First a joke. How can you tell if a politician is lying? Answer: Check to see if their lips are moving.

One troubling trend this campaign season is the emergence of out and out lies. There are always half-truths and lies of omission (Obama pull a doozy with Carly Fiorina’s comment on McCain/Palin not being ready to lead a large corporation conveniently omitting that Fiorina said the same of he and Biden.) The one that really puzzles me is how this “bridge to nowhere” non-sense is playing out.

The claim: Palin is a maverick reformer who said no to earmarks and wasteful Federal spending.

The facts: Palin supported the project in question publicly during her campaign for governor. After elected, Federal support for the project was withdrawn. Palin and Alaska kept the money.

This isn’t a case of gilding the lilly, it’s an outright lie that has been propagated by the campaign and the media. When confronted with this subject, the campaign manager for McCain said “we’re in this to win” inferring they just don’t care, they’re going to say whatever it takes to get McCain in the White House. The Obama campaign hasn’t been nearly as blatant, there tack has been one more of omission and selective story telling, their campaign manager hasn’t indicated they’re willing to say anything, but is the pressure any less on that campaign?

What are the politics of lying? I can’t see that there is any downside for candidate A to claim that candidate B practices satanism backed by quotes from second and third-hand sources. It’s not as if anyone is being held accountable for what they’re saying. Doesn’t this bother anyone?

You know, when Bush leaves office we’ll be losing a great source of humor and general mangulation of the English language. This morning I had the chance to hear the President’s speech on the corporate welfare being extended to large financial institutions and in a section discussing short sellers, Bush said, and I quote “You will be caught and persecuted.”

He likely meant prosecuted, in fact, it’s a safe bet the word prosecuted rolled across the teleprompter. But persecuted is the word that came out. An interesting Freudian slip to be sure…..It’s kind of like operation Enduring Freedom – did anyone think about that for a nano-second before moving forward? Lasting freedom was the intended meaning no doubt, but when I read it I interpreted it as putting up with freedom as long as we can.

In a year’s time when we have a more articulate administration, this sort of gaffe will be a thing of the past. But hopefully, there will be something else to poke fun at……

A family member sent this to me today, and I thought it was worth sharing. In fact, I wish I wrote it…Via the Huffington Post:

She said “nucular.” Twice.

I realized three things tonight. For one, if you are a McCain/Palin/Bush voter, you and I do not have a difference of opinion. We have a difference in brain power. Two, she really is as ignorant as I feared. And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to “first wipe off Palin’s tranny makeup.” I married well.)

Now, I want to be clear and speak directly to those of you who LOVED that Palin interview. You’re an idiot. I mean that. This is not one of those cases where we’re going to agree to disagree. This isn’t one of those situations where we debate it passionately and then walk away thinking that the other guy is wrong but argued well. I’m not going to think of you as a thoughtful but misguided person with different ideas who still really cares about the country and the world. No, sorry, not this time. This time, if you watched those interview excerpts and weren’t scared out of your freakin’ mind, then you’re mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed. What you are NOT is responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious. I mean it.

But I like to think that anyone can change.

Stop voting for people you want to have a beer with. Stop voting for folksy. Stop voting for people who remind you of your neighbor. Stop voting for the ideologically intransigent, the staggeringly ignorant, and the blazingly incompetent.

Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who inspires you. Vote for someone who has not only traveled the world but who has also shown a deep understanding and compassion for it. The stakes are real and they’re terrifyingly high. This election matters. It matters. It really matters. Let me say that one more time. This. Really. Matters.

HT: Ray

Hi folks, just a public service announcement that the football content has moved to Buckeye.vu. If you’re interested in that information, visit soon and come back often.

Ford’s 65MPG car the US can’t buy

Attribution: Business Week
This article in Business Week came across my RSS reader this morning. I read it, and decided to simply post it here in it’s entirety with a link back to Business Week. (Kudos to BW for the story, but shame on you for not hitting the punchline, which I will do below.)

If ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon. Oh yes, and the car is made by Ford Motor (F), known widely for lumbering gas hogs.

Ford’s 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here’s the catch: Despite the car’s potential to transform Ford’s image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe. “We know it’s an awesome vehicle,” says Ford America President Mark Fields. “But there are business reasons why we can’t sell it in the U.S.” The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.

Automakers such as Volkswagen (VLKAY) and Mercedes-Benz (DAI) have predicted for years that a technology called “clean diesel” would overcome many Americans’ antipathy to a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers. Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.

Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. “Americans see hybrids as the darling,” says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, “and diesel as old-tech.”

None of this is stopping European and Japanese automakers, which are betting they can jump-start the U.S. market with new diesel models. Mercedes-Benz by next year will have three cars it markets as “BlueTec.” Even Nissan (NSANY) and Honda, which long opposed building diesel cars in Europe, plan to introduce them in the U.S. in 2010. But Ford, whose Fiesta ECOnetic compares favorably with European diesels, can’t make a business case for bringing the car to the U.S.

TOO PRICEY TO IMPORT

First of all, the engines are built in Britain, so labor costs are high. Plus the pound remains stronger than the greenback. At prevailing exchange rates, the Fiesta ECOnetic would sell for about $25,700 in the U.S. By contrast, the Prius typically goes for about $24,000. A $1,300 tax deduction available to buyers of new diesel cars could bring the price of the Fiesta to around $24,400. But Ford doesn’t believe it could charge enough to make money on an imported ECOnetic.

Ford plans to make a gas-powered version of the Fiesta in Mexico for the U.S. So why not manufacture diesel engines there, too? Building a plant would cost at least $350 million at a time when Ford has been burning through more than $1 billion a month in cash reserves. Besides, the automaker would have to produce at least 350,000 engines a year to make such a venture profitable. “We just don’t think North and South America would buy that many diesel cars,” says Fields.

The question, of course, is whether the U.S. ever will embrace diesel fuel and allow automakers to achieve sufficient scale to make money on such vehicles. California certified VW and Mercedes diesel cars earlier this year, after a four-year ban. James N. Hall, of auto researcher 293 Analysts, says that bellwether state and the Northeast remain “hostile to diesel.” But the risk to Ford is that the fuel takes off, and the carmaker finds itself playing catch-up—despite having a serious diesel contender in its arsenal.

Business is risky. To change the rules of the game, the players have to be willing to take risks – Detroit is dying because of “business reasons” – those are not that diesel is unpopular and engine import is too expensive, it’s because the executives (read captains of multiple Titanics all sinking fast) are yellow-bellied, spineless, empty suits who are afraid of their own shadows. They clearly don’t see that if they keep doing the things they’ve done in the past 20 years, there is no future for US auto manufacturers. They’re taking half-measures and have no goal or vision but to hold on to what they’ve got. If one of the big 3 were to say “Our mission is to provide cost-effective, sustainable, clean transportation to the masses” and then align their prodigious resources toward achieving that goal, they would clean up economically. Why are they blind to this? Why are they scared to take the leap? They are failing already, what is there to lose?

The question is, why are these morons still leading some of the largest companies in America? Go to the street, ask a random person, would you like to get 65 mpg in your car? I think we all know the answer to that one…This kind of willful stupidity simply makes me crazy!