This was a good day for the Beatles in 1970 … even though they were breaking up.
Their “Let It Be” album was at number one, as was this single off the album:
Don’t criticize the number one album today in 1980, lest you be criticized for living in “Glass Houses”:
One week after surviving his recall attempt, Gov. Scott Walker is hosting the state’s first Beer and Brat Summit today.
According to the governor’s office, 98 (60 Republicans, 37 Democrats and one independent) of the state’s 132 legislators and 236 staff are planning to attend.
Walker’s office helpfully provided a list of “fantastic, authentic Wisconsin products” donated by “Wisconsin employers,” including brats, hamburgers, bison burgers and bratwurst, Italian sausage and cheddarwurst, and veggie burgers. Both Coca~Cola and Pepsi are providers (to avoid yet another partisan divide), as is, happily. beer from Potosi Brewing Co.
It will be interesting whether the 37 Democrats will partake of the Johnsonville brats, MillerCoors beer and iced tea and juice from Kwik Trip. Employees of those companies contributed to Walker’s campaign, which resulted in a boycott of those companies, which resulted in a “buycott” of those companies.
So the Legislature and staffers have been invited. Who hasn’t? Spokesman Cullen Werwie says:
In an effort to provide a relaxed environment for lawmakers to socialize with each other and with the Governor, the event will not be open to the media.
Rather than take offense, I am heading later today to the Brass and Brats Music Festival at Belmont High School tonight.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is at it again:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today the agency isn’t looking at new regulations to address distracted driving, but rather is calling on automakers to step up voluntary efforts to combat risks with new technologies and education.
(The word “voluntary” is an oxymoron when it refers to anything the federal government wants you to do, of course.)
LaHood, who’s made distracted driving a top automotive safety priority of the Obama administration, said he’s met with the CEOs of numerous automakers and feels confident “they’re committed to safety.” …
“We’re not considering a rule,” LaHood said. “We’re looking at things that have worked. We think good laws work. We think good enforcement works.”
He also urged Congress to enact stricter laws on distracted driving and possibly a nationwide ban on cell phone use, although when pressed he didn’t offer specifics, saying only it was his personal preference.
“I don’t have a bill to hand to Congress,” he added.
LaHood has confederates, unfortunately:
In December, National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman, whose board operates independently, called for a ban on all phone use while driving, even with hands-free devices.
“We have got to dispel the myth of multitasking,” Hersman said later in February. “We are still learning what the human brain can handle. What is the price of our desire to be mobile and connected at the same time?”
In February, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed the agency’s first-ever set of voluntary guidelines on distracted driving.
The guidelines cover vehicle equipment only — not handheld phones — and recommend that automakers disable certain apps, such as Facebook, Twitter and Internet browsers, unless a car is pulled over.
Voice operation of those features isn’t addressed but will be later. For now, NHTSA is still studying hands-free technology and is expected to release an analysis later this year.
“The data is not very strong on hands-free,” said Ron Medford, the deputy NHTSA director. He said the agency is now focusing on what it knows is a danger and that’s texting or talking on handheld devices while driving.
If Medford or LaHood were honest, they would admit they are motivated by control and not safety. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety inconveniently found no difference in crash rates in states that enacted bans on cellphone use.
Yesterday I posted the comments of U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wisconsin) about the anti-business attitude of the Obama administration. This is a prime example. Business people need to get hold of their employees or customers or vendors when they need to get hold of them, not when they get to a destination with a phone. Immediately. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignorant about how business works.
LaHood is an excellent reason to vote for Mitt Romney in November … if we can get assurance from Romney that those who interfere with our freedom will be fired and not hired.
An interesting juxtaposition of 45 years for these two songs:
The number six single today in 1948:
Then, the number 17 song today in 1993 by Green Jellÿ (which began life as Green Jellö — and we have the CD to prove it — until the makers of Jell-O objected):
Birthdays begin with jazz pianist Chick Corea, with whom we sang at a concert at Lawrence University (really) several years ago:
Reg Presley sang for the Troggs:
Barry Bailey of the Atlanta Rhythm Section:
Who is Brad Carlson? You may know him as Bun E. Carlos, drummer of Cheap Trick …
… born the same day as Brad Delp of Boston:
Drummer Michael Hausman of ‘Til Tuesday (which happens to be today):
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R–Wisconsin) has advice about job creation — something Johnson knows about but Obama does not:
People who enjoy their work perform far better than those who view their job as drudgery. A salesman that fully believes in the product or service he is selling, will sell more, and at a higher price.
These positive attitudes make a big difference to the individual “economy” of a business organization.
Positive attitudes are crucial in successfully driving a nation’s economy forward as well. Unfortunately, President Obama does not seem to understand that his hostile attitude toward business is undermining America’s entrepreneurial spirit, and as a result, economic growth and job creation.
Consumers and business owners/managers need to have confidence in what lies ahead before their economic activity becomes robust. Even in the best of circumstances, planning for the future is inherently fraught with risk and uncertainty. …
Are taxes going to dramatically increase in 2013? Will we ever get our debt and deficits under control? What is the cost and burden of new rules and regulations on job creators? How expensive will energy be in the future?
Until we have leadership in Washington that begins to answer these questions and brings more certainty to our economy, it will continue to stall.
In Wisconsin, our governor and legislature acknowledged our budget problem. They provided real leadership by making hard decisions, taking tough votes and bringing greater certainty to our state economy.
In addition, Gov. Walker announced very publicly, that “Wisconsin is open for business.” The result? State and local budgets are being balanced, property taxes have declined, and Wisconsin climbed significantly in a recent survey comparing states’ business climate.
That is a dramatically different approach than the one taken by President Obama and members of his administration.
Instead of providing leadership, they are attacking business, punishing success, greatly increasing regulatory burdens, limiting the use of America’s energy resources, and growing government and our nation’s debt and deficits. How can anyone believe rhetoric and policies like this will work?
We need to lift the spirits of America’s entrepreneurs, business managers and consumers — not dispirit them. High marginal tax rates discourage risk-taking, investment and job creation at a time when the need to encourage these activities has never been higher. Increasing layers of regulation are a disincentive to business expansion when we need to incentivize every business to realize its full economic potential.
Demonizing businesses and individuals will have the exact opposite effect. Yet that appears to be the favorite political tool employed by this administration. …
[Obama’s] campaign will try to convince Americans that somehow Gov. Romney’s success in the private sector is a disqualifying factor in becoming president. That is absurd. We need more successful people from the private sector in Washington, not less. Knowledge of, and respect for, our free enterprise system should be a table stakes qualification for president of the United States.
President Obama, Thursday:
The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. …
And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they’re promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the — to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.
President Obama, Friday:
The president, in response to a question Friday afternoon in the Oval Office, backtracked somewhat on his comments his morning that “the private sector is doing fine.”
“It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine. That’s why I had a press conference,” Obama said. …
“You know, and what I’m interested in hearing from Congress and Mr. Romney is what steps are they willing to take right now that are going to make an actual difference?” Obama asked. “And so far, all we’ve heard are additional tax cuts to the folks who are doing fine, as opposed to taking steps that would actually help deal with the weaknesses in the economy and promote the kind of economic growth that we would all like to see.”
Today in 1964, one day after the Rolling Stones recorded their “12×5” album in Chicago, Chicago police broke up their news conference. (Perhaps foreshadowing four years later when the Democratic Party came to town?)
The Stones could look back at that and laugh two years later when “Paint It Black” hit number one:
One year later, David Bowie released “Space Oddity” …
… on the same day that this reached number one in Great Britain:
Today in 1964, the Rolling Stones recorded their “12×5” album at Chess Studios in Chicago:
:epat drawkcab gnisu dedrocer gnos tsrif eht “,niaR” dedrocer seltaeB eht ,6691 ni yadoT
Today in 1972, Elvis Presley recorded a live album at Madison Square Garden in New York:
Birthdays today start with Shirley Owens Alston of the Shirelles …
… born the same day as Mickey Jones, drummer for the First Edition:
Matthew Fisher, keyboardist for Procol Harum:
Max Elliott, better known in the ’80s and ’90s as Maxi Priest:
Bass player Dan Lavery of Tonic:
Two deaths of note: Fellow Shirelle Addie “Micki” Harris, who died at 42 …
… and the great Ray Charles:
Charles is my father’s brush with greatness story, by the way: After playing in southern Wisconsin’s first rock and roll band (which once got to play backup for Bobby Darin at a concert in Madison) as its first piano player, he worked for a music store in Madison and was asked to deliver and set up a Hammond organ for Charles and his band, who were playing the first concert at the new Dane County Coliseum in Madison. After he finished, the organist invited him to watch the concert backstage. While enjoying the concert, suddenly between songs he heard Charles thanking him for his work and asking him to come onstage and play a song with them. He thinks he did, but cannot be sure because he remembers nothing of the experience. In comparison, I have seen my favorite band, Chicago, three times, and in none of the three have they asked me to come onstage and play.
The number one single today in 1958:
The number one album in the country today in 1971 was Paul and Linda McCartney’s “Ram”:
Today in 1972, Bruce Springsteen signed a record deal with Columbia Records. He celebrated 19 years later by marrying his backup singer, Patti Scialfa.
Birthdays today start with the Wisconsinite to whom every rock guitarist owes a debt, Les Paul:
Jackie Wilson:
George Bunnell played guitar and wrote for Strawberry Alarm Clock:
Jon Lord played keyboards for Deep Purple and Whitesnake:
Mitch Mitchell played drums for the Jimi Hendrix Experience:
Dean Dinning played bass for Toad the Wet Sprocket:
The Iola Old Car Show, which I try to attend (but may not be able to this year), has an interesting theme for this year:
The 40th Anniversary Iola Old Car Show and Swap Meet will be held July 12-15, 2012. The IOLA ’12 theme has been selected: “21st Century Orphans: A tribute to Plymouth, Oldsmobile, Mercury and Pontiac”.
Three of those four nameplates represented steps upward from General Motors’ and Ford’s value lines. GM formerly had a strategy of having buyers step upward, from Chevrolet to Pontiac to Oldsmobile to Buick to Cadillac. Mercury represented the midpoint between Ford and Lincoln.
The exception to that group is Plymouth, which was to Chrysler what Chevrolet was to GM and the Ford brand was to the Ford Motor Co. It seems strange to me that Chrysler got rid of Plymouth but then split off trucks from Dodge to create the Ram brand. Given that all Chrysler dealerships seem to carry all its brands now, creating a new truck-only brand makes little sense, but I don’t work in automotive marketing.
All four of those brands have been somewhere within the family’s driving experiences. My grandfather the farm implement salesman owned a succession of mid-sized Plymouth or Dodge station wagons, minimally equipped (right down to the dog-dish hubcaps and, in at least one case, a three-speed column-shift manual transmission) beyond a trailer hitch, stuffed from behind the front seat to tailgate and from floor to ceiling with three-ring binders and brochures of whatever he was selling. He died from complications of prostate cancer somewhere in his 80s (his age is another story), not from being decapitated by one or more of his binders after being rear-ended.
My parents own an Olds Bravada, the last new Olds …
… and formerly owned an Olds Intrigue.
The latter was the six-cylinder attempt to complement another Olds I’ve driven that I thought was quite a good car, the Aurora with the Cadillac-sourced Northstar V-8.
The Bravada was Olds’ SUV, almost indistinguishable from a Chevy Trailblazer or GMC Envoy. It holds the distinction of being the last Oldsmobile.
My in-laws owned two Mercury Grand Marquis, the last of Ford’s large rear-drive sedans.
The Grand Marquis was nothing more than a Ford Crown Victoria styled and equipped slightly fancier. But the Grand Marquis had good power, good fuel economy and handling compared to their 1970s iterations, and great room for occupants and their stuff. Ford a year ago made the mistake GM made in 1996 by ending the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis, thus cutting off most of the police market, which Dodge is happy to snap up with its rear-drive Charger and Chevy with its rear-drive (Australian-sourced) Caprice.
The other car in my grandparents’ garage for a while was a late 1960s Mercury Monterey or Park Lane, which I remember looking exactly like Steve McGarrett’s first Mercury in the original “Hawaii Five-O.”
(I don’t believe Grandpa drove his Mercury with the incessant tire-squealing McGarrett was fond of doing.)
I had an aunt and uncle who owned a late ’70s Marquis, silver with a gray interior, a car larger than the Chevy Caprice we had at the time. (Hard to imagine a car bigger than the 18-foot-long 4,300-pound Caprice? Well, they were.)
Our biggest experience was with Pontiac. My wife purchased two Sunbirds, the second probably the most fun car we’ve owned.
The ’92 ‘Bird (an SE, not the GT pictured) had a 3.1-liter V-6 that appeared to have far more than the rated 140 hp and 185 lb-ft of torque, particularly with the five-speed manual transmission in such a light car, and yet bizarrely got better gas mileage the faster it was driven. (As in 33 mpg at 80 on trips to and from 1996 Atlanta Olympics venues.) It also had an exhaust note that begged the driver to stomp the loud pedal to the floor. It also had the second worst torque steer of any car I’ve driven (the worst: The 1990 Ford Probe GT with the turbo four), and it was not really designed for a 6-foot-4 driver, particularly getting in and out. But it did in fact meet the Pontiac motto of “Driving Excitement.”
My mother-in-law replaced her last Grand Marquis with a Bonneville. It’s a nicely designed and put-together car. (Our oldest son particularly enjoys what happens to the speedometer when the E/M button is pushed, accelerating the car from 60 mph to 100 km/h.) Too bad it only came in a sedan.
The Pontiac I would have liked to own was owned by the family of a high school classmate:
This battleship (the picture does not do it justice) is a 1974 Grandville convertible in Limefire Green Metallic. (Or put another way, a metallicky fluorescent green, which was available on other GM cars of the mid-’70s too.) Theirs had a white interior. I rode in it a couple times during a summer school carpool. They never had the top down, but that was immaterial. This was traveling in style, Pontiac’s answer to the Caprice that was so large it could move the tide.
With the exception of the Plymouth (Chrysler must have appreciated the slightly upscale position of Dodge), all three were steps up from GM’s and Ford’s baseline models. So why did GM kill Pontiac and Olds and why did Ford kill Mercury?
Pontiac and Olds became brothers, using the same engines (with Buick) to distinguish themselves from Chevy. (The Chevy 350 V-8 was not the same engine as the Pontiac/Olds/Buick 350 V-8, their 400 V-8s also were dissimilar, and Chevy had a 454 V-8, while Pontiac, Olds and Buick had a 455 V-8.) Pontiac meant nothing at GM until the late ’50s, when Pontiac management started making the cars more exciting, beginning with the “Wide-Track” marketing gimmick. (Or so I read; owners of late ’50s Pontiacs swore the cars handled better when the wheels were pushed wider by the stylists.) Then came John DeLorean (yes, that DeLorean), who developed the GTO, the simple exercise of taking a mid-sized car and stuffing in as much engine as could fit into it, with various other go-fast and handle-somewhat-better-than-stock parts. Then came the Firebird and the outrageously orange GTO Judge.
Those were the good days. (I could write an entire blog about the oddity of Pontiac in Canada, in which Pontiacs were assembled on Chevrolet bodies with Chevy engines, but this isn’t a Canadian blog.) The bad days came in the early ’80s, when the Bonneville name was for some reason moved from GM’s full-size platform (shared with the Caprice) to its (poorly designed) mid-sized platform, and Pontiac rolled out its Parisienne (what it called the Bonneville in Canada), which was a Chevy Caprice with Pontiac logos. That flopped (among other things, the fender skirts of the Bonneville disappeared), so GM hastily used the previous-iteration sheetmetal, with fender skirts, for the new! Parisienne.
There was also the sad story of the Fiero, an underpowered two-seat fiberglass-bodied car that GM got around to fixing by adding a V-6. Of course, as soon as it became a good car, GM killed it.
Olds was known for its Rocket V-8 from 1949 onward, and Olds came out with the first full-size front-drive car, the 1966 Toronado. Olds to me will be known forever for the Vista Cruiser (which was initially shared with Buick) and its motor coach-style roof windows.
Later Olds tried to distinguish itself as being an international-like car, emphasizing handling. It worked well enough that the Cutlass was 1976’s best selling U.S. car. That’s not such a weird idea (Pontiac did the same with the 1973–75 Grand Am), but it failed in large part because mid-sized Oldsmobiles were the approximate size of the biggest European cars, and in those days Americans weren’t all that accepting of four- and six-cylinder engines (which were not nearly as sophisticated in design as Euro fours and sixes) when they could have a V-8.
People were crazy about a Mercury in the early ’50s. And Mercury later brought car-buyers one of the most underrated model names, the Turnpike Cruiser. (As for the aforementioned Marquis, an annual running joke in Car & Driver magazine was the magazine’s regret in each new-car issue that the Marquis was not offered with a de Sade option.) If I had the money, it might be fun to own the space-age named Marauder X-100 of 1969 or 1970:
This might be the ultimate post-tailfins large car, even if it is yet another answer in search of a question. Hidden headlights? Check. Fender skirts? Check. Available in a convertible? Check. (But not a sedan or station wagon.) Behemoth V-8? Of course. But it also had bucket seats and a floor-shifted automatic.
Ford did as little as possible to distinguish the Ford brand from Mercury in my lifetime. (Perhaps because in all but the smallest markets, Mercurys and Lincolns were sold by the same dealership and cobranded as Lincoln–Mercury.) Mercury had nearly everything Ford did, just a bit fancier — the Bobcat to the Pinto, the late ’60s Cougar to the Mustang, the early ’70s Cougar to the Torino, the Comet to the Maverick, the Monarch to the Granada, the Montego to the Gran Torino, the late ’70s Cougar to the LTD II, the late ’70s Cougar XR-7 to the Thunderbird, the late ’70s Capri to the late ’70s Mustang, the Marquis to the LTD, and the Grand Marquis to the Crown Victoria.
Plymouth had the same problem; it was difficult to distinguish Plymouth Valiants from Dodge Darts, or Volarés from Aspens, or Satellites from Polaras, or Furys (Furies?) from Monacos, or Gran Furys (Furies?) from Royal Monacos. In the case of one late 1970s Madison police car, it was impossible for assembly line workers to distinguish the two; one side had the markings of a Volaré, while the other side was marked as an Aspen.
Mercury did a couple things differently. Mercury imported the early ’70s Capri from Europe, and slapped a Mercury logo on a late ’80s Australian Ford Capri convertible. Lincoln–Mercury dealers also sold de Tomaso Panteras, as close to a Corvette as Ford’s ever gotten.
Pontiac, Olds and Mercury all died for essentially the same reason: GM and Ford, respectively, failed to differentiate them from, in Pontiac’s case, Chevrolet and Olds, in Olds’ case, Pontiac and Buick; and in Mercury’s case, the F0rd brand. Particularly in the early ’80s, other than possibly styling, there was no real reason to buy a Pontiac over any other GM brand. Olds died in 2004, and GM killed Pontiac largely to convince Congress it was deserving of a bailout. (GM wasn’t.)
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 