SilverGA2001
06-22-2005, 04:23 PM
By Peter DeLorenzo (Opinion)
June 22, 2005
DETROIT – Whatever you think of Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times Op-Ed columnist (aka "The Exalted One"), it's clear he embarrassed himself royally last Friday (June 17) in a column entitled "As Toyota goes..." He opened his column with this sentence, "So I have a question: If I am rooting for General Motors to go bankrupt and be bought out by Toyota, does that make me a bad person?" From there, he proceeded to embark on a ridiculous diatribe against General Motors and Detroit, suggesting that GM should be taken over by Toyota because of its incompetent management, saying "Indeed, I think the only hope for G.M.'s autoworkers, and maybe even our country, is with Toyota. Because let's face it, as Toyota goes, so goes America."
First of all, I was shocked to learn that Friedman had become an "instant expert" about the automobile industry overnight. Secondly, I was even more shocked to learn that he was capable of indicting the U.S. auto industry and GM in particular in a column that was based entirely on dubious technical facts. Oh hell, let's call theses "facts" what they are - flat-out fiction.
Friedman's entire premise revolved around the fact that in his opinion, GM management's behavior has bordered on the criminal and that "Having Toyota take over General Motors - which based its business strategy on building gas-guzzling cars, including the idiot Hummer, scoffing at hybrid technology and fighting Congressional efforts to impose higher mileage standards on U.S. automakers - would not only be in America's economic interest, it would also be in America's geopolitical interest." As if those accusations weren't ill-informed enough (and just simply untrue), Friedman officially veered into dim-bulb territory with his assertion that "Because Toyota has pioneered the very hybrid engine technology that can help rescue not only our economy from its oil addiction (how about 500 miles per gallon of gasoline?), but also our foreign policy from dependence on Middle Eastern oil autocrats." Wow, we can wipe out the industrial Midwest, solve our energy problems and be on course to have energy independence in no time - just by buying a Toyota? Who knew?
Friedman touts "Geo Greens" as the answer to all of our prayers - people who "seek to combine into a single political movement environmentalists who want to reduce fossil fuels that cause climate change, evangelicals who want to protect God's green earth and all his creations, and geo-strategists who want to reduce our dependence on crude oil because it fuels some of the worst regimes in the world." And then, in order to back up his assertions, he says that with the vision of the "Geo Greens" our world will be a much better place. Friedman then identifies "Gal Luft, co-chairman of the Set America Free coalition, a bipartisan alliance of national security, labor, environmental and religious groups that believe reducing oil consumption is a national priority..." as his be-all and end-all source for all things having to do with the automobile.
And at that point, Friedman's column completely fell apart when he said, "As Luft notes, if you combined a plug-in hybrid system with a flex-fuel system that burns 80 percent alcohol and 20 percent gasoline, you could end up stretching each gallon of gasoline up to 500 miles." Feel free to read the previous sentence over again so it can sink in. Five hundred miles per gallon? We cannot fathom how Friedman got snowed by this lunacy, or better yet, how the New York Times allowed this laughable bullshit to get in their paper. For Friedman to be taken in by this ridiculous "fantasy" mileage figure is so amazing to me that I frankly couldn't believe my eyes as I was reading it.
I have a hot tip for Mr. Friedman - and maybe the New York Times can unleash legions of reporters to help him uncover what I'm quite sure he'll deem as the biggest cover-up in the history of industrial America, seeing as he seems to gravitate toward such conspiracy theories. There once was a magical "Fish" carburetor in the '60s that delivered 100 miles per gallon. It was so revolutionary that it threatened to transform the automobile industry. But the inventor was stymied in his attempts to get " Detroit" to buy his invention, because, after all, it would fundamentally change their cozy little business model, and it would ultimately cost them money. So, the Big Three got together and purchased the rights to the invention for $10 million, bought up all the existing tooling and sample carburetors - and then promptly took them to a smelter and melted the whole lot down into metal, which was later reused to make cars and trucks. And the "Fish" carburetor was never heard from again. Yes, Tom, it was an evil conspiracy - and if you'd just dig deep enough into the story, I'm quite sure there'd be a Pulitzer Prize in it for you.
We only throw that mythical little fable out, Tom, in order to give you a sliver of an idea of just how wrong-headed your column was. For an esteemed journalist like yourself to willingly buy into the wild-eyed bleatings of a delusional hack and then put it in your column for all to see, and then, on top of that, to have the temerity to suggest that it's The Gospel and you've just solved the United States' - and the U.S. auto industry's - problems overnight with a few keystrokes, is simply inexcusable and unforgivable.
We don't doubt that you're a geopolitical expert, Tom, and you offer perspectives that are, for the most part accurate and correct in a lot of instances, but here's an excellent suggestion: stick to writing about what you know (and no, riding around in yellow cars with lights on their roofs or in black "hired" sedans doesn't constitute having accrued knowledge about the automobile business), because, 1. It's clear you know nothing about the automobile industry or the technology involved in building automobiles, and 2. You also don't have a clue about the technological resources and vast amounts of people power and money that GM spends (or Ford and DaimlerChrysler spends for that matter) on advanced research into fuel efficiency and future automotive propulsion systems. (For the record, GM has spent billions upon billions of dollars to reduce emissions and to search for more innovative technological solutions to our nation's long-term energy needs. One living, breathing example of this that exists right now is the hybrid propulsion system that has been developed at Allison Transmission, a division of GM. This exceptionally innovative hybrid propulsion system has allowed GM to focus on larger vehicles - conventional buses - in order to make them more commercially viable. If you had bothered to ask, you would have discovered that at the end of 2004, there were 335 GM-hybrid-equipped buses operating in about a dozen North American cities - saving about one million gallons of fuel a year. And, as GM points out, if America's nine largest cities were to replace its existing fleet of 13,000 transit buses with hybrid buses, the nation would save approximately 40 million gallons of fuel a year).
What, GM has hybrids? Yes, Tom, they do - and much to your amazement, I'm sure. As a matter of fact, there are automobile companies in Detroit and around the world other than Toyota that not only have hybrids, but future-think hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles too. (And since this is all apparently news to you, Tom, for the record, GM has spent more money and probably has more accumulated knowledge on hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle research than any other car company in the world.)
I'm just wondering out loud here, Tom - but how could GM's management possibly find the time and money it does to devote to furthering the advancement of the automobile and securing our nation's future transportation needs when they - according to you - are so completely preoccupied with a business strategy based on building gas-guzzling cars and scoffing at hybrid technology?
Yes, Toyota has done a wonderful job with their hybrids, but Mr. Friedman's column flippantly dismissed the countless talented men and women at work at General Motors (and by association, Ford and DaimlerChrysler) who spend their entire working lives on coming up with real-world solutions to improving the efficiency of our cars and trucks. And frankly, Mr. Friedman owes all of them an apology.
Weaning this country off of our dependence on "Middle Eastern oil autocrats" for our energy needs is an urgent and noble goal. But much to Mr. Friedman and the "Geo Green" movement's chagrin, there are no magic "500 mpg" bullets or "Fish" carburetors out there just waiting to be discovered that will solve all of America's geopolitical problems overnight. And there is no "Geo Green" Happy Dust available that we can all inhale that will suddenly fix everything, either.
As much as Mr. Friedman and the "Geo Green" movement wants to believe that as a country we'd all do just fine by burying the automobile as we know it (and the U.S. auto industry right along with it) and that we'd then all enjoy driving around in our flatulence-powered, balsa-wood smiley cars - it's just notgonnahappen.com.
The long-term, big-picture thinking required to solve our country's future transportation and energy needs requires the talents of serious, knowledgeable people immersed and engaged in coming up with innovative, real-world solutions. The kinds of practical and effective solutions that will set this country on a course to energy independence - without impeding our economic growth or turning us into a nation of glorified rickshaw drivers.
The wild-eyed bleatings of delusional hacks and the musings of "instant" experts add absolutely nothing to the discussion - and border on being irresponsible.
Thanks for listening, see you next Wednesday.
Sourced from GM's MySocrates.
June 22, 2005
DETROIT – Whatever you think of Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times Op-Ed columnist (aka "The Exalted One"), it's clear he embarrassed himself royally last Friday (June 17) in a column entitled "As Toyota goes..." He opened his column with this sentence, "So I have a question: If I am rooting for General Motors to go bankrupt and be bought out by Toyota, does that make me a bad person?" From there, he proceeded to embark on a ridiculous diatribe against General Motors and Detroit, suggesting that GM should be taken over by Toyota because of its incompetent management, saying "Indeed, I think the only hope for G.M.'s autoworkers, and maybe even our country, is with Toyota. Because let's face it, as Toyota goes, so goes America."
First of all, I was shocked to learn that Friedman had become an "instant expert" about the automobile industry overnight. Secondly, I was even more shocked to learn that he was capable of indicting the U.S. auto industry and GM in particular in a column that was based entirely on dubious technical facts. Oh hell, let's call theses "facts" what they are - flat-out fiction.
Friedman's entire premise revolved around the fact that in his opinion, GM management's behavior has bordered on the criminal and that "Having Toyota take over General Motors - which based its business strategy on building gas-guzzling cars, including the idiot Hummer, scoffing at hybrid technology and fighting Congressional efforts to impose higher mileage standards on U.S. automakers - would not only be in America's economic interest, it would also be in America's geopolitical interest." As if those accusations weren't ill-informed enough (and just simply untrue), Friedman officially veered into dim-bulb territory with his assertion that "Because Toyota has pioneered the very hybrid engine technology that can help rescue not only our economy from its oil addiction (how about 500 miles per gallon of gasoline?), but also our foreign policy from dependence on Middle Eastern oil autocrats." Wow, we can wipe out the industrial Midwest, solve our energy problems and be on course to have energy independence in no time - just by buying a Toyota? Who knew?
Friedman touts "Geo Greens" as the answer to all of our prayers - people who "seek to combine into a single political movement environmentalists who want to reduce fossil fuels that cause climate change, evangelicals who want to protect God's green earth and all his creations, and geo-strategists who want to reduce our dependence on crude oil because it fuels some of the worst regimes in the world." And then, in order to back up his assertions, he says that with the vision of the "Geo Greens" our world will be a much better place. Friedman then identifies "Gal Luft, co-chairman of the Set America Free coalition, a bipartisan alliance of national security, labor, environmental and religious groups that believe reducing oil consumption is a national priority..." as his be-all and end-all source for all things having to do with the automobile.
And at that point, Friedman's column completely fell apart when he said, "As Luft notes, if you combined a plug-in hybrid system with a flex-fuel system that burns 80 percent alcohol and 20 percent gasoline, you could end up stretching each gallon of gasoline up to 500 miles." Feel free to read the previous sentence over again so it can sink in. Five hundred miles per gallon? We cannot fathom how Friedman got snowed by this lunacy, or better yet, how the New York Times allowed this laughable bullshit to get in their paper. For Friedman to be taken in by this ridiculous "fantasy" mileage figure is so amazing to me that I frankly couldn't believe my eyes as I was reading it.
I have a hot tip for Mr. Friedman - and maybe the New York Times can unleash legions of reporters to help him uncover what I'm quite sure he'll deem as the biggest cover-up in the history of industrial America, seeing as he seems to gravitate toward such conspiracy theories. There once was a magical "Fish" carburetor in the '60s that delivered 100 miles per gallon. It was so revolutionary that it threatened to transform the automobile industry. But the inventor was stymied in his attempts to get " Detroit" to buy his invention, because, after all, it would fundamentally change their cozy little business model, and it would ultimately cost them money. So, the Big Three got together and purchased the rights to the invention for $10 million, bought up all the existing tooling and sample carburetors - and then promptly took them to a smelter and melted the whole lot down into metal, which was later reused to make cars and trucks. And the "Fish" carburetor was never heard from again. Yes, Tom, it was an evil conspiracy - and if you'd just dig deep enough into the story, I'm quite sure there'd be a Pulitzer Prize in it for you.
We only throw that mythical little fable out, Tom, in order to give you a sliver of an idea of just how wrong-headed your column was. For an esteemed journalist like yourself to willingly buy into the wild-eyed bleatings of a delusional hack and then put it in your column for all to see, and then, on top of that, to have the temerity to suggest that it's The Gospel and you've just solved the United States' - and the U.S. auto industry's - problems overnight with a few keystrokes, is simply inexcusable and unforgivable.
We don't doubt that you're a geopolitical expert, Tom, and you offer perspectives that are, for the most part accurate and correct in a lot of instances, but here's an excellent suggestion: stick to writing about what you know (and no, riding around in yellow cars with lights on their roofs or in black "hired" sedans doesn't constitute having accrued knowledge about the automobile business), because, 1. It's clear you know nothing about the automobile industry or the technology involved in building automobiles, and 2. You also don't have a clue about the technological resources and vast amounts of people power and money that GM spends (or Ford and DaimlerChrysler spends for that matter) on advanced research into fuel efficiency and future automotive propulsion systems. (For the record, GM has spent billions upon billions of dollars to reduce emissions and to search for more innovative technological solutions to our nation's long-term energy needs. One living, breathing example of this that exists right now is the hybrid propulsion system that has been developed at Allison Transmission, a division of GM. This exceptionally innovative hybrid propulsion system has allowed GM to focus on larger vehicles - conventional buses - in order to make them more commercially viable. If you had bothered to ask, you would have discovered that at the end of 2004, there were 335 GM-hybrid-equipped buses operating in about a dozen North American cities - saving about one million gallons of fuel a year. And, as GM points out, if America's nine largest cities were to replace its existing fleet of 13,000 transit buses with hybrid buses, the nation would save approximately 40 million gallons of fuel a year).
What, GM has hybrids? Yes, Tom, they do - and much to your amazement, I'm sure. As a matter of fact, there are automobile companies in Detroit and around the world other than Toyota that not only have hybrids, but future-think hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles too. (And since this is all apparently news to you, Tom, for the record, GM has spent more money and probably has more accumulated knowledge on hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle research than any other car company in the world.)
I'm just wondering out loud here, Tom - but how could GM's management possibly find the time and money it does to devote to furthering the advancement of the automobile and securing our nation's future transportation needs when they - according to you - are so completely preoccupied with a business strategy based on building gas-guzzling cars and scoffing at hybrid technology?
Yes, Toyota has done a wonderful job with their hybrids, but Mr. Friedman's column flippantly dismissed the countless talented men and women at work at General Motors (and by association, Ford and DaimlerChrysler) who spend their entire working lives on coming up with real-world solutions to improving the efficiency of our cars and trucks. And frankly, Mr. Friedman owes all of them an apology.
Weaning this country off of our dependence on "Middle Eastern oil autocrats" for our energy needs is an urgent and noble goal. But much to Mr. Friedman and the "Geo Green" movement's chagrin, there are no magic "500 mpg" bullets or "Fish" carburetors out there just waiting to be discovered that will solve all of America's geopolitical problems overnight. And there is no "Geo Green" Happy Dust available that we can all inhale that will suddenly fix everything, either.
As much as Mr. Friedman and the "Geo Green" movement wants to believe that as a country we'd all do just fine by burying the automobile as we know it (and the U.S. auto industry right along with it) and that we'd then all enjoy driving around in our flatulence-powered, balsa-wood smiley cars - it's just notgonnahappen.com.
The long-term, big-picture thinking required to solve our country's future transportation and energy needs requires the talents of serious, knowledgeable people immersed and engaged in coming up with innovative, real-world solutions. The kinds of practical and effective solutions that will set this country on a course to energy independence - without impeding our economic growth or turning us into a nation of glorified rickshaw drivers.
The wild-eyed bleatings of delusional hacks and the musings of "instant" experts add absolutely nothing to the discussion - and border on being irresponsible.
Thanks for listening, see you next Wednesday.
Sourced from GM's MySocrates.