http://www.breitbart.com/…

The US Senate Saturday approved 25 billion dollars in loan guarantees for the financially strapped US auto industry, intended to spark a wave of automotive innovation.

The loan guarantees were included in a continuing resolution that included funding for the US government and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President George W. Bush has indicated that he intends to sign the bill.

“We’re very pleased Congress has chosen to act at this critical time,” said Greg Martin, director of communications for General Motors Corp’s Washington office.

GM had been subject of much speculation that it could be forced into bankruptcy.

The bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday, are the first loan guarantees for US carmakers since Congress approved a similar 675 million dollar measure for Chrysler Corp. in 1980.

Chrysler Chairman Robert Nardelli, however, said this week the loan guarantees should not be considered a rescue package for struggling carmakers. “This is not a bailout,” he said.

Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old — Nissan and Honda’s US operations qualify.

Not a bailout?

Bailout in economics and finance is a term used to describe a situation where a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, is given a fresh injection of liquidity, in order to meet its short term obligations. Often bailouts are by governments, or by consortia of investors who demand control over the entity as the price for injecting funds.

Obviously Mr. Robert Nardelli and I have different definitions of ‘bailout.’

How about we let them burn just like the banks? The unions want to complain about it? Let’em! They have brought this on themselves by using the guns of government to minipulate and regulate the auto industry out of competitiveness. Though luck.

http://www.spectator.org/…

“Pre-emptive war” got us into a real mess in Iraq. So maybe we ought to think twice before adopting similar measures when it comes to traffic law. Specifically, when it comes to an idea floated by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to require that all new cars be fitted with an ignition interlock that can detect alcohol in the driver’s system — and shut the car down if it does.

Several large automakers (including GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda) also support the idea — and are working on ways to get these things into new cars, maybe within the next two or three years, if not sooner.

The technology itself is pretty straightforward. Key fobs are being developed that will be capable of detecting blood-alcohol concentrations either through contact with a person’s skin or by sampling his breath. These are basically miniaturized, higher-tech versions of the interlocks some states already require convicted DWI offenders to install in their vehicles as a condition of being permitted to retain their driver’s license. The chief difference between the two is that the systems envisioned for the general public are what’s known in the car business as “passive” systems — meaning the driver doesn’t have to do anything consciously to be screened by the interlock. The court-mandated systems force the driver to blow into what amounts to an in-dash Breathalyzer before the engine will start.

So what’s the problem? They are not perfectly accurate and must be set within their margin of error. That margin of error is a “swing” of .02 percent BAC.

.02 swing error? That’s 25% of the .08 BAC. That’s highly unreliable. I am really not concerned with the addition of this feature… I’m more concerned with whether or not laws will be passed requiring this ‘feature’ or requiring it to be used. If you can’t turn it off or rip it out we are going to have some problems.