Pontiac and Credibility

If there's one thing that Pontiac needs these days, it's credibility. You may call this by many names: desirable product, buzz, an identity. But what it all boils down to is getting people to understand who Pontiac is and believe it's true. And it's not too hard to figure out who they want to be; they are "Driving Excitement", remember? Who believes it though? I've driven some Pontiacs; I wasn't excited.

But I'll tell you this, they have a couple serious cars to back up that claim. In particular, the GTO and Solstice. One has 400 HP, a wicked interior and a price you would expect from Hyundai. The other is a frontal assault on the sport roadster market that Mazda's Miata has dominated since time immemorial. Both of these are great cars that hit right at the heart of what sports cars can be. But these are not enough. Pontiac needs more, and by more I mean another car (or two or three) that hits at its core reason for existing. Here's my next move.

I suggest another body blow to the sports car market: a fighter for the WRX and Evo. What would this take? Seriousness, for one. GM loves to be everything to everyone and end up mediocre, but to compete in the market today you just cannot do that, especially not with a brand like Pontiac. The vehicle must not only fight the two behemoths, it must win, and it must win rally races. This will take a focused, almost niche, vehicle, but credibility is paramount, remember? Nothing is more credible than being able to buy a car that is, in large part, raced insanely down back roads through forests. Simply film some races and your marketing is done. Moreover, it must be an in your face, no compromises all-wheel drive beast with styling and attitude. Make it ugly for all I care, but make it functional and fast. Body cladding and fake hood scoops are a joke. Nostrils and duct work to cool massive rotors, diffusers and ground effects to divert atmosphere and huge gauges with minimalist interior finishing to aid racing are functional and respectable. Besides that dusting the competition makes just about anything cool in this world.

Finally, this will open the possibility of selling the car in detuned mode, Subaru Impreza style. The mass of cars will move in this trim, but the reason for it will be the beast up the price ladder. A move into this market would make Pontiac one heck of a car company. Who else produces a trio of cars like the Solstice (quite nearly the best roadster on the market), the GTO (is there even a competitor for this muscle car? Ok, maybe the Mustang) and this WRX fighter? All they need now is a name. It could be the G4 (to go along with the G6, since it would have a blown four-cylinder as opposed to the 6's in the G6). Have a better name? Let's hear it.

Unfortunately, none of this will likely happen. GM is spent just from the Solstice, and they would need this car now. A surprise attack at the NAIAS would be magnificent, and its that sort of work that is needed at GM these days. Perhaps they are applying themselves somewhere else and another coup is imminent in a different division. I hope so, but I doubt it.

Japan and missiles

Though the Japanese are decimating the United States auto industry and some are upset over their trade practices, Japan is still a staunch ally of the United States as whole. So it comes as no surprise, considering this and Japan's proximity to North Korea, that we are helping them with missile defense. The project seems a good idea to me, for both the United States and Japan. Neutralizing the threat of North Korea is a good thing; they've had carrots offered for years with little positive response. This a "big stick" that we (and Japan) can carry that is merely defensive, and it will help encourage positive movement by North Korea (and possibly other such countries).

Yes. We need this.

Ross, again, has insightful commentary on Christianity, this time with respect to our culture. A must read. I'm interested to see what else he has in store for his stay at The Daily Dish.

A magnificent clarification

Check out this post by guest blogger Ross at The Daily Dish (Sullivan). I may disagree with the Catholic Church on some things, but in this arena I think we stand side by side. And this little post seems to get it, the reason why science and a faith in God are compatible. It also is one of the few posts on any blog that acknowledges one of the significant driving forces that keep people from being comfortable with evolution: the evolutionary biologists themselves. I don't see how proving evolution disproves God any more than all the previous scientific advances disproved God (and yes, he's still alive and well). But these biologists think otherwise, and they often fail to separate their science from their beliefs. One I accept. The other I don't.

Apparently...

...I'm not a real man. At least now I know.

Chrisitans on torture

An interesting series of commentaries on torture by various American Christian figures can be found here. I don't know much about any of the authors, but the commentaries themselves seem thoughtful. Take a look; the more we think about this issue, the better. Clearly, our national urge is to employ any tactics available, and if we are to keep ourselves clean of immoral actions we must have clear heads and reasoned thoughts with which to fight.

(Via Sullivan.)

Finally...

...Bush is giving some real speeches. I think we're doing good work in Iraq, and I'm encouraged to hear the President supporting the troops with solid rhetoric. I do believe that we need to win this war, and though things have gone terribly wrong, there is really no choice now. Regardless of what else may have been a mistake, it is not a mistake to finish this. The President needs to express this and convince the people that they should get behind him. That's his job, and I'm glad to see he's beginning to do it well.

Ahmadinejad: no comment needed

Read. And read. How do you respond to something so obscene?

Safest of 2006

The IIHS has recently released its list of the safest 2006 cars. The list and an explanation of the criteria can be found here. Some have noted that vehicles from manufacturers such as Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz etc. are not represented. Judging from this paragraph

"A number of automakers requested early tests, and based on our discussions with the automakers we believe no other 2006 models would meet our Top Safety Pick criteria," O'Neill says. A number of major automakers including BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo aren't represented in the first set of winners.

it seems that no other models would have won if they had been tested. Thus, the ones shown are the best of the model year.

Sullivan Responds

I have to say, this response is better than I expected. (Sorry for the required registration.) Take a look for yourself. The essential result of this essay, as I see it, is an admission that torture may be used in the highly improbable scenario of massive imminent death with a known source of information to disrupt it, but it should still be outlawed and should never be used in any other case. The person in power (the President most likely) would have to break the law to stop the massacre, but if it was appropriate Sullivan assumes pardons will be applied as necessary. I like it. In the situation when torture is morally justified, it is still used; however, every possible means of containing torture is implemented, including perilous legal repercussions for those who employ it. If someone is willing to sacrifice a person to torture, they better be willing to sacrifice themselves to the law and the mercy of the courts. Again, I like it.

Saturn

Here's an interesting article regarding Saturn, and Mickey Kaus has fantastic commentary. A must read is his "Chatterbox" piece from years ago.

It's a terrible idea...

to impair motorists' ability to control their cars in the name of safety. In some circumstances, you need all the speed you can get to avoid a catastrophe, and making it difficult to summon whatever power your car has is not smart. Besides the fact that I don't like this whole class of ideas, this one has fundamental conceptual flaws. What does "significantly exceed the speed limit" mean? Many cars have top speed governors anyway, but they are set so high as to not impose on normal driving (at least here in the U.S.). It seems to me any system like the one proposed that is set to intervene at a speed where it will make a difference will also cause safety problems. The alternative given in the article, a speed warning system linked with GPS, is fine with me; sometimes I just don't realize the speed at which I'm traveling. But that gives the choice, and full control, to the driver. And that's a good thing. Now, if we would just train our U.S. drivers properly...

Rally Racing

This is why my wife would never let me drive race cars. But hey, they both walked away.