Detroit News - Daniel Howes gets bored, takes sad, half-assed swing at Dan Mulhern

Normally I respect, although usually disagree with the writing of Daniel Howes. He is one of the few "names" at the Detroit News i would usually not bother responding to because his columns and arguments are well thought out, and although flawed, usually provide more insight into the thought process of pro-business Republicans than the usual mindless drivel.
That's why I was really surprised when I read this column, where in Daniel Howes states:

"If the symbolism of leadership means anything -- which it does -- what's the unintended message from the closest adviser to Michigan's chief executive? If nothing else, it's that the Granholm-Mulhern administration's coastal-elitist leanings tend to disconnect it from the parochial concerns of working folks and Michigan's own automakers.

"I just can't think of worse timing," says a General Motors exec, adding that colleagues were "fuming" about Mulhern's missive and what it suggests about the governor's support for Michigan business in general and Detroit's automakers in particular."

Wow. Mulhern must have done something terrible. If you read the whole column, and I recommend you do, Daniel Howes spends all 762 words on questioning whether Dan Mulhern is in fact "even thinking at all?"
So, what was the terrible gaffe that Dan Mulhern made? What did he do to earn the scorn of not just Daniel Howes but also unnamed execs at GM and Ford? Well, allegedly (because I haven't actually seen it) in an email sent monday, the first Gentleman wrote:

"These Toyota execs are like those I have gotten to know from Fortune magazine's '100 Best Companies to Work For,' in that they get totally fired up when they start talking about the culture in their companies. The Toyota folks and the great company folks know that 'culture beats strategy' every time. They have strategies to achieve results."

So. Toyota, one of the most profitable and generally regarded as one of the most business savvy car companies, their executives are pretty intense about cars. Huh. A guy currently writing a book about leadership was impressed with the executives of a lean and undeniably successful company, and in no way denigrated or dismissed the big three. Oh, and as Daniel Howes notes, Mulhern's father worked at Ford for 38 years and he still drives a Ford.

That's it? That's what you got a quote from Rep. Joe Knollenberg for? What about that quote is actually bad? Let me put it this way. I work in advertising. If someone says to me "You know what commercial I like? The 'Emerald Nuts' one with Robert Goulet." I don't get offended. My company has nothing to do with Emerald Nuts and compete directly with their ad agency for accounts. But a comment like that has no effect on us.

I realize there's a lot of sensitivity about the auto industry right now, but there are much bigger and better targets out there than Dan Mulhern's emails. Mr. Howes, this column is beneath you. Please use your writing skills on bigger and better issues.

UPDATE: Cathleen over at for my amusement only... has a fuller and much better written takedown of Daniel Howes.

Detroit News Editorial could have been written by a teenager.

Selling lottery may be winning ticket

So, sayeth the editorial of the Detroit News. I will give them this, at least the put the qualifier "may" in the title. Selling the state lottery may be the winning ticket in the same way that Iraq "may" have weapons of mass destruction and Dick DeVos "may" be a successful businessman instead of the scion of Amway.
Anyhow, the Detroit News finds the idea of selling the lottery "exciting". Why they find it so is beyond me. They discuss how much money and how much good the lottery is doing the school system presently, and then go on to claim that it could be worth a lot of money in one lump sum, or in payments over the course of many years. Then they state that

"But there's a possibility that the state could reap even more revenue by selling the lottery and investing the proceeds."

They then fail to say what investments would constitute. At some point they announce that "Lots of factors could turn this into a bad deal for taxpayers." Shhhh, baby. Please don't elaborate. That would make us consider both sides of the issue, and nobody wants that. Lets just leave it as some ambiguous warning to cover your ass if things fall apart.

Let me summerize the editorial for you:

They're advocating, sort of, looking at selling the state lottery. Unless it's a bad deal. In which case, then, don't. But it is good that they're considering it, which they are.

So, what's your fucking point? What opinion is being expressed here? This is about as non-editorial of an editorial that you can get. They could have written the title to this piece and just left it and you'd be as informed as having actually read through the whole thing.

Moving on:
The Conservative Media has been putting up some really good stuff on their blog recently. I recommend checking it out. They highlight the smear campaign that's started against Senator Levin.
Send them some love.

Detroit News is living in pre-1989 world, woefully seen wearing shoulder pads, large bangs

I think someone should make it a full time job to monitor the meds and alcohol that the fine people over at the Detroit News seem to be mixing.
Let me explain.
In an editorial today titled "Larger military needed to face growing threats" wherein, get this, they take to task the Bush Administration for not spending enough money in Defense spending and military troop strength. They bemoan that troop levels have fallen so much since the cold war, and that an increase in troop strength of up to 25% will be necessary "if America is to meet the long term threat from terrorists, extremists and rogue regimes. "
LMAOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Follow me on this little journey and watch how i come to completely different conclusions than the Detroit News.
Terrorists and extremists were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. A 25% increase in military troop strength would not have prevented that in any way shape for form. The only reason we would have to increase troop strength is because we are bogged down in Iraq. Kinda seems like troop strength wouldn't be such a critical issue if not for that disaster.

Now, I'm not associated with the military, I have no actual knowledge about the real world needs of our military and troop strength thereof. But I doubt the Detroit News does either. I would love to know where the 25% troop increase number came from. It's thrown out there as though it were fact, when they site no studies to that effect. Further they argue that funding for a much larger military will be a strain on the government but absolutely necessary.

I say bullshit. I say that what threatens our country, when it comes to actual physical harm, comes from "terrorists and extremists" so to speak. They are defeated with better intelligence, not bigger guns. I submit that had our military been triple it's current size on September 11th, 2001 that the results would have been the same. I submit to you that with better intelligence and allegedly more sharing of information among agencies, then and only then would you have had a shot to prevent the tragedy that got us stuck into this quagmire that we call Iraq.

Someone call a Proctologist, the Detroit News has their heads up their asses again.