It’s About Making Babies!

Bill at Billll’s Idle Mind writes that we would be wasting money trying to bail out the Detroit Three automakers.

This is an exercise in futility, and the biggest beneficiary will be the UAW, … If the Big 2-1/2 get 25Bn, or about 4 times what they’re worth on the open market, they will keep producing unprofitable cars for a while longer.

.. Obama, however, claims to want to make carbon dioxide a “dangerous pollutant”, and make most of our transport run on alternative energy sources ASAP, which should put the big 2-1/2 out of business in a year or two anyway.

Why waste the money. Congress could just give itself 10% of the bailout money, and save the taxpayers the expense of the other 90%. At the end of the day, the effect is the same.

The UAW has historically contributed heavily to the Democratic party. So I can understand why the unions want a Democratic-led Congress helping the Detroit Three (GM, Chrysler, Ford) and ignore other world leading auto manufacturers that make cars in the US – Toyota, Subaru, Honda, etc. But I want my tax dollars (Congress’ attention) to address the entire auto industry. Not just the companies that the unions suck political contributions from.

I watched my “Bourne Identity” DVD again the other night. Right in the middle of driving away from the police chasing him with his little red, repaired sub-compact, you get a quick view of the steering wheel – with it’s Ford “Mini” logo. I want a car that is nimble in traffic. That I can drive down a flight of stairs (I promise I wouldn’t drive down stairs). That I can park in the average parking space with lots of room on each side. But Ford makes cars in Europe that they won’t make here in the US. Like the Mini.

The Detroit Three *choose* to make vehicles with high profit margins. They thrive when Americans buy heavier cars than they need.

What I would do?

Call the non-Detroit-Three automakers to tell Congress how to reduce the cost of making cars in the US. Maybe suggest capping union dues. Or simplify EPA and other federal reporting requirements, to collect all needed data in a simplified format and reporting schedule. And let *all* makers of cars in the US abide by the same rules.

Oh, and I would require prominent “Made in ” *wherever* for every single vehicle assembled outside the US, or containing so many foreign parts that the vehicle isn’t reported to the EPA for “fleet mileage” purposes. And impose a stiff excise tariff on Detroit Three vehicles that aren’t “American Made”. Let’s all sit back and watch the UAW promote “Buy American” for trucks built in Mexico.

I would sure-as-shootin’ disallow any tax writeoff’s for vehicles sold below cost or suggested retail price at the end of the model year. That tax dodge *has* to be closed down.

Today’s Booking Through Thursday topic is a question.

Suggested by JM:

I receive a lot of review books, but I have never once told lies about the book just because I got a free copy of it. However, some authors seem to feel that if they send you a copy of their book for free, you should give it a positive review.

Do you think reviewers are obligated to put up a good review of a book, even if they don’t like it? Have we come to a point where reviewers *need* to put up disclaimers to (hopefully) save themselves from being harassed by unhappy authors who get negative reviews?

A review should inform the review reader. Out of a group of book readers, one or more will enjoy or appreciate almost any book. Part of the purpose of the review might be to help potential readers identify whether they are among those that might enjoy the book being reviewed.

A review can be many different things.

• What was best about the book.
• The most significant, in some respects, features of the work.
• Feedback to the author – what are the strong points, where the author should try to improve.
• Engage the review reader – sell the book to the review reader – by showing how the book meets the review reader’s needs.
• Evaluate the book being reviewed in terms of the art of writing, in terms of literature and artistic expression, and in terms of enriching the human experience.

The offer to review the book should make clear what kind of review is expected. If you are expected to generate a marketing blurb, there are lots of examples of damning with faint praise and oblique “this is a book” side-steppings. There are also relatively meaningless glib examples of “couldn’t put it down” and “Great read” that don’t really say anything, either.

If you are doing a technical or artistic review, then honesty and integrity of the review demand that your response be as factual and objective as possible. Integrity demands it, the reviewer’s integrity and the integrity of the review process.

In the unfortunate case where the purpose and direction of the review are unclear, then the review should be consistent with the reviewer’s usual work.

The question about honesty shouldn’t be an issue. Yes, be honest. But the reviewer’s dislike for a particular book needn’t be the central issue of the review. An honest review would never confuse the reviewer’s emotional reaction with fact.

I dislike gossip. I consider gossip to be one of the true social evils. Yet I see reviews with gossip – talking about the author or publisher or other people involved with a writing project. “This book is another piece of crap from a pathetic writer that can’t write,” is not a review – it is demeaning and disrespectful. “I didn’t enjoy the story” is honest, and should be part of a review only for a compelling reason. “The writing was terrible” is disrespectfully arrogant, it confuses the reviewer’s opinion with fact. “I had trouble following the plot” and “There were a number of confusing situations where a new character was introduced but did not have an apparent place in the story,” attempt to reveal the weak spots that caught the reviewer’s attention without unduly discouraging someone interested in the book for other reasons.

And that is one responsibility for many reviews: To encourage those that would enjoy or benefit from the book, and to avoid discouraging those same potential readers.