Created by the bailed-out General Motors, the Chevy Volt has been an unmitigated disaster. The car was meant to be an environmentalist dream. It would combat global warming by reducing carbon emissions and would one day free us from our dependence on evil oil. But that’s not quite how it turned out.
To ensure the car could be called a “success,” GM stacked the deck by doing two things. First, they limited the release of the car in 2011 to big liberal cities: Washington, D.C., New York City, Austin, Texas, and California, with subsequent roll outs in other liberal states, and then all fifty-seven states by November 2011. This was meant to make sure that plenty of environmentalists would be on hand to buy the car, so GM could report brisk sales. Further, they limited the initial production run to 10,000 to ensure they would have more demand than supply and could report a sell out.
They even gave it all kinds of incentives. For example, while the car has a suggested retail price of $40,280, buyers get: (1) a $7,500 federal tax credit under the TARP bailout, (2) a $1,500 “state” rebate through the state’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (more federal money), (3) a federal tax credit for the purchase and installation of the charging unit, which is listed at costing $490 plus installation, but which Consumer Reports says costs around $2,000. That’s $11,000 in subsidies to buyers.
And that’s on top of the $2.4 billion in direct subsidies given to GM by the federal government, i.e. you, to develop the Volt, not to mention the $27 billion given to keep GM afloat so they could make wonderful cars like the Volt.
That’s a lot of federal help. So how did GM do? After thirteen months of sales, GM has sold only 7,997 cars. . . they couldn’t even sell the full 10,000 they made. To give you a comparison, the Toyota Prius sold 159,000 cars in the same period.
And that’s just the beginning of the morass.
See, it turns out the car ain’t as green as they made it out to be.
The Volt actually includes a gasoline engine. So in that sense, the car is not a true electric car, but is instead a hybrid. And if you calculate the “fuel economy rating” the same way it is calculate for other hybrids, the Volt only gets 48 miles per gallon, making it one of the worst hybrids. So GM objected and argued that it was unfair to treat this car as a hybrid and instead demanded that the car be tested using only the electric engine, i.e. that the EPA pretend the owners can use the gas engine. According to GM, that would result in a fuel economy rating of 230 miles per gallon.
Team Obama, the definition of more-ass, happily agreed to play along with GM’s fraud and tested the car in the new way. But even then it couldn’t come anywhere near GM’s claims of 230 miles per gallon. Instead, they found 93 miles per gallon in electric mode and 37 miles per gallon in gasoline mode, for an overall 60 miles per gallon. By comparison, the EPA rates the Prius at 51 mpg. Also, to get the 93 mpg, you need to drive it at low speeds on the highway.
It gets worse. The EPA also measured the tailpipe emissions and found 84 grams of carbon dioxide per mile using gasoline and “nearly zero” using electricity. But a study in the UK which calculated the emissions from the electricity used to charge the battery resulted in 199 grams per mile for the electric motor. Not only is that more pollution than several other cars, but that means you actually pollute less using the gasoline engine in the Volt than you do using the electric engine. Imagine that.
And then there’s the other problem: it’s a death trap.
See, it turns out that when the Volt gets in an accident, particularly from a side hit, the batteries can be damaged. This leads to a coolant leak which causes the car to catch fire. But it doesn’t happen right away. Instead, the fire can start minutes, hours, days or weeks later. In one instance, the car caught fire three weeks after the collision. GM claims to have fixed this by adding padding to the car, but has had to offer to buy back “a couple dozen” cars from people who are now too scared to own them. A couple dozen is around 5% of the total number sold.
And that’s not the only problem with the batteries. GM put an 8 year warranty on the batteries, but estimates right now are that the battery will need to be replaced every six to eight years. The cost of that replacement? $10,000. In other words, every six to eight years, you need to put in $10,000 to keep this turkey running. Given that the resale value is expected to fall 51% in three years, that means the car is effectively disposable. . . talk about a pollution nightmare!
It’s no wonder no one wants this car.
This is what happens whenever the government gets involved in the subsidy business. No rational business would ever try to make this car. It’s too expensive (GM apparently isn’t even making money on the current prices), it pollutes more than the evil polluting cars it’s meant to replace, it costs too much to own and it’s dangerous.
Moreover, it’s fixing a problem that apparently even Global Warming enthusiasts are starting to admit doesn’t exist – according to data released by the same enthusiasts who brought you climate gate and who have repeatedly said every single year for over two decades “this year was the hottest year on record,” the world stopped warming in 1997 and has been cooling ever since!
In an age when Obama’s folly can be seen in “green tech” companies going down in flames like bankruptcy dominoes after being handed mongo Federal cash, the Volt still stands out at the zenith of stupidity.... and you’ve paid $2.5 billion dollars so far to support that stupidity. Makes you proud, doesn’t it?
76 comments:
I giggled all the way thru this piece. the ineptitude of all involved was stunning, yet predictable.
i cannot fathom another term with this destroyer-in-chief. god help us.
I don't know, Andrew...the traditional symbol of the Democratic party still seems appropriate somehow. This was, after all, the product of asses.
This is Exhibit A of shallow thinking on the Left: refusing to pay attention to the fact that you get the electricity for the batteries in hybrids by burning coal in a power plant. Yeah, real "green." Must be the same people from the Daily Mail article who claim that the sun has less to do with global warming than CO2. I mean, really?
I am hopeful the Repub's can get clever advertisements out of this. The Volt is, of course, a monumental achievement of ineptitude, but B.O.'s remarks in the state of the campaign speech really set me off. "No more bailouts of greedy capitalist pigs" but of course bailout of G.M. (govt. motors) giving it to union supporters and screwing investors. Plus, the bragging about G.M. being the biggest. That may be true except note the sales to China. If one thinks about it, China actually owns G.M. anyway so it is kind a "stock buy-back" program. The other part of the sales comes from Hollywood where product placements are beyond obvious anymore (check out Hawaii Five-0 if you don't believe it.) So econ weenies, Chinese, and celebutards are responsible. Yeah, that sounds about right.
Then, one has to wonder what resources B.O. used to take down Toyota with bullshit safety/recall stuff.
Wow! I've heard little piece of this, but not the whole thing. The idea that the gasoline engine in the car pollutes less than charging the electric engine is just shocking! And we paid for this?
T-Rav, I think the should just drop the "jack" part of their symbol and go straight for "asses."
I heard about the lack of sales, but not about the fire danger. It's amazing to me that we the taxpayers have been made to pay so much for a product no one wants and which doesn't work. Did we learn nothing from 50 years of communism?
I never understood the roll-out! And even that was a boondoogle. Many many thanks for getting the whole sad story from crash to burn in one place. Any idea how long they will subsidize and continue? Libs love throwing good money after bad!
Patti, This is a comedy isn't it? Or at least a farce. Unfortunately, we're paying a huge price in lost dollars flushed down the GM toilet for the laughs. Obama must go.
Jed, the product placement really is out of control. I haven't noticed it on Hawaii Five-0, but on Fringe, which I still like a whole lot, the placement is very obvious. There was a scene a couple weeks ago put in for no reason except to display the features on a Toyota.
I sometimes wonder if the writers make these as obvious as possible so the audience won't feel like they're being suckered. That would be the best explanation.
It just really boggles my mind that they think using an electric car is cheaper and better for the environment. I don't know if the Dems know where electricity comes from, or how expensive it is. And I've always wondered the cost of replacing the battery in Prius'. I assume them to be thousands of dollars (though I don't know) and would need to be replaced a lot more frequently than an engine in a car. But oh well, it makes sense to the Dems to create a totally worthless car that only the small minority want.
T-Rav, The Daily Mail article is fascinating. Look at the AWG crowd's logic:
1. Our models predicted massive warming -- even though we lied and said there was.
2. There has been no warming. But that doesn't mean out models are wrong. The problem is the sun.
3. The sun is peaking now. Thus, the failure of the warming (and our models) must be because the sun got colder (even though it is only peaking now, meaning it's at it's hottest, meaning it kept getting warmed until now and cannot explain the lack of warming from 1997-2011).
4. But the sun is irrelevant, forget what we just told you because that would mean the sun controls warming.
5. Hence, even though it is about to get colder, it is actually getting warming.
This is clown logic.
Now think about the Volt. It's designed to fix this insanity above, yet it's WORSE than just running a gasoline engine, i.e. it would only make the problem worse if there was a problem.
Now that is liberal "logic" for you -- it will make a non-existent problem worse.
And that doesn't even count the environmental damage of making the batteries or having a car that gets thrown away after 8 years.
And then they let the government lie about it's mileage and environmental impact because they like the idea even though it's obvious the idea is wrong.
Jed, You kind of have to wonder how many of these 7,000 cars they sold were "for show," i.e. Hollywood, state governments, companies trying to look green. It wouldn't surprise me if less than half of these actually went to members of the public at large.
But in any event, the real key here is that this car is an ecological disaster. The fact it's basically a throw-away after 8-10 years means its actual "carbon footprint" is MUCH higher than they advertise. And batteries are not good things for the environment in many other ways that carbon. So what they've done is create a real mess all in the name of fixing something which doesn't exist and which this car couldn't fix if it did exist.
I agree with you about Obama. I think it's ridiculous that he's out there pushing for more money for these environmental groups and companies when they are all ending up broke, and pimping things like the Volt when other companies are actually making better all around products without the subsidy. His whole philosophy is socialist garbage. We should not be subsidizing foolish big businesses just to save the unions or make leftist political statements! That's what they did in East Germany.
DUQ, I like that idea about dropping the "jack." That fits with their image all right!
Yeah, this car is a mess all around. I think you probably haven't heard much about it because the powers that be have a vested interest in making sure you think it works. Why? Because people already don't believe in global warming and if this thing becomes a noted disaster like the Edsel, that will set back their cause for a generation. So they lie and they let the government lie.
My guess is they will phase it out for something else in about 3 years and then pretend it was "ahead of its time."
Doc, Nope, we learned nothing. In fact, apparently, all the left learned is that you can keep companies alive for years with subsidies.
Yeah, the fire danger is very real. When they tried to recreate it, they were able to recreate it 3 out of 4 times, so this isn't even a rare thing. They claim they solved it by adding padding to the car, but that doesn't solve the fundamental physics problem that these batteries get damaged when they shaken around, not when they get dented up.
It's like a concussion -- you can pad your helmet all you want, the problem is that the brain hits the inside of the skull, i.e. it's the stopping power that's the problem, not the external damage.
Cris, You're welcome and thanks for the suggestion! :)
Yeah, the point to the roll out was to make sure they could claim it was a huge success to stop people like me from laughing at their failure to sell. So they set the bar very, very low and the rigged the game... and still could only sell 80%. That's sad.
Right now, the subsidies are guaranteed for the first 200,000 units. Thus, the total subsidy currently promised is another $2.2 billion, bringing the total to about $4.5 billion. But I'll bet they start adding to that to try to generate sales.
T-Rav, Good question. In either event though, many of these product placements feel absolutely shameless. It's one thing to have a cereal box sitting on a counter, but it's another to wave it at the audience and include it in the dialog.
Ironically, I think product placements are a waste of money because there are too many of them and people see them too cynically now for them to work.
Jocelyn, This is the problem with liberal thinking: it only ever considers one side of the equation.
If someone is hungry, you feed them... you never ask where the money/food comes from or what the long term effects are.
If someone doesn't like being in jail, you let them out... you never ask why they are in there.
If you want to stop cars from polluting, you make them electric and then the car itself doesn't pollute anymore... you never ask if the car polluting is cleaner than the alternatives.
That's always the problem with liberalism. They see something they don't like and they propose the simplest, quickest fix, and they never bother looking at the other effects of their decisions or the collateral damage.
Think about it in this case. No one will sink $10k into an 8 year old car. So these things will be thrown away. That's incredibly wasteful when most cars can run for 15-20 years before they get scrapped. Also, batteries are a mess, environmentally speaking. But that's ok because we can solve that by banning companies from making battery acid, that will solve it, right? It's idiotic problem solving which basically causes the creation of more and more problems with each solution.
Andrew, I think you are right about us not learning anything from history. Well, not "us" but "Obama" and his friends.
On an unrelated note, I see that Newt has gone scorched earth in Florida. So much for the Eleventh Commandment.
Doc, Some people only learn the lessons that already agree with their viewpoints.
Yeah, I've been watching the Florida stuff with a great deal of dismay. If I actually backed Gingrich, I would be having second thoughts right about now because he seems more than willing to tear everybody down if he can't win the nomination. That's not someone who deserves support.
And I find it incredible how his followers are attacking anyone who disagrees with them as RINOs! Ann Coulter a RINO? Give me a break.
Andrew, It's horrible that Dems, in particular, don't learn from History. It's right there! It's probably even on the internet somewhere, who knew?!
And my first thought about hybrids when they became more streamline was, "How are they going to recycle the batteries?" That stuff is toxic and not easily disposed of. But I know Global Warming is the Dems priority, so, if we throw enough money at it, it'll fix itself.
Andrew, I think that one line needs to be broadcast for all it's worth. The sun, the thing that is responsible for Earth's temperature not being around absolute zero, has less to do with our climate than a gas that makes up less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere.
Okay.
Jocelyn, Maybe the Wikipedia was down when they went looking for it? ;)
In all seriousness, the Democrats/left never learn from history. They always assume that somehow their views were just implemented wrong, not that they are fundamentally wrong. So if socialism didn't work before, they must have been doing it wrong.
Take a look at education. Education has been run 100% by liberals for 60+ years and it's a total mess. Yet, they think more liberalism is the answer and they pretend that the last 60+ years of liberalism wasn't the problem.
It's frustrating trying to explain these things to leftists because they really just aren't capable of accepting facts. "No, unemployment's not really at 9% right now." And the never see the contradictions in their own beliefs either. It's literally like arguing with someone who has no ability to remember what they believed even a second before.
You're right about the batteries too. Far too many things are classified as toxic when they aren't, but batteries are. They are packed with very harmful materials and they are a mess to dispose of. But, the way liberals think, that's a problem for another day. Today we fix the air, and tomorrow we regulate battery makers to make "clean batteries."
And if that causes a problem, we'll just regulate that away, and the next one and the next one until everything is perfect.
It's ridiculous.
T-Rav, There you go using your brain again. Why do you insist on having a brain. Just accept what the experts tell you.
Yeah, that is a stunning statement isn't it? Just look at the difference in the seasons. When we tilt even a couple degrees away from the sun, it gets really, really cold. When we tilt a few towards the sun, it gets really, really warm.
And yet, these "scientists" somehow dismiss the sun as the key factor in deciding the temperature on the planet? Five year olds are smarter than that.
Andrew, between Newt's scorched-earth tactics and how the last debate played out, I'm really wondering why the flag-carrying "Not Romney" candidate should be him and not Santorum. Honestly, who would have thought that in a head-to-head comparison, Rick would come across as the more stable and conservative of the two? It's been a strange month.
The funny thing is I know a lot of liberals who talk about buying one of these, but then never give up their SUVs. Hypocrites.
Well, in the Democrats' defense, unemployment really isn't at 9% right now. Thanks to extensive under-employment, as well as the untold numbers who have simply stopped looking for work, it's probably closer to twice that.
T-Rav, It really has. And between the two of them, I too would choose Ricky. Newt is a disaster.
The word "scorched earth" is right. It's gotten pretty obvious that he's willing to destroy the party and hand this election to Obama if he isn't chosen as the nominee, and I'm disgusted by it. His latest commercial "blood money" is despicable. His attacks on capitalism are indefensible. He and his surrogates's attempts to discredit conservative voices like Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge and George Will are doing long term damage to conservatism. Indeed, his smears will be repeated by liberals for years.
This man is already proving to be worse for conservatism than anything the Democrats could ever do. And we're supposed to support him????
Plus, Kit made a very good point over the weekend. Newt is whining and playing the victim over not having as much money as Romney... but Obama has a billion dollars! If Newt can't beat Romney's small war chest, then why should we think he'll do better against Obama?
Terry, Hypocrisy is the root word of "liberal." They are all hypocrites. I can't tell you the number of liberals who live their lived exactly opposite of everything they claim to believe and who would never accept in their personal lives the things they want to force on others through the government.
T-Rav, All lies. Unemployment is lower now than it was during the Bush years. My proof? Uh, because it's true.
Also, it's not Obama's fault. His policies haven't had a chance to work yet after 3+ years.
Also, the evil businesses aren't hiring because we know business favors Republicans and they want to hurt Obama.
But in any event, the economy is perfect and how dare you suggest it isn't.
And no, none of this contradicts. If you think anything above is a contradiction, then you must be one of THEM conservative racists, like Janet Brewer who pointed a finger at the President and thereby acted racistly.
T-Rav, That's a brilliant point about the sun! How can any rational person not think the sun isn't what controls the temperature here?
Andrew, Excellent breakdown of the Volt (pun intended). :D
The Volt strikes me as a stupid idea from the outset. Other car makers are already selling successful hybrids and are moving slowly but surely toward ever improving mileage using reliable technology. The Volt seems unnecessary. So why even do it? And I can't see it being done without the government paying for it because obviously consumers don't want an over-priced inferior product.
Using the numbers you provided. If they stopped at 10,000, we would end up paying about $250,000 per car! That's ridiculous.
Ed, True. The question is how many more they make. If they end up making 20 million, then the subsidy won't seem so large. But if they make only a couple hundred thousand (or less), the subsidy will still be more than most cars cost.
And even beyond that, there is just no point to have made this car. What it is, is that GM fell behind in the hybrid game and this was a direct subsidy by the government to keep GM alive and let them jump into the game. But like all government programs, it's a disaster and will never work.
In the end, GM will need to learn to make better cars or it will perish and I suspect the Volt will be forgotten as just another failed GM car.
I don't have much to add. Disaster is a mild description. Maybe they should have had Solyndra make the batteries, then all the ecoweenies would have been happy.
Lawhawk, That's a good idea. They could create a whole separate economy for "Obama companies" -- they could supply each other with parts for products that no one in the general public wants, and Obama could keep them afloat with subsidies.
Andrew, That's exactly my thinking. If the government was interested in advancing electric cars, it would develop the technology and put it out there for everyone. Instead, this seemed like an attempt to help GM out of a mess. I think Obama has been working overtime to protect GM from decades of stupidity and this is what it's costing us.
I also don't see the Volt surviving. It just doesn't make sense. The other hybrids seem like safer bets and appear to be "greener" (assuming you just car about carbon) than the Volt. They're also cheaper and more reliable.
If GM sinks all their eggs in this basket, look for another bailout in 3-5 years.
Ed, I expect there will be another bailout fairly soon because nothing really got fixed with GM. The money just kept them from going broke until car sales came back to around normal and then they went right back to the same old destructive practices. They even went back to the incentives which dragged sales forward and mortgages the future.
And I too think the Volt will fail fairly soon and then GM will have a problem. They need to improve their engine technology, not become dependent on government money. But they have, as before, chosen poorly.
Did Obama just create and destroy "Green Jobs" with the Volt?
Jocelyn, That's an interesting question. On the one hand, making Volts is a typical "green job" -- making a product that isn't really environmentally friendly all in the name of saving the environment. So in that regard, these are green jobs. And without Obama's subsidies, this car would not exist.
MOREOVER, to the extent the Volt steals dollars/customers from actual green technology products (or destroys consumer's willingness to buy other green products), he has indeed helped to destroy real "green jobs."
So yeah, I'd say he has achieved both the creation of fake "green jobs" at the cost of destroying real "green jobs." Nice work, Mr. President!
All in all, I think this was never about the environment. I think this was about supporting the UAW.
Andrew, I very much agree it was about the UAW. GM was too big to fail, but only because of the unions.
Jocelyn, Exactly. I have no doubt at all that his decision to help GM was entirely done to help his union supporters. If these weren't union jobs (or if GM competed against union employees) then I suspect Obama would have said, "capitalism is about both success and failure and we can't support a company that doesn't make a product consumers want."
I've heard television commercials touting the 230 miles per gallon, and I wondered about that. It didn't seem real that GM would suddenly have a car which could go 5-6 times what other cars could go. I figured there was something misleading going on.
OT:
Cain has endorsed Newt. I am sad.
I am about to go read his explanation.
http://www.northstarwriters.com/2012/01/29/why-i-support-newt-gingrich-for-president/
Kelly, I've seen those claims, but I'm not sure they made them in commercials for the car itself -- just in commercials for GM. I agree though, it is misleading, and I can't help but think that a government that wasn't in bed with GM would have called them on it.
rlaWTX, I'm very disappointed in that. I was thinking of writing about that today. What bothers me is not that he picked Newt -- he and Newt are friends and that was to be expected. What bothers me is that he endorsed at all.
When he got out, he took up this whole "I endorse the people" stuff and pretended that he would become a different voice for the people. He even gave the response for the Tea Party based on the idea that he spoke for something bigger.
...and then he endorses a candidate.
That strikes me as false pretenses. When he claimed to start speaking for the Tea Party he really took up an obligation not to wade into the primary to help one side or the other. His obligation was to the ideas and making sure all the candidates agreed with them.
That's what bothers me.
It's like cash for clunkers, only this time the gov't gives out cash to buy the clunker.
Yeah, that defines it perfectly!
We gave cash to keep the clunker company going and now we're giving more cash to get the consumers to take the clunkers off our hands so we don't get stuck with the scrap metal.
Welcome to liberal economics.
The Cain thing frustrated me too. I think you're right in your assessment because it "felt" to me like he shouldn't have endorsed anyone, though I didn't think through exactly why I felt that way.
Ed, That was the same feeling I had, that he shouldn't have endorsed anyone after making a big deal of "I am endorsing the people" and then representing the Tea Party.
It's disappointing.
Leave Herman alone! He's the only non-RINO left in the conservative movement.
Newt, When everyone except you is a RINO, maybe you're using the wrong definition?
Andrew -
You've described liberal logic perfectly:
1) Assume that the following are automatically good: public transportation, electric vehicles, wind power, solar power, shrinking human populations, third world cultures, equal distribution of wealth, atheism, etc. I can come up with more examples, but this will suffice for now.
2) Identify factors that encourage the implementation or achievement of the above "good" things. These factors are generally problems, but are now considered good because they justify "good" things. Population density is therefore good because dense cities need public transportation. High gas prices are therefore good because people will want electric cars. Repeat 2 as necessary so long as the solution will be "good" things.
3) Use government to implement policies that create the problems of population density and high gas prices. Close off real estate construction anywhere but within a city's downtown to create density. Put light rail at ground level to impede the flow of vehicle traffic. Fail to enforce immigration policy. Prevent oil and gas production at all local levels. Require the use of ethanol in gas to make it more expensive, less efficient, and dirtier per mile traveled than regular gas. Sell such policies under the cover of a crisis, such as "global warming" or "to combat racism".
4) Use government subsidies to mitigate the consequences of the policies implemented in 3. Subsidize real estate to offset the inevitable high prices that result when you cut off development anywhere other than downtown. Require mortgage lenders to relax their consideration of credit worthiness when lending to "targeted" populations. Subsidize the electric vehicle to make it competitive with the cheaper, cleaner, more efficient gasoline vehicle. Subsidize the car companies to manufacture the more expensive, inefficient electric vehicle. Sell such policies under the cover of "fairness".
5) When money begins to run out, create a new department to consider why. The department's conclusion will be that it needs more time to explore the issue, so it will hire a series of consultants connected to the government to study it. It will request a budget increase to do so. In the meantime, their stopgap solution will suggest raising taxes on the "rich", in the interest of everybody paying their "fair share".
6) When political opponents point out the flaws in these programs and policies, call them racists and threaten to fire all police officers and firefighters, as well as withhold checks to the military.
7) When political allies begin to notice the failure of these programs, claim that not enough money was spent on them to make them work. Then claim programs were actually successful because electric cars exist and so does new public transportation. Which are "good" things (See Step 1).
wahsatchmo, Interesting breakdown of liberalism! I think you've described how it works quite accurately.
The bigger question, however, based on what you've raised is this: do they realize the circularity and the disastrous effects of this or are they just fumbling from issues to issue trying to solve whatever problems arise and never actually connecting the dot to see that their last policy caused the very problems they are now trying to fix with the new regulations?
I suspect they are just dealing with whatever problem they currently see without any attempt to ever see the big picture except for the initial platitude -- "we must fix the environment!"
Andrew-
I agree with you. They don't expect to go down their circular path, but that's always where they end up. It's that they never considered that the initial pipe dream (Cars like in the Jetsons! Government run healthcare for all! No guns for anyone but the state!) might not immediately result in Utopia.
Liberalism is, as many say, a faith based religion rather than a political affiliation.
wahsatchmo, As strange as it may sound, I think you are giving liberalism too much credit in calling liberalism a religion because I honestly don't think they have a core set of beliefs.
I think they just look at any situation that comes up and they decide what they think should be the best outcome based on whatever they feel is right at the time. Then they propose the simplest sounding solution to get there. "Oh, he's hungry, have the government feed him."
That's why liberalism is so contradictory and shifts so constantly because it's dependent on current feelings used to examine the current fact pattern rather than any sort of set of principles.
And I think they honestly give no thought at all to how things will turn out because they only care about an issue the moment it is raised and they assume once the solution is in place, it will be solved. Any collateral problems that arise are always "unforeseeable" and the result of something other than their initial plans.
wahsatchmo, I think your entire breakdown of liberal logic can be reduced to just the first word: Assume.
We all know that you cannot spell "assume" without a donkey. Or perhaps a Chevy Volt.
Oh, boy: apparently AGW activists are going on a witch-hunt--er, I mean, "campaigning"--to get skeptics removed from the meteorology biz. They've already identified fifty or so they want fired, simply because they doubt the truth of climate change and are therefore unscientific or something. Anyone think meteorologists are becoming more credible than climatologists?
Andrew -
I just saw Bev's religion thread and can see your points. Perhaps it would be better to say that liberalism is a series of emotions, not a political affiliation.
tyranmax -
Well put. Nothing like taking my wall of text and reducing it down to one concise word.
wahsatchmo, Liberalism as a series of emotions is probably a very accurate description.
The thing about liberalism is that I've come to realize it lacks principle. It uses words of principle, eg. "I believe in fairness," but it defines those words by looking at the current situation and deciding what the liberal thinks is fair at the moment.
Thus, two people doing the same thing can be judged entirely differently by the same liberal (and by all liberals) because of some minor emotional tug.
That's not principle. It's also not an organized system of beliefs. It really just breaks down into: "I do/don't like you, so I think you should/shouldn't get what you want."
I would certainly agree that many of their beliefs have taken on the trappings of secular religion (particularly environmentalism) but at it's core, there just isn't any genuine principle, just a bunch of mini-judgments that can and do change on a moment by moment basis.
T-Rav, I saw the headline on that, but not the article. I guess it's time to purge the enemies now that the enemies have been proven right. We wouldn't want the house of cards to come crashing down would we? That wouldn't be good for the cause.... international socialism.
tryanmax, LOL! Yep.
You're 100% right on assumptions. Liberalism is all about assumptions.
1. I assume AGW is a problem.
2. I assume man caused it.
3. I assume the only way to stop it is to buy a Volt.
None of that is true, but it's assumed. And once it's assumed, then it is inviolate and may not be challenged.
I don’t know why, but when I was reading through the posts, and what the definition is of liberalism, I thought of the move “Life of Brian,” when Brian said “we are all individuals, and the crowd answered back, “yes, we are all individuals.” They were chasing him around and he lost his shoe, so the crowd took it as a sign and pursued Brian with just one shoe on, you get my meaning…group think. Liberals are not reasoned thinkers, they feel, therefore, we are killing the earth and the Volt will save it, we must all drive Volt’s, it’s a sign. Oh side note, in the movie “Idioacracy,” there car of choice was the electric car, say no more.
Stan, I'd forgotten that about Idiocracy. Quite a dig, that.
Stan, Isn't that the truth! It's stunning how much liberalism is about groupthink. It's fast too. All it takes is one person to say "liberals should love cheese" and it's like it gets sent directly into all of their brains. Suddenly every liberal starts spouting "I love cheese" without question. It's downright creepy.
And you know that none of the facts above will be able to sour them on the idea that the Volt will save the planet.
I forgot they drove an electric car in Idiocracy, LOL! Good call! That movie is brilliant on many levels.
it's as obvious as being struck by lightning...
rlaWTX, Apparently lightening is too subtle for some people.
I see the cats are back?
How do we change avatars? I've changed my picture before and it never shows for some reason?
“Idiocracy,” is what the world would look like if the Ocutards prevail, funny movie.
On a side note.....it would be interesting to see how money the Govt pays out in benefits to "the people" and how much is paid to the Govt workers in all these federal state and local governments.
Believe me when I tell you that I am about as close to the situation as one can get (I'd have to kill you if I told you what I do) and the waste in the federal Govt workforce just in dc alone is astounding. There videos some folks posted to their facebook of a Govt employee (notice I didn't say worker) asleep at her desk snoring away loudly. Her boss knows about it and can't do anything about it for all the usual reasons. So this creature has a lifetime job where she sleeps al day, in the heart of dc, and the Govt pays a contractor to do the work she is being paid to do.
People, I am telling you the truth when I say if you want to save money, reduce waste and shrink the Govt, ive got ample evidence that proves close to half the f'ed workforce is redundant and worthless. How much would that save us to rid ourselves f that waste?!
Ed, That's a difficult question to answer. You can change it in your profile, but it doesn't always seem to take. Also, I've had my avatar change on me a couple times when I haven't even done anything.
Good luck!
Pardon the typos....(dang new fangled IPads)
Stan, Sometimes it feels like the world of Idiocracy is inevitable. But Team Obama will certain get us there quicker.
tryanmax, It's amazing how prescient Idiocracy has been at identifying liberal ideas, isn't it?
Patriot, I used to work for Club Fed, I know of what you speak. I was in an office with a bunch of SES's and GS-11-15s, and most of them spent their days drinking coffee, reading the paper, napping or just goofing off. Most came late and left early. They could have fired the entire office (74 people) and replaced it with two dedicated people and the productivity would have gone up... not down.
Definition of federal bureaucrat: Someone who can spend their working day not doing a damn thing, yet look like they are the most essential person in the whole enterprise.
So true. And they're arrogant about it too. The ones in my office actually thought the world would stop if they weren't there doing nothing day after day.
What was interesting was the contrast of going from there to a firm across the river and seeing how the bureaucrats didn't even have an understanding of how the rest of the world works. They thought they were a lot like the private sector people only with a couple fewer hours each day. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hours, the intensity, the responsibility, the professionalism and the determination to get things done right -- none of that existed at Club Fed, not even in close.
"the world stopped warming in 1997 and has been cooling ever since!"
See Lawhawk.. See don't you see
Our environmental efforts are working. Why can't you just admit that the Volt is a shining example of the successes of Al Gore's movie.
Post a Comment