Okay, so Penske couldn't make Saturn work. So Toyota should give it a shot.
Toyota could (not should) take some spare change from its huge cash hoard and buy the whole Saturn distribution network. Then Toyota could stock it with products made at its plants around the world... you know small cars made to Toyota designs in low wage countries. Let Saturn, in sum, become Toyota's own KIA.
Then let the Toyota brand suck up all those premium buyers who can't get Pontiacs and Oldsmobiles any more.
Of course the result of this would be world dominated by Toyota, but I'm over all this democracy and personal freedom crap anyhow.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Delay The Inevitable
It's not that GM, Ford and Chrysler might be headed for bankruptcy. For all intents and purposes, they already are bankrupt. And there's no reason to think that throwing a bunch of money at them will change that.
However, and I haven't seen this point made anywhere, there's something to be said for postponing their inevitable bankruptcy filings. The 25, 50, 75, or 100 billion bucks the Detroit manufacturers want won't do anything to change their awful labor contracts or fix their product mixes or help them dump a few thousand crappy dealers, but it will allow them to blunder on a couple more years.
And considering the shit-storm of financial disaster that's currently going on, simply keeping Detroit out of bankruptcy court for a couple of years may be a good enough argument in favor of giving them the money. With any luck, things will have calmed down by 2011 and then we can deal with the collapse of Chrysler, Ford and GM with something approaching calm. Okay, I'll settle for within-a-billion-miles-of-calm.
But ultimately, all three companies will need to be restructured and that probably has to be done through bankruptcy.
Just. Not. Now.
However, and I haven't seen this point made anywhere, there's something to be said for postponing their inevitable bankruptcy filings. The 25, 50, 75, or 100 billion bucks the Detroit manufacturers want won't do anything to change their awful labor contracts or fix their product mixes or help them dump a few thousand crappy dealers, but it will allow them to blunder on a couple more years.
And considering the shit-storm of financial disaster that's currently going on, simply keeping Detroit out of bankruptcy court for a couple of years may be a good enough argument in favor of giving them the money. With any luck, things will have calmed down by 2011 and then we can deal with the collapse of Chrysler, Ford and GM with something approaching calm. Okay, I'll settle for within-a-billion-miles-of-calm.
But ultimately, all three companies will need to be restructured and that probably has to be done through bankruptcy.
Just. Not. Now.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Gay And/Or Sacred
My ambivalence toward Proposition 8 during the last election here in California was and continues to be profound. I'm married to a member of the opposite sex, belief marriage is the union between man and woman, and my haphazard faith holds that that union is actually sacred. Meanwhile I have plenty of gay friends and relatives and I want them all to be happy and fulfilled. Plus, it seems that the more committed unions between any two people there are out there, the better and more stable society will be.
I'm also despondent about how dispensable and unserious so many heterosexual attitudes towards marriage have proven to be. Considering how badly us breeders treat marriage, I'm shocked there are still gays out there interested in it.
And I thought the California Supreme Court was being arrogant and anti-democratic when it overturned the electorate's specific desire to keep marriage solely between a man and woman. Even though the Court's decision itself was well argued and convincing.
But amid all the post-election hoopla about Prop 8, no one seems willing to touch the element that I'm sure propels so many opponents of gay marriage: sacredness. In virtually every religion marriage isn't just a convenient arrangement for generating and raising kids, but a sacred rite and sacred institution ordained by God. People who take their faith seriously -- and there are a lot of them -- are understandably upset over anything that seems to intrude on the sacred aspects of their lives. Step on the sacred and people who take the sacred seriously will be thoroughly rebellious.
There are surely as many attitudes towards marriage amongst gays as there is among heterosexuals. And there are likely plenty of gay couples who take their vows with all the sacred seriousness of any Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, or Jewish heterosexual couple. But generally speaking, the campaign for gay marriage has seemed more interested in just checking off one more box on the campaign to normalize homosexuality within society. There seems to be little appreciation for the sacredness of marriage among something near a plurality of their fellow citizens. If gays want to gain same-sex marriage rights democratically (and that's the way it ought to be done) then a good first step toward convincing the electorate would be acknowledging marriage as sacred.
Of course there's an entire other argument to be made here about why the state is in the sacred institution business at all. And the ultimate resolution of all this may lie in separating the civil contract of marriage from the religious and sacred.
I'm also despondent about how dispensable and unserious so many heterosexual attitudes towards marriage have proven to be. Considering how badly us breeders treat marriage, I'm shocked there are still gays out there interested in it.
And I thought the California Supreme Court was being arrogant and anti-democratic when it overturned the electorate's specific desire to keep marriage solely between a man and woman. Even though the Court's decision itself was well argued and convincing.
But amid all the post-election hoopla about Prop 8, no one seems willing to touch the element that I'm sure propels so many opponents of gay marriage: sacredness. In virtually every religion marriage isn't just a convenient arrangement for generating and raising kids, but a sacred rite and sacred institution ordained by God. People who take their faith seriously -- and there are a lot of them -- are understandably upset over anything that seems to intrude on the sacred aspects of their lives. Step on the sacred and people who take the sacred seriously will be thoroughly rebellious.
There are surely as many attitudes towards marriage amongst gays as there is among heterosexuals. And there are likely plenty of gay couples who take their vows with all the sacred seriousness of any Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, or Jewish heterosexual couple. But generally speaking, the campaign for gay marriage has seemed more interested in just checking off one more box on the campaign to normalize homosexuality within society. There seems to be little appreciation for the sacredness of marriage among something near a plurality of their fellow citizens. If gays want to gain same-sex marriage rights democratically (and that's the way it ought to be done) then a good first step toward convincing the electorate would be acknowledging marriage as sacred.
Of course there's an entire other argument to be made here about why the state is in the sacred institution business at all. And the ultimate resolution of all this may lie in separating the civil contract of marriage from the religious and sacred.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Creation Science Isn't
Because I'm in my early random thoughts period of blogging, I'd like to make this point clear:
Science is the study of natural phenomenon based on experimentation that strives to disprove the theoretical. As soon as something supernatural is thrown into a theory it becomes untestable and lies outside the bounds of science.
Therefore, "creation science" isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such. So there.
However, that doesn't mean creation science is necessarily wrong, only that it isn't science. Heck, reality could just be that the universe was created by the burp of a bullfrog and three fairies over a dull weekend. But there's no way to test that theory scientifically.
Science is the study of natural phenomenon based on experimentation that strives to disprove the theoretical. As soon as something supernatural is thrown into a theory it becomes untestable and lies outside the bounds of science.
Therefore, "creation science" isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such. So there.
However, that doesn't mean creation science is necessarily wrong, only that it isn't science. Heck, reality could just be that the universe was created by the burp of a bullfrog and three fairies over a dull weekend. But there's no way to test that theory scientifically.
30 Rock's Better Than A Laugh Track Soundtrack
It's not like 30 Rock hasn't received metric tons of praise and whole goobers of awards, so my affection for it isn't noteworthy. However what I haven't heard praised about the show is how well it uses music as a substitute for a laugh track.
Most of the credit here goes to Jeff Richmond who is, no coincidence at all, the husband of star/creator/guiding light Tina Fey, the sole composer of all the show's music and one of the producers. Unlike most music on sitcoms, which is usually used only as a bumper before and after commercials, 30 Rock's soundtrack plays almost constantly under the on-screen action and wryly comments on the actions with sly musical riffs. Ultimately it provides the mood that would usually (and intrusively) be supplied by a normal sitcom's laugh track. It's hard to even think of another sitcom that has ever used as much original music as 30 Rock. And none have used it so effectively.
Here's a one minute clip from the episode "Sandwich Day" that conclusively proves my point. This should stop any debate here that, since no one is likely to ever read this, never had a chance of starting.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Why Do I Have A Photo Of Rahm Emanuel On My iPhone?
Traveling back to Santa Barbara from some business trip in October, I stuck my iPhone down the aisle of the plane I was in and snapped this photo. For some reason it seemed amusing that everyone was digging into their phones even before the plane made it to the gate. Today I dumped those photos of my iPhone and realized that the guy at the center of the photo is soon-to-be White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
Am I sure it's Emanuel? Nope, but it sure looks like him. Guess this is my brush with next-to-presumed-greatness. Just one degree of separation between me and Obama.
A First Post For No Particular Reason
Just my first post... means nothing... does nothing... is nothing. Move on.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)