I won’t get into the forced shotgun marriage between Chrysler and Fiat other than to ask: exactly how good a deal could the executives at Chrysler have been expected to negotiate when the major stockholder and investor of last resort declared publically that they had 30 days to do a deal or be allowed to go under? I mean when you tell one party to a negotiation that the other party has a drop dead date to get a deal done that party is liable to drive (no pun intended) a harder bargain than if there was some element of uncertainty in the outcome. This would all be amusing to observe save for the fact that the major shareholder who committed this blunder was none other than the US Government and that means it is our future tax dollars (used to pay for the money borrowed to make the loans in question) who got squandered as a result.

I won’t go into the fact that the concept of bankruptcy is coded into Federal Law exactly to deal with the sorts of situation the companies in question now find themselves and that creditors extend credit or loan money knowing that there is Federal Law that will protect them, or at least determine with specificity, in what order they fall in the list of creditors to be paid in event of a Bankruptcy. I won’t mention that those laws were, in very real effect, thrown out to reward one class of creditors (the Unions) over another (Investors – AKA Bond Holders) with not a hint of explanation other than to label the latter class with the always in the context spoken derogatory adjective “speculators” while looking out for another class (workers) who through mandatory dues payments managed to find it within its budget during these trying times to donate millions to the campaign coffers of those who decided to ignore Federal Law by throwing the Bankruptcy Statutes in the trash.

No I won’t waste time going over those things. I want to talk about something I think I have some insight in, namely the plight of the Dealers. I am not, nor have I ever been in, the car business. But I have spent a lot of time developing and managing distribution strategies that involved wholesale distribution and retail dealer outlets for complex products. And based on my experiences I just don’t get it.

To hear the Car Companies (and by proxy the Administration) the car companies have to get rid of a large number of the dealers they have in order to return to prosperity. It is as if the fact there is a GM dealer on almost as many corners as there are McDonald’s is, in itself, a major contributor to their current woes. My experience runs contrary to what we are hearing. Usually, if a manufacturer signs up too many dealers the loudest complainers are the dealers themselves. Too many dealers chasing too little market leads to inevitable price erosion at the retail level and profit margin pressure on the dealers. The dealer buys the car from the manufacturer, sells it at a markup, and the net between sales price and what he bought it from is his gross margin. If the dealers all pay the same price (and by law need to under same terms and conditions) then discounting at the retail level hurts margins but does not affect revenue to the manufacturer.

Of Course, if the dealer stops making money then the other things the dealer does for the manufacturer (provide service infrastructure, parts sales, etc) will suffer and so the manufacturer has an incentive to see the dealers succeed and prosper. But how is it that closing a large number of dealers is going to help GM or Chrysler? Oh the argument goes that if the dealers are more successful they can provide better service and therefore make consumers want to buy more products. Yeah right. Of Course if, all other factors being equal and a GM dealer out hustled and out serviced the Toyota dealer then that would make all the difference. But, all other things are never the same. If they were the GM dealer in the pervious example would be a Toyota dealer.

So I don’t get the dealer purge. The ones left may very well be made stronger (as long as GM and/or Chrysler survives to supply cars to them to sell) but I don’t see how the purge will help Chrysler or GM design, build, market, and sell a better car or greatly reduce the expenses that the car companies spend in marketing and sales to support them.

There is something sinister about the way it has been done as well. There is something wrong about anonymous elites deciding the fates of these dealers and not allowing the market to work. I mean if I ran a 98 year old GM dealership in Podunk that only sold 35 cars a year and I wanted to keep at it and had the financial wherewithal to do so what is to be gained by GM to cut me off?

I just don’t get it. But I’m pretty sure that whatever explanation being given by GM, Chrysler, and the Administration doesn’t make any sense and therefore there is something else going on here and, like most everything else coming out of Washington, it doesn’t have much to do with free-enterprise and probably even less with sound business sense.

But I heard the comment on the show and at the time I actually thought I misheard. Quite frankly, I didn’t think someone in his position could actually make such a ‘stupid’ mistake. And, in all honesty, being a black man I would have credited with a little more awareness around issues of discrimination and how hurtful the casual, unthinking use of language can be.

But he has ‘fessed up and apologized. And even been challenged to a face off by a Special Olympian bowler.

And yet that’s not what I really want to talk about.

Except to offer a counterpoint to this, Sarah Palin’s video on the subject of the Special Olympics.

I don’t care what your politics are, Palin could well and truly teach President Obama a thing or three on this topic. Perhaps she could offer him a course, gratis like, as a service to the rest of the country world.

And lest we forget, best line ever:

What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a Special Olympics hockey mom? Nothing.

She definitely pegged that one, she did.

H/T to Take Five

Definition of “Ironic”:  The above 45-minute conversation with your nearly 13-year-old daughter where you essentially find yourself defending Bush and his actions given that you have never particularly been a fan of the man or his policies.

Definition of ”Satisfying”: Ending the above 45-minute conversation by explaining to your nearly 13-year-old daughter that although it’s great for her to have her own opinions with which others may disagree, she needs to make sure she has all the facts before forming to an opinion. For although she does not yet seem ready to catapult capitulate on her first opinion, she at least seemed to understand that last point.

But one of the resolutions passed (and reportedly approved by 99% of the nearly 2,000 party members) at the party’s first national policy convention since 2003 [held in Winnipeg, hence the post title] called on the party to get behind legislation that would “remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.”

That’s right, they’re talking about getting rid of that nasty Sec. 13 in the Human Rights Act, which makes it an offence for a person to communicate telephonically or by internet “any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination“.

Yeah, that one.

And, honestly, I wouldn’t shed any tears over it’s removal. It should be interesting to see what [if anything] happens next.

Apparently, some issues can actually unite, at least some, groups “from the left, right and moderate centre”. Who knew?

How about the latest from Red State Travis and Jonathan from their “Red State Update” series?

I do wish these guys get a chance for a series on “real” TV.

Now get out there and vote for Sarah!

The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed a hate speech complaint against Maclean’s magazine on Friday in a decision the complainants blamed on “inappropriate political pressure.”

Just to be clear, that would be the complaint claiming that an article written by Mark Steyn, entitled “The Future Belongs to Islam”, made a number of statements and assertions that were likely to expose Muslims to hatred or contempt.

So, in other words, the system can and does work, as I’ve said before.

For those interested, you can find the Commission’s entire decision here, courtesy of MacLeans. As best as I can tell, a decision has not yet been rendered in the British Columbia case. You know, the one that was live blogged. So for that, we wait.

Funny, though, I almost think I know that many will be disappointed in the result, despite protesting otherwise. The last thing in the world they want to do is admit that the human rights system can and usually does often work properly. No, they want the worst possible, most outrageous, decisions. To prove their supposed point and have more ammunition in their fight to scrap the entire system. Because, just as many might argue that the Islamers complainants in the Steyn/MacLean’s complaint had their own agenda, so too do they. 

And if you don’t believe me, try googling the name “Steyn” in the blogosphere today.

Which is why I think that perhaps something else good has come out of this controversy. Apparently an independent review of the Commission’s approach to hate speech on the Internet has been launched by the Commission’s chief commissioner, Jennifer Lynch.

And I actually think that is a very good thing:

And so the debate Elmasry sparked has become less about media attitudes toward Islam and more about the balance between free speech and hate speech, and whether Canada’s federal and provincial human rights commissions can rightly weigh it.

The last time Canada’s human rights hate speech law was examined in depth was before the advent of the Internet, in a 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision about the operator of a neo-Nazi phone-line. In that case, the prohibition on messages that are “likely to expose” identifiable groups to hatred or contempt was judged to be a reasonable limit on the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. But the extension of the law from telephone lines to the Internet in 2001 has resulted in a whole new ballgame.

So, let’s give it a look, says I. Give it a tweak here and there. Even overhaul the entire system if need be. So that it continues to work as advertised. Namely, to protect the rights of all Canadians not to be discriminated against on the enumerated grounds.

But those with a problem with even the concept that the government should have a role to play in protecting individuals from being discriminated against must realize that that is part and parcel of what makes us Canadian. It’s a choice we have made. No, perhaps not one that all Canadians agree with, but one that, I beleive, the majority of us still do. Which would kind of resemble a democracy, no?

Oh yeah, about that “inappropriate political pressure” comment …

Faisal Joseph, lawyer for the CIC, said the dismissal was predictable, given the political climate and the campaign against the commissions themselves.

“We are not surprised at the decision in light of the inappropriate political pressure that has been brought to bear on the commission and that has prompted the commission to set up an internal review of its procedures under (the hate speech section of the Human Rights Act),” he said.

Well, I guess that’s not surprising, I suppose. After all, they always say the best defence is a good offence.

You can read the rest of the story (including my thoughts, if you’re so inclined) here.

In March 2003 while touring overseas, the hugely-popular (at that time) country music group Dixie Chicks made some disparaging comments about President Bush and the impending war in Iraq. A large number of their fans dropped them like a hot rock, and criticism rained down.

The Dixie Chicks were unrepentant, even at times dismissing their fans who were so upset. In March 2006, they released a record that included the song, “Not Ready to Make Nice.” To this day, there are country music stations who refuse to play their music because of listeners’ responses.

Recently, talented Marine David Thibodeaux (veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan) recorded his musical response, a parody of that song, entitled “Not ready to End the Fight.” He’s backed by Toby Keith’s band:

Compare it to their original lyrics–the interesting thing is how little the words have to change to fit the new context.

There’s bio/background on Thibodeaux under “About This Video” at this link.

About two months ago, I wrote this:

I’ve read passing references to these vile plans for awhile, and like some half-remembered bad dream I’ve tried to ignore them, maybe hoping IVAW wasn’t really planning what headlines implied. But today John linked them and I finally read their website. Until that point, I’d thought “Winter Soldier” was merely critics’ characterization of the plans [not the actual name].

I suppose there’s consolation to be found in this: 1) They don’t seem to realize they will destroy any goodwill non-IVAW-member veterans might have had for the organization and its members, and 2) They’re making their intentions and ideological allegiances crystal clear to the rest of us. [snip]

There are no words to express my disappointment and rage at what I fear is to come…

What could the “vile plans” have been that provoked such a response in me? Well, if you click that “these” link in that quote today, this is what you’ll find:

The four-day event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan – and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans’ health benefits and support.

Cool! Except for the “GI resistance movement” part, it sounds a lot like a Milblogger Conference.

Except that’s not what it said on January 19, 2008 when I first wrote about Winter Soldier II.

The rest at my place.