We'll See

Taoist Proverb:

An old farmer who had worked his crops for many years had his horse run away one day. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said.

"We'll see," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.

"We'll see," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

"We'll see," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

"We'll see" said the farmer.

Then the government passed healthcare. The Democrates rejoiced. The Republicans wept.

"We'll see" said the farmer who knew the theatrics of both sides were simply to distract the people away from the truth.

The Bush Presidency

This will probably be an extremely unpopular post, as it's about one of the most unpopular presidents. Or so it would seem. You see, it's my opinion that George W. Bush may be regarded by future historians as one of the best presidents.

See, I told you it would be an unpopular post.

The greatness of a U.S. President will be determined by the big things, not the little things. If someone mentions George Washington, one naturally thinks about the revolutionary war, the FIRST president, etc. The big rocks, not the little issues. Ditto for honest Abe. You'll think of the civil war. No one remembers Lincoln's position on anything except for southern secession and the civil war.

Same will be true of G.W. Bush. In a hundred years it's only the big items that will matter.

Let's start with global warming. If you believe it's real, the only real solution is significant investment in alternative energy sources. Because of high oil prices, all kinds of companies, new and old, are stepping up to the plate to find new sources of energy. This is the free market at work and Bush is a proponent of the free market. A hundred years from now, historians may well say that Bush's free market views launched us on a path to salvation from "global climate change".

Terrorism has been one of the really big rocks in the Bush presidency. History will not blame him for the attacks on 9/11/2001 (that was clearly the fault of the Clinton administration) but it will probably credit him with preventing any other attacks during his two terms.

How about the "axis of evil", Iraq, Iran and N. Korea. He made promises to make the axis of evil a top priority. How'd he do?

Iraq, it turns out, didn’t have any WMDs by the time we invaded the country, but they probably did prior to that. They also acted like they had them by playing cat and mouse games with UN inspectors. That undoubtedly made Iran nervous since their relationship has never been good. Remember, they were at war during all of the 1980s. So, whether Iraq had WMDs or not, Iran and much of the rest of world thought they did so Iran decided it had better get on the stick and get a nuclear weapons program going.

About the time the U.S. armed forces marched into Iraq, Iran took note and seemed to have stopped their nuclear ambitions. History may well credit Bush with averting a nuclear war in the mid-east. It may seem far-fetched right now but a look back at history will show that stranger conclusions have been reached.

North Korea also seems to have shut down its nuclear program. History will probably credit Bush with that too. You see, when we invaded Iraq, we took out the leadership (Sadaam Hussein) and his sons. Dictators notice things like that. What happened in Iraq probably made Kim Jong II think that if the U.S. was crazy enough to march into Iraq and kill its dictator and his obliging family members, they just might be crazy enough to march into North Korea.
Libya, meanwhile, abandoned its nuclear ambitions without even being asked. Another point for “W”.

What about Al Qaeda? The war in Iraq might turn out to accidentally be the end of Al-Qaeda. History might record that Iraq was the turning point in the war on terror. Iraq became the place where the rubber met road and terrorists flocked there like it was Mecca. They began killing locals and other Muslims, not just American soldiers. That pissed off the locals so they started killing the terrorists. More importantly, they killed the terrorist leadership often. Do that a few times and you leave only the dumb ones. Al-Qaeda bet everything on Iraq, and lost. Bush’s actions and rhetoric to “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” pretty much worked. While it didn’t happen exactly the way he thought it would, history will probably credit him for moving the fight and winning it. True, he didn’t catch or kill Osama Bin Laden, but he did render him virtually impotent and did manage to capture or kill most of his first tier commanders.

Those are the big issues George W. Bush will be judged on in a hundred years and I think he’ll hold up quite well.

Cars, Car Companies and Congress

Seems like Detroit is in a world of hurt right now. All the liberal lefties want to blame it the product line they produce. While the big three are in Washington lobbying congress for their share of the bailout pie, the left is crying that "they should be building hybrids and electric cars" or saying the reason they're in dire straits is that they build cars that "nobody wants".

Detroit builds the cars everybody wants. They don't have just a single line of cars, they build big, small and in between. Contrary to the perception the media and congress would have you believe, GM has more cars that get over 30 mpg than Toyota does. Yes, Toyota builds the Prius. A nice little hybrid car that meets the needs of some people. Toyota also builds the15/19 mpg Tundra, a huge full size pickup truck, and a line of seven SUVs that includes the 13/18 mpg Land Cruiser. All total, the Prius only accounts for about 5% of the units sold for Toyota.

A lot of things have led to the problems Detroit has, but building SUVs isn't one of them. SUV's are the one area where they really made money. Yes, the marketing people in the big three could do a much better job of market research and understanding what Americans want to drive but if they're guilty of anything it's trying to please everyone. In fact, Detroit probably will have to reduce the variety of choices it gives consumers in order to gain some efficiency.

Most lawmakers are lawyers, not engineers or businessmen. They're not the least bit qualified to provide management consulting to any business, let alone a business as complex as automobile manufacturing. They live in a world where the value of the product or service you produce has no direct correlation to the income received. Let's face it, nobody wants what congress produces. According to Rasmussen, only 12% of Americans think congress is doing a good job. The American auto industry on the other hand is actually getting pretty high marks from the American consumer. The Ford Expedition get's a 9.1 on a ten point scale, same for the Chrysler 300. The Corvette gets a 9.3. So now, we have lawyers who are getting a 12% rating advising companies who produce products that get 90% plus ratings that they need to change the products they produce. Now, the government wants all the automakers to move in the direction of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles but they're very cars that make the least amount of money. Like I said, they're lawyers, not businessmen.

The big three CEO's will do their pandering to congress though. They'll present plans that focus on new lines of fuel efficient cars. The bozos in congress (sorry Bozo, no disrespect intended) will probably even buy the proposals. The average consumer of cars is going to be a tougher sell. In spite of all the buzz around the Toyota Prius, it's not really a huge seller and it's not a profitable car for Toyota. Toyota sells two to three times as many Camry's as they do Prius's.

If the American auto industry is going to survive it's going to need to continue to produce products that American drivers want and they're going to need to do it for a price Americans are willing to pay.

And they're going have to work extra hard to keep the left wing liberals in congress from running their car companies for them.