Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

Two Sinking Ships Want a Bailout to Rescue One Another

Posted

Like I said a couple weeks ago, two sinking ships cannot rescue one another. The proverbial sinking ships, General Motors (GM) and Chrysler, seem to have finally come to this conclusion in the course of their earnest and horribly misguided merger talks. The problem is that, instead of quietly sulking away into Chapter 11 bankruptcy for one or both automakers, they now want to enlist Mommy Government’s help (and thus, your help) in sealing the deal. That’s right, GM and Cerberus Capital Management (Chrysler’s owner) want the United States government to hand them 10 billion dollars so that they can merge.

I am absolutely aghast.

What would the government and—by extension—you and I get in return? Well, 3 billion dollars of that money would buy a chunk of GM/Chrysler’s ‘equity’. Of course, when the combined firm goes under anyway because of the UAW, mismanagement, and other problems that ‘equity’ will be worthless. Another 3 billion dollars would go to taking over GM and Chrysler pension obligations, and the rest would apparently just be free money. This is not a gamble investors will take, so why should the government take it?

Not to mention that it was only a month ago that the U.S. government gave these same automakers 25 billion dollars in loan guarantees—for a running total of 35 billion dollars that you and I are on the hook for if the American auto industry bankrupts itself. Anybody else feel a bit ill?

Update: Hours after I wrote this, I came upon an opinion piece by Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post who says the same thing, but with a well thought-out alternative solution. Kudos to Pearlstein; I sure hope GM, Chrysler, and Congress are listening.

Update 11/3/2008: The International Herald Tribune reports that the Bush Administration will not be negotiating this new 10 billion dollar bailout with GM. Finally, the government makes a smart economic decision.

Senator Ted Stevens Found Guilty

Posted

Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) has been found guilty on seven counts of making false statements for failing to disclose gifts he received from VECO, an Alaskan oil services company, on Senate disclosure forms. Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, was indicted in July and was the first sitting senator to be indicted since 1993. This marks the most recent incident in a series of corruption and nepotism charges that have dogged Alaska state politicians in recent years.

Stevens is currently seeking reelection for a seventh term in the Senate, and is facing a tough race against Mark Begich (D). Because it is within 45 days of the election, the Republican Party cannot remove Stevens from the ballot. Stevens is vowing to continue his campaign and fight the conviction, presumably through appeal.

Editorial Note: My wife Melissa is an employee of CH2M Hill, which acquired VECO in September 2007. The alleged incidents occurred before the acquisition, and Melissa works in a different operating division of the company.

Media’s Presidential Bias and Decline

Posted

A refreshing and fascinating column appeared today on ABCNews.com from Michael Malone, one of the few legitimate newsmen still present in the journalism industry, about the unapologetic and overwhelming media bias in this presidential election in the context of a declining industry. He points the finger, primarily, at media editors—perhaps rightfully so—but I think he goes too easy on the modern journalist and the modern journalism school.

I majored in Public Administration, but my interest in journalism led me to add an Electronic Journalism minor. Two things struck me about George Mason University’s journalism department: First, the vast majority of my classmates—people who wanted a career in journalism—didn’t actually watch the news, pay attention to world events, or know who major world leaders were. Second, the professors were extraordinarily biased against conservative media (Fox News, Wall St. Journal, etc.) and toward liberal media (New York Times, CNN, etc.) and did not hesitate to express those views and expect you to agree with them. I had one professor tell me, with a straight face, that Al Jazeera was a more fair and even-handed television news network than Fox News Channel.

Malone is part of a dying breed—journalists who see it as their responsibility to ask the hard questions of everybody, and present their answers with as little bias as possible. Malone and I agree that bias is inevitable, and human beings will always subconsciously inject their biases into the things they say and write even when they try not to, but that the recent media Obama-fest (of which he gives many examples) is unforgivable. His column is well worth the read, regardless of your political views, because a dishonest media will ultimately hurt everybody.

Growing the Arsenal

Posted

Back in June, Melissa and I made our first firearm purchase when we picked up a Smith & Wesson ‘Model 620’ .357/.38Spc. 7-shot revolver. The main reason we went for a revolver over a semi-automatic handgun was that Melissa was more comfortable with revolvers, and we wanted a home defense weapon that both of us were equally comfortable with. Also, revolvers require less maintenance. Woefully neglected revolvers that have sat in drawers unused and uncleaned for years-upon-years generally still go ‘bang’ when you pick them up and pull the trigger, and even if they don’t fire the first time clearing a misfire in an emergency is as easy as pulling the trigger again.

I, however, was more interested in a semi-automatic. Yes, they need a bit more care. Yes, clearing a misfire in an emergency requires a bit more effort (forcefully pulling back the slide and releasing it, basically). But in return you get a firearm that, in roughly the same sized package, can pack 12-17 rounds as opposed to a revolver’s 5-7 and can fire those rounds quicker. The difference is most pronounced when you look at compact weapons for concealed-carry, where the semi-automatics are narrower (easier to conceal) AND pack at least twice the ammo capacity (5 for compact revolvers vs. 10+ for compact semi-autos). This will be more important to me later, after I get a concealed carry permit.

Anyway, for my upcoming birthday Melissa took me to Virginia Arms in Manassas and we picked up a Smith & Wesson M&P 9. This will allow me to get real good and familiar with semi-automatics before eventually getting a compact, concealed carry weapon. Plus, now we can both be armed if necessary.

The gun (which comes with two 17-round magazines) was designed by Smith & Wesson to compete with Glock for the police market. Most of the specs between the M&P and the Glock 17 (my second-choice) are nearly identical, but the made-in-America M&P won on ‘creature comforts’. It comes with three different-sized back-straps which allow you to easily resize the grip to fit your hand. Most importantly for me, it is equipped with an ambidextrous slide lock and reversible magazine release. If you’re right-handed these things don’t matter—all guns are made for you in their default configuration. If you’re a lefty, this means you can lock the slide back and release the magazine just like everybody else without performing impressive arm/finger contortions. It’s a miracle.

I’m hoping to take it to the range and break it in tomorrow or, worst case, some time this coming week.

How To Alienate Your Customers

Posted

I’ve always known that Apple was a philosophically ‘liberal’ organization. Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO, is decidedly left-wing in his political views, as are many of the other company leaders. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I have no qualms about buying a product from a company or person with whom I have moral or political disagreements.

Steve Jobs, as an individual, can do whatever he wants with all the money he has made at the helms of Apple and Pixar. But I have an objection to the company putting its money toward political or moral causes—whether I agree or disagree with those causes—except when the company’s core business is directly impacted by government policy. In other words, I’m fine with Chrysler lobbying for or against vehicular safety laws. I’m fine with Google supporting or opposing Net Neutrality legislation. I’m not fine with Apple actively opposing California’s Proposition 8, which would prohibit gay marriage in the state.

I oppose the redefinition of marriage, and I especially oppose it when (like in California) the right to gay marriage is unconstitutionally fabricated by the courts rather than legally redefined by the legislature. But whether I agree or, as in this case, disagree with the political stance taken by a business, I find the idea of businesses engaging in public advocacy on controversial social issues distasteful on either side.

I’m not one to pronounce that I will ‘never buy Apple products again,’ but this is certainly an issue I will have to keep in mind when I consider my next computer purchase. I don’t want my computer purchase money going to political causes, especially ones with which I disagree, and I will have to consider whether Apple’s compelling products are worth more to me than the risk of my dollars potentially working against my beliefs.

Update 10/27/2008: It is worth noting that another major tech firm, Google, also publicly opposes California’s Prop. 8. I am less concerned in Google’s case, since very few individuals ever actually pay Google for anything (they get their money from businesses) and it is a less ‘personal’ affront. I am not directly giving money to a cause I disagree with by using Google services; I am when I buy Apple products.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.