Good morning.
- Selection of a sort.
- If those stats on age refer to the “brake/accel” issue, the problem is not mechanical.
- A view of Mr Obama which makes some sense … but see this in that context.
- Chesterton.
- Repentance.
- The rehabilitation of US Grant … is that it? To keep Mr Reagan off the $50 bill?
- Very sweet.
- On war.
- Hmm.
- Smile, your feel good story for the day.
- Image, archetype and propaganda …
- Girls.
- And some old advice that remains good.
If those stats on age refer to the “brake/accel” issue, the problem is not mechanical.
Wow, that’s certainly some interesting data. Until I saw it, the rare electrical interference hypothesis seemed most plausible to me. It doesn’t seem to me like a pacemaker or hearing aid could interfere with the electronic throttle, but beats me. Certainly user error seems more likely if these data are really representative.
Actually it could still be mechanical. The trigger might come from a set of actions more likely to be done by older drivers rather than younger. Alternatively, younger drivers might be more adapt at responding quickly to unintended but minor acceleration (say by hitting the breaks) and simply may not have been reporting it .
The rehabilitation of US Grant … is that it? To keep Mr Reagan off the $50 bill?
When exactly did Mr. Reagan (or more specifically his fans) get ownership rights to the $50 bill?
Boonton,
I fail to see how you connect the two statements, i.e,. rehabilitation of Grant with “ownership of the $50 bill.”
Well currently Grant is on the $50 bill so I’m not sure why he needs to be rehabilitated. It would seem your statement is implying Grant should come off the $50 and Reagan on unless we can find some saving grace to Grant.
Boonton,
My take on the article was that the motive for rehabilitation of Grant was in part to block a move to put Reagan on the $50. I’m not sure how that’s ownership of $50 bill, but it doesn’t see an up-and-up motive for rehabilitating Grant. Either his Admin was corrupt as it was taught in the 70s or it wasn’t.
It was took all the way until the post-Reagan era to realize there was an argument about Grant being corrupt? Or is it that there was no other person in US history acceptable for the $50 bill until Reagan came along?
I’m not sure what an ‘up and up’ motive is. It seems before we bump Grant off the $50 because we have decided he was corrupt and Reagan deserves the place more we should consider the reasons why Grant was given the bill to begin with and perhaps consider that our forefathers who put him there were not acting out of gross historical ignorance.
Boonton,
Is there an argument about his administration not being corrupt. I thought it was settled (that it was). It seems to me the likely way things went was.
1. Grant was put on the bill, not for his corrupt administration but because of his leadership in the Civil War.
2. Recently some people suggested that Reagan replace Grant on the bill, arguing in part that he wasn’t a very good President … which was what we were all taught.
3. In order to weaken that argument the noted movement to “rehabilitate” Grant’s Presidency has begun.
I don’t think “our forefathers” were acting out of gross historical ignorance but that they felt the Civil War generalship was the key, not his embarrassing Presidency. That is a different argument.