backtop

Print 54 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Jan 20 at 4:38 AM

Jennifer Granholm signs the $335M USD package into law.  (Source: WWJ Photo/Ron Dewey)
Michigan is giving battery makers in state a big boost, in hopes of creating jobs and tempting more makers to move in state

Just a couple days after GM announced that it would be assembling its batteries in Michigan, the state has passed a major initiative to help GM and other players in the burgeoning electric car battery market.  Michigan, home to the headquarters of GM, Ford, Chrysler, and numerous automotive suppliers, has been hit particularly hard by the slowing economy and was one of the first states to enter a recession.

While the automotive funding has shrunk, Michigan, under Governor Jennifer Granholm (D.), has aggressively tried to pursue to business, including alternative energy, biotech, movie business, and green tech.  It has passed a number of tax incentives, which give companies in these fields tax breaks.

Battery makers have turned to the federal government for aid, with A123 asking Congress for a $1.8B USD federal loan.  However, they may not have to wait, thanks to Michigan's $335M USD battery stimulus package.  The program will refund much of battery makers’ taxes, significantly cutting their costs.

Governor Jennifer Granhom spoke about the new package, stating, "What we want to do is to have energy independence in America, and have control over our own ability to be free of Middle Eastern oil.  That means that we want to manufacture the cells and do the assembly, and do the R&D (research and development) all here in Michigan."

She says the battery industry could grow 50,000 high paying jobs in Michigan, thanks to the bill. 

Battery makers like A123, whose close partner Continental has a heavy presence in Michigan, and LG Chem, winner of the Volt contract and owner of Troy, Michigan-based Compact Power, are looking for ways to bring their battery production to the U.S.  However, this will require the construction of new plants, a very expensive process.

Currently much battery cell production is done in Asia.  A123 currently manufactures its batteries in China, while LG Chem produces its battery cells in South Korea.  The new taxpayer-funded initiative should help grow both the manufacturing, corporate, and research and development sectors of the battery industry in Michigan.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Domestic battery production is needed
By Jansen (blog) on 1/17/2009 11:52:46 AM , Rating: 6
There isn't much point in going electric for energy independence if all your batteries are made in China.

Large scale mass production of next-generation batteries will bring costs down dramatically, and the fact that they are made in the US can only help.




RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By Dracip on 1/17/2009 12:14:08 PM , Rating: 1
Why not? Batteries are not energy. Electricity is.

That is like saying that our energy dependence is not middle-east oil, but the country in which gas-tanks are manufactured.

And where things are made is not important. If anything, it is only the nationality of the company which makes them that matters.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By rudolphna on 1/17/2009 1:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
It matters because the jobs in making the betteries are in Asia, not in the US. I.E. going all electric makes more jobs in china/korea.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By dever on 1/17/2009 2:31:22 PM , Rating: 5
Come on everyone. Nationalism and economics haven't mixed for a couple of centuries now. Tax breaks are effectively import tariffs and have been proven to actually decrease exports, increase imports and increase the price to the consumers in the long run.

The answer is not increased government interference by distributing the taxes from the little guy to the big industries who lobby most effectively.

We're reverting back to provincial mercantilism here and it's more than a little worrisome.


By JonnyDough on 1/18/2009 3:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, however as a resident of Michigan and a taxpayer I have to say that any increase in jobs here right now is good. People here need jobs, and they will spend the money they earn right here in Michigan on local produce, vehicles, housing, etc - which consequently means that the state gets a return on their initial tax break investment.

Right now any job in Michigan is a good job - as long as the residents and the governments get some actual long-term return on the tax money spent.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By Jansen (blog) on 1/17/2009 1:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
You would not be saying the same thing if those batteries were made in Russia or Iran.

Batteries are more important than electricity. The limiting factor for hybrid and fully electric vehicles is energy density and storage capacity. Electricty productions is production agnostic.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By BansheeX on 1/17/2009 3:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
All a subsidy does is redistribute money from the earner to a government selected producer by force. If the company's idea can prove a better value to consumers, it wouldn't need to do this, it would simply convince the earners themselves to invest. Money is most thriftily spent by its earner, not a politician looking for the most campaign financing. Its unfair to the consumer who can't avoid the tax, and to smaller producers who can't afford a lobby.

Our manufacturing exodus is entirely a result of socialist policies. We block competitors like nuclear, which could lower costs for businesses everywhere. We tax all businesses and then dish out refunds to the biggest. We price fix interest rates, we ban competing currencies, and when we come down from a government-induced expansion of credit, we're told the hangover is the problem instead of the cure.

Frankly, we'd be in flying cars by now if it wasn't for constant government expansion.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By BansheeX on 1/17/2009 8:56:16 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe I should have made myself clearer, it's not that domestic manufacturing isn't needed, it's how you're trying to bring it about that's messed up. Stealing from wage earners and selling the money to the highest bidder in order to help the consumer is roundabout nonsense. You're also hopelessly protectionist, you actually think China is the problem and OPEC are the problem? They have loaned our spendthrift government trillions of dollars and we've pissed it all away on consumption, they're the ones who save and invest, they're the ones drilling the oil and increasing products in the world. We're the largest debtor nation with an annual trade deficit of 1,000,000,000,000 dollars. Who's going to want to continue loaning us money when we and our government have shown no signs of ever paying it back with a product. Is all this domestic infrastructure spending going to be exportable? F*&k no. So why loan us the money to do it? It's like someone is in debt and his solution is to remodel his kitchen or counterfeit the payment with a printing press. Paper is not a product, a Federal Reserve Note is a promise of a future product, an IOU, it costs us nothing, its value is purely a function of confidence in our ability to repay with something other than interest (more IOUs).

Every time the engineered credit boom ends, the government refuses to let capital reallocate into manufacturing so we can balance trade and service our debt. They prop up unprofitable companies with money taken from efficient companies, indebted consumers with money taken from savers. It's no wonder there's no credit left for manufacturing, the interest rate isn't high enough to encourage domestic savings and discourage reckless borrowing. It all comes back to the Fed's price fixing of interest rates, you cannot price risk with a government lever without creating massive distortions and malinvestments. If we fail to understand this, we are begging for a dollar crisis and an unlimited depression.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By masher2 (blog) on 1/17/2009 9:20:52 PM , Rating: 5
Manufacturing generates at least some degree of pollution, and that's something the modern American will no longer allow. No matter how infinitesimal the amount and nonexistent the risk, we no longer seem to possess the mindset that allows us to turn raw materials into useful product.

Our world leadership in steel, aluminum, concrete, petroleum, uranium, and chemicals production are all long gone. Our domination of the aerospace and semiconductor industries fading fast. And yet every year, more and more regulations make mining and manufacturing here even more costly and impractical.

Too many people fail to realize that standard of living is a direct result of how much a nation produces. An economy based strictly on services to the exclusion of actual goods is not a stable long-term model.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By JonnyDough on 1/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2009 10:36:26 AM , Rating: 5
> "as result of the industrial revolution we nearly killed off all the nature around us"

This is simply fearmongering. Some species have declined since the industrial revolution began, many others (especially those useful to man) have increased immeasurably. Nature was never in danger of "dying". Man has certainly changed the environment-- but nearly all those changes have been for our benefit.

> "Pollution and a lack of regulation caused many many people to die, radiation poisoning.."

In the Western world, no commercial nuclear reactor has ever killed anyone from radiation. Claiming this is some sort of significant risk is far off base.

In third world nations, millions of people still die each year from lack of basic amenities that cheap energy could give them. Anyone interested in saving lives would be for nuclear power, not against it.

> "...asbestos..."

I don't think you realize just how much asbestos is in the natural environment. The average person has millions of asbestos fibers in their lungs....in some regions of the US, it can be 50 times higher, a level far above what the EPA deems "safe", and much higher than what any normal person could receive from asbestos products.

Furthermore, the risk of mesothelioma is incredibly low. Even among asbestos miners, who spend decades in confined breathing conditions with fiber levels thousands of times higher, the disease only affects a small fraction, and usually among those who also smoke.

Asbestos was never a major health risk. It was a boon to trial attorneys, who have made it their single largest revenue source for many years now, raking in tens of billions of dollars.

> "...mining accidents"

Pollution causes mining accidents now? I don't see the connection.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By JonnyDough on 1/19/2009 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 1
Who said anything about a nuclear reactor? Wow you know how to use words to get people riled up. You ought to be a blogger on Tom's Hardware or something.

Here you go...this is a bit more of what I had in mind there ma brutha!

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2008...

Straight from my local news. Thanks for playing.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/19/2009 1:04:31 PM , Rating: 4
> "Straight from my local news. Thanks for playing"

Err, bananas test positive for radioactivity. So do granite countertops, TV sets, and most any house in a New England or Rocky Mountain state (radon).

There is a vast, vast difference between "testing positive" for radioactivity and actually injuring or killing someone.


By JediJeb on 1/19/2009 2:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
I can agree with Masher here, it says three barrels tested positive for radiation, but never how high the counts were. In fact, if one household smoke detector was placed in each barrel they would test positive for radiation, yet people have several of them in their houses and it is considered safe. Without a quantitative value it is impossible to determine if it is safe or not.

Sodium is a poisonous metal, yet without a certain amount in your body you will die. It all comes down to reacting upon facts not just fears.


By JonnyDough on 1/19/2009 11:56:26 AM , Rating: 1
Educate yourself. Quit spewing fud like it's fact.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=asbestos+deat...


By JonnyDough on 1/19/2009 12:00:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"...mining accidents" Pollution causes mining accidents now? I don't see the connection.


That's because you lack reading comprehension.

That had to do with all that regulation you were talking about. I mentioned how "most regulation was designed to protect either WORKERS OR THE ENVIRONMENT. Apparently you were so eager to retort with your wise-guy attitude that you failed to bother reading what was written.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By Ringold on 1/18/2009 4:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An economy based strictly on services to the exclusion of actual goods is not a stable long-term model.


The US is far larger geographically and in population, so I'd thus expect perhaps more diversification. But what of, say, the UK? Their economy is even more service-oriented than ours, and I wouldn't call it that unstable. Germans who thought their export-driven economy would save them have been disappointed. I don't understand the aversion to a service-based economy; the aversion should be to low-skilled work versus high-skilled work.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2009 6:13:11 PM , Rating: 3
> "Their economy is even more service-oriented than ours"

According to my figures, the US economy is 78.5% service based, the UK 73%. That may not seem like a huge difference, but on the manufacturing side, the UK is at 25%, whereas the US is now down to 20%.

There are many advantages to the services sector, but overreliance on it is risky. At the end of the day, we all need food, houses, cars, and other tangible goods. Many sectors of the service industry are nonessential or easy to repudiate.

Also, a large part of the services sector is now IP, a segment that relies utterly on world respect for intellectual property laws. A slight change in world opinion on respect for copyright and patent law, for instance, could devastate this sector overnight.

Consider two nations, one 100% service based, and the other 100% manufacturing and energy based. Let's assume for simplicity both are self-sufficient agriculturally. Both survive only by trade between themselves. Now, should a conflict arise and trade is cut off-- which nation will blink first? Without our vast imports of fertilizer, the US can't even feed itself any longer. Is that a stable situation to be in, particularly if manufacturing declines further? I don't believe it is.


By Ringold on 1/19/2009 3:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to my figures, the US economy is 78.5% service based, the UK 73%. That may not seem like a huge difference, but on the manufacturing side, the UK is at 25%, whereas the US is now down to 20%.


My apologies, thought it was the other way around. Got my statistics reversed.

quote:
There are many advantages to the services sector, but overreliance on it is risky. At the end of the day, we all need food, houses, cars, and other tangible goods.


There will come a day when manufacturing employees relatively few people in the direct production process; just service-sector style employees. Engineers to maintain the equipment, industrial engineers and architects designing products, etc, and armies of non-unionized robots making them. That's an employment issue though, and you seem to be looking at GDP, so your points are fair. The future of manufacturing probably looks like farming; we grow plenty of food ourselves to suit your national security/stability argument, and yet it employs very, very small numbers of (highly subsidized) people.


By owyheewine on 1/19/2009 10:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
Service is what bulls do to cows,stallions do to mares and government does to us,


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/17/2009 3:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
The idea is that "energy independence" is the PC term for oil. Because, relatively, the US doesn't use any oil to generate electricity... but it does go to transportation. If we make a switch to electric vehicles, why would we want to leak a large portion of the money, resultant from that endeavor, outside of the country not to have it return? Having the battery manufacturing and research in the same state as the ailing automotive companies makes their endeavors easier by throwing international trading for battery supplies out the window, and reducing shipping costs because the batteries are in relative close proximity to the car companies. It would also mean the US would sell to other countries, so with future advances and possibly superior products being researched and manufactured within our borders, we would end up exporting goods rather than importing, while holding on to domestic jobs of skilled and unskilled nature: both are indicative keystones of a good economy.
Plus, batteries are fairly expensive for this use


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By masher2 (blog) on 1/17/2009 4:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
> "Because, relatively, the US doesn't use any oil to generate electricity"

Actually, we generate about 50X as much electricity from petroleum as we do from solar power...but that's still only a little more than 1% of the total. However, we do generate a large percentage of electricity from natural gas (over 20%) -- and a large part of that is "associated" natural gas, taken from oil fields.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By Comdrpopnfresh on 1/17/2009 7:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
yeah- I gotcha; the whole.. when it's 1 degree outside, then goes up to 3... the temperature has tripled. Nearly all our natural gas comes from this continent though


By matt0401 on 1/20/2009 1:06:21 AM , Rating: 2
Actually when it's 1 degree outside and it goes up to 3 the temperature hasn't tripled. The scales we use in everyday life are relative. Assuming you're speaking of Fahrenheit, it would be -17 to -16 in Celsius. Even then, it wouldn't be correct to say that the temperature is 6% higher.

You could only use those comparisons in a temperature scale that isn't relative, one with zero actually being zero. Kelvin, for example. 256 K to 257 K is an increase of 1.0039%. :)

Not meaning to be technical though...


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By JonnyDough on 1/18/2009 3:41:26 AM , Rating: 1
Need references for a big claim like that. I believe you, and I'm sure you can find it on a .gov website if it's true. I was just looking at my gf's consumer energy bill which lists sources of electricity for about 5 states so I'm sure you're probably spot on.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2009 10:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "Need references for a big claim like that"

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table...


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By JonnyDough on 1/19/2009 12:01:28 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks! :-)


By JonnyDough on 1/20/2009 4:38:08 AM , Rating: 1
LOL Masher. Sick nerd. Stop using your other account to rank people down. I thought that was grounds for banning? Moderators?!!!


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By masher2 (blog) on 1/17/2009 4:25:33 PM , Rating: 4
> "There isn't much point in going electric for energy independence if all your batteries are made in China"

I'm more worried about how we intend to actually generate the electricity to charge those batteries. We have a fair amount of nighttime generation/grid capacity left, but at least some people will charge during the day. And in some areas, even nightly capacity isn't that high.

In the current legal climate, coal and nuclear plants can take a decade or more to build-- if they can even get approved. If electric cars take off in a big way, I fear we're going to get caught with our pants down.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By 67STANG on 1/18/2009 12:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
A perfect fit for wind turbines...


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By masher2 (blog) on 1/18/2009 12:49:50 AM , Rating: 2
Except of course for:

a) high costs.
b) the low availability factor (wind doesn't blow constantly)
c) the massive grid upgrades required to pipe power from areas with good wind conditions to those without.
d) the high amount of resources required per MWh generated.
e) lingering concerns about noise pollution, effects on bird and bat populations, etc.

Our cold winter is raising further concerns: ice fling. I recently read a story about how some British wind turbines are having to shut down in icy conditions to prevent ice shed from the blades -- some chunks weighing several pounds and flung at high speeds -- from posing a risk to nearby residents.


By matt0401 on 1/20/2009 1:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
A transition from one energy source to another on a mass scale requiring a bit of effort? Blasphemy!


By bfonnes on 1/20/2009 12:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
This is one time I agree with masher. I think electric cars being viable presupposes an increase in our power generation capacity from nuclear. Also, I would think you have to federally mandate some sort of battery recycling. I very much doubt that people that are replacing expensive batteries are also going to want to pay to recycle the old ones, (assuming we even develop this technology).


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By foolsgambit11 on 1/17/2009 6:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
Oil isn't energy, either. Oil has an energy potential that is unleashed by burning the hydrocarbons in it. Likewise, batteries hold energy potential that is released by completing a circuit with a device that does work in it.

But while your analogy may be bad, there is a difference between batteries and oil, of course, in that oil is consumed in the process of releasing its energy, but batteries are able to be recharged pretty easily.

However, batteries don't have an infinite lifespan, and there will always be a need for some replacements, given current battery technology. But the effects of a supply cut by China or South Korea would not be as devastating or as immediate as being cut off from oil. It would give us some time to build our own production capabilities - we do have a pretty large amount of lithium in the United States.

So while it would be a definite bonus, from an energy security perspective, to have the entire production process occur in the United States, if the economics of it don't make sense right now, I think it could be postponed in favor of the 'low hanging fruit' on the route to energy independence.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By JonnyDough on 1/18/2009 3:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
I think someone rated you down because batteries and oil can't be compared. Oil is a natural resource that comes packed with energy. Batteries are a man-made energy container which obtain a charge from a natural resources such as oil...


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By JonnyDough on 1/18/2009 3:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
On second thought, I guess maybe you got rated down because you used the word "likewise" incorrectly.

The word "likewise" usually means "similarly".


By foolsgambit11 on 1/19/2009 7:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
Could be. I like to think people just disagreed with my conclusions. I don't deny that there are plenty of ways of looking at this issue.

But yes, I should have used 'likewise' better. I intended the meaning of similarly - in that batteries and oil are both used for their potential energy. That is the sense in which they can be compared. What we need is something that can be easily and readily converted into energy - mechanical, electrical or both. Batteries and oil both can do that, in dramatically different ways, with dramatically different price structures, and with dramatically different efficiencies (use dependent).

But yes, the sentence was poorly constructed, and didn't effectively express that premise that they were both energy storage media - although the 'likewise' was supposed to bring attention to that. But alas, epic fail.


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By Samus on 1/18/2009 11:13:35 AM , Rating: 1
Think of batteries as an energy storage device.

Now, where are your propane cylinders made? How about your Duracell or Energizers?

There you go. They're made HERE. Because it makes sense.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/19/2009 7:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Right - for those items, it makes sense economically. It doesn't seem to make sense economically to make these car batteries here though, based on the fact that they aren't currently made here, and the assumption that capitalism works well in optimizing production methods.

So, there are two options if you want these cells made in the U.S. - make it economically viable, or mandate it. Both require government intervention. Government mandate makes the least sense, are too close to socialism for public comfort, and would probably fall foul of the World Trade Organization (that is, fall foul of a treaty the U.S. adopted).

Economic adjustments fall into two categories - more taxes or tax breaks. More taxes = tax imports (again, may fall foul of WTO) or tax 'non-green' energy. The former probably isn't going to work, and will at the least raise battery prices in the short term, while the latter isn't very focused on helping along battery production, although it has ancillary benefits if you want to go to a green economy. Tax breaks = breaks for cells made in the U.S. This method is the most targeted for the result desired, and the least likely to violate free trade treaties (although it probably technically does, but it isn't as abrasive a violation). The downsides would be that there's no guarantee it will work, that it reduces government revenue, and that it will probably mostly be foreign companies relocating factories to the U.S.


By nah on 1/17/2009 12:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Large scale mass production of next-generation batteries will bring costs down dramatically,


I would like to know if anyone has data on the fall in battery prices over the last 2-3 decades--especially Li-Ion


RE: Domestic battery production is needed
By Reclaimer77 on 1/17/09, Rating: -1
By RoberTx on 1/17/2009 6:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
There isn't much point in going electric for energy independence if all your batteries are made in China.
--------------
Exactly!


Obama - Save Michigan
By JoeOnRoute66 on 1/17/2009 5:07:41 PM , Rating: 1
Barack, please take our governor. Save our state. Her terible policies for 5 years haven't helped Michigan much. It makes a lot of sense to raise taxes when businesses fail. It makes sense to force alternative energy production when people are out of work. Please Obama, take her as your Commerce secretary.




RE: Obama - Save Michigan
By FITCamaro on 1/17/2009 9:51:17 PM , Rating: 1
Are you fuckin serious?


RE: Obama - Save Michigan
By 67STANG on 1/18/2009 12:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
How do you think our government has money to spend? Currently there are (2) ways:

1)Taxes
2)Printing More Money.

At least with option 1, you know you're getting screwed-- and by how much. If I have to explain why #2 is not a good idea, then all hope is lost.


RE: Obama - Save Michigan
By JonnyDough on 1/18/2009 3:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
Inflation is only good for blow up dolls at bachelor parties. And for floaties. And flat tires. And lots of other things, many of which are sexually oriented or that I just don't care to think of right now. But yeah...inflation.


RE: Obama - Save Michigan
By kilkennycat on 1/19/2009 12:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
plus 2 more....

3)Borrowing from the Chinese

4) Borrowing from the sheiks

Both at very attractive interest rates... FOR THEM.

Since virtually all the so-called "developed" counties have found themselves simultaneously in "debtors' prison", it looks as if the Chinese and sheiks are going to get some great bargains from loans to finance these deficits plus high-percentage ownership of some great US and European companies at pennies on the $$. The "must have it now" consumer-led spendthrift attitude of the last 20 years or so in both the US and Western Europe has brought us to this predicament.


build factories?
By Jimspar on 1/17/2009 2:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
I like how they say it would be costly to build new factories, drive around the Warren, Auburn Hills, or Dearborn area and you will see some of the the recently closed supplier factories just waiting to be retooled. I know retooling costs money, but it costs a lot less than building anew. And being a displaced designer for the auto industry, it's nice to see Grandholm finally doing something for her adopted state.




RE: build factories?
By FITCamaro on 1/17/2009 2:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think we might be surprised how much retooling costs. If you have to basically hollow out a shell of a building and reconstruct it the way you need it, it can cost a lot of money to do that.

But I do think they should attempt to use some of the old factories if they can. Would be a lot better than just having all those old buildings sitting there rusting.


RE: build factories?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/17/2009 4:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly so. If you ever build your own home, you'll likely be suprised to learn you can put up the "bricks and sticks" basic structure-- walls, foundation, roof, windows, -- for 20-25% of total costs. The rest is all finishing the interior. That's residential.

For a high-tech industrial plant, the cost of the equipment inside can easily be 100X or more what the building itself costs.


By FaceMaster on 1/18/2009 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
...after I saw that picture of her.




Alaska or Michigna
By nesivos on 1/18/2009 12:29:56 PM , Rating: 2
Palin is certainly smarter than Granhom whose state has had among the higherst number of foreclosures and is annually the leader in crime.

Even the weather these days is better in Alaska than it is in Michigan.

Batteries aside maybe Granholm needs a lobotomy.




Quotes at the bottom better?
By bfonnes on 1/20/2009 12:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or are the quotes at the bottom better than the articles most of the time? :)




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki