Going Away for a While: Updates Will be Spread Out

Heading up north for the summer, so I'm not sure how often this will be updated.

Looking forward to getting back on and making more noise real soon.

GM and Chrysler Now Have Credibility as They Finally Admit That They're Bankrupt and HAVE Been Bankrupt for Over a Year

I made a comment last year on this blog that the Big Three were already bankrupt but didn't have the guts to admit it; as of Monday it will be true for two of the Big Three.

GM is set to go into bankruptcy on Monday; Chrysler is already there and restructuring. Ford looks like it's got it's act together and successfully changed course in time to avoid joining GM and Chrysler in bankruptcy court.

The sad part about this is that they could have avoided this problem many months ago, and adapted to changing conditions much more quickly. But they chose not to, preferring not to change their already-decided auto lines to match what was happening in the economy.

I'm not interested in who was more at fault in the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler; the management vs. union debate has been going on for many decades before this, and will likely continue for many years into the future, once this crisis has abated.

The government needs to complete this work quickly, then get out of Detroit's business. Government doesn't have time to run the auto industry; they can barely manage Washington's problems as it is, without having two auto companies to run as well.

Why Was Chrysler Taken to Bankruptcy Court in New York, and Not in Michigan, Where It's HQ Is?

I've been mulling over the Chrysler bankruptcy since it happened and one question keeps popping up:

Why did the government file for the bankruptcy in New York, and not in Michigan?

The federal government could just as easily have filed it at a federal courthouse in Michigan, as it did in New York. Many of Chrysler's debts are owed to Michigan businesses.

Not sure what the rationale was for filing this bankruptcy there instead of here, where Chrysler is headquartered.

Abuse Photos Should Be Released AFTER U.S. Troops Are GONE from Iraq, Not Before

I am of the opinion that the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos SHOULD be released, but not until U.S. troops are GONE from Iraq, not before.

The ACLU and the media can wait two more years. They've already waited seven. They have NO RIGHT to demand that our troops be placed in any more danger, especially now that the war in Iraq is scheduled to wind down. The release of those photos may shift the sands again and turn Iraqis who are currently helping the U.S. forces against them.

The early release of those photos would be a mistake. The Obama Administration should stand it's ground on that point. When our troops are gone, THEN they can release everything and begin to make amends, but not while there's still shooting going on. We need to stop handing ammunition to the enemy and then having them shoot it back at us.

Cheney is in the News Again: Stirring the Pot Up Again With His Flawed Approach to National Security

Keeping traditions is an important part of our American tradition, and one tradition is that former Presidents of the United States do not criticize their successor for a while.

Former President Bush is honoring this time-honored tradition, saying that he "...doesn't want to criticize President Obama as he deserves my silence." His Vice President, Dick Cheney, is honoring no such tradition. He's been blasting away at Obama's approach to national security.

I thought that Cheney should have resigned alongside President Bush's former Defense Secretary, Don Rumsfeld, due to his contribution to the hype behind the Iraq War, and the mismanagement of the occupation, and his willingness to shred the Constitution in the name of national security.

In fact, I tried to blister both their hides (Rumsfeld and Cheney) with criticisms of those points, to the point that someone who reads this blog sent me an e-mail, warning me to "tone it down" or else I would end up disappearing when "martial law was declared" as that reader put it. I ignored that advice. Martial law was NOT declared, President Bush didn't seize power like some thought he would, and he and Cheney left the White House precisely on time.

Since Cheney has refused to fade quietly into the background, I'm going to dial my criticism of him back up.

And make no mistake, I think Obama's mismanaging things pretty badly, but he'll get his own articles once I have a clearer picture of what direction he's steering us in. For now, Cheney is invoking the wrath of my poison pen. Again.

Human rights should NEVER be sacrificed in the same of national security, as Cheney has suggested. Rather, human rights and national security should go hand in hand. But that means changing what our perception of "national security" is.

"National security" should involve a free American people being able to live their lives, free from fear of terrorists, of criminals, and free of being afraid of what their own government might do to them for speaking up, and criticizing the government. The American people want their government to stand up for the rights of individuals, and to honor and cherish the Bill of Rights, on which their natural rights are confirmed.

Cheney's version of national security involves star chamber justice, weakening the parts of the Constitution that he doesn't like, because they're INCONVENIENT, holding people without trial indefinitely, and denying people accused of crimes the right to challenge their imprisonment, in spite of all the international treaties that the United States has signed that says it would take the lead in upholding international norms of decency and human respect.

Human rights need to be considered in all national security matters, and shouldn't be subordinated. There are ways to do both, and still get the job done. And that's what infuriates me the most about Cheney's approach to things. His approach is that there's only one approach to all of these problems, and human rights can be sacrificed in the name of national security. His inflexibility has made him one of the most controversial Vice-Presidents of all time.

I think in time, history will be kind to Bush, but I'm not so sure about how history will judge Cheney. The damage he inflicted on the Constitution is something that should be held up as the wrong approach to solving the nation's problems.

Newsweek Asks if New "Star Trek" Film is Morally Relevant Like Original TV Series Was: That's the Wrong Question

"Has Star Trek Lost It's Moral Relevance?" is the title of an article found in the current Newsweek magazine. It bemoans the fact that the new film doesn't take on moral issues like the original Star Trek TV series did, as did subsequent follow-ons series Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise. The article complains that it's a shoot-first, blow things up film.

With respect to Newsweek, that's the wrong question to be asking. After all, Star Trek is a mirror-image of our society, taking on popular questions of the day.

If Star Trek IS a mirror-image of us, what does the lack of a theme say about our SOCIETY? That's the question that the article should be asking. Welcome to moral relativism, which seems to be the rule of the day in a large part of our society. This means that the film can't address popular questions of the day, lest it be labeled racist or bigoted for DARING to take a side. See the Miss California debate to test the validity of this statement.

In addition, the film engages in popular trends of the day, introducing sex and a previously unknown relationship between Spock and Uhura into the franchise, as well as revising the history of the established Star Trek universe, which is a big no-no with "Star Trek" fans, alternate timeline notwithstanding.

Besides, not all the films did what the TV series did. The films built off one another, especially Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. The fourth film had a green theme, the fifth film addressed the issue of God-like superbeings, and the sixth and final film of the old series looked at the reconciliation of two civilizations engaged in a long Cold War, paralleling the relationship between the United States and Russia.

And the makers of the film wanted to recapture the feel of Star Trek II, substituting a half-mad Romulan from the future for Khan.

If anyone's responsible for the film not taking on controversial issues of the day, blame the liberal press and various activists, who seems to be leading the charge on criticizing those who might have ideas different from their own and dare to express those ideas, which increases their own (the liberals, that is) hypocrisy of becoming what they behold: the most intolerant people on the planet.

If that's the expectation, then this film is right on target.

Powell Should Follow Specter Out the Door: If Anyone Has a Right to, He Sure Does

I do think that Colin Powell should follow Arlen Specter out the door and follow his example, by joining the Democratic Party.

But it's not for the reasons that Limbaugh has stated, which are that he endorsed Obama solely based on race.

I have no comment on that point.

No, Powell should join the Democrats because the Bush Administration royally screwed him during the build-up to the Iraq War, using Powell to press the case for military action against Iraq and sending him before the U.N. Security Council with false information. CIA did Colin Powell no favors and set him up, when they knew they didn't have the evidence that Powell was pressing for to show that Iraq possessed WMDs.

If anyone has a right to be p.o.'ed by what was done to him, it's Powell. I wouldn't blame him if he never appeared at a GOP event again. Who wouldn't be angry by being set up like Powell was by his own party and his own President?

Powell will always be remembered as the Secretary of State who sat before the Security Council and told them that Iraq had WMDs and offered proof of mobile weapons labs, which U.S. and U.K. intelligence services had already discounted but didn't tell Powell about.

On the political side, he belongs to the Democratic wing of the Republican Party. I think he's burned too many bridges to simply go back and continue on as if his endorsement never happened. His pro-choice leanings are incompatible with what has been a pro-life party. He's got more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans these days; I'm surprised he didn't switch when he endorsed Obama.

I don't know if he'll ever be able to live down his actions as Secretary of State. I'm also uncertain if he'll ever return to politics, so his switching sides won't damage the Republicans any more than they already are.

Democrat Specter Gets Put Into His Place: Dems Reduce His Seniority on Five Committees to Junior Status

Did Senator Specter really expect to keep his seniority when he switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party?

If he was, his hopes were dashed when the Senate demoted him on his committees from the top of the totem pole to the bottom on four of the committees on which he sits, and near the bottom on the fifth committee.

The Democrats did keep his seniority intact outside the committees and in the Senate, but that's all that's left.

I'm sure the Democrats are making him feel welcome, especially when he goes off the reservation like he did a few days ago when he said that the GOP might still win the open Minnesota seat currently being contested by Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D). He discounted his statements as being due from switching parties and not shifting gears quickly enough.

The Democrats were said to be annoyed with the comments.

Democrats in Pennsylvania are lining up to challenge him. And his GOP rival had a 20 point lead on him when he quit the Republican Party. Specter's wish to hold onto power may be dashed by his new friends if he doesn't start parroting the new party line.

And no one seems to be sure if the Democrats are done with reducing Specter's power. But he has less to promise to his new constituents than he did when he was a Republican.

Looks Like We Need to Keep Our Guard Up: Swine Flu Isn't As Dangerous as First Believed, But It's Hitting Close to Home

A friend of mine just posted that her kid's school over in Grand Rapids is closed due to a student there getting a "probable" case of swine flu.

That's a litle too close for comfort.

Apparently this student has a friend that returned from a visit to Mexico a few weeks ago.

I'm still uncertain as to whether we should let this thing run it's course, or to do whatever we need to in order to stop it now. It seems there is a danger that this thing could mutate into something that resembles the 1918 influenza, which could cause it to go out of control.

I think we need to stay the course for the time being. If it mutates, we could be in deep trouble. Getting things completely back to normal will have to wait for a while.

Is a Worldwide Alert Necessary for an Influenza That is No More Dangerous Than the Garden-Variety Flu?

Now that more information is known on the swine flu that is going around the world, and it seems to be no more dangerous to humans than the flu that hit over the winter, is there a reason that we shouldn't allow it to run it's course?

Researchers say that the virus is missing a key component that was present in the dangerous 1918 influenza that killed tens of millions around the world.

And now they're saying that they will have vaccines ready within a matter of weeks.

I'm no medical expert, so I'm asking this: is there a reason not to resume normal business and school operations around the country, and around the world? If it's no more dangerous than a normal flu, is there a danger in dropping our defenses? Is there a chance of a mutation that will actually make it dangerous?

These are questions that should be addressed by public health authorities. We don't want to drop our guard too soon, nor do we want to take steps that are medically unnecessary and scare people, schools and others into overreacting, which some are clearly already doing. Four hundred schools were closed on Friday due to H1N1 fears; 98% of them were false alarms, sparked by "suspected" swine flu fears.

There's more questions than answers right now. Hopefully they'll get a handle on this soon so we know what this virus IS and IS NOT.