Then and now (guest post)

"Let me see if I have this straight:

George W. Bush allowed Osama bin Laden to kill 3,000 American citizens, lied us into a war that killed an additional 4,500 plus 100,000 Iraqis, empowered the Iranians, made the rich richer and the poor poorer, tanked the economy, used illegal, medieval torture tactics, and failed to capture bin Laden. And the Democrats never once considered impeaching him.

But Barack Obama skips into town, kills Osama bin Laden, saves the American car industry, halved the deficit, triples the stock market, cuts unemployment in half, outlaws torture, brings affordable healthcare to almost ten million people, all without a SMIDGEN of help from the Republicans...and now they're suing him and thinking about impeaching him. 

Do I have that right?"

--Bruce Lindner

"Recent history" lesson: George W. Bush started Detroit's bailout

Okay, here it is, your "recent history" history lesson. News out today shows: Bush would "do it again" on auto bailouts Former pres. tells dealers it prevented “21% unemployment.” He started it. Now-former President George W. Bush began the Detroit auto company bailouts, okay? And he did it because adding all those millions of people to the unemployment lines would have been horrible--really bad--for the entire country. Added to that, we likely would have lost those industries and all that production and not gotten them back, once gone. So let's have no more of that nonsense about this current president being the one who started this big spending spree and that he's a Socialist, trying to take over and/or buy everything up by the government. It's nonsense. It didn't happen. It isn't happening. It's unfair. It's patently wrong and untrue. Could we move on now? To other problems we need to solve? Please? Link: http://autos.yahoo.com/news/bush-would-do-it-again-on-auto-bailouts.html

Europe and Europeans will do what Americans can't and won't

I reported here, earlier this week, that Germany was already making plans to rid themselves of nuclear power, given the already-horrible results from Japan's Fukushima nuclear reactor problems resulting from the earthquakes and tsunami.

More evidence that came out yesterday showing Europeans can and will do what Americans either can't or won't or both:

Report: EU working to ban gas and diesel-powered cars by 2050

According to new reports, the European Union will announce plans to ban all fossil fuel-powered cars in Europe by 2050. The detailed plan will be outlined in the European Union's Roadmap on Transport, which will come out on Monday. By 2030, the EU plans to have reduced fossil fuel traffic by half, particularly in urban areas.

And given that the world is either already beyond, at or close to "peak oil", doesn't it seem prudent to plan for the future so your entire nation isn't caught off guard, so to speak, and without an energy source?  I mean, already the stuff--oil--is getting so bloody expensive at the pump it's threatening, yet again, to wreck any economic recovery we may have going.

And then there are the other, additional costs like pollution, climate change and the fact that we get most all of it from the craziest and most overly emotional and war-torn part of the entire world, the Middle East.

But no, let's not make any plans yet.

We've got plenty of time.

Link:  http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/28/report-eu-working-to-ban-gas-and-diesel-powered-cars-by-2050/
http://www.americablog.com/2011/03/eu-working-on-plans-to-ban-gas-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Americablog+%28AMERICAblog%29





Saturn?

Last evening, I was watching "The Colbert Report", as usual, before I went to sleep and what should I see but a Saturn car commercial.

Saturn?

Are you kidding me?

Isn't it already a foregone conclusion that GM is closing down Saturn, along with Pontiac and saying "adieu" to the whole bunch?

Then, get this--the commercial went on about "Saturn Total Confidence" (love the capitol letters, don't you?).

Saturn Total Confidence.

That killed me.

I guess they have to sell cars, sure, but they'd have to be virtually giving these things away for me to want to purchase one, since the company is disappearing. Sure GM will support them, I guess, but who knows how.

About that Secretary of the Treasury

Have you seen any interviews with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner yet?

I have.

I have to say, too, he is just not impressive.

Maybe it's the format or something else but he doesn't come across as brilliant, by a long shot.

He isn't forceful.

He doesn't explain, for instance, this weekend when asked, why, exactly, the United States needs to save the auto industry. He just kept repeating that the auto industry is in the country's "vital interests".

Don't get me wrong, here. That is, actually, my point of view--that the American auto industry is, truly, in our country's vital interest--but if someone asks you "why?", you need to say more than just that it is. This is particularly true if you're Secretary of Treasury, defending the administration's moves and intentions.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope Timothy Geithner is a really bright, forceful guy with great ideas.

If he is, it isn't coming across the TV set. To me, he looks perpetually either scared or apologetic or both.

Here's hoping for the best.

Link to Treasury Secretary Geithner on, of all things, "Faux" news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRSRHavGLOM