument. if your bottom line slips and your company is in the red, how do you not save money but taking these types of actions? someone has to take the brave step forward to help grow the economy as Ford did a hundred years ago.
if you follow in his foot steps you find a population with money to spend, and they just might spend it on your goods and services. at any rate more money in the economy means more money for you, assuming that you offer something that the public wants. so the Senate didnt have the forsight last week to come through and do the right thing for millions of workers, but today President Bush, oddly enough, became Detroit's best friend. unfortunately part of the conditions on the money he offered to GM and Chrysler was a requirement to restructure the UAW contracts reached a year ago that would bring UAW wages in line with foreign competitors' domestic wages. while they are not poverty wages, and people can and do live one them, and opportunity was missed.
our leaders missed a great opportunity to stimulate the economy in a meaningful way. by extending the loans to GM and Chrysler and allowing the current UAW agreement to stay in place meant stabilizing millions of jobs. that means stabilizion millions of homes, mortgages, and spending patterns. that would ensure steady spending from those millions of households as so much of America's economy teeters. higher wages mean more money to spend, which means more spending, which means a more robust economy, which means more competition, competitive wages, high quality goods and services, and prosperity. hooray!
the highly vilified unions have played an important role in the equation which i may have glazed over. in times, like now, when management may want to cut pay, the union is there to make sure that workers are making the money they need to participate in the economy. im sure some unions, perhaps all, have at times become greedy. but the recent UAW contracts were seen as a victory by management and the workers alike as an agreement that can bring American manufacturing to a competitve price point in comparison to their overseas rivals while allowing prosperity for the people with tools in their hands. those people need to be able to buy the cars that they make in order for the company to survive.
sure it may have started with Henry Ford seeing decades into the future, but the UAW came along to keep the workers' long view at the forefront of contract negotiations. we can all thank Mr Ford and the UAW for our 5 day work weeks, benefits like paid holidays, health care, workers' comp, and a paycheck that allows us to have a car in the drive way, a meal on the table, and a week at the lake in the summer. and like anything else, the UAW must grow, change, evolve, or it will die. to write it off as the cause of the ecnomy's woes is shortsighted and misplacing the real causes of the economic mess(which are various and sundry).
i hope that Obama might work with congress to get a better deal passed early in the new year and the the union and GM and Ford and Chrysler will make it to the next decade as the pilars of American industry as they have been for all of our lifetime's. being from Detroit, i may be a bit sentimental, but we really need to work a way through this that benefits all involved. i must give Debbie Stabenow credit for taking issue with this early on and setting some of Obama's agenda for him.
my home state cant take much more bad news. the heartland's plight will reach the coasts if its allowed to do so. we as a country need to act. we need to solve this crisis, America as we know it depends upon it and i think Detroit is the canary in the coal mine of American industry. the canary is wobbling. we need to get it some air, because if it keels over it doesnt bode well for the rest of us. were all in this together, im pulling for ya.
last night as i was making my way home NPR had and economics professor from Berekely on, and he made some damn good points. (i would provide citations here, but i was driving and i couldnt find it online) its like the guy took all the thoughts that were bouncing through my head and tied them together into a complete coherant thought and argument. im glad he did, becuase by the time that i got it together... well, we'd be waiting a long time.
heres the gist. slashing wages isnt good for the economy. when Henry Ford started paying $5 a day people flocked to Detroit, made good money, bought cars, homes, and other goods. the producers of those goods made money which they used to buy similar things. the economy grows. so you cut a guys wages, he buys less, the economy shrinks, you lose buisiness, you cut his wages more, he defaults on his mortgage, the ecnomy slips more, you lose more business, you lay him off, he stops spending entirely, the economy grinds into recession that only massive government spanding can counteract.
slashing wages and jobs is tempting in the short term to save money, but takes a toll on the larger economy as a whole. but this quickly turns into a chicken vs egg argument. if your bottom line slips and your company is in the red, how do you not save money but taking these types of actions? someone has to take the brave step forward to help grow the economy as Ford did a hundred years ago.
if you follow in his foot steps you find a population with money to spend, and they just might spend it on your goods and services. at any rate more money in the economy means more money for you, assuming that you offer something that the public wants. so the Senate didnt have the forsight last week to come through and do the right thing for millions of workers, but today President Bush, oddly enough, became Detroit's best friend. unfortunately part of the conditions on the money he offered to GM and Chrysler was a requirement to restructure the UAW contracts reached a year ago that would bring UAW wages in line with foreign competitors' domestic wages. while they are not poverty wages, and people can and do live one them, and opportunity was missed.
our leaders missed a great opportunity to stimulate the economy in a meaningful way. by extending the loans to GM and Chrysler and allowing the current UAW agreement to stay in place meant stabilizing millions of jobs. that means stabilizion millions of homes, mortgages, and spending patterns. that would ensure steady spending from those millions of households as so much of America's economy teeters. higher wages mean more money to spend, which means more spending, which means a more robust economy, which means more competition, competitive wages, high quality goods and services, and prosperity. hooray!
the highly vilified unions have played an important role in the equation which i may have glazed over. in times, like now, when management may want to cut pay, the union is there to make sure that workers are making the money they need to participate in the economy. im sure some unions, perhaps all, have at times become greedy. but the recent UAW contracts were seen as a victory by management and the workers alike as an agreement that can bring American manufacturing to a competitve price point in comparison to their overseas rivals while allowing prosperity for the people with tools in their hands. those people need to be able to buy the cars that they make in order for the company to survive.
sure it may have started with Henry Ford seeing decades into the future, but the UAW came along to keep the workers' long view at the forefront of contract negotiations. we can all thank Mr Ford and the UAW for our 5 day work weeks, benefits like paid holidays, health care, workers' comp, and a paycheck that allows us to have a car in the drive way, a meal on the table, and a week at the lake in the summer. and like anything else, the UAW must grow, change, evolve, or it will die. to write it off as the cause of the ecnomy's woes is shortsighted and misplacing the real causes of the economic mess(which are various and sundry).
i hope that Obama might work with congress to get a better deal passed early in the new year and the the union and GM and Ford and Chrysler will make it to the next decade as the pilars of American industry as they have been for all of our lifetime's. being from Detroit, i may be a bit sentimental, but we really need to work a way through this that benefits all involved. i must give Debbie Stabenow credit for taking issue with this early on and setting some of Obama's agenda for him.
my home state cant take much more bad news. the heartland's plight will reach the coasts if its allowed to do so. we as a country need to act. we need to solve this crisis, America as we know it depends upon it and i think Detroit is the canary in the coal mine of American industry. the canary is wobbling. we need to get it some air, because if it keels over it doesnt bode well for the rest of us. were all in this together, im pulling for ya.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
LaHood...?
does anyone know anything about this guy? i spent the last half hour looking for anything transportation related, the only thing i could find is that he got a big highway project for his home district, a grant for Caterpillar (based in his home district), and he voted for Amtrak. thats a thin resume at best.
the department of transportation was a big one for this regime seeing as Obama has promised big spending on infrastructure. i had hoped his pick would have been a mass transit advocate. this guy could go either way.
in my opinion what we need is spending on maintenance of our highways and construction of public mass transit and the upgrade of the national rail systems. this would pump money into places like Detroit, assuming they can come up with a plan, as well as keeping NYC's and DC's systems up to par and providing money to the heartland and a faster, simpler, cleaner way to move goods withing the US. funding needs to be put toward new rail, bus, light rail, and cross country shipping. i just dont know what this guy will do and i hope, since hes a republican, maybe he wont just slide through confirmations. whats LaHood really going to do?
i think for the state of the nation and the economy the two most important posts after secretary of state, is transportation and energy. there are big opportunities for changes and upgrades in technology that can make America cleaner and richer within Obama's term, and definitely within two terms if that were to happen. i think Steven Chu was a good choice, but LaHood is an unknown factor as far as transportation goes. heres hoping. and do inform me if you know something i dont as the facts shake out on Mr. LaHood.
the department of transportation was a big one for this regime seeing as Obama has promised big spending on infrastructure. i had hoped his pick would have been a mass transit advocate. this guy could go either way.
in my opinion what we need is spending on maintenance of our highways and construction of public mass transit and the upgrade of the national rail systems. this would pump money into places like Detroit, assuming they can come up with a plan, as well as keeping NYC's and DC's systems up to par and providing money to the heartland and a faster, simpler, cleaner way to move goods withing the US. funding needs to be put toward new rail, bus, light rail, and cross country shipping. i just dont know what this guy will do and i hope, since hes a republican, maybe he wont just slide through confirmations. whats LaHood really going to do?
i think for the state of the nation and the economy the two most important posts after secretary of state, is transportation and energy. there are big opportunities for changes and upgrades in technology that can make America cleaner and richer within Obama's term, and definitely within two terms if that were to happen. i think Steven Chu was a good choice, but LaHood is an unknown factor as far as transportation goes. heres hoping. and do inform me if you know something i dont as the facts shake out on Mr. LaHood.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Speramus Meliora
this article in the Free Press documents the opportunity that Detroit has sitting at its feet. i say opportunity where many, especially in the region, might say problem or burden. that is miles and miles of vacant land and abandoned properties. the main focus of the story seems to center around urban farming on the small scale, which Detroit has already started as i mentioned a few months ago.
but urban farming is really only viable and realistic on the small scale. in and urban environment it is not really the highest and best use of land. not for long anyway. the best use of land is the highest use and what that means is what is most valuable to people. in an urban environment land is generally best used for living and working and recreation. it puts the most value on the land.
we wouldnt build a high rise condo in Fowlerville, but large scale farming works. likewise in Detroit, a farm consisting of hundreds of acres is kind of ridiculous, but building condos, homes, and offices is more reasonable. the problem in Detroit is that of demand. the city, the metro area, and the state have been losing population.
Folks like me have found places with better opportunities like Washington DC, NYC, Seattle, or any number of places in California. Detroit's grand opportunity lies in its blank slate that could draw all those lost back and bring new people in again like it did in the 40's and 50's.
in order to make a big difference in Detroit it will take a great partnership between business, local, state, and federal government. the lynch pin is transit. a great investment in a wide reaching and complete public transit system in the region is a prerequisite of a reinvented Detroit. the vast areas of unpopulated land would make it easy for Detroit to establis rights of way for the system and have land on which to build stations. it also makes it easy for developers who would not have the encumberance of acquiring land from various owners.
take a look at DC. near many metro stations development has grown exponentially. the orange line in VA has sparked a corridor of growth and development. it spawned a walkable urban environment with public transit stops within a half mile of eachother meaning that there arent large gaps which eliminates an island of development and turns it into a large, walkable corridor.
transit alone doesnt make a great city though. you need people to ride it and jobs to ride it to. that is where private business comes in. the state and local governments need to make Detroit and the metro area an appealing place to do business. they need to lure the new businesses that will emerge out of the hard times we are fighting through. i dont know how to accomplish that, but leaders need to do something to bring in some business other than cars. MSU's upcoming research facility is a great step in the direction of high tech industry, but that alone wont bring people.
what will make or break the whole deal is a federally funded transit system. Detroit is now showing initiative to bring transit on its own, and hopefully the Obama administration will encourage its development with federal dollars that will give many Detroiters steady work for years as they build the ifnrastucture that can make Detroit a viable city in the future. the jobs that a metro system on the scale (at the minimum in my opinion) of Washington DC would create during construction would pump untold millions of dollars into the local ecnomy. dollars that would lure business and more money to the area.
the area has a grand opportunity to reinvent itself. it just needs to overcome the decades of apathy that have plagued it. Wayne, Oakland, Macomb Counties and the City of Detroit need to work together on a viable plan for developing the area. and the state needs to encourage that progress and find alluring policies toward business. and finally the new administration that has promised infrastructure spending needs to follow through and Detroit needs to go out and get that money.
its a lot of work, but what other major city has such an opportunity to reinvent itself? so who will step forward in Detroit after decades of apathy and corruption. Archer did give us a foothold and Kilpatrick gave us a black eye. who will give us a place of prominance? who has the vision and the ability to lead Detroit back to its place of glory? perhaps im waxing too philosophocal, too hopeful, and too impractical. i just want my home state to be a place people envy rather than a place they fear.
im pulling for you Detroit. dont forget your motto: Speramus Meliora; Resurget Cineribus (We Hope For Better Things; It Shall Rise From the Ashes).
but urban farming is really only viable and realistic on the small scale. in and urban environment it is not really the highest and best use of land. not for long anyway. the best use of land is the highest use and what that means is what is most valuable to people. in an urban environment land is generally best used for living and working and recreation. it puts the most value on the land.
we wouldnt build a high rise condo in Fowlerville, but large scale farming works. likewise in Detroit, a farm consisting of hundreds of acres is kind of ridiculous, but building condos, homes, and offices is more reasonable. the problem in Detroit is that of demand. the city, the metro area, and the state have been losing population.
Folks like me have found places with better opportunities like Washington DC, NYC, Seattle, or any number of places in California. Detroit's grand opportunity lies in its blank slate that could draw all those lost back and bring new people in again like it did in the 40's and 50's.
in order to make a big difference in Detroit it will take a great partnership between business, local, state, and federal government. the lynch pin is transit. a great investment in a wide reaching and complete public transit system in the region is a prerequisite of a reinvented Detroit. the vast areas of unpopulated land would make it easy for Detroit to establis rights of way for the system and have land on which to build stations. it also makes it easy for developers who would not have the encumberance of acquiring land from various owners.
take a look at DC. near many metro stations development has grown exponentially. the orange line in VA has sparked a corridor of growth and development. it spawned a walkable urban environment with public transit stops within a half mile of eachother meaning that there arent large gaps which eliminates an island of development and turns it into a large, walkable corridor.
transit alone doesnt make a great city though. you need people to ride it and jobs to ride it to. that is where private business comes in. the state and local governments need to make Detroit and the metro area an appealing place to do business. they need to lure the new businesses that will emerge out of the hard times we are fighting through. i dont know how to accomplish that, but leaders need to do something to bring in some business other than cars. MSU's upcoming research facility is a great step in the direction of high tech industry, but that alone wont bring people.
what will make or break the whole deal is a federally funded transit system. Detroit is now showing initiative to bring transit on its own, and hopefully the Obama administration will encourage its development with federal dollars that will give many Detroiters steady work for years as they build the ifnrastucture that can make Detroit a viable city in the future. the jobs that a metro system on the scale (at the minimum in my opinion) of Washington DC would create during construction would pump untold millions of dollars into the local ecnomy. dollars that would lure business and more money to the area.
the area has a grand opportunity to reinvent itself. it just needs to overcome the decades of apathy that have plagued it. Wayne, Oakland, Macomb Counties and the City of Detroit need to work together on a viable plan for developing the area. and the state needs to encourage that progress and find alluring policies toward business. and finally the new administration that has promised infrastructure spending needs to follow through and Detroit needs to go out and get that money.
its a lot of work, but what other major city has such an opportunity to reinvent itself? so who will step forward in Detroit after decades of apathy and corruption. Archer did give us a foothold and Kilpatrick gave us a black eye. who will give us a place of prominance? who has the vision and the ability to lead Detroit back to its place of glory? perhaps im waxing too philosophocal, too hopeful, and too impractical. i just want my home state to be a place people envy rather than a place they fear.
im pulling for you Detroit. dont forget your motto: Speramus Meliora; Resurget Cineribus (We Hope For Better Things; It Shall Rise From the Ashes).
Friday, December 12, 2008
OMFG
just a heads up, this is bound to be a profanity laden post.
Obama thinks we should help the Detroit. Bush thinks we should help Detroit. party leaders on both sides think we should help Detroit. the House overwhelmingly passed the measure. it then died in the Senate.
the Senate is supposed to be the senior house. the one that deliberates and works in the best long term interest, while the House is more short sighted. typically. in this case the House passed a bill thats good for America in the long term, and the Senate killed it.
what really pisses me off is that the trickle down from a fall of GM and Chrysler will be devastating to the US economy, and the world wide consequences look pretty grim to me as well. Ford seems to be able to stand on its own for now, but its not on the firmest footing either.
sure, half of Americans dont think we should bail out the auto industry, but they may not understand the workings of all this. supposedly Representatives and senators do. but they seem to be willing to allow our biggest manufacturers go bankrupt and possibly fail altogether. would you buy a car from a bankrupt automaker?
ive yammered on before about how Chrysler paid back its loan in full plus interest when it got a bailout a couple of decades ago. back then congress saw the risk in allowing them to fail and have only a few companies control manufacturing. every market share that Detroit loses goes straight to Europe and Asia. weve already lost our once world leading steel industry to foreign ownership and some products cannot be made here. i cant imagine allowing the US auto industry disappearing and having to buy foreign cars.
sure they may manufacture here, but all the profit goes back to corporate headquarters in Tokyo, Seoul, Frankfurt, Beijing etc. its a situation that i dont like to think about and the immediate effects of losing all those jobs will have dire effects on the economy.
this case exemplifies the 'inaction is tantamount to death' saw. the Senate has done nothing and now it is up to President Bush to do something by executive order. im fairly optimistic that he will. and this is a situation that i never thought i would be in: cursing congress and pulling for Bush with a month left in his term.
im incredibly disappointed in our lawmakers for not making this work. theyve been working on a deal for weeks. hammering away to get something we all could agree on and in the end they kill it at the last minute and allow domestic industry to flounder a fail. its fucking ridiculous that they couldnt come up with some way to help Detroit. something. but the venerable Senate flipped Detroit the bird, and now the Democratic stronghold and union capital that is Detroit is depending on a president Bush. this unlikely alliance is a result of the fact that if the companies go down, thats big businesses failing, thats the union failing, and thats real people suffering. which is why its so fucking mind blowing that the goddamned Senate fucked us all.
and dont get me wrong, i dont think Detroit is innocent here. until the last 5 or 10 years, theyve been laggards who deserved to lose the market share that they did. but theyve improved by leaps and bounds in the last decades. when gas went through the roof, SUV sales plummeted. this formerly profitable market dried up. no they shouldnt have put all their eggs in that basket, but it was making them money while they developed new cars. then their credit dried up when the banks went up in smoke, and now, in the midst of a restructuring and retooling process, they are left without the capital to keep the progress theyve made going.
ive said it before and ill say it again. its the reason this gets me so fired up. were all in this together, people... im pulling for us...
Obama thinks we should help the Detroit. Bush thinks we should help Detroit. party leaders on both sides think we should help Detroit. the House overwhelmingly passed the measure. it then died in the Senate.
the Senate is supposed to be the senior house. the one that deliberates and works in the best long term interest, while the House is more short sighted. typically. in this case the House passed a bill thats good for America in the long term, and the Senate killed it.
what really pisses me off is that the trickle down from a fall of GM and Chrysler will be devastating to the US economy, and the world wide consequences look pretty grim to me as well. Ford seems to be able to stand on its own for now, but its not on the firmest footing either.
sure, half of Americans dont think we should bail out the auto industry, but they may not understand the workings of all this. supposedly Representatives and senators do. but they seem to be willing to allow our biggest manufacturers go bankrupt and possibly fail altogether. would you buy a car from a bankrupt automaker?
ive yammered on before about how Chrysler paid back its loan in full plus interest when it got a bailout a couple of decades ago. back then congress saw the risk in allowing them to fail and have only a few companies control manufacturing. every market share that Detroit loses goes straight to Europe and Asia. weve already lost our once world leading steel industry to foreign ownership and some products cannot be made here. i cant imagine allowing the US auto industry disappearing and having to buy foreign cars.
sure they may manufacture here, but all the profit goes back to corporate headquarters in Tokyo, Seoul, Frankfurt, Beijing etc. its a situation that i dont like to think about and the immediate effects of losing all those jobs will have dire effects on the economy.
this case exemplifies the 'inaction is tantamount to death' saw. the Senate has done nothing and now it is up to President Bush to do something by executive order. im fairly optimistic that he will. and this is a situation that i never thought i would be in: cursing congress and pulling for Bush with a month left in his term.
im incredibly disappointed in our lawmakers for not making this work. theyve been working on a deal for weeks. hammering away to get something we all could agree on and in the end they kill it at the last minute and allow domestic industry to flounder a fail. its fucking ridiculous that they couldnt come up with some way to help Detroit. something. but the venerable Senate flipped Detroit the bird, and now the Democratic stronghold and union capital that is Detroit is depending on a president Bush. this unlikely alliance is a result of the fact that if the companies go down, thats big businesses failing, thats the union failing, and thats real people suffering. which is why its so fucking mind blowing that the goddamned Senate fucked us all.
and dont get me wrong, i dont think Detroit is innocent here. until the last 5 or 10 years, theyve been laggards who deserved to lose the market share that they did. but theyve improved by leaps and bounds in the last decades. when gas went through the roof, SUV sales plummeted. this formerly profitable market dried up. no they shouldnt have put all their eggs in that basket, but it was making them money while they developed new cars. then their credit dried up when the banks went up in smoke, and now, in the midst of a restructuring and retooling process, they are left without the capital to keep the progress theyve made going.
ive said it before and ill say it again. its the reason this gets me so fired up. were all in this together, people... im pulling for us...
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
bible bus
as most of you know since you actually know me, i grew up in Michigan. im not sure if this is still the case, but there used to be a series of billboards along I-94 with messages from god. my favorite was one near Grand Rapids (the heart of Michigan's 'bible belt') that read "Don't make me come down there." -God
i dont know who put them up, but they were around for a while and few popped up on 96 as well. it always seemed odd to me, because i could never figure out what they were trying to do. the only one with an explicit message that i can recall went something like "Come over to my house on Sunday. Bring the kids. -God" that one is clear enough. but are they really trying to evangelize on the interstate or just out to get a few chuckles from believers and atheists alike?
well, leave it to DC to one up them. the America Humanist Association has bought a bunch of bus adds in the district with the slogan "Why beleive in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." its the first ive heard of trying to spread humanism or any other kind of atheism or agnosticism other than individual efforts. it has also sparked a couple of responses from the religious establishment.
The Center for Family Development, a Catholic group, has bought adds on the buses saying "Why Believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness' sake." that one comes off as a condescending and patronizing, but i guess it is god. and American Muslims, a group from Florida, has put up adds there stating " Islam: The Message of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad."
the Post/Newsweek are pitching this as an advertising battle between faiths, likening it to the Big Mac vs. Whopper and Pepsi vs. Coke. i dont quite see it that way, but maybe thats whats to come. it does seem to be a rather unwise use of money. i mean, wouldnt all these groups do better to sponser shelters or soup kitchens. i mean if you want to get your name out there, buy the naming rights to a big shelter and put a big ole sign out front. like stadium naming rights.
Humanism basically comes down to the 'do unto others' commandmant, so why spend money trying to get people to quit on god just to put all faith into one of his commandmants. i tend to throw myself into their lot, but i see their bus ads like i see most religious proselytizing and evangelizing: if youve got the extra time and money, why dont you use it doing all those lovely things you preach about like helping the poor and needy? but were not talking millions here, so im not incensed by it. in fact, looking on the bright side, it helps fund transit, which i like, so bring it on. ill just ignore it or marvel at it like most ads and go about my business.
thoughts? i wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would think about this...
i dont know who put them up, but they were around for a while and few popped up on 96 as well. it always seemed odd to me, because i could never figure out what they were trying to do. the only one with an explicit message that i can recall went something like "Come over to my house on Sunday. Bring the kids. -God" that one is clear enough. but are they really trying to evangelize on the interstate or just out to get a few chuckles from believers and atheists alike?
well, leave it to DC to one up them. the America Humanist Association has bought a bunch of bus adds in the district with the slogan "Why beleive in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." its the first ive heard of trying to spread humanism or any other kind of atheism or agnosticism other than individual efforts. it has also sparked a couple of responses from the religious establishment.
The Center for Family Development, a Catholic group, has bought adds on the buses saying "Why Believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness' sake." that one comes off as a condescending and patronizing, but i guess it is god. and American Muslims, a group from Florida, has put up adds there stating " Islam: The Message of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad."
the Post/Newsweek are pitching this as an advertising battle between faiths, likening it to the Big Mac vs. Whopper and Pepsi vs. Coke. i dont quite see it that way, but maybe thats whats to come. it does seem to be a rather unwise use of money. i mean, wouldnt all these groups do better to sponser shelters or soup kitchens. i mean if you want to get your name out there, buy the naming rights to a big shelter and put a big ole sign out front. like stadium naming rights.
Humanism basically comes down to the 'do unto others' commandmant, so why spend money trying to get people to quit on god just to put all faith into one of his commandmants. i tend to throw myself into their lot, but i see their bus ads like i see most religious proselytizing and evangelizing: if youve got the extra time and money, why dont you use it doing all those lovely things you preach about like helping the poor and needy? but were not talking millions here, so im not incensed by it. in fact, looking on the bright side, it helps fund transit, which i like, so bring it on. ill just ignore it or marvel at it like most ads and go about my business.
thoughts? i wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would think about this...
Friday, December 5, 2008
in case youre somehow totally oblivious to the world at large, there is this whole domestic auto industry nearing the brink thing going on. ive written about it before, but, yeah, still an issue.
you can link 3 million jobs directly to the domestic auto industry in the US. as the Freep points out, every one of those jobs is a person with mortgage payments, kids in college, car payments, bills, and lives that directly effect the economy. the 'trickle down' of even a third of those folks losing their jobs would have dire effects on the economy as they stop acting like consumers and start acting like squirrels hording nuts for the economic winter that looms.
every person spending money is what drives the economy. so people without jobs and money puts another drag on the ecnomy. the domino effect would be devestating on an economy already in its worst position in my lifetime.
polls out there say that most americans at large do not support help for the Big 3, which mystifies me. no they are not without blame for their situation, but it doesnt lie only on the shoulders of the executives in Detroit. fluctiating consumer demand, fuel prices, and recent huge drops in car sales have put Detroit between a rock and a hard place.
what we need to do now is not point fingers at Detroit, who have admitted that they need to change, and have made changes already boosting them in quality and lowering prices, we need to provide help to keep them alive through tough times and allow them to come out of this better than they have been in decades.
Chrysler went through a similar process previously, and paid back the money the government lent them. they came out with a bigger market share and very appealing cars. why cant this model work again? (if youre wondering what happened to Chrysler since then, Lee Iacoca retired and Diamler came in and mismanaged the whole mess)
the point is that doing nothing would be catastrophic. i agree that we cannot just throw money at Detroit, there needs to be oversight and accountability, and all involved need to make tough changes and cuts, but America is far worse off without the Big 3 and the domino effect that would arise if they fall.
you can link 3 million jobs directly to the domestic auto industry in the US. as the Freep points out, every one of those jobs is a person with mortgage payments, kids in college, car payments, bills, and lives that directly effect the economy. the 'trickle down' of even a third of those folks losing their jobs would have dire effects on the economy as they stop acting like consumers and start acting like squirrels hording nuts for the economic winter that looms.
every person spending money is what drives the economy. so people without jobs and money puts another drag on the ecnomy. the domino effect would be devestating on an economy already in its worst position in my lifetime.
polls out there say that most americans at large do not support help for the Big 3, which mystifies me. no they are not without blame for their situation, but it doesnt lie only on the shoulders of the executives in Detroit. fluctiating consumer demand, fuel prices, and recent huge drops in car sales have put Detroit between a rock and a hard place.
what we need to do now is not point fingers at Detroit, who have admitted that they need to change, and have made changes already boosting them in quality and lowering prices, we need to provide help to keep them alive through tough times and allow them to come out of this better than they have been in decades.
Chrysler went through a similar process previously, and paid back the money the government lent them. they came out with a bigger market share and very appealing cars. why cant this model work again? (if youre wondering what happened to Chrysler since then, Lee Iacoca retired and Diamler came in and mismanaged the whole mess)
the point is that doing nothing would be catastrophic. i agree that we cannot just throw money at Detroit, there needs to be oversight and accountability, and all involved need to make tough changes and cuts, but America is far worse off without the Big 3 and the domino effect that would arise if they fall.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
go home already
but where is home?
i heard this story on NPR this morning about illegal immigrants getting dumped in Mexico just over the border in places like Nogales and Tiajuana. more and more are getting dumped there as the Bush admin tries to kick as many out as possible at the same time that it is stepping up border defenses.
Mexican authorities are reporting a huge increase in those deportees who are taking advantage of their services to find cheap bus tickets back to their home towns. the declining American economy has made it harder for these folks to find work. an interesting turn considering that just a year ago they helped 689 people get tickets and this year, its been more than 6,000. a lot less people are trying to get back in.
while i think kicking many of these folks out is wrong, they could do something to help their lot. the NPR story highlighted a couple of guys who were deported leaving behind families. these are precisely the guys i think you have to take a second look at to see if perhaps they are helping us out rather than hurting, before flinging them into Mexico. (especially since one was from Honduras - WTF, ICE!?)
one of the guys recounted how he has two sons serving in the US army. all i have to say to him, is seriously dude? you lived here long enough to raise two kids to that age of at least 18 and you couldnt find the time to get your citizenship? and to the govt drones deporting these guys, cant we take a look at folks like this, maybe tell them, pass the test and become and American by X date, you youre outa here. that seems reasonable.
because throwing folks who have lived here for 10, 15, 20 years over the fence into Mexico really isnt doing anyone any good. telling these guys to go home and tossing them in Mexico is like doing the same to me. my home isnt in Mexico, its with my family, here, in the US.
i heard this story on NPR this morning about illegal immigrants getting dumped in Mexico just over the border in places like Nogales and Tiajuana. more and more are getting dumped there as the Bush admin tries to kick as many out as possible at the same time that it is stepping up border defenses.
Mexican authorities are reporting a huge increase in those deportees who are taking advantage of their services to find cheap bus tickets back to their home towns. the declining American economy has made it harder for these folks to find work. an interesting turn considering that just a year ago they helped 689 people get tickets and this year, its been more than 6,000. a lot less people are trying to get back in.
while i think kicking many of these folks out is wrong, they could do something to help their lot. the NPR story highlighted a couple of guys who were deported leaving behind families. these are precisely the guys i think you have to take a second look at to see if perhaps they are helping us out rather than hurting, before flinging them into Mexico. (especially since one was from Honduras - WTF, ICE!?)
one of the guys recounted how he has two sons serving in the US army. all i have to say to him, is seriously dude? you lived here long enough to raise two kids to that age of at least 18 and you couldnt find the time to get your citizenship? and to the govt drones deporting these guys, cant we take a look at folks like this, maybe tell them, pass the test and become and American by X date, you youre outa here. that seems reasonable.
because throwing folks who have lived here for 10, 15, 20 years over the fence into Mexico really isnt doing anyone any good. telling these guys to go home and tossing them in Mexico is like doing the same to me. my home isnt in Mexico, its with my family, here, in the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
