Archive for December, 2008

Big Three

December 25, 2008

OK, I made my position very clear about the AIG handout some weeks ago.  Now it is the big three in trouble; GM, Ford and Chrysler.  Now the auto makers are not asking for a handout.  They want a LOAN.  Back in the 70s Carter gave a loan to Chrysler and they paid it back ahead of schedule.  That says good risk.  But the government is hemming and hawing over giving them the money.  Well, of course they are…this is a loan, not a handout.  If they had asked for a handout they would already be spending the money like AIG.  But lets get real, they will get the money because the economy can’t afford to let them go under, even though they moved thousands of jobs off to Mexico.

So, taken as a given that they, the Big Three, will get the money, what kind of conditions should the government make for them? 

1.  Auto makers must reopen at least 50% of the factories they closed down in the U.S. and put Americans back to work.  The idea is fixing the economy, isn’t it?  Well, that would be a good first step. 

2.  Fire the dumb-asses at the top who ran the companies into the ground in the first place.  Get somebody in there who knows how to really manage things.  Clone Lee Iaccoca if you have to! 

3.  Make the top idiots (who should be dusting off their resumes by this time) give back all their bonuses for the last three years.  The ship is sinking and its their fault, so they didn’t earn any damn bonuses in the first place. 

4.  Start designing cars that can actually compete with the foreign imports for fuel efficiency and economy.  Take the dumb son-of-a-bitch who designed the SUV and dump him in the unemployment line.

Those are the stipulations the government should attach to the loan.  If Toyota can run a factory on American soil at a profit, then the domestic auto makers should be able to do so as well.

This has been a Wolf Rant.



December 20, 2008

It has been a while since my last posting, but here I am ready to rant some more. I am a member of various discussion groups, and a while ago the discussion got around to homosexual characters in writing, and how best to portray them. Well, during the discussion the terms “gay”, “straight”, “breeder” and “fag” were bounced around. Now, Fag is a silly-assed thing to call somebody when you consider that its original meaning was ‘burning stick’ or ‘torch’, though now Brits apply it to cigarettes. Sounds like it would be better applied to somebody with an STD, if you ask me. Now, the term ‘Breeder’ sounds better to me than ‘Straight’, to be honest. A breeder is a person or animal that procreates…no duh. But ‘straight’ implies that a person is honest, upright and/or heterosexual. I’ll take Breeder, thank you very much. I know a lot of ‘straight’ people who are crooks and liars. There is also the secondary implication that a person who isn’t straight must be in some way bent, so a gay man must be in some way crooked or twisted. Well, the majority of gay persons I have known were good, honest people and perfectly straight in every way that matters. I am not curious or interested in knowing what they do with whom anymore than I am curious what my breeder friends do with their wives, and I assure you, I don’t want those details either!

Not exactly a rant, just a point of view.