Connect the dots
A debate has been raging in Washington about bailing out THE BIG THREE auto makers. Back in the 1970's Chrysler went to capital hill and borrowed 10 billion dollars. Lee Iaccoca promised Congress and the American people that the loan would be paid back. He was a man of his word. the loan was paid back with interest 2 YEARS EARLY!! So there seems to be no reason to question the "bailout". But wait.
In reading financial news, listening and watching money channels on TV it seems there is something there that is not quite jibing. Since the 70's Chrysler has undergone many changes, most noteworthy of which is the fact that they are almost a wholly privately held corporation. I'm not saying they are not in trouble. Instead I am asking why should we bail out a private company. Just wondering.
Ford Motor Company executives have stated that they think that their truck line will carry them and that they really don't need the money, especially if the Feds are going to step in and impost controls on their product. So why is the government pushing so hard to spend my money on the auto industry? Wait a minute! What about GM?
Ahhh...GM. General Motors needs the money. General Motors wants the money. Congress is purple in the face trying to give GM the money.
Part II
All of my readers (both of them) know how nervous I get about ONSTAR. The first article I wrote talked about your GM car sending you emails when it needed service. ONSTAR knows where you are at all times. With the navigation feature in also knows where you are going. Here is the newest wrinkle. At the request of law enforcement a signal can now be sent to your car and your car will stop. It will actually reduce the horse power of your engine until you can make little or no headway so a law enforcement agent can almost walk up you without even breaking a sweat. You can't get away.
9 out of every 10 GM cars are equipped with ONSTAR.
General Motors needs the money. General Motors wants the money. Congress is purple in the face trying to give GM the money.
Connect the dots.
In reading financial news, listening and watching money channels on TV it seems there is something there that is not quite jibing. Since the 70's Chrysler has undergone many changes, most noteworthy of which is the fact that they are almost a wholly privately held corporation. I'm not saying they are not in trouble. Instead I am asking why should we bail out a private company. Just wondering.
Ford Motor Company executives have stated that they think that their truck line will carry them and that they really don't need the money, especially if the Feds are going to step in and impost controls on their product. So why is the government pushing so hard to spend my money on the auto industry? Wait a minute! What about GM?
Ahhh...GM. General Motors needs the money. General Motors wants the money. Congress is purple in the face trying to give GM the money.
Part II
All of my readers (both of them) know how nervous I get about ONSTAR. The first article I wrote talked about your GM car sending you emails when it needed service. ONSTAR knows where you are at all times. With the navigation feature in also knows where you are going. Here is the newest wrinkle. At the request of law enforcement a signal can now be sent to your car and your car will stop. It will actually reduce the horse power of your engine until you can make little or no headway so a law enforcement agent can almost walk up you without even breaking a sweat. You can't get away.
9 out of every 10 GM cars are equipped with ONSTAR.
General Motors needs the money. General Motors wants the money. Congress is purple in the face trying to give GM the money.
Connect the dots.
posted by Rob | 8:35 PM
3 Comments:
So, this may be a trivial point- given that your post was mostly about the government keeping tabs on Americans, and Onstar being a part of that. But, I am picturing myself on 1-25 in heavy traffic. My car suddenly not being able to go seems rather unsafe. It's one thing to be able to track my car, but to be able to CONTROL my car? That seems like a bit much.
It was in the news. Supposedly to cut down on high speed chases, but then all the other features are advertised as benign benifits
I guess I can see the utility in the police being able to stop a fugitive car- without having the race through city streets at 90 mph or set up a road block that hurts innocent people. That makes sense to me.
But, don't you think the bad guys would just say "hey, dude, don't get a car with Onstar for our getaway car."
Just a thought.
Post a Comment
<< Home