Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Go Pistons!

I'm a car nut, pure and simple. At 3 years old, I could name every car on the street and tell you its model year. I still can, though as I get older, it's admittedly more difficult to distinguish between model years. But I know cars--especially Detroit iron from the 1960s and 70s. If one measures the loves of one's life by the hours spent dreaming about it, then Cars of this vintage are surely my great loves. This is why I'm pained to write that I see what others also see in the American cars produced today: they just ain't got it.

Take the 1965 Pontiac Bonneville. Sure, it was built on the same platform as its sister cars the Chevrolet Impala/Caprice and Buick LeSabre/Electra. But it was a heck of an exciting car--long and low, with truly distinctive styling and performance. The 2005 Bonneville, by contrast, is such a snoozer that it's now doomed for distinction, despite GM's attempt to drop in fast V8 engines, heads-up displays, and the like. Why? General Motors' design talent is still in the decades-long hibernation it entered in1977, or 1985, or 1993 or any of the other years that its cars kept getting uglier and uglier.

Or take the Camaro? Whoops, it's gone, too. Or the Mercury Cougar? D'oh, also gone. Jeez, does any popular nameplate remain from GM's heyday? Thunderbird! Sure, it's not dying until next year, but it's still here, so it's fair game. There's no arguing the car is a looker--that is, from 20 paces. Get closer to the interior and it's decidedly bargain basement. If you believe FoMoCo, the car wasn't supposed to have a long life; supposedly they knew it would only have a brief appeal for consumers. Thay What?! Could you imagine Mercedes introducing a new SL convertible with the expectation that it would disappear after a few years? If this is the sort of long-term thinking coming out of Dearborn, then maybe we need to reevaluate Ford's future.

I could go on and on, and so I shall for just a short bit. Chevrolet, for example, has a perfectly good new Malibu. Well, perfectly good as in "oatmeal is 'perfectly good' for you". Maybe. But does it make my mouth water, and my palms sweat? Um, not unless you consider the bile rising from my gut when I think about it. And the new Ford 500 and it's stablemate the "Freestyle"? If you want to ruin an exceptionally good Volvo platform, just ask the guys at Ford to top it with a bland shoebox. They'll be happy to oblige and they get their marketing department to pass it off as desireable. Shame on them. And Chrysler's no better (300C notwithstanding--we'll discuss that later). Their midsize offerings would embarrass even a Chinese automaker, if that were possible. And the Neon? Good grief. All the build quality of a '65 Rambler without the sexy looks.

This is not to say I disdain GM, Ford or even Chrysler. Nein! These companies have a storied history during much of the 20th century of helping to make America great. And this is why I believe they will rise again. How could I make such an assertion with so much evidence to the contrary? Let's face it, the Big Three suffers from more than a stable of boring product. They face costs for legacy pension and medical care promises accumulated when the fortunes of the American auto industry looked far different than today. These costs, in the many billions of dollars, have pundits actually talking about bankruptcy as a survival option for GM. Yes, GM. Is nothing sacred? Next thing you know, Germans are going to tell us how to bring back the glory days of American Iron. ....ahh, the Chrysler 300.

Here's a car so audacious that it has people flocking into the showrooms of the same company that brought us the K-Car. The 300 C is a big, fat, heavy, in-your-face sedan with "up-yours" looks and a Hemi-powered V8 to make it happen. And as unremarkable as its interior may be, it rides atop what is, at its core, componentry from a Mercedes Benz E Class. Add a feature that shuts down some of the eight cylinders at cruising speeds and you have a car that would make its competitors whince. If only it had any.

Yes, American car makers can not only survive, but thrive. But time's waisting, and they haven't a moment to lose. For Detroit not only to survive, but to thrive at the expense of Stuttgart and Tokyo, here's what they have to do:

Every car has to have 1) alluring interior and exterior design, 2) exceptional FPC (fuel economy, performance and crashworthiness), and 3) superior build quality. There is nothing--literally nothing--else buyers of any car are looking for. If every American car leaves it factory with passing grades in all three categories, Detroit would rise again. But here's the catch - these passing grades need to be for real. No more feeding us junky Tauruses, Impalas and Caravans and hope their cars will seem appealing by holding the camera at just such an angle...

Drive a Mercedes Benz. Or BMW. Or Lexus. Or Acura. Or Toyota. Or even a Scion, for Chrisakes, and you'll know what I mean. The country that defeated Hitler once and Saddam twice, and put men on the moon CAN DO THIS. We just have to try.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Good Times

My nephew Micah became a Bar Mitzvah this past weekend. It was a wonderful family affair. Micah did a wonderful job--having first led weekday shacharit services the Thursday prior to his bar mitzvah, and then leading the entire service (including the preliminary service) on "the big day". I was really amazed how at ease he appeared for such a big occasion; he really approached it with amazing aplomb for a 13-year old.

The service was very much also a "family affair", as many family members were included at various parts of the service. Some read Torah, others had aliyot, others still read prayers, or opened and closed the ark. A very nice job on Micah's part to be sure. Even his younger sister got into the act and read The Prayer for Israel all in Hebrew! Most impressive.

It was very fun to see everyone, too! Of course, it's always good to see my Mom & Jim. And my other nieces and nephews are really growing up nicely: Amy, with her big job in pharmaceutical sales. Seth, who seems very happy studying physics at Columbia. Adam, with his nearly 4.0/4.0 accum at Rutgers still seems to enjoy his "bad boy" image, but appears happy, and is very delightful to talk with. And on and on--from Sarah, who seems to have boundless energy, to Prom King Brad who's about to start a great adventure at college, it's really great to see everyone thriving so well.

My sister, Sondra, and her husband, Frank, did a great job preparing for the weekend. Frank and his father helped prepare Micah for the occasion by studying with him, and Sondra planned a very lovely party. Some pictures will hopefully follow on this site.

It's so nice to get together for happy occasions. In my opinion, this is what families are supposed to do. Even when we live far apart, we make sure to share special events with each other--which is what makes events "special" in the first place. More than once I looked around at all our relatives and thought about how lucky were were to be able to share such an occasion together. Times are good right now, but we all know what the bad times are like, and that makes it all the more sweet to celebrate the good times.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Email Exchange

Following is an exchange I had recently with a very esteemed colleague at work. He's an incredibly bright guy, and he occupies a different "political space" than I do. We both share a deep interest in politics and world affairs, and I started a missive which ended up in an exchange of ideas which, in retrospect, I thought would be worthy of the blogosphere. Of course, his identity must remain secret, and will only be revealed when he dies.

***START OF EMAIL EXCHANGE***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:38 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: Point of Agreement

I think we can both agree on the following: The 2008 presidential primaries of both parties will be out-and-out slugfests and (at least to we politico-phyles) loads of fun.

Ds
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Wes Clark
John Edwards

Rs
John McCain
Sam Brownback
Bill Frist
George Pataki

Any others?

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:41 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I hope you are right,but we've not had a tight primary race since when?--the repubs when reagan was second to ford in 1976,and on the dem side since 1972?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:48 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

'84 was actually a pretty stiff contest b/t Hart(pence) and Mondale. But that ended with some "Monkey Business".

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/ElectPandC.html

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:00 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I think donna rice won that one---who do u think will win the two contests?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:06 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Rs
Depends who splits the vote. If both Brownback and Frist run, I see the possibility of a McCain victory. He could probably beat any Dem on the list right now, but the Neandrathal wing of your party may not let him get the chance.

Ds
Hillary looks tough to beat if she runs. Kerry still sits on a lot of campaign cash. Wes Clark will have a tough message. I doubt Edwards will run. If it's those three, Hillary wins.

McCain beats Hillary beats Frist. Clark will be the Ds VP choice.

***
From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:17 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Condi over hillary here.it appears to me you don't consider rudy g. as likely,whereas I think he'll be strong.fortunately the repubs have many candidates who've been correct in their judgement on the major issues,while the dems have only joe lieberman.

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:22 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Neither Condi nor Rudi will run. And don't get partisan here--you're wrong about Rs and major issues, and I might be forced to show you why, point by point. Rather keep it agreeable.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:23 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

You expect a neanderthal to be non-partisan?

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:26 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

U bet. And stop dragging your knuckles on the ground, while your at it….

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:41 AM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

Standing upright now……my point is that enough time has elapsed since the two major issues have been dealt with that one can empirically determine political judgement---the major domestic issues of the bush admin have been terrorism and economic revival---so anyone who voted in favor of the patriot act whether dem,repub or independent cast the correct vote,since we have not had a terrorist attack on our soil since the act passed.the most important aspect of the move to revive the economy was the reduction of income tax rates,and obviously the reduction has worked so any vote in favor of reduction was right.turning to foreign policy,the major issue has been the attacks against the taliban and saddam,and since both of those countries are now democracies,at the cost of relatively few lives,any person who supported the invasions was correct in their judgement.

***
From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:58 PM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

1. Terrorism - the only reason there hasn't been more terrorism is because Al Qaida hasn't yet decided to cause any. To hold otherwise is to demonstrate a hubris that is both frightening and totally unsupported by historical example. Be it the IRA, the PLO, ETA, Chechen rebels, Tamil separatists or some other violent group, governments far better schooled than ours in terror have only learned how to fight it--not how to stop it. If and when AQ decides to strike again, they will. I'd put Ariel Sharon's terror fighting skills against GWBJr.s any day, and AS has had only minor success.

2. Economy - your definition of "worked" is not very expansive. Bankruptcy rates are at all time highs, pensions promised by major corporations are vanishing at a rate higher than ever, gasoline prices are at historical highs, the Republicans have taken our budget from surplus to an enormous deficit, but apparently you think the economy has revived because wealthy people got huge tax cuts. To quote a favorite of yours, "I respectfully disagree".

3. Foreign Policy - "I respectfully disagree" with the characterization of 1,865 lives as "relatively few". And I thought the President said we were there for WMD? Apparently our mission changed. I was one of the people "correct in [my] judgement" by supporting the invasion. But that judgement was based on our Presidents apparent lie that Saddam had WMDs.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:23 PM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I won't bother citing all the facts to make my case,just a few--relatively few compares to the 31,000 we lost saving south korea and the 50,000 we lost in vietnam,while saving countless other asians from communism through our efforts---we have freed millions directly in afghanistan and iraq,with many more to come by indirect means in lebanon,egypt,palestine……as far as the economy goes,just read steven wieting---and on terrorism---by your measure there is no way any administration could be judged successful……consider this………if everything that has taken place since sept 11 had happened under a democratic admin….i think dems would sing a different tune----and as far as being right on the war…..i'm talking about possible candidates,not your esteemed self

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:36 PM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

I stand on my earlier words. Especially #1. And you're right--there is no way to judge success in war on terror. Te genie is out of the bottle; as I said, we can only fight a war on terror. Only a fool thinks we can win it. The winning is in the fighting. It will now always be about waiting for the next shoe to drop, so you were were at least right about that. Leaving for the day. We can continue tomorrow, if you wish. Cheers.

***

From: RWNJ
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 3:43 PM
To: Edelman, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

You've twisted my words---I said that by your measure no admin cud be judged successful---becuz if the only reason that we've not had an attack is because the terrorists have decided not to,then the admin never is credited for its actions.

***

From: Edelman, Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2005 8:45 AM
To: RWNJ
Subject: RE: Point of Agreement

… I wasn't going to respond (had actually deleted in hopes of starting a new day), but just had to, b/c I think this is a very important point psychologically in our war on terror.

I credit the administration for its efforts in the war against terror. But our war on terror goes back either to Reagan (Marine barracks) or, domestically, to Clinton (Oklahoma City). Pre-9/11 Presidents (including 43) fought terror with less stridency than is needed now--and, in retrospect, with tragic results.

But a pause in domestic terrorist acts doesn't mean success--unless you are measuring with a stopwatch something that history tells us should be measured with a calendar. There were nearly eight years b/t WTC attacks. Were Clinton's actions in the war on terror successful post-WTC attack #1, only to be undone by Bush's failures? Of course not.

"Success" isn't a dynamic concept. It either is or it isn't. The only variable is whether there can still be a terrorist strike on US soil. God forbid there were, that would no more mean this administration's actions failed, then it means now they have succeeded.

We fight the battles as they materialize with the expectation eventually of winning the war--but that will only come when the constant threat of terrorism is eliminated, which is to say maybe never.

This is our Hundred Years War. I think short-term characterizations are illogical and dangerous.

Friday, June 03, 2005

God Is.

One of my sisters recently mentioned in an email her belief that religion is a bunch of hooey. I'm paraphrasing, mind you, but that adequetely conveys the sentiment she expressed. And she is not alone. Her viewpoint is shared by a great many people, and it usually follows the following thought pattern:

Religion divides people, causes wars, gives some people an excuse to kill other people, and generally allows one group to think it's superior to another. Therefore religion is hooey.

This thought pattern is illogical; even if the predicates are sometimes true (and I think they are), they are not always true. Other things can also cause the ills noted above, and religion can also engender humanity's best traits--respect for life, love of peace, charity and humility. Thus, the only permissible conclusion is that religion can be a bunch of hooey, but it can also be a wonderful thing that elevates the human condition. So how do we guard against the former and seek the latter? God seems like a pretty good place to start.

God is basic to religion, and I can't remember a time that I ever doubted God's existence. How can even the smallest particle exist without a Creator? Everything has to have been created somehow. Call it science, nature, "big bang", randomness--what have you. Who made that very first particle, or gas molecule, that some say randomly became our universe? To me the answer is clear: God.

That said, and secure in my belief, I also recognize that my belief in God is nothing more than an inferrence I have drawn from the evidence available to me. He has not verbalized to me that He exists. Nor has She appeared visually to me in any physical form. And for every convincing article of proof, there could also be another explanation. Thus, I have to accept that my inferrence could be wrong. I accept there might not be a God, but I do not believe it.

The vastness and the interrelationship of creation makes me even more convinced of God's existence. It's at this point that many religious people get into trouble, because beyond belief lies interpretation. I have learned to be very skeptical of declarative statements about God which are more than two words long. God is this. Or God wants that. Or, worse, God hates the other thing. As likely as not, everything beyond the second word lacks proof. Surely God wants something and, hopefully, it's for people to love each other. And I suppose God hates other things, like greed, arrogance and violence. And I could suggest what God "is", but it would just be a guess. The purest, truest, declaratve statment about God, is merely that "God is". Beyond that, we just can't know.

Those who claim exclusivity with God approach religion with a hubris that is factually insupportable and morally inexcuseable. We should recognize this fraud and label it such. But to deny the relevance or the goodness of religion, is to throw the baby out with the bath water. The bad things often done in the name of religion do not come from religion itself but, rather, from its perversion. Interpret God. Praise God. Worship God however you choose--whether or not within confines of traditional religion. Or don't, if you feel the Creator of all existence neither seeks nor need such worship. But whichever you choose, do so with humility.

Most people think that agnosticism is the opposite of religion. I disgree. I think the opposite of religion is hubris. Purporting to recognize the vast mystery of God while purporting also to know God's thoughts, wishes and desires, is hubris, pure and simple. If someone says it's impermissible to question or doubt their interpretation of religion, then reject that person--but not necessarily his religion. Be it the Pope or some other learned prelate, remember: no one can say authoritatively anything more than "God is". Beyond that, declarative statements are mere speculation.

If the goal is to worship God, then it should not matter how one chooses to do so. When a person demands that someone else's worship of God is wrong unless it's like his own, it's not worship he seeks, but conformance, which has become his God. None of us can know more about God than His mere and awesome existence, so it is especially arrogant--and, again, pure speculation--to presume that some praise pleases God while other praise does not. I suspect God is as pleased to hear the praise of Christians as He is Muslims, Jews, Hindus and those not affiliated with organized religion.

So look around. The oceans, the trees, the heavens, your own body, even a sunny day. It all attests to the power and design of a Creator. Anything that acknowledges just this much can't be hooey.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Salute to Service - An Update

For the record, Dave Bellon, has returned from fighting in Iraq. He is safe at home and getting back into his life. That's all I know so far, but I'm glad to know that this friend, and true hero, has returned from war.