Polarized. Really?

Political pundits keep referring to our current situation as "polarized".  Usually after some bill they favor is defeated in Congress.  But is "polarized" the right word? 
   In electronics (my old day job) a part was "polarized" if it only went into the circuit one way round.  When a polarized part was inserted backward bad things happened, up to and including fire and explosion.  By analogy, taking the word from the electronics world to the pundit world, a "polarized" Congress ought to mean a Congress all pointed in the same direction.  Like wise for  an electorate.
   In real life, the Congress and the electorate are split, 50-50 on a lot of important issues (president to elect, taxes, spending, wedge issues).  When the pundits wail about nothing getting done, it because neither side has the votes to ram their policy down the throats of the other side. 
   "Divided" is a better description of the current state of affairs than "polarized".

Eleanor Clift on the McLaughlin Shouting Match

They were discussing matters in Mexico, the drug wars, immigration, and the new president-elect.  Eleanor mentioned  "The recent discovery of oil has helped Mexico."  Recent?  The Mexicans have been pumping oil for the last hundred years.  They created Pemex in 1938.  That's recent?
   Of course Eleanor works for Newsweek magazine, which is doing so well that they decided to stop printing the magazine, merge with The Daily Beast and become a pure web site.  Real commercial success that is.  I wonder how much Eleanor's learned writing had to do with that.
  

Anne Kuster on WMUR this morning

She is telling whoppers on TV.  She says seniors are repelled by the Ryan medicare plan.  Really?  Especially as the Ryan plan calls for seniors, (55 and up) to receive current medicare, no changes.  Where as Obamacare takes $716 billion away from medicare and gives it to newly entitled Obamacare recipients.
  Then she slams her Republican opponent, Charlie Bass, for accepting oil company money and voting in an oil company tax break.  Of course she never mentions just which oil companies are doing the contributing and never mentions just what act of Congress gave the oil companies their tax break.  Come to think of it, somebody has been running the same attack ad on the Internet.
   The WMUR host never did ask Kuster about out of state PAC money paying for those attack ads on Charlie Bass. 

Pill prices decline

Went down to Walmart's yesterday to refill my various prescriptions.  Best news, Plavex is down to $7.68 for 90 days worth.  A year ago it was $150.  Let's hear it for coming off patent. 

The Economist doesn't like Romney much

Just finished this week's Economist.  They have a couple of full page articles on Romney where they explain how he has flip flopped on issues, failed to express himself clearly, and is having trouble collecting the conservative Republicans.  Then they do an electoral vote projection with a map.   Their projections are based on polls, or the Real Clear Politics average of polls.  And they call states for Obama or for Romney with a lead in the polls of only a couple of percent.  To me, a couple of percent in August polls really means "too close to call".   And, I think the Gallup and Rasmussen polls by them selves are better than the Real Clear Politics average of all the polls. 
  At least they call New Hampshire "dead even", whereas other pundits think we are "strongly Obama".

Why does the FBI have its own Air Force?

Republicans are bashing Attorney General Holder over taking joy rides in FBI aircraft.  Which is a a legitimate zinger, but more interesting is the fact that the FBI has its own aircraft.  Why?  Why cannot FBI agents fly commercial, stand in security lines and get groped by TSA just like the rest of us?   Aircraft are ultra expensive to own and operate.  Corporations are thinning out their aircraft under stock holder pressure.  As far as stockholders are concerned, corporate aircraft just suck up money that could otherwise go to dividends.  As far as this tax payer is concerned, FBI aircraft just suck up money, they don't stop crime.   Yet another place to do a little sequestration. 

What's good for General Motors?

According to a Wall St Journal op-ed, retreating from the car market and specializing in SUV's and pickup trucks is the way to go.  Going head to head with Toyota, Honda, and Ford with the Chevy Malibu is a bad idea.  Or so says Holman W. Jenkins Jr in a Wednesday op-ed.
  I disagree.  GM is a huge company; it once commanded better than 50% of the entire US car market.  To remain a big company, you have to make a mass market product, selling in the millions, to stay in business.  Right now the high volume car product is a smallish four door sedan.  GM cannot survive on niche products like Corvette.  There simply are not enough guys with Corvette money to keep the lights on at a behemoth like GM.  There are more enough people who just need a plain old car to get to work, bring home the groceries and take the kids to school.  Like a Malibu, or (the competition) a Camry, an Accord, or a Fusion. 
   GM needs to make a Malibu that is just plain better than the competition.  They can do it.  They did it in the good old days.  In the '50s and '60s GM owned 50% of the market because their cars were better looking, better handling, and more dependable than Ford, Chrysler, or American Motors.
   They could start with better styling.  The 2012 Malibu is bland, with bulbous front and rear ends.  Then they could find a car salesman to redo the marketing on the web site.  To attract customers GM lists desirable features of the Malibu.  These turn out to be 33 mpg (fair), fancy sound  system (do I care when I have an Ipod?) , a computerized backseat driver with "Turn by turn" voice navigation, and Bluetooth.  None of which I care about either.
  What about engine power, trunk room, interior size (how many kids can I fit into the back seat?) brakes, cornering, roof racks for skis and bikes, transmission options, miles between oil changes, front or rear wheel drive, you know, those car things.  GM is trying to sell the car on MPG and vehicle electronics alone.  They don't seem to care about making a decent car, which can take the curse off a day long drive with kids on board.