... and backed out.
***
That reminds me: Bush bails out the auto industry.
IN THE COMMENTS: Ron says:
Ah, snowy, silver Silvio...how we've missed thee!
No new wheels for you, Althouse? Not even a new TT? (I know you didn't like last year's!)
Maybe for Christmas...
The car is too perfect for me: beautiful, fun to drive, great in the snow and ice. I just can't think what could replace it. See what a 2009 Audi TT looks like. Men must have their mean car face, so Audi lost a customer. I'll be doing my best to preserve my 2005 car -- which has less than 40,000 miles on it and only one very tiny dent.
Posts
62 comments:
Intrepid! Slip slidin' away.
I walked to work. I was a good boy and did my shoveling first. Of course, I'll get to do it again when I go home, included the snow moraine at the end of the driveway deposited by the snow plow.
I pay people to shovel for me and I'm charged according to the number of inches that have fallen. If I shovel it myself, I'm still going to get charged, so no way I'm shoveling.
After I did it though, I worried that forcing snow up the tailpipes isn't good for the car.
"President Bush announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans on Friday to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler...."
Excuse me? On what statutory authority? ("No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law").
"The money to aid the automakers will come from the Treasury’s $700 billion financial stabilization fund"
I feel that I must repeat: Excuse me? On what statutory authority? The Stabilization Act, Pub. L. 110-343? What in that law authorizes loans to car manufacturers?
Still, I guess that if Bush pushes the bailout of detroit through even after it failed in Congress, the reaction will prove that Cheney, Balkin et al were right: the left's view on executive power is going turn faster than a young girl at Wellesley.
You don't keep the car in a garage?! I have memories of waiting for the car in the garage to warm up enough so we could start it...
Yeah, Simon, and the right will suddenly wake up to the excesses of executive powers at about the same time.
"President Bush announced $13.4 billion in emergency loans on Friday to prevent the collapse of General Motors and Chrysler...."
Geez, at that price I hope the Magic Wonder Wax Treatment was included. Otherwise, it looks like he paid full sticker price.
I do know this - if ever I buy another car made by one of the "Big Three", it'll be a Ford as my small way of saying 'thanks for not taking taxpayer money'.
Gotta hand it to GWB, though, he's willing to take the heat for this rather than punt it to the next administration.
I suppose someone here will claim it's because he's obsessed with Palin's uterus, but Andrew Sullivan just linked to Michelle Malkin's objections to the President's auto bailout plans.
I'm charged according to the number of inches that have fallen.
heeheeheehee....
Sorry...I'm just having one of those days and I haven't even had a drink yet.
Dannyboy, that's what she said.
I'm charged according to the number of inches that have fallen.
I'm paying for the service that does my parent's house, and yeah, it's by the inch {sigh}.
After I did it though, I worried that forcing snow up the tailpipes isn't good for the car.
I wouldn't think it would hurt it. I wouldn't be amazed if it caused the car to stall, but if it didn't, I would think the heat would melt it in short order.
Gotta hand it to GWB, though, he's willing to take the heat for this rather than punt it to the next administration.
Eh? What you're seeing is exactly that - a punt to the next administration. $13.4B is just enough money to keep them in business 'till Obama is in. The real bailout happens in late January.
Personally I think it's the right move. Bush only has a month left on the clock, and starting any sort of major initiative right now (military or financial) would amount to tying the hands of the next administration.
Falling at two inches an hour here in upstate New York.
You don't keep the car in a garage?!
I don't think mahal's ass is big enough.
;-)
You need a winter car. Maybe a used Ford Ranger.
I don't think mahal's ass is big enough.
Don't underestimate mahal.
"I don't think mahal's ass is big enough."
Don't worry there is room to stuff snow up the tail pipe.
Ever since they cleared up that unfortunate gerbil situation.
Gerbil? Yaaaug!
Don't underestimate mahal.
I was just trying to be gracious. :-)
Now Michael on the other hand probably has the rectal capacity to fit a Ford Expedition, a couple of snowmobiles and a scooter.
I don't think mahal's ass is big enough.
Ass prolly not. Mouth, definitely :)
C-130, Hoosier.
If garage mahal doesn't get a tag in a thread that is all about his ass, then the terrorists have won.
I've enacted my own bailout plan. I e-mailed the auto companies and told them that I would never purchase a vehicle manufactured by them if they accept government assistance. The best thing about my plan is that I can now justify that BMW.
C-130, Hoosier.
wow...
Bush bails out the auto industry.
If more Americans bought American made cars instead of Audis Detroit wouldn't need a bailout.
Ann Althouse said...After I did it though, I worried that forcing snow up the tailpipes isn't good for the car.
Or for people.
A quick look at the front page, and nope, no ass tag for garage. Let's just hit the streets, burn some American flags, and throw a big fat party for Bin Laden and be done with it.
Whatever happened to Volvo and college professors?
http://tinyurl.com/3rcp4o
jd - Way to spoil the fun, guy. :-(
But: This happens WAY TOO OFTEN. Their tailpipe was probably NOT blocked, else the engine would not run. (Unless their '83 Olds had an exceptionally leaky exhaust system, which I suppose is not impossible.) Most likely scenario is that the body of the car was surrounded by drifts, the exhaust accumulated under the car and made its way to the cabin air intakes. And killed the women inside.
Be careful out there.
Althouse, I thought you got a new car a couple years ago... guess I am misremembering.
It's 80 degrees and damp here. Merry humid Christmas.
The commute that usually takes 45 mins took us two hours today.
It's bad out here in northern NJ.
Blago says he ain't quitting.
Let's put some perspective on this:
Two weeks ago, the Bush administration refused to use any of the TARP bailout for the auto industry and insisted that if there was an auto industry bailout it would have to come come from $25 billion already appropriated for making more fuel-efficient and cleaner cars. He even said he would veto any bailout that didn't use those funds.
So Ried and Pelosi gave in to him and wrote a bailout in which the source of the funds was the clean fuel funds.
So then the GOP Senate blocked the bill.
So now the Bush administration is back to WHAT THE ORIGINAL DEMOCRATIC POSITION WAS!! And the cleaner-vehicle fund? Absolutely untouched.
Yes, folks, the GOP is so utterly confused now that even when they beat us, they can only do it by (colletively) giving Democrats what we wanted in the first place.
I predicted this would happen last week Hardy haw-haw.
When a party is as clueless, directionless and leaderless as today's GOP, all you have to do to win is let them get all tied in knots over something, and pick the knot you want.
Pass the popcorn.
Trooper York said...
"I don't think mahal's ass is big enough."
Don't worry there is room to stuff snow up the tail pipe.
Ever since they cleared up that unfortunate gerbil situation.
I cannot get past the Richard Gere - gerbil - up the pipe, Urban Legend.
It's been going strong for nearly 25 years, now. It was talked about in California back when we lived there in 1984...
It was started, again on rumor, when Gere was supposedly such a dickhead on the set of "Lords of Flatbush" (1974), especially to Sly Stallone - that Sylvester Stallone sat down years later for some revenge. Purportedly, he penned the entire, detailed adventure up with some "inside" info on Gere only Hollywood Insiders knew to be true for added credibility and released it all through trusted friends in LA right after "Officer and a Gentleman" was a big hit.
Stallone, if he did it, did a masterpiece. Of course, he denies it.
But now we have almost a new Lexicon of Gere-Gerbil-Gerbil tube lore. Tibet is loved by Gere because it is the birthplace of gerbils. Sub sailors are gerbil-tubers. Any new building that has an enclosed walkway or tunnel also has it renamed "the gerbil tube".
Oversized forceps that could conceivably be used to extract objects from homosexual's asses are called "Gere Tongs".
*************
Seriously though, Fred Drinkwater's advice is potentially life-saving. Something every family member that could be caught in snow should know...if caught in in snowfall that covers the gap between ground and the body of the car, be very very careful of running the engine while stranded or just warming the car up and learing windows and top before you try driving off.
Because the exhaust will seek the path of least resistance with snow everywhere around the exhaust port and go to the airspace underneath the car which will be at lower pressure. 95% of the exhaust will go there. And of you have the heat on inside, it is like sitting in the car after you have set up for a garden hose from the exhaust into the car for a suicide. Actually, in some cases, according to my cousin the Statie cop - the CO poisoning in a snowbank happens faster than with the "garden hose". And 9 out of 10 people may just get sleepy and quitely pass out with no sense at all anything is amiss...
In California they sometimes find buried cars and find a situation like the ignition on, dead Mom at the wheel, and two dead kids in the back still holding crayons to an open coloring book they were passing the time with..People rarely freeze or starve in that situation - it's the CO that gets most of them.
That said, unless you stop in one place, there is no danger to driving through deep snow in and of itself, as Althouse did. The car might stall or get stuck..if it does, try and get unstuck. If you are stuck in the middle of nowhere, and its freezing, by all means run your engine...provided you clear at least 5-6 feet around the exhaust so the hot CO-laden gases rise away from the vehicle rather than all go underneath the car.
And do your best to stay awake if stuck and it is still snowing heavy and there is a risk of the exhaust getting covered. If you think you need to rest or are just drowsy - Turn the Engine off, 1st.
It's humid, here too (78%). Frozen humid, I guess you'd call it...
Eli, your mistake is in thinking that Bush represents the GOP (that he still does or ever did). Once you get past that mistake, it no longer holds to attribute to the GOP actions he takes. The GOP, on the whole, didn't want to bailout Detroit. Bush did, and had a preference as to how. When the Senate GOP blocked his preferred path, Bush defaulted to the alternative.
OK, Simon then if the sitting President of the United States isn't your leader, then who is?
Even though I never was a big fan of Bill Clinton, and even though he'd just been through the Monica scandal, I didn't question that he was the leader of the Democratic party as long as he was the President of the United States.
But I guess I can understand your sentiment, what with Clinton leaving office with a 62% approval rating and Bush likely to leave office with something like the reverse of those digits.
It's 80 degrees and damp here. Merry humid Christmas.
barf!
And I thought I had it bad in the 60s with drizzle.
Having grown up in Colorado, I well remember nearly freezing when we'd get caught in a snowstorm because Mom wouldn't run the engine. She always had several blankets in the trunk, and usually a thermos of hot chocolate before we ever set out over the mountains.
It's 74 degrees here and we're contemplating turning the AC on for a couple of hours.
Good grief, your partisan remarks are intolerable. I'm learning quickly who to ignore as absolutely nothing that can possibly interest me ever comes forth. Take your partisanship and stick it up your arse where it belongs, along with all the other things that smell.
Eli Blake said...
"OK, Simon then if the sitting President of the United States isn't your leader, then who is?"
I think most Republicans are Christians, and would say that Jesus is their leader. For my own part, I don't think that there is a leader at this time. The RNC Chairmanship could be used for the purpose of leadership, and might be if Anuzis or Steele wrests it from Duncan, but it's fair to say that today the GOP chairman isn't the leader of the party.
Although Sarah Palin is the presumptive favorite for our nomination in four years (if she wants it, that is), I don't think she's our leader. Not today, anyway: nothing would prevent her from seizing the mantle of leadership, but she hasn't done so to date.
I did recently propose that it would help the party to have a person or an issue to regroup around, that Gingrich would be a natural focal point, and that Newt should step up as de facto leader of the movement. Like Palin, however, he hasn't really done so as yet.
So there isn't a leader right now - I'm not even sure that there is a conspicuously vacant throne, implying the absence of something that one would expect to be present. That doesn't mean that leadership of the Republican Party or the conservative movement defaults to George W. Bush. Why would it? If leadership defaulted the most senior conservative in national office, that would be John Roberts, or Mitch McConnell if you count only elected posts. Maybe to Cheney, I don't know. It certainly wouldn't default to Bush - how could it? How can leadership of the conservative movement default to someone who isn't a conservative? I can practically count on one hand the conservative things that this administration has done in eight years, and Bush has to take responsibility for that.
A winter miracle.
"I think most Republicans are Christians, and would say that Jesus is their leader." -- Simon
ugh. Gag me. Jesus has never run for political office. Plus, most Democrats are Christians too, but I don't hear them saying stuff like this.
In fact, in saying 'render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God' Jesus was stating a form of separation of state and church.
Surely everyone uses whatever is available to them to judge who might be the best leader, I have never heard it suggested that Jesus would be interested in a political position.
I don't want to be misunderstood: while I don't like having the AC on in December, nor sitting in my campus office with the air OFF (budget cuts, big time!), I'm not complaining.
I just spent two hours enjoying margaritas on the balcony of a Magazine Street bar, people watching in the lovely temperate weather. Very nice.
And since this isn't a hugely focused thread: I just talked to family, and am very proud of our niece and nephew. They're Viola and Sebastien in their high school's production of Twelth Night.
Nobody likes a weather bragger Beth.
Donna B. said...
"'I think most Republicans are Christians, and would say that Jesus is their leader.' -- Simon[.] ugh. Gag me. Jesus has never run for political office."
So what? Christians - particularly evangelicals - will refer to their having made Jesus the leader of their life, and while some of them may not do a good job of following, that's not a bad summary of what being a Christian involves.
"Plus, most Democrats are Christians too, but I don't hear them saying stuff like this."
Well, so they say. Several prominent Democrats say they're Catholics, too, despite being pro-choice. Hmm. People say lots of things - that's why I'm a big believer in revealed preference. A much more accurate picture of someone emerges from what they do than from what they say.
"In fact, in saying 'render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God' Jesus was stating a form of separation of state and church."
That is but one interpretation of that text, and in any event, separation of church and state is irrelevant: I was referring to the tug of one's faith on one's politics. It should be too obvious to require argument that all public policy decisions boil down to fundamental moral axioms, and those who have religious beliefs will be led by them to certain moral beliefs that will in turn greatly affect their politics at the macro level.
"Surely everyone uses whatever is available to them to judge who might be the best leader, I have never heard it suggested that Jesus would be interested in a political position."
If it wasn't already abundantly clear from the foregoing, I think you're missing the point almost entirely.
That is but one interpretation of that text, and in any event, separation of church and state is irrelevant
Oh boy! Not only is Simon an amateur lawyer ("I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internets"), he is now a theologian!
Well, so they say. Several prominent Democrats say they're Catholics, too, despite being pro-choice.
I can think of a couple of Supreme Court Justices who say they're Catholics, too, despite being pro death penalty and pro-torture.
Which ones are pro-torture, and why?
Simon says: Eli, your mistake is in thinking that Bush represents the GOP (that he still does or ever did).
George W. Bush won the GOP Presidential nomination twice, and both times handily. While he may not represent the GOP at this time (such is the fate of unpopular outgoing Presidents - though I have seen some poll numbers that suggest he's still popular among self-described Republicans), I don't think one can reasonably suggest that it is a mistake to think that Bush represented the GOP at some point in the past ("ever did"), namely from around 2000 through 2004, at least.
Which ones are pro-torture, and why?
Thomas is definitely pro-torture, and Scalia probably is too (the former from written opinions, the latter from public statements). As to the question of why. The only thing I can come up with is that they are both despicable human beings.
Somefeller - I'm willing to stipulate that at the time of his second inauguration, Bush could reasonably be called the leader of the GOP, despite having racked up an impressively depressing litany of heresies in his first term. I don't know that I could pin down exactly when Bush lost that mantle, but I would say that an administration whose hallmarks have been incompetence and government expansion can hardly be called conservative, and so the person responsible for those polities can't be called the leader of the conservative movement. While this administration has been pretty good on, for example, free trade, judicial appointments and life issues (Bush's stance on stem cell research, for example, has been historic and vital), other areas where it's been good must be qualified (yes, Bush cut taxes, but he failed to combine them with spending cuts). And overall, the administration has been anything but conservative. It has expanded federal power over traditional state functions and permitted a level of spending and pork that is out of control. The war in Iraq, whatever else it was or is, isn't a conservative policy, and neither was bungling the response to Katrina (conservatives generally argue that government is inefficient, but despite liberal caricatures, that has never implied any belief that government should be operated as competently and efficiently as it can be within its legitimate scope, and no one would contend that superintending the recovery of a massive bi-state catastrophe is not an inherent and legitimate function of government). With these failings in mind, it's hard to understand how Bush can legitimately be thought of as a leader of the conservative movement, and that leaves one to ask how, then, he could be also considered a leader of the GOP.
With these failings in mind, it's hard to understand how Bush can legitimately be thought of as a leader of the conservative movement, and that leaves one to ask how, then, he could be also considered a leader of the GOP.
I'm sure this isn't a surprise, but I don't see your points as being convincing. Perhaps my viewpoint is overly pragmatic, but it seems to me that regardless of what ideological purists on any end of the spectrum might say, if someone at a particular moment in history is supported by most self-described conservatives, he is, at least for that time, a leader of the conservative movement (yes, I know the terms "conservative movement" or "movement conservative" have more specific meanings in conservative circles than in general parlance, but it's the latter that I think needs to be looked at when one talks about mass politics). The same can be said for liberals and Barack Obama now and Bill Clinton in his day, regardless of what might be said in editorial meetings at The Nation.
Bush was supported by and put onto the Presidential stage by America's conservatives, and many if not most of his signature policies were supported by that group. (Incidentally, while I can see how the Iraq War can be called unconservative in many circles, in practice, support for the war was in many ways the key dividing line between the right and the left for most of the Bush era). While I can understand the desire for many conservatives to want to disown Bush at this point in history (many Democrats felt the same way about Carter when he left, and it's only old age and Habitat for Humanity that's saved him on that score), I don't think that can really be done with, to the extent this isn't a contradiction in terms, political honesty.
Anyway, off to bed. It's been a long week.
I have never heard it suggested that Jesus would be interested in a political position.
True enough, although at least one of Jesus's Disciples, Simon the Zealot, could well have been involved in anti-Roman agitation,given his name.
Jesus's politics involved the impending coming of the Kingdom of God, which would sweep aside the rotten Herodian kings, along with the Roman suzerainty, and herald the End Time of human politics and affairs.
Jesus's followers were, however, within a few years quite political. Thus, we have Nero blaming the Christians for the fire of 64 A.D., and, of course, the famous reference to the Whore of Babylon in Revelation, an early version of which was probably circulating as early as the fire in Rome, and may have, in fact, inspired Christians to feed the flames.
The earliest Christians had an ambiguous relationship with the Roman State. On the one hand, Jesus seems to have been content to take a transcendental and long view of events, willing to render unto Caesar, even as He was crucified by Caesar, in anticipation of the imminent sweeping away of all earthly power and the vanity of human affairs.
On the other, the early Christians' unwillingness to engage in the sacrifices, and other duties of the Roman civic religion, branded them as a dangerous and subversive element. There was enough tension to have caused Nero to start persecuting them only 30-odd years after the Crucifixion.
I have often been surprised by many of my evangelical friends' attachment to the United States, resembling as it does Rome, whose allegory is commonly understood to have been Babylon in Revelation. The Whore was likely understood as Jerusalem and the Herodian satrapy, riding the "seven-headed scarlet Beast," an obvious reference to Rome.
Rome then turned on Jerusalem, the "bride" unfaithful both to Rome, and to her role as queen of the spiritual realm.
And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.
— Rev 17:16
There are politics aplenty in all this. It's just that they're not the politics of our modern world. They may become more so, in ways that I'm sure will surprise our descendants. But I'll leave speculation about the parallel fates of the United States and Rome to those connoisseurs of amorality and decrepitude who can best delineate the obvious.
Simon said -- "It should be too obvious to require argument that all public policy decisions boil down to fundamental moral axioms, and those who have religious beliefs will be led by them to certain moral beliefs that will in turn greatly affect their politics at the macro level."
It's not obvious at all. Religious beliefs have no place in deciding public policy.
For example, should your religion allow you to endanger the rest of the herd by not vaccinating your children?
Should your religious belief in charity translate to publicly-financed welfare?
How does your religion inform decisions on water safety and sewage treatment?
Would your religious belief that it is wrong to smoke or drink lead to public policy that it is wrong for everyone to do so?
Is one religious belief better than another? More correct? Is it hypocrisy to be a Catholic and not vote for limitations on abortion?
I find it hard to believe that you wrote "separation of church and state is irrelevant" as it is more relevant to the church (ie, religion) than it is to the state. Too close a tie to government will corrupt a religion. Will, not may.
Donna B. said...
"It's not obvious at all. Religious beliefs have no place in deciding public policy."
That's an incredibly silly assesment. Virtually all public policy decisions ultimately rest on some moral axiom, whether that axiom is derived from utilitarianism, marxism, Christianity or what have you. Once that's understood, it follows that religious beliefs may not decide every public policy question - Jesus didn't have a specific opinion on bailing out Detroit, for example - but they will certainly govern the framework in which such questions are evaluated and ultimately decided by any given actor. Because public policy questions can't be decided without reference to moral axioms, and because morality can't be disentangled from religious beliefs for those who have them, your contention cannot be taken seriously.
Just one example of this is provided by your question about whether one individual's "religion [should] allow [them] to endanger the rest of the herd by not vaccinating [their] children[.]" Underlying the question is a the claim that government has a right to interfere in questions that some people might legitimately claim is a private family matter when public health is at issue - but why should that be so? It's a position that can't be justified without recourse to one or more moral axioms ("the good of the many outweighs the good of the few," perhaps), a fact solely and only partially disguised by how widely it is shared (cf. Posner, Economic Analsis of Law 21 (2d ed. 1977) ("apparently, once a viewpoint becomes dominant it ceases to be perceived as having an ideological character")). Your failure to recognize that your own public policy positions are based on assumptions and axioms as shaky or sturdy as those of Christians severely undercuts your position.
"the church (ie, religion)"
That statement - suggesting the view that "the church" = religious views, and thus that separation of church and state implies separation of religion and politics - implies that your comprehension of the separation of church and state, and the nature and interrelationships of religion, morality, and politics, is exceedingly shallow.
Ah, snowy, silver Silvio...how we've missed thee!
No new wheels for you, Althouse? Not even a new TT? (I know you didn't like last years!)
Maybe for Christmas...
Nothing beats the 1988 Dodge Colt.
You can hang on to your TT for a long time. My oldest Audi has 135k miles on it. However, unlike many American cars, maintenance cannot be deferred. Keep him maintained and you'll grow bored with Silvio before you wear him out. And if you do grow bored, for about the same $ you can get a Cayman - which will do well in snow when properly shod with snow tires.
Post a Comment