Use a "B" it's spelled Obama,
Use an "S" it's spelled Osama,
But I would bet a silk pajama,
Both are full of "B.S.", comma....
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Foreign vs. Domestic, Pt III - The "Made In America" Myth
OffHisMeds has gone on at length about the mythology that foreign car manufacturers produce better vehicles than domestic manufacturers, or that purchasing them is as "good for America" as the purchase of domestically produced vehicles. I clearly diverge with mainstream conservatism on the latter point, wherein unlimited free and open trade is unambiguously good for America, and trumps all other considerations. What bothers me about Free Traders is that they are purposefully blind to the fact that practically nobody else practices "free" trade. The rest of the world - to one degree or another - is openly mercantilist in their trade practices, and exploits American markets accordingly.
Like me, a good deal of our citizenry is unpersuaded on the Free Trade argument, and like me, view unabashed Free Traders as dupes to the likes of Japan, Inc., China, Inc. and Europe, Inc. The fact that "made in America" still resonates with so many Americans has not been lost on our trading partners, who in response have been hyping for the past two decades the extent to which their products are manufactured here and thus provide "good American jobs".
The problem is that when foreign car manufacturers boast that their cars are "made in America", they are perpetuating a fabrication and a smoke-screen. There's as least seven different ways that reality is gamed by our "trading partners". Let's take the worst offender of our so-called friends - Japan, Inc. - as a case in point:
- The first deals with the number of cars "made" in America. Forget about content for the moment; the question here is: are the cars assembled here or not? Japan, Inc. brags about "made in America" without ever telling you that they assemble less than half of the cars they sell to Americans IN America, with the other half mostly manufactured in Japan and southeast Asia. This is but one of the phony arguments advanced by them or their proponents. Per the Wall Street Journal, 55% of all automobiles worldwide are imported, and America imports more cars than the rest of the world combined.
- Domestic Content is the next big fraud, which is the effort of the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration) to measure the number of components that are domestically produced. The NHTSA's numbers are all based on "Domestic Fleet" content. For one glaring example of how Domestic Content is misrepresented, check out this statement on the NHTSA website: "Mitsubishi achieved 75 percent domestic content for its United States built passenger cars to become the fourth foreign-based manufacturer with a domestic fleet.": This is a bald-faced lie. Mitsubishi has far less domestic content than either Toyota or Honda, who can at least demonstrate that they have parts plants in the USA, but according to a recent USA Today article neither of them is even close to 75% content. This claim also is in direct conflict with the Wall Street Journal and USA Today reports.
- The measure of whether a "part" was produced domestically is based solely on the final product. For example, an engine is judged to be a "part", so Toyota can proudly proclaim that all engines manufactured in the US are 100% American. Except of course that an engine is comprised of many parts: block, heads, cams, pistons, electronics, pumps, alternator, computers, fuel injection system, wiring, etc., most of which is NOT manufactured in the US. Toyota basically assembles them here. Same with transmissions; same with body parts; and the list goes on.
- Japan, Inc., Korea, Inc. and Europe, Inc. all dump their health care costs on their governments. That's a $1,000 per vehicle profit advantage, enough to break the back of any domestic automobile company. Keep that in mind the next time you're inclined to trash the UAW as the source of all of our problems. I'm not saying they're not a problem, but at this stage, they're a relatively minor part in the battle vs. foreign Predators.
- None of the Domestic Content numbers, by the way, include Overhead. Suffice to say, the vast majority of Japan, Inc's executives, department heads, engineers, middle managers, office grunts, coffee fetchers, Salary Men and other White Collar workers are safely ensconced back in Japan.
- Virtually all of the foreign countries I cite have blocked the importation of American cars and parts with tariffs, so-called "safety" regulations, and their cultural disinclination to purchase anything that isn't home grown. Korea is the worst of the offenders. Since the 50s, they have outright blocked virtually all efforts by US parts manufacturers to sell product into their domestic market, even as we open our markets to them and spend $50 billion per year defending them militarily. Great for them, not so good for us.
If you want to understand the reason the Japanese and increasingly the Koreans dominate our domestic auto market, it's because: a) they dominate their domestic markets, b) they have access to close to 100% of the world market, and, c) they can export mostly home-grown vehicles all over the world, particularly to the United States. The US and Canada have access to around 40% of the world market (our own), and are shut out from exporting our vehicles. Whether you're a businessman or a first-year college student, if you understand economies of scale, you understand that Toyota gets to spread their R&D and overhead against a world market. GM gets to spread theirs against essentially a domestic market.
America loses.
Finally, whether you buy my argument that the content of foreign cars sold in this country is as skewed as I claim it is, what is indisputable is that the purchase of a foreign car - regardless of where it's made or the percentage of American content - puts money in the pocket of foreign corporations. What is indisputable is that, in spending $25,000 on a foreign car, that $25,000 less dollars are available to American car companies, who unambiguously create American jobs.
So to my fellow citizen-consumers who blab on about the virtue of purchasing foreign cars, I have two questions: 1) If it's such a good idea, why don't the beneficiaries of your world-view - the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans - feel the same way?; and 2) When your $25,000 comes back to America - and it's not coming back to buy our products - how long can this go on before foreigners own everything?
Like me, a good deal of our citizenry is unpersuaded on the Free Trade argument, and like me, view unabashed Free Traders as dupes to the likes of Japan, Inc., China, Inc. and Europe, Inc. The fact that "made in America" still resonates with so many Americans has not been lost on our trading partners, who in response have been hyping for the past two decades the extent to which their products are manufactured here and thus provide "good American jobs".
The problem is that when foreign car manufacturers boast that their cars are "made in America", they are perpetuating a fabrication and a smoke-screen. There's as least seven different ways that reality is gamed by our "trading partners". Let's take the worst offender of our so-called friends - Japan, Inc. - as a case in point:
- The first deals with the number of cars "made" in America. Forget about content for the moment; the question here is: are the cars assembled here or not? Japan, Inc. brags about "made in America" without ever telling you that they assemble less than half of the cars they sell to Americans IN America, with the other half mostly manufactured in Japan and southeast Asia. This is but one of the phony arguments advanced by them or their proponents. Per the Wall Street Journal, 55% of all automobiles worldwide are imported, and America imports more cars than the rest of the world combined.
- Domestic Content is the next big fraud, which is the effort of the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration) to measure the number of components that are domestically produced. The NHTSA's numbers are all based on "Domestic Fleet" content. For one glaring example of how Domestic Content is misrepresented, check out this statement on the NHTSA website: "Mitsubishi achieved 75 percent domestic content for its United States built passenger cars to become the fourth foreign-based manufacturer with a domestic fleet.": This is a bald-faced lie. Mitsubishi has far less domestic content than either Toyota or Honda, who can at least demonstrate that they have parts plants in the USA, but according to a recent USA Today article neither of them is even close to 75% content. This claim also is in direct conflict with the Wall Street Journal and USA Today reports.
- The measure of whether a "part" was produced domestically is based solely on the final product. For example, an engine is judged to be a "part", so Toyota can proudly proclaim that all engines manufactured in the US are 100% American. Except of course that an engine is comprised of many parts: block, heads, cams, pistons, electronics, pumps, alternator, computers, fuel injection system, wiring, etc., most of which is NOT manufactured in the US. Toyota basically assembles them here. Same with transmissions; same with body parts; and the list goes on.
- Japan, Inc., Korea, Inc. and Europe, Inc. all dump their health care costs on their governments. That's a $1,000 per vehicle profit advantage, enough to break the back of any domestic automobile company. Keep that in mind the next time you're inclined to trash the UAW as the source of all of our problems. I'm not saying they're not a problem, but at this stage, they're a relatively minor part in the battle vs. foreign Predators.
- None of the Domestic Content numbers, by the way, include Overhead. Suffice to say, the vast majority of Japan, Inc's executives, department heads, engineers, middle managers, office grunts, coffee fetchers, Salary Men and other White Collar workers are safely ensconced back in Japan.
- Virtually all of the foreign countries I cite have blocked the importation of American cars and parts with tariffs, so-called "safety" regulations, and their cultural disinclination to purchase anything that isn't home grown. Korea is the worst of the offenders. Since the 50s, they have outright blocked virtually all efforts by US parts manufacturers to sell product into their domestic market, even as we open our markets to them and spend $50 billion per year defending them militarily. Great for them, not so good for us.
If you want to understand the reason the Japanese and increasingly the Koreans dominate our domestic auto market, it's because: a) they dominate their domestic markets, b) they have access to close to 100% of the world market, and, c) they can export mostly home-grown vehicles all over the world, particularly to the United States. The US and Canada have access to around 40% of the world market (our own), and are shut out from exporting our vehicles. Whether you're a businessman or a first-year college student, if you understand economies of scale, you understand that Toyota gets to spread their R&D and overhead against a world market. GM gets to spread theirs against essentially a domestic market.
America loses.
Finally, whether you buy my argument that the content of foreign cars sold in this country is as skewed as I claim it is, what is indisputable is that the purchase of a foreign car - regardless of where it's made or the percentage of American content - puts money in the pocket of foreign corporations. What is indisputable is that, in spending $25,000 on a foreign car, that $25,000 less dollars are available to American car companies, who unambiguously create American jobs.
So to my fellow citizen-consumers who blab on about the virtue of purchasing foreign cars, I have two questions: 1) If it's such a good idea, why don't the beneficiaries of your world-view - the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans - feel the same way?; and 2) When your $25,000 comes back to America - and it's not coming back to buy our products - how long can this go on before foreigners own everything?
Friday, March 19, 2010
Foreign vs. Domestic, Part II - Toyota's Self Inflicted Wounds
Bet you Toyota owners never thought it would come to this. Your favorite company is on the ropes, their fixes only make things worse, and even you are getting the Willies driving your beloved and mythically reliable Toyota. Was that a slight tug you just felt as you hit that bump? Is your floor mat tucked up under the brake pedal? Why does your car accelerate rapidly all on its own? And why is it that your car doesn't decelerate when you stomp on the breaks?
Worse, it seems no model style is immune. Toyota's problems cross most of their platforms, including sedans, SUVs, Hybrids, and even the luxury Lexus line.
Toyota's rope-a-dope has been a thing of beauty to watch. Imagine successfully stiffing federal investigators at the NHSTA (National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration) for a decade over your surging acceleration problems? Early on, Toyota craftily decided to employ the time-honored "the dog ate my homework" defense to stonewall any investigation, first, by refusing to even acknowledge the existence of their own internal studies of the decade-long problem; next, by corrupting NHTSA officials with cushy post-government jobs; and lastly, by conveniently having but a single computer in the United States in the past five years that was capable of downloading on-board computer data from affected vehicles.
Oh yeah, and the software that drove it - unlike most of Toyota's competitors - was proprietary to boot, making it impossible for auditors to access the data without Toyota's fingerprints being all over it first.
And all the while, their public face has been one of denial. What is amusing is that - for a nation that prides itself on subtlety - these tactics are anything but. Conjure up a mental image of Spicoli caught alone in the Boys Room, reeking of marijuana smoke but coyly denying anything was wrong. Same thing. And very un-Japanese.
The PR effort has been a trip down the rabbit hole as well. Since thousands of cars were running out of control, something had to be at fault, so Toyota blamed, in order, a) their customers' stupidity, b) floor mats, c) gas pedals manufactured by an American company, d) their customers' stupidity and e) most recently, the efforts of their customers to conspire against Toyota along with American trial attorneys. Now, this is not to say that there aren't some opportunists out there, but it is to say that - whatever or whomever is to blame - Toyota has been engaged in a decade-long cover-up, and continually doubles-down on their increasingly fantastical narrative.
Their most recent actions provide a perfect example. Having investigated a Prius that allegedly ran out of control, Toyota announced - with the certainty of Sherlock Holmes and not without a little bit of his flourish - that "the car in question is functioning properly" because "they could not reproduce the problem". Well no shit, Sherlock. Would it be inconvenient to point out that you've been unable to "reproduce the problem" in any of the vehicles you've investigated, including the Lexus occupied by a California State Trooper and his family, all now dead? In point of fact, prior to this week, the only thing all parties could agree on, including Toyota, is that the problem could not be reproduced in testing.
Ironically, Toyota's efforts to deflect blame to sinister forces within the United States are not entirely without justification. It seems to have largely escaped The Media's attention that Toyota's Inquisitors are 1) the US government, the folks who own two of their competitors; 2) the UAW, partners with the Feds in both GM and Chrysler; and 3) our predatory Trial Lawyers Guild. And it is no coincidence that all three are functioning subsidiaries of the Democrat Party, the true face of Evil in America.
How pissed off must Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda be that the Unions he had so gleefully spurned when he offered his devil's bargain to the likes of Kentucky back in the 80s are now the arbiters of Toyota's fate? Even as Toyota continues to embrace implausibility as a savior, rather than the millstone it most surely is, it's worth remembering that - however bad the Sudden Acceleration problem proves to be - Malefactors within the Democrat Party will make it orders of magnitude worse, attach a dollar value to it, multiply by ten, take a 50% cut, and then benefit from Toyota's lost market share for a generation.
Toyota should come clean now.
Worse, it seems no model style is immune. Toyota's problems cross most of their platforms, including sedans, SUVs, Hybrids, and even the luxury Lexus line.
Toyota's rope-a-dope has been a thing of beauty to watch. Imagine successfully stiffing federal investigators at the NHSTA (National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration) for a decade over your surging acceleration problems? Early on, Toyota craftily decided to employ the time-honored "the dog ate my homework" defense to stonewall any investigation, first, by refusing to even acknowledge the existence of their own internal studies of the decade-long problem; next, by corrupting NHTSA officials with cushy post-government jobs; and lastly, by conveniently having but a single computer in the United States in the past five years that was capable of downloading on-board computer data from affected vehicles.
Oh yeah, and the software that drove it - unlike most of Toyota's competitors - was proprietary to boot, making it impossible for auditors to access the data without Toyota's fingerprints being all over it first.
And all the while, their public face has been one of denial. What is amusing is that - for a nation that prides itself on subtlety - these tactics are anything but. Conjure up a mental image of Spicoli caught alone in the Boys Room, reeking of marijuana smoke but coyly denying anything was wrong. Same thing. And very un-Japanese.
The PR effort has been a trip down the rabbit hole as well. Since thousands of cars were running out of control, something had to be at fault, so Toyota blamed, in order, a) their customers' stupidity, b) floor mats, c) gas pedals manufactured by an American company, d) their customers' stupidity and e) most recently, the efforts of their customers to conspire against Toyota along with American trial attorneys. Now, this is not to say that there aren't some opportunists out there, but it is to say that - whatever or whomever is to blame - Toyota has been engaged in a decade-long cover-up, and continually doubles-down on their increasingly fantastical narrative.
Their most recent actions provide a perfect example. Having investigated a Prius that allegedly ran out of control, Toyota announced - with the certainty of Sherlock Holmes and not without a little bit of his flourish - that "the car in question is functioning properly" because "they could not reproduce the problem". Well no shit, Sherlock. Would it be inconvenient to point out that you've been unable to "reproduce the problem" in any of the vehicles you've investigated, including the Lexus occupied by a California State Trooper and his family, all now dead? In point of fact, prior to this week, the only thing all parties could agree on, including Toyota, is that the problem could not be reproduced in testing.
Ironically, Toyota's efforts to deflect blame to sinister forces within the United States are not entirely without justification. It seems to have largely escaped The Media's attention that Toyota's Inquisitors are 1) the US government, the folks who own two of their competitors; 2) the UAW, partners with the Feds in both GM and Chrysler; and 3) our predatory Trial Lawyers Guild. And it is no coincidence that all three are functioning subsidiaries of the Democrat Party, the true face of Evil in America.
How pissed off must Toyota chairman Akio Toyoda be that the Unions he had so gleefully spurned when he offered his devil's bargain to the likes of Kentucky back in the 80s are now the arbiters of Toyota's fate? Even as Toyota continues to embrace implausibility as a savior, rather than the millstone it most surely is, it's worth remembering that - however bad the Sudden Acceleration problem proves to be - Malefactors within the Democrat Party will make it orders of magnitude worse, attach a dollar value to it, multiply by ten, take a 50% cut, and then benefit from Toyota's lost market share for a generation.
Toyota should come clean now.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Foreign vs. Domestic, Pt I - The Quality Myth
OffHisMeds has a friend who swears by Consumer Reports. As with many other American consumers, it's like a religion for him. So when Consumer Reports says - endlessly - that Japanese cars are of a Higher Quality than American cars, it is a given that American consumers must worship at this altar, even for decades, until Consumer Reports says otherwise.
Unless, of course, Toyota shoots themselves in the foot and disproves the premise themselves. Running out of fingers to plug into the dike, Toyota was this past month inundated by Consumer outrage. Turns out that Toyota has been killing and maiming their customers with unsafe cars for at least a decade, and covering it up to boot. So where has Consumer Reports been on this problem, which dates back to the 90's? How about the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration)? How about my friend?
You can almost guess his rebuttal, in which he simply regurgitated the party line of Toyota: "The defective gas pedals were manufactured by CTS Corp., an American firm". I burst that bubble for him by documenting that a) Toyota's problems started five years before CTS produced a single part for Toyota; b) that the Sudden Acceleration problem cut across much of their product line, including numerous models not equipped by CTS; c) that Toyota had previously blamed floor mats for much of the past decade; d) that Toyota had made the nonsensical claim that an epidemic of Sudden Acceleration could be blamed on a part (the gas pedal) that even Toyota admitted simply had a tendency to "stick"; and e) that they had completely failed to account for how it was that a so-called sticky gas pedal or floor mat could not only cause a car to accelerate out of control but also disable a braking system specifically engineered to kill the accelerator. My friend had no answer, but he did have a comeback: "Oh yeah, well what about the Ford Pinto?". Give him credit, at least he had one. Toyota and the NHTSA, by comparison, were either mute or dumfounded.
This pathology has roots in America that run long and deep, and nobody is more afflicted it seems than most of my friends. Having conversations with them about why it is wrong to blindly purchase foreign cars is like playing Whack-a-Mole: crush one Talking Point, and another will rear up to take its place. These Talking Points run the gamut - from the fiction that foreign cars are superior in economy or safety to their allegedly greater durability - but they all have two things in common: 1) they are articles of faith for many American consumers; 2) most of these "consumers" didn't even bother investigating an American alternative.
Full Disclosure: I am an unapologetic "Buy American" kind of guy. I would purchase an inferior American product in order to support American workers and our way of life. I'm not OK sending my money to Mercantilist Cheats like Japan, China, Germany and Korea that game the system to block our Exports, even as they feast on an open American market. And to the extent that any of them practice Democracy, it is vastly inferior to America's version, and they ought not to be subsidized at the expense of The Real Thing.
Fortunately, I don't need to purchase an inferior American car. With the exception of low-end economy cars (which represent a relatively small percentage of the overall market), Made-in-the-USA iron is generally the equal of any in the world, and frequently superior to anything in the world. And thus my confusion as to my fellow citizens' obsession with Honda, Toyota, Lexus, BMW, Volkswagen and Hyundai. There's a detachment from reality that is troubling.
Which brings us back to Consumer Reports, and an anecdote. I purchased a Pontiac Vibe in 2004. The Vibe is a collaboration between Pontiac and Toyota, and Toyota produces it's twin, the Matrix. The engine blew at 60,000 miles, and I had to spend $3,000 getting a rebuilt replacement. Investigating the matter, I found that the Toyota engine in the Vibe/Matrix is notorious for blowing up at 60,000 miles. Imagine that. Such a short engine life has been unheard of in American cars since the 50s, and Consumer Reports would have been all over an American car company that produced such an inferior product.
So where was Consumer Reports on this Toyota defect? Where were they on the decade-long Sudden Acceleration problem? Silent and in the background, as it occurs. Having gone to all the trouble of perpetuating the myth of the superiority of foreign cars, they are apparently unwilling to take the credibility hit they so richly deserve.
In the meantime, I look forward to the day when I will no longer have to endure the Pinto Argument as a rationalization for buying a foreign car, particularly since two generations have come upon the Earth since Ford produced that unfortunate vehicle. I also look forward to the day when either Consumer Reports becomes the unbiased advocate they represent themselves to be, or American consumers start thinking for themselves instead of having Consumer Reports do their thinking for them.
Or both.
Unless, of course, Toyota shoots themselves in the foot and disproves the premise themselves. Running out of fingers to plug into the dike, Toyota was this past month inundated by Consumer outrage. Turns out that Toyota has been killing and maiming their customers with unsafe cars for at least a decade, and covering it up to boot. So where has Consumer Reports been on this problem, which dates back to the 90's? How about the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration)? How about my friend?
You can almost guess his rebuttal, in which he simply regurgitated the party line of Toyota: "The defective gas pedals were manufactured by CTS Corp., an American firm". I burst that bubble for him by documenting that a) Toyota's problems started five years before CTS produced a single part for Toyota; b) that the Sudden Acceleration problem cut across much of their product line, including numerous models not equipped by CTS; c) that Toyota had previously blamed floor mats for much of the past decade; d) that Toyota had made the nonsensical claim that an epidemic of Sudden Acceleration could be blamed on a part (the gas pedal) that even Toyota admitted simply had a tendency to "stick"; and e) that they had completely failed to account for how it was that a so-called sticky gas pedal or floor mat could not only cause a car to accelerate out of control but also disable a braking system specifically engineered to kill the accelerator. My friend had no answer, but he did have a comeback: "Oh yeah, well what about the Ford Pinto?". Give him credit, at least he had one. Toyota and the NHTSA, by comparison, were either mute or dumfounded.
This pathology has roots in America that run long and deep, and nobody is more afflicted it seems than most of my friends. Having conversations with them about why it is wrong to blindly purchase foreign cars is like playing Whack-a-Mole: crush one Talking Point, and another will rear up to take its place. These Talking Points run the gamut - from the fiction that foreign cars are superior in economy or safety to their allegedly greater durability - but they all have two things in common: 1) they are articles of faith for many American consumers; 2) most of these "consumers" didn't even bother investigating an American alternative.
Full Disclosure: I am an unapologetic "Buy American" kind of guy. I would purchase an inferior American product in order to support American workers and our way of life. I'm not OK sending my money to Mercantilist Cheats like Japan, China, Germany and Korea that game the system to block our Exports, even as they feast on an open American market. And to the extent that any of them practice Democracy, it is vastly inferior to America's version, and they ought not to be subsidized at the expense of The Real Thing.
Fortunately, I don't need to purchase an inferior American car. With the exception of low-end economy cars (which represent a relatively small percentage of the overall market), Made-in-the-USA iron is generally the equal of any in the world, and frequently superior to anything in the world. And thus my confusion as to my fellow citizens' obsession with Honda, Toyota, Lexus, BMW, Volkswagen and Hyundai. There's a detachment from reality that is troubling.
Which brings us back to Consumer Reports, and an anecdote. I purchased a Pontiac Vibe in 2004. The Vibe is a collaboration between Pontiac and Toyota, and Toyota produces it's twin, the Matrix. The engine blew at 60,000 miles, and I had to spend $3,000 getting a rebuilt replacement. Investigating the matter, I found that the Toyota engine in the Vibe/Matrix is notorious for blowing up at 60,000 miles. Imagine that. Such a short engine life has been unheard of in American cars since the 50s, and Consumer Reports would have been all over an American car company that produced such an inferior product.
So where was Consumer Reports on this Toyota defect? Where were they on the decade-long Sudden Acceleration problem? Silent and in the background, as it occurs. Having gone to all the trouble of perpetuating the myth of the superiority of foreign cars, they are apparently unwilling to take the credibility hit they so richly deserve.
In the meantime, I look forward to the day when I will no longer have to endure the Pinto Argument as a rationalization for buying a foreign car, particularly since two generations have come upon the Earth since Ford produced that unfortunate vehicle. I also look forward to the day when either Consumer Reports becomes the unbiased advocate they represent themselves to be, or American consumers start thinking for themselves instead of having Consumer Reports do their thinking for them.
Or both.
Monday, March 15, 2010
McGwire The Liar, Part II
Well, two months have passed since Mark McGwire's tearful "confession" to having used steroids, and as he has for the previous two decades, McGwire only further covered himself in ignominy. His initial statement as well as subsequent interviews were a litany of fact-free blather, self-justification and self-pity, with McGwire speaking out of the several sides of his mouth, even as he was supposedly in the throes of "Coming Clean".
Check out my earlier blog on the subject at this link.
Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we? When the Steroid scandal broke in 1998, McGwire was an "early denier", declaring that he "had not taken any illegal substances". When pressed, he eventually copped to taking androstenedione, a substance banned everywhere but in the MLB. Again, this was an admission that had to be squeezed out of him. When called before Congress in 2005, he essentially "plead the Fifth", insisting that he was "not here to talk about the past", a declaration that must have greatly confused the Congressional committee, seeing as how that was the whole point of the hearings.
Earlier in the day that McGwire testified, Jose Canseco had accused McGwire of using steroids. Now, reconcile for yourself if you can the following statements by McGwire:
- When asked if he had taken steroids or other PEDs, McGwire declared: "I'm not here to talk about the past".
- "My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself."
- When asked to comment on Canseco's accusation: "It should be enough that you consider the source of the statements".
- In later comments, McGwire again took a shot at Canseco, referring to "convicted criminals who would do or say anything to solve their own problems."
You would be forgiven for assuming from McGwire's remarks that Canseco was an international drug lord, or something similar. His actual "crime" was for being involved in a brawl outside a nightclub in Miami, then violating parole by taking steroids. One other interesting fact: Canseco had asked for immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony, but that request was refused. He testified anyway. Strange to think that through his actions Canseco - who clearly suffered the risk of criminal prosecution if he testified - was a moral giant next to the likes of McGwire.
Fast forward to November of 2009, and McGwire has changed his tune just a little, but not his lying ways. Granted, he isn't going around questioning Canseco's veracity based on his "criminal" record. Now he's questioning his veracity because he's "selling a book". He then goes on to validate all of Canseco's accusations, admitting that his career was nearly over in 1993 due to leg injuries when he started using steroids. Within months, his injuries had healed, and his home run production ballooned in the same proportions as his eventually Popeye-sized forearms. McGwire's conclusion? Coincidence. To quote him, when he was asked if Steroids helped him hit more home runs, he stated that while he was on the Juice "I had good years, and I had bad years".
It's also amusing to think that with the statement about "good years and bad years" that McGwire has unconsciously contradicted his adamant and abundant claims that his steroid abuse had been very limited in time and scope.
With his latest (and third) attempt to resuscitate his career, he's now the Triple Crown winner in a very inauspicious competition. His statements still don't have even a passing resemblance to the truth, and they sure as hell don't constitute any good faith outreach to his fans, team-mates or the Public at large. Just as McGwire once oozed a steroidal affluent and whatever the hell your body discharges after you shoot up Human Growth Hormone, he now oozes a faked sincerity and an ability to equivocate that is not only breathtaking, but sinister.
OffHisMeds has come to the conclusion that talking to the likes of McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and their ilk about Truth is like talking to a brick wall. They are so morally obtuse, so completely self-centered, that notions like The Golden Rule, Judeo-Christian Ethics, and for all we know the Infield Fly Rule are things that just don't factor into their moral universe. In a million years, I don't believe it would occur to McGwire or most of his counterparts how important it is to "come clean", to tell the Public in detail what they did. To paraphrase former Senator Howard Baker in referring to Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal "what did you take, and when did you take it"?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer to those questions.
Finally, to the extent that we can draw conclusions about such things, it's funny how that hitting coach job so implausibly coincided with McGwire's new-found conscience. Oh to be a fly on the wall to hear the conversation he had with St. Louis Manager Tony La Russa and General Manager John Mozeliak when negotiating his return to the Cardinals, but we can be pretty sure it went something like this:
La Russa: "Look Mark, we can take you back, but you've got to admit to using Steroids".
McGwire: "OK, just so long as I don't have to go into any of the details".
Indeed.
Check out my earlier blog on the subject at this link.
Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we? When the Steroid scandal broke in 1998, McGwire was an "early denier", declaring that he "had not taken any illegal substances". When pressed, he eventually copped to taking androstenedione, a substance banned everywhere but in the MLB. Again, this was an admission that had to be squeezed out of him. When called before Congress in 2005, he essentially "plead the Fifth", insisting that he was "not here to talk about the past", a declaration that must have greatly confused the Congressional committee, seeing as how that was the whole point of the hearings.
Earlier in the day that McGwire testified, Jose Canseco had accused McGwire of using steroids. Now, reconcile for yourself if you can the following statements by McGwire:
- When asked if he had taken steroids or other PEDs, McGwire declared: "I'm not here to talk about the past".
- "My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself."
- When asked to comment on Canseco's accusation: "It should be enough that you consider the source of the statements".
- In later comments, McGwire again took a shot at Canseco, referring to "convicted criminals who would do or say anything to solve their own problems."
You would be forgiven for assuming from McGwire's remarks that Canseco was an international drug lord, or something similar. His actual "crime" was for being involved in a brawl outside a nightclub in Miami, then violating parole by taking steroids. One other interesting fact: Canseco had asked for immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony, but that request was refused. He testified anyway. Strange to think that through his actions Canseco - who clearly suffered the risk of criminal prosecution if he testified - was a moral giant next to the likes of McGwire.
Fast forward to November of 2009, and McGwire has changed his tune just a little, but not his lying ways. Granted, he isn't going around questioning Canseco's veracity based on his "criminal" record. Now he's questioning his veracity because he's "selling a book". He then goes on to validate all of Canseco's accusations, admitting that his career was nearly over in 1993 due to leg injuries when he started using steroids. Within months, his injuries had healed, and his home run production ballooned in the same proportions as his eventually Popeye-sized forearms. McGwire's conclusion? Coincidence. To quote him, when he was asked if Steroids helped him hit more home runs, he stated that while he was on the Juice "I had good years, and I had bad years".
It's also amusing to think that with the statement about "good years and bad years" that McGwire has unconsciously contradicted his adamant and abundant claims that his steroid abuse had been very limited in time and scope.
With his latest (and third) attempt to resuscitate his career, he's now the Triple Crown winner in a very inauspicious competition. His statements still don't have even a passing resemblance to the truth, and they sure as hell don't constitute any good faith outreach to his fans, team-mates or the Public at large. Just as McGwire once oozed a steroidal affluent and whatever the hell your body discharges after you shoot up Human Growth Hormone, he now oozes a faked sincerity and an ability to equivocate that is not only breathtaking, but sinister.
OffHisMeds has come to the conclusion that talking to the likes of McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and their ilk about Truth is like talking to a brick wall. They are so morally obtuse, so completely self-centered, that notions like The Golden Rule, Judeo-Christian Ethics, and for all we know the Infield Fly Rule are things that just don't factor into their moral universe. In a million years, I don't believe it would occur to McGwire or most of his counterparts how important it is to "come clean", to tell the Public in detail what they did. To paraphrase former Senator Howard Baker in referring to Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal "what did you take, and when did you take it"?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer to those questions.
Finally, to the extent that we can draw conclusions about such things, it's funny how that hitting coach job so implausibly coincided with McGwire's new-found conscience. Oh to be a fly on the wall to hear the conversation he had with St. Louis Manager Tony La Russa and General Manager John Mozeliak when negotiating his return to the Cardinals, but we can be pretty sure it went something like this:
La Russa: "Look Mark, we can take you back, but you've got to admit to using Steroids".
McGwire: "OK, just so long as I don't have to go into any of the details".
Indeed.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Islamic Advice Column
Dear Abdullah:
I work in an office where folks sometimes bring in birthday cakes, desserts and other goodies to share. “Dolores” is always the first in line and helps herself to a large portion of the treats and says she’s taking some home for her family. Last week, someone brought in an exotic dessert, and I got out the dessert-size paper plates. Dolores took out two regular- size paper plates and cut off a quarter of the entire dessert! No one could believe it, but we didn’t know what to say or do.
What do you recommend?
- 'DESSERTED' in Tennessee
Dear 'Desserted'
The hogging of "cakes, desserts and other goodies" leads Abdullah to observe that your friend Dolores is undoubtedly a Dirty Jew, and thus is entitled to no consideration. Determine if her family has paid in full their jizya, and if not, bury her in sand up to her neck until the proper tribute has been accorded to the state.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
My son's birthday is coming soon. I want to invite his Scout troop and some of his schoolmates. The problem is "Matt." Matt is a horrible child who is in both Scouts and school. I know he'll destroy the party, but how can I invite everyone else and not him? His parents are lazy and overindulgent and can't seem to make him understand that there are rules of conduct.
- PERPLEXED MOM IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS
Dear Perplexed:
Have "Matt" reported to the Directorate as a Zionist spy, and he will never bother you again.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
When I take my children to the pediatrician, we are usually there for one reason. Sometimes my child will happen to have another ailment, such as a sore ankle or a fever blister. I don’t feel comfortable bringing up additional issues with our doctor because when I do, I get the “evil eye” from him. Is it OK to talk to the doctor about several medical problems in one visit?
- IN A QUANDARY, KETTERING, OHIO
Dear Quandary:
Your Doctor is a Zionist inflitrator, and the use of the "Evil Eye" by the Jews against The Faithful is well documented in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Be thankful he did not use the Evil Eye to kidnap your children so as to use their blood to bake Passover Matzoh. You should find a new doctor.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
Regarding your answer to "Yoo-Hoo, I'm Over Here!" (Jan. 10), who was bothered by her husband's constant leering at women, you've got to be kidding. Men have been looking at young women since the beginning of time. My husband and his friends hold "office hours" every morning at our neighborhood coffeehouse. I've told him as long as he "touches" only with his eyes, there won't be a problem.
- KEEPING IT REAL IN TAMPA
DEAR KEEPING IT REAL:
Your insolence is astounding. Surely you know that a wife is not entitled to an opinion on such matters, much less knowledge of its occurrence. Tell your husband you submitted this letter and suggest he beat you with a knotted rope for fifteen minutes.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
I am being married in August. I’m going to have my bridal portrait taken, and I need to know if I’m supposed to wear my wedding ring in the photo session or my engagement ring. Also, how soon do I need to schedule the portrait session?
- BRIDE-TO-BE, Pecos
Dear Bride-to-be:
Whore of Zion! Such grotesque vanity, not to mention immodesty. Since your portraits are to be taken in an Abaya with the hands properly covered, of what difference is it whether you wear one or both rings? You should be stoned. Immediately tell your husband-to-be so that he can cancel the engagement and recover his honor.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
I am a 76-year-old man who is romantically involved with a 65-year old lady. She knows I take Viagra. I recently had to go out of town for a week. Before I left, she demanded that I give her my bottle of Viagra. She said she would return it as soon as I got back. What I did not tell my lady friend is that I don’t always need Viagra to “perform.” Should I remain silent and let her believe that without the little blue pill I’ll be forced to remain faithful?
Honesty is the best long-term policy, but is there a limit to just “how” honest one should be?
- A VITAL MAN in Arkansas
Dear Vital:
If Abdullah understands the situation correctly, both you and your "lady" friend accept lies and infidelity as the foundation of your relationship. Your compulsion to fornicate, much less enable such behavior through the use of drugs is an affront to decency and the Koran.
Abdullah is filled with sadness because there is no hope for you or your "lady" friend. I have no advice to offer. May Allah have mercy on you both.
I work in an office where folks sometimes bring in birthday cakes, desserts and other goodies to share. “Dolores” is always the first in line and helps herself to a large portion of the treats and says she’s taking some home for her family. Last week, someone brought in an exotic dessert, and I got out the dessert-size paper plates. Dolores took out two regular- size paper plates and cut off a quarter of the entire dessert! No one could believe it, but we didn’t know what to say or do.
What do you recommend?
- 'DESSERTED' in Tennessee
Dear 'Desserted'
The hogging of "cakes, desserts and other goodies" leads Abdullah to observe that your friend Dolores is undoubtedly a Dirty Jew, and thus is entitled to no consideration. Determine if her family has paid in full their jizya, and if not, bury her in sand up to her neck until the proper tribute has been accorded to the state.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
My son's birthday is coming soon. I want to invite his Scout troop and some of his schoolmates. The problem is "Matt." Matt is a horrible child who is in both Scouts and school. I know he'll destroy the party, but how can I invite everyone else and not him? His parents are lazy and overindulgent and can't seem to make him understand that there are rules of conduct.
- PERPLEXED MOM IN THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS
Dear Perplexed:
Have "Matt" reported to the Directorate as a Zionist spy, and he will never bother you again.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
When I take my children to the pediatrician, we are usually there for one reason. Sometimes my child will happen to have another ailment, such as a sore ankle or a fever blister. I don’t feel comfortable bringing up additional issues with our doctor because when I do, I get the “evil eye” from him. Is it OK to talk to the doctor about several medical problems in one visit?
- IN A QUANDARY, KETTERING, OHIO
Dear Quandary:
Your Doctor is a Zionist inflitrator, and the use of the "Evil Eye" by the Jews against The Faithful is well documented in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Be thankful he did not use the Evil Eye to kidnap your children so as to use their blood to bake Passover Matzoh. You should find a new doctor.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
Regarding your answer to "Yoo-Hoo, I'm Over Here!" (Jan. 10), who was bothered by her husband's constant leering at women, you've got to be kidding. Men have been looking at young women since the beginning of time. My husband and his friends hold "office hours" every morning at our neighborhood coffeehouse. I've told him as long as he "touches" only with his eyes, there won't be a problem.
- KEEPING IT REAL IN TAMPA
DEAR KEEPING IT REAL:
Your insolence is astounding. Surely you know that a wife is not entitled to an opinion on such matters, much less knowledge of its occurrence. Tell your husband you submitted this letter and suggest he beat you with a knotted rope for fifteen minutes.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
I am being married in August. I’m going to have my bridal portrait taken, and I need to know if I’m supposed to wear my wedding ring in the photo session or my engagement ring. Also, how soon do I need to schedule the portrait session?
- BRIDE-TO-BE, Pecos
Dear Bride-to-be:
Whore of Zion! Such grotesque vanity, not to mention immodesty. Since your portraits are to be taken in an Abaya with the hands properly covered, of what difference is it whether you wear one or both rings? You should be stoned. Immediately tell your husband-to-be so that he can cancel the engagement and recover his honor.
________________
Dear Abdullah:
I am a 76-year-old man who is romantically involved with a 65-year old lady. She knows I take Viagra. I recently had to go out of town for a week. Before I left, she demanded that I give her my bottle of Viagra. She said she would return it as soon as I got back. What I did not tell my lady friend is that I don’t always need Viagra to “perform.” Should I remain silent and let her believe that without the little blue pill I’ll be forced to remain faithful?
Honesty is the best long-term policy, but is there a limit to just “how” honest one should be?
- A VITAL MAN in Arkansas
Dear Vital:
If Abdullah understands the situation correctly, both you and your "lady" friend accept lies and infidelity as the foundation of your relationship. Your compulsion to fornicate, much less enable such behavior through the use of drugs is an affront to decency and the Koran.
Abdullah is filled with sadness because there is no hope for you or your "lady" friend. I have no advice to offer. May Allah have mercy on you both.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Obama, The Joker, and Daft Republicans
So, the Democrats have their panties in a wad because some Republican Party fundraiser put out a presentation slide featuring Barack Obama as the Joker, Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille, and Harry Reid as Scooby Doo.
Good times, right?
Not if you're a Republican Swell.
Instead of keeping the whole thing in perspective, the Republican Establishment collectively wet themselves attempting to deflect blame. "Nobody likes this kind of thing". "Totally inappropriate". Heads must roll, sayeth Michael Steele, Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch, collectively. See, it's not that they had problems with the caricatures of Pelosi and Reid or that Obama was caricatured as The Joker. No, these geniuses assumed that the caricature was racist, and with their responses promptly legitimized the notion.
For example, only Michael Steele can know what was going on inside of Michael Steele's head when Michael Steele decided to go where nobody else was going, defending his party by comparing the caricaturist to all of the Democrats who had ever called him (Steele) an Uncle Tom. Having thus explicitly connected the dots and made it an issue of Race, his sad-sack cohorts would have had to twist themselves into knots to characterize it differently. So instead, they simply threw in the towel.
The Washington Post gave the story it's usual balanced coverage, offering as a Back-story a Republican that would criticize Republicans for this terrible breach in manners.
The so-called Republican in question, Mark DeMoss, started an organization devoted to a return of civility to our political discourse, but it turns out he thinks the definition of "civility" is to hang out with a bunch of Democrats, visit the White House and criticize - Republicans. No hint on his website of any of the Democrat's serial and grotesque offenses to civility over the decades, and how ideologically committed must the Post be to let that bit of hypocrisy go unreported? OffHisMeds was also greatly amused by DeMoss so publicly rendering his loincloth, declaring he "will no longer contribute to any fundraising entity of our Party". Really Mark? One strike and you're out? Your "Party" doesn't even qualify for Double Secret Probation? No path they could take back to respectability, as you see it?
Me, I've got to wonder about the character of a man that devotes a website to the topic of Civility who proceeds to throw his own under a bus and not only ignores Civility's most egregious abusers (Democrats) but cozies up to them as well. Put it this way: anybody that thinks Democrat Hack Lanny Davis is a hands-across-the-aisle moderate is either a fool or an opportunist.
OffHisMeds waits with bated breath to discover exactly what kind of Stimulus funding The Civility Project will qualify for in the future.
Mark DeMoss and his ilk clearly have absolutely no sense of humor, but then, the self-appointed Hall Monitors of Society rarely do. If he had read the whole story he might have appreciated how truly funny the entire slide presentation was. For one example, you must keep in mind that it was given to "high-level Republican donors", whom the Presenter described as: "'ego-driven....and who can be enticed with 'tchochkes'." From Wikipedia:
Tchochke (Typically pronounced as "Chach-Kee") —originally from a Slavic word for "toys" are small toys, gewgaws, knickknacks, baubles, lagniappes, trinkets, or kitsch. The term has a connotation of worthlessness or disposability, as well as tackiness, and was long used in the Jewish-American community and in the regional speech of New York City.
That's a long remove from what high-level Democrat donors typically demand, but tell tell me that's not funny? I guess my point here is that the Presenter was lampooning everybody - Republicans and the President included - and the humorless tongue-cluckers in the Media as well as the self-appointed Guardians Of Propriety like DeMoss either didn't get the joke, or more likely, couldn't pass up an opportunity to misrepresent what was actually going on.
At the end of the day, what was most interesting about the whole controversy was that it was clear from their reactions that none of these Republican Swells initially got the cultural reference to the character "The Joker" from the movie "Batman Begins" (2005). If they had, they would have understood that it was not racist. They might even have appreciated The Joker's nihilistic worldview, devoted as he was to destroying society so that it might be remade in his twisted image. In other words, they might have gotten the joke.
These guys need to get out more; take in a movie once in a while; stop with the knee-jerk reactions every time some Joker says "boo!".
That was from the movie "Batman" (1989) starring Jack Nicholson, by the way.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Jeff Skilling, Al Gore And Hard Time
It's strange to think that former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling should have had to take his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, or that he was guilty of anything at all, assuming you apply the same standards to him that you apply to most prominent Democrat politicians. Recall that Skilling's alleged crime was to cover up the existence of accounting practices which - simply put - misrepresented debt as assets. For this, he was sentenced to almost 25 years in prison.
How is that so different, though, from the representations of generations of Democrat Pols when it comes to "trust fund" financed entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? In his 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore infamously declared that Social Security was solvent, and that the assets that financed this program - government bonds - were in a "Lockbox". The bonds in that Lockbox, of course, were nothing more than IOUs the government had written to itself, and financed with the sale of real debt in the form of government securities, purchased by the Trillions by China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Russia.
The double standard is pretty startling. Skilling will likely be in prison for decades for misrepresenting the value of a few hundred million in debt, but Al Gore and his ilk walk the streets as free men having done so with Trillions.
Where's the "equity" in that?
How is that so different, though, from the representations of generations of Democrat Pols when it comes to "trust fund" financed entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? In his 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore infamously declared that Social Security was solvent, and that the assets that financed this program - government bonds - were in a "Lockbox". The bonds in that Lockbox, of course, were nothing more than IOUs the government had written to itself, and financed with the sale of real debt in the form of government securities, purchased by the Trillions by China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Russia.
The double standard is pretty startling. Skilling will likely be in prison for decades for misrepresenting the value of a few hundred million in debt, but Al Gore and his ilk walk the streets as free men having done so with Trillions.
Where's the "equity" in that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)