Smart Bombs: The road to ruin

There’s one issue that is certain to bring together the Michigan delegation in Congress: protecting the auto industry. But is running interference for the Big Three a good idea for the state? Is it even a good idea for the automakers?

A recent poll shows that 76 percent of Michiganders have a pessimistic outlook on the state’s economy. Only 13 percent think the state is on the right path, which was paved by politicians doing the bidding of the auto industry.

The state’s unemployment rate is expected to rise to 7.5 percent next year, up from 6.9 percent. Three-quarters of job losses will be auto-related. This decline has come despite the industry’s political successes in fighting off higher fuel-mileage standards and tougher emissions controls. It has come despite the enormous popularity of sport utility vehicles, a sector that Detroit has ruled. This domination has been abetted by a giant regulatory loophole for SUVs when it comes to mileage and emissions standards.

It’s easy to imagine a more positive outlook for Michigan – and the nation – if the Motown hadn’t gotten its way and had been forced to scale down its fleet to directly confront competitors such as Toyota and Honda. Next year market share for the Big Three’s vehicles is expected to slip below 50 percent for the first time. With high gas prices and global warming atop the domestic agenda, that doesn’t look like a trend that will reverse itself soon. If the Big Three had suffered more political defeats, it would be better positioned to take advantage of hybrid technologies, too.

So the next time U.S. Sen. Carl Levin or U.S. Rep. John Dingell obstructs legislation on behalf of Michiganders and the Big Three, they might want to consider whether they’re doing anyone a favor.

Stem sell

President Bush doesn’t think the government should finance the “deliberate destruction” of potential life in search of ways to save or improve the lives of actual people who struggle with diseases such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.

Sort of.

Back in 2001, he did approve of research using existing stem-cell lines, which were created by deliberately destroying embryos brimming with potential life. In fact, he brags about being the first president to do so. Which, if he’s being consistent, means he’s also the only president to OK the exploitation of destroyed embryos.

Even stranger, the president is not against in-vitro fertilization, which involves the deliberate destruction of many embryos in the hopes of creating a single life. Plus he’s unbothered by the fact that frozen embryos by the thousands are discarded at clinics.

The president claims to see a straight moral line that is pro-life. I see a cross-eyed policy that helps nobody.