Hummers To The Rescue?

If I heard that someone had actually bought a Hummer in this day and age, I'd consider that big news. So when I heard that someone actually bought the entire company, the Hummer brand, I considered it enormous news. As you doubtlessly know by now, if the deal is approved, a Chinese company will buy the Hummer division from General Motors. This raises many questions, but the big one is WHY?

Last year, sales of Hummers fell 51%, and they are down 67% so far this year. Maybe the new owners think that those who weren't buying Hummers were saying to themselves, "What's holding me back is that they're a General Motors product. I'd buy one of those things if they were just owned by a Chinese company."

The prospective owner is Sicuan Tengzhong, a heavy machinery company. They say they plan to keep selling Hummers in America and all over the world, including China. In China, the Hummers would be subjected to a 40% tax that they impose on vehicles with big engines. So, good luck on that. The good news is that Sicuan Tengzhong says that they are going to continue to manufacture Hummers in this country. So at least for now, approximately 3,000 Americans will be able to keep their jobs. But if I were those workers, I'd keep one eye on the want ads, because I don't know how long they're going to keep making these simulated military vehicles.

It's interesting that General Motors was able to unload Hummer before it sold Pontiac, Saab, or Saturn, the other brands that it is dumping. I would've thought Hummer would've been a tougher sale. After all, the Hummer had come to symbolize many of the admitted negatives of the cars that the American auto industry has been making: It's too big, it's not fuel-efficient, and it looks silly in a nursery school parking lot.

I guess those Chinese businessmen see something in the Hummer that I don't. The parties won't disclose how much money the Chinese company is going to pay for Hummer, but I'm sure it was a bargain. And maybe they made one of those deals the car companies keep advertising on TV -- you know, if the Sicuan Tengzhong executive who agreed to this deal loses his job, G.M. will take back the cars and the Chinese company won't owe a penny.

Legend has it that Hummers came about because of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Apparently, while making the classic film, "Kindergarten Cop," he saw a convoy of military Humvees drive by. He loved the way they looked, so he persuaded the Humvee company to make a civilian version, which became the Hummer. Can you imagine having that kind of power? You'd like to have something, so you talk a company into manufacturing it? I wish Schwarzenegger would look at a commercial aircraft, and call the people who make it and persuade them to make one that's comfortable in coach and always on time.

The Hummer story is filled with irony. Since it looks like a military vehicle, the Hummer has always projected the image of a super-patriotic American car. Some of them are even painted with a camouflage design. The company that made the Humvees that Schwarzenegger admired was located in America's heartland – in Indiana. Now you'd have to go to China to talk to the head Hummer honcho.

It's possible that this arrangement won't end up making either side happy. Why do I say that? Guess who G.M.'s financial advisor is for this deal. It's Citigroup. I'm not kidding. That's the same Citigroup that was so mismanaged that the phrase "toxic assets" came into the vernacular. It's the same Citigroup that received billions of bailout bucks. And that's who G.M. went to for financial advice? That makes about as much sense as a military vehicle company taking business advice from an actor who someday would be governor of a state that goes billions of dollars in debt while he's in office.

Like I said, I'm happy that you Hummer workers won't be thrown out of work, but keep your options open. And don't let them pay you in stock.

In Praise Of The Biggest Political Sin

Candidates have been calling their opponents names throughout history. Here in America, they've been called, "a hell raiser," "a tax raiser," ""an abolitionist," "a pro-slaver," "a hawk," "a dove," "a communist," "a fascist," "an intellectual," or "an idiot." But lately, there is one charge that is capable of doing in a candidate more than any of the others. It is the accusation that someone is a "flip flopper."

I'm not sure when flip-flopping became the greatest of political sins, but it seems to have established itself as Number One. Not only do candidates charge each other with flip-flopping, but newspapers, television shows, and internet blogs dissect every word a candidate has ever uttered and every vote he has ever cast searching for a fatal flip-flop.

Admittedly, some of the flip-flops by both Presidential candidates in the current campaign have been formidable. This being an Olympic year, a few of their maneuvers might be deemed "double somersaults with a twist." But I don't want to go into the specifics of each of their flip-flops here. I want to talk about the flip-flop itself.

Obviously, if a candidate changes his or her position on an issue for purely political reasons, voters and journalists should be cynical about that new position. But even if politicians change their positions because they've studied the issues and changed their minds, or if the situation has changed, they're still attacked as a dreaded flip-flopper.

Why should it be an important quality for a politician to never change his or her mind? Why is it considered good if someone sticks to a position even if it's obvious to everyone that he or she is wrong? I know of a certain President who seems to pride himself on not being a flip-flopper. No matter what the evidence, he's always stuck to his position that the war in Iraq was necessary. Throughout, no matter how disastrous things were going, he's always said that the war was progressing well. (I think he still may believe there were Weapons of Mass Destruction there). He's never admitted that the way we've borrowed money from China and other countries has caused problems for us. In fact, when President Bush was interviewed at the Olympics, he stated that America "doesn't have problems."

Do we really want another President who never admits he's wrong and never changes his positions?

Think about your everyday life. Who do you like better: the guy who stubbornly insists he's right even when all the facts show he's wrong, or the guy who says, "I'm sorry. I was wrong about this." Who's the better doctor, the one who stands by his original diagnosis despite new information, or the one who says, "The new tests reveal I was wrong?"

And in personal relationships, are you happy with your spouse or significant other when he or she sticks to an opinion no matter what? Of course not. We prefer to be with someone who is "big enough" to flip-flop at times. We have respect for people who say things like: "I wasn't going to vote for that guy you like, but after reading about him, now I will." "Wow, I guess a person can be too thin." "You're right. I shouldn't have turned left there." "Now that I've gotten to know her, I don't find your old college roommate that annoying." "I'm still not going to try rabbit, but I admit it – snails do taste good." "I was wrong. A mattress can be too hard."

So why do we insist that our political officials should never change their minds about anything? Flip-flopping has somehow gotten a bad name. Maybe we should change its name from flip-flopping to something else. How about instead of flip-flopping, we call it, "Changing One's Position After Reconsidering An Issue?" That's perfect.

Who am I kidding? That's way too long. Stupidest name I ever heard. Maybe we should just go back to "flip flop." Of course, then people will say I'm a flip-flopper for flip-flopping flip-flopping.