The hummer, a civilian version of the Hum-Vee and one of the most iconic symbols of audacious American excess, is finally meeting the end of its production. After the sale of the brand to Sichuan Tengzhong Industrial Machinery Company failed Chinese government approval, GM ‘decided’ to ‘retire’ the brand.

AM General, producer of the Hum-Vee, sold the Hummer brand to GM in 1998. Back then gas was less than one dollar per gallon. Do you remember a year or two latter when it first went over $1.30 and everyone thought that was expensive?

Gas millage for the hummer is between 8 and 16 mpg – better than 10mpg being due to wishful thinking or down hill trips. That’s far worse than any car and most full sized trucks. To get worse gas millage you have to drive a 1-Ton truck. Of course, the reason for this is that the hummer was originally built to run over the roughest terrain. It’s truly a marvelous off-road/bad-road vehicle. It’s also highly versatile, able to function in many roles, from mobile missile battery to ambulance.

But the solid frame and indestructible suspension isn’t the reason the Hummer gained its popularity. No, people were buying these things because they are unique, and beastly looking. Hell, these jerks slow down when they go over railroad tracks for Peat’s sake. You don’t see the majority of Hummers going off road and marching home dirty. Most of them are puttering around town, grabbing groceries, commuting, trimmed and sparkling clean. It’s just sad.

But what was almost as sad was the $ readout when these poor Hummer owners filled their 23 gallon tanks twice a week. That alone might have killed off this belligerent expression of inadequacy. But added to the otherwise poor management of GM brands and products, and the general correction in American consumer buying power – the Hummer’s only chance for survival was in Chinese cheep manufacturing. But the People’s Republic said no. Maybe they thought it was a mobile apartment building. Regardless, that’s that for the iconic Hummer.

Maybe we’ll see a short surge in Hummer purchases by collectors?

After receiving criticism from the aerospace world, including Neil Armstrong, on the cancellation of the Constellation program, President Obama has worked out what he thinks is the best path for American space flight. I watched and listened, alongside my colleagues, as our commander in chief stirred up emotions with memories of the 1960′s space race.  He reminded us with his typical eloquence of how, with burning hearts of national pride, paper, pencil, and slide rules, we placed 12 men on the surface of the moon and brought them all back safely.  From there, for me, the inspiration dropped off quickly as the President outlined his plans to land us on an asteroid in 15 years and then orbit (yes, only orbit) Mars in 25 years.  He explained to all of us that we have already been to the moon – been there, done that – and wrote it off as a waste of time and money.

After shaking thoughts of Armageddon and Aerosmith songs from my head, I imagine what value the US will gain from landing on an asteroid.  Keep in mind that the moon is about 237,000 miles from the earth and it took astronauts 8 days to get there, walk around, and get home.  Mars on the other hand, at its closest approach, is 35 million miles away.  I expect fuel-efficient missions to and from Mars would last 1.5 years.  That is quite a difference.  An asteroid, however, at least one we could actually reach, is 5 million miles away, and experts estimate a mission to and from would last 200 days.  The asteroid has no gravity to escape.  This simplifies many things, but creates new obstacles.  Landing softly on the moon and lifting off again requires a lot more fuel than escaping an asteroid.  ”Landing” on an asteroid is not possible, and every step taken would be a push off into space without something to hold the astronaut down.  A spacecraft would have to just float alongside the asteroid.

So what are possible benefits of going to an asteroid?  We would gain valuable experience in longer space missions, learn more about the history of the solar system, possibly gain valuable platinum or other materials, push forward propulsion technology, better radiation shields, and it would be cheaper than landing on the moon.  All of these things would help us get to Mars more safely.

What are the benefits of landing on the moon?  We could gain valuable experience in longer space missions (assuming we stay longer than the Apollo missions), learn more about or natural satellite, possibly gain valuable resources, push forward propulsion technology (because Mars is still the goal), better radiation shields (because we will be in space longer), and we could begin building a permanent base there.

The benefits of both seem similar, except that in the end, you can say you landed on an asteroid (yipee) andgetting to Mars isn’t any cheaper, or you could have machines on the moon harvesting hydrogen for future moon launches to Mars – which long-term, will save money.  I remain skeptical of the intrinsic value of landing on an asteroid rather than the moon.  If I had it my way, we would do both, but an exploding debt and an increase in social program spending makes it nearly impossible.  I hope, in the end, we get to Mars before the Chinese.  And if the President wants to land on an asteroid and I am privileged enough to get on the team that makes it possible, I will do so with pride and the toughness and competence Gene Kranz told us never to forget.

Divinity Dove, Dr. Dove, and Professor Dove suggested some incentives to bring young professionals and businessmen to Michigan to help revitalize the state. For example, full spectrum lights, student loan assistance, parks and nature development along the detroit river, etc. Good grief you guys. You are recent graduate (wana-be) x-Michiganders. Would any of that shit keep you in Michigan? No. Of course not. You’re going to go where the opportunity is that opens up to you. So – Michigan needs opportunities opening up in Michigan if they want to keep young people. Not the other way around.

You can’t just offer some incentive to draw people in and hope that turns things around. Squirrels don’t cause nuts to grow on trees – they go live where nuts are growing on trees. That’s like the Dem philosophy of “creating” jobs to turn back growing unemployment. That’s not how it works. You need to promote business so actual opportunities will open up.

Like the clowns running Washington… Yeah, by their standards I could create 10,000 jobs with only $100,000. All I’d need is a few empty lots, some shovels, and some news paper ads – some offering work as hole digges and some as hole fillers. Yeah – that would pump $100,000 into the economy and put some people to work for a day. Would it do anything? NO. Would it create any economic activity? No. Would unemployment go down? No – well – not until more of the people looking for work give up anyway.

But wait! What about the economic activity produced when the workers spend their wages?

Well – that’s actually negative economic activity in a sense, because you have to tax someone – before, now, or in the future – to get the $100k to pay the wages. And no doubt – those taxes were/will be/are on business and entrepreneurs who otherwise would have spent the money creating economic activity (investing) which would have created actual opportunity.

Some people might think I’m simply misunderstanding the economics behind such thinking. So here’s what’s going on. The stimulus – which is similar to my hole digging idea – is an implementation of Keynesian economics. It’s a simple concept. Government regulates interest rates, banks, and stuff to stabilize business cycles. But if these controls aren’t enough and the economy slows down too much government picks up the slack by spending. The concept itself is sound.

The ‘downturn’ becomes apparent – or more apparent.
People slow spending (due to unemployment or fear of)
Sellers cut back orders and cut employment
Producers cut back production and cut employment
Loop back to step 1.

The idea is to stop this cycle, or prevent it. So government dumps cash into the economy in the form of spending to take up for slowed people spending – with the idea sellers will stop cutting orders and producers will stop cutting production and employment will stabilize.

I don’t see this method as being the “American” way of doing things, nor do I think it’s the most effective way to recover an economy. But I’m not in charge. Liberals are. And Liberals like this method because it’s yet another opportunity to further Liberal causes and generally redistribute reward. Regardless – as I’ve said – the idea is valid.

Here is the small problem though: Obama isn’t following the idea. This Economic Recovery Act business trickles the money out WAY WAY late and trickles much of it into state bureaucracies and infrastructure projects. This means the $700 billion isn’t getting in there and replacing spending – hell – they still have half of it pilled somewhere and aren’t organized enough to avoid fraud – one of the big weaknesses of the Keynesian idea. It’s a small matter though because I don’t think even effective Keynesian stimulus is what helps the economy. I think it’s the simple sense that some higher power is working to fix things. It gives people confidence – which is essentially what an economy is.

Here is the big glaring problem. You can’t try to stimulate an economy with clumsy “trickle up” stimulus and at the same time scare the shit out of investors and businesses!!! Everything from Obama bashing the bank CEOs to Pelosi ramming though cap and trade, the whole bag of anti-business pro-littleguy DESTROYS confidence.

And without confidence, even if people aren’t laid off, they slow spending. Without confidence sellers cut orders and employment. Without confidence producers cut production and employment. And without confidence we loop back to step 1.

Scott Brown elected Massachusetts State Senator

Do you think a woman who had posed nude could ever achieve national political office?

Disaster in Haiti

The only hope long term for Haiti is a deadly disease that only affects jerks. That’s the only hope for a lot of developing nations criminally ruled by jerks. The CIA got close with AIDS, but they didn’t realize back then that butt-sex and being a jerk were not mutually inclusive. Ah well, dreams for the next conservative administration.

‘We are the world’ Haiti relief recording session begins

These people need to be stopped. Send your money to Red Cross.

State of the Union address

I don’t know why people take Obama’s speeches to seriously. I mean, they were never meant to be taken literally. His message is one of hope and change. We can all learn valuable lessons from his speeches but – lol – you can’t apply those ideas directly to policy – that was never the intended purpose of his message.

Toyota Recall

Yeah! Another fat-cat scapegoat! Yeah, let’s get’m! Whoohoo!

Obama getting tough on China for trade agreement infractions

I’m getting tough on my credit cards too. I’m taking a different approach though. I’m paying off the debt – or at least trying.

Underpants bomber now talking, encouraged by parents

Wow Obama administration! Way to go getting the kid to ignore his lawyer’s advice. If only all terrorists had responsible parents. And thanks for telling us about it too. Now all of America knows how great of a job you’re doing protecting us. Hey, so have you gone ahead and put Al Qaeda on the list to receive your FUCKING news letter yet?

Sarah Palin to receive $100k speaking fee for Tea Party Convention

Only a Liberal would find this controversial. She’s a Conservative from Alaska. What do you think she’s going to do with the cash? Buy something with it? You give those people a rifle and a pair of boots – a few years later they’ve got a city with a shipping port. Watch, she’ll invest in some unknown little jackass somewhere and turn another baby-blue state red. Astroturf my ass… U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A

Healthcare reform bill stalled

Ok guys, I get it. You got caught up in all the inaugural excitement. We elected Obama assuming “change” meant a thoughtful approach, but you thought we gave you a mandate to turn the country on its keel. So you went after you’re dreams: single payer, sky-rocketing business costs, and reduced carbon output. I can’t blame anyone for going after their dreams. And hey, at least you go that juicy stimulus!

But those darn Democrats, they got in your way. Single payer was compromised into single payer under a different name – then into a public option. Then even that was compromised – first into some fancy long winded name coined by Pelosi that essentially meant public option, and finally, a year later, into nothing more than a list new regulations – more similar to the Republican alternative to Hillary Care than the brilliant progressive stride we were all assuming would slide through. (Eh, regardless of the naïve math and unfunded state Medicaid mandates) And to add insult to injury, you have to buy some of those Dem votes too.

And darn-it – you could have passed it. Hell, you could have passed a bill covering sea lions FFS. I know you’d like to blame the Republicans, but shit man – you knew you had all the power and that’s how you wrote the bill. No Republican could have voted for that thing any more than you guys could all climb on board with invading Iraq! Or – wait. You got tricked on that one – hu? Well, you know what I mean. You can’t blame the dog you’re walking when you walk into a pole – even if he was enthusiastic about it.

So the question is: What now. Indeed, this bill is shot to shit. Stack that monstrosity on the back of the toilet in the staff bathroom. But what now? Should you pole-vault over the wall with Pelosi? Should you try to come to some reasonable consensus with a few reasonable Republicans? Should you keep this unorganized circus with your ring leader off in his own ring singing his poems?

I’m not sure what you should do. I’d like to see some actual reform though.

Congress to cut funding for KSM trial in NY

Every time anyone asks Obama or anyone in his admin a question about trying KSM in civilian court, they duck the question and assure us he’ll be convicted and executed. So if this is just going to be a $1 billion show trial – why not just “have the trial” (wink-wink)? You know – take a few days off, “have the trial,” print up some transcripts and stuff, execute the bastard, and use the $1 billion on some new Predator drones or something.

Don’t ask don’t tell – once again up for debate

What part of “don’t ask don’t tell” is so hard to understand?

This week the Ares I-X rocket was launched from Cape Canaveral.  It was a new beginning in the storied history of American Spaceflight.  The I-X is a prototype of the Ares I, which is expected to see test launches in 2012 and begin launching crews into low Earth orbit and supplies to the International Space Station in 2014.  Ares I-X is now giving engineers valuable data for making tweaks to their design.  It consists of a solid rocket booster very similar to the rocket boosters you see on either side of the space shuttle, except that it is a little taller and the nozzle throat is a little bigger.  Stacked on top of that is the liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen fueled second stage which utilizes an engine derived from the Saturn V (the second stage was empty for this test flight).  The rest of the rocket, which will someday include a crew module and abort system (pointy thing at the top), was nothing but dumbed-down avionics and mass mockups of components that will eventually be used in Ares I and beyond.  If you haven’t already, take a look at the flight video.  You can go here:  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html The video is on the right hand side.  Note the shock wave.

The Orion program is similar to the Apollo program in that we will plop a module on top of a big rocket and when it returns it will float down on parachutes.  It seems like a step back from the Space Shuttle, which glides down and lands on a runway.  The problem with the Shuttle is that it became orders of magnitude more expensive than was originally planned.  The module concept may be “archaic”, but it is more simple and cheaper.  The Shuttle’s thermal tiles number in the thousands, many of which are unique.  They are fragile, as shown by Columbia.  The turn-around time for the Shuttle is much longer than originally planned mostly due to the tiles.  The Shuttle is a beautiful thing, but not the right fit for getting back to the Moon.

Of course we will not be launching an Apollo twin.  The Ares rockets will be more advanced and safer – they include a launch abort system for the crew in case something goes horribly wrong during launch.

So now that we know more about the Ares I rocket than we cared to, why do we care?  The Ares rockets will eventually take us to the Moon and on to Mars, and it will be expensive.  The Augustine Commission, appointed by Obama, claims that NASA will need to add $3 billion to their $18 billion budget, $10 billion of which already goes to the Orion program.  That is a lot of money.  Seems like that money would be better spent shoring up our enormous budget deficit, but as long as the current administration continues acting like they have daddy’s credit card, we will just print more money to pay for it all.  The truth is human’s need to explore.  Exploration is something that defines us all.  The desire to search out the unkown burns in each of our hearts.  I believe this desire was intentional.  At every advancement in science, humans ventured further out to sea, further under sea, or further above sea.  Better yet, it was the desire to go further that spurred the development of great technological advancements that made living easier and more enjoyable.  Scientific advancement goes hand-in-hand with exploration.  Even more so, it provides energy to the most powerful machine the United States has: inspiration that fuels the imagination of our kids.  Space is a challenge that stares us in the face and dares us to come forward.  It is riddled with vast amounts of unknown difficulties and dangers, yet at the same time it holds storehouses of knowledge waiting for us to find.  The truth of the matter is, whether we go or not, China will, and they will gain the knowledge and resources we were to afraid to go after.