Paul Krugman has some rather flaky opinions about the state of America. But we're not a political site - and Krugman's no car writer, which is why neither of us should try to cover the others' territory. Except Krugman has tried - and has gotten it wrong when it comes to Toyota's new plant in Ontario.

The plant is due to open in 2008; it'll build 100,000 RAV4s a year and employ 1300 people. It will stand less than a hundred miles from Toyota's existing plant that builds Lexuses and Corollas and Matrixes.

Now, getting a plant for some states is akin to winning a lottery - only the tickets for the lottery cost about $250 million, as they did for Alabama when they lured Mercedes-Benz to the state in 1993. In this case, Canada offered up a total of about $100 million in subsidies, far less than some U.S. states were bidding, apparently.

Krugman argues that America lost out on the plant (remember, it's 1300 jobs) because American workers were "illiterate." He cites a comment from a Canadian partsmakers' booster group as his evidence. And in the process, he falls back on ugly stereotypes and simultaneously shows off the thin research he performs as habit to write his columns.

Krugman repeats: "'Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.'" Pictorials? Like the ones that come with IKEA furniture?

Are you offended? As a southerner who used to live in Alabama and has had "illiterate" auto-worker friends in Alabama, I am. Auto companies would no sooner hire illiterate workers to build their cars as they would to run them. Untrained? Yes, even though Alabama is now a hub of auto production. But illiterate? That must explain why not only Benz but Honda and Hyundai have chosen Alabama for production. Or Nissan in Tennessee. Or BMW in South Carolina. Or Toyota itself most recently, in Texas.

Krugman's threadbare argument comes right from DailyKos, the liberal blog thought leader condemned by Bernard Goldberg in his tight new book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America". And Kos gets it straight from the CBC - that's right, the Canadian Broadcast Company, the same CBC that blathers against red-state America at every turn - and Gerry Fedchun, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, whose the CBC adds (and Krugman must have missed) "will see increased business with the new plant."

"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

It's a common gambit for prejudiced writers from the rest of the country to fall back on stereotypes. "The workforce isn't as good as Canada" is Krugman's code language for "southerners are stupid." So why do factories hum in just about every southern state? Why did Toyota choose Mexico for additional Tacoma production? Presumably, with educational levels dropping off the cliff the further south you go from New York City, Baja Mexico would certainly lose out to the metro Birmingham area. Why would Toyota expand engine production in Alabama within the past year?

Of course Krugman's goal isn't to adequately describe the auto industry, it's to set up a straw man to push his argument that America should offer health insurance. Never mind that the Constitution doesn't mandate my right to Viagra - Krugman only sees industry through the lens of how it can enrich his ideals, not how it can enrich the thousands of auto workers now employed in Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.

There is, after all, a bottom line every manufacturer must heed. And there is a difference in workers who are new to building cars, versus those moved around from Michigan to Ohio depending on where the union can resettle them. In the 25 years since Nissan set up in Tennessee, it's been no mystery what quality of workers are available in the Deep South. And though some require more training, it's still a much better proposition than building a plant in a unionized area - unless, as in Ontario, Toyota overcame the cost disadvantage by getting hundreds of millions in tax concessions, saved money by coupling the back-office operations with another plant and saved money on the materials for construction by building in a country with a lower materials cost basis.

Repeat after me, Paul - Southerners aren't stupid. But sometimes, columnists are.

As of noon today, I have asked over 10 automotive journalists about microcars. What is their definition of them? What do you call a microcar? What makes one?

By all accounts, I think it all started after WW II came to an end and most of Europe lay in ruins. Thousands upon thousands of people emerged from all the refuges and bomb shelters to face an unimaginable scene of devastation and ruin.

The shortages of everything, from food to raw materials to electricity were one of the many problems, not to mention the cleaning of the rubble and the reconstruction of a ‘somewhat’ normal life. But it seemed as though everyone rolled up their sleeves and went to work together. The amazing task of rebuilding an entire continent over a period of ten years was accomplished through a unity of spirit and purpose unimaginable today. Bright, talented engineers, many out of the former aircraft industry, put their minds to the problems of mobilizing the population under adverse conditions. It's said that the true master reveals himself within limitations and so this focusing of energy and talent resulted in an enormous variety of small vehicles; some successful, others less so - but all of them interesting!

Some of my contemporaries explained to me that the microcar or "bubble car" (as many people called them) came to symbolize this period of renewed energy and pulling together. And although the micro car boom lasted only a decade, it is without a doubt, a period that left a lasting impression even on those who abandoned their Kabinenroller for a "real" car.

Other friends of mine very much involved in the automotive industry told me about how these diminutive vehicles continue to be found in barns and collections throughout the world but are particularly meaningful to the Europeans, whose lifestyle was, in part, made possible by these tiny cars.

Here in North America, there is a great selection and still relatively good sized population of these tiny four-wheelers being exhibited at car shows, and even rolling down our streets. It is a sight to see and a talk piece whenever we come across a Messerschmitt, or a 1958 Goggomobil DART, or a 1957 Velam Isetta. Many of these tiny wonders achieved lasting fame, and others sinked into obscurity.

Over the last ten years many countries in Europe have adopted the microcar (Quadricycle), where it is fairly common place and can been seen in many towns and cities as well as in more rural areas, where these tiny cars have been taken up by the more elderly as a quick and cheap means of transport.

And with the hybrids being the hot talk in town, and so many celebrities driving them around town, who knows, we might see Cameron Diaz or Leonardo DiCapprio in a new version of some kind of Goggomobil real soon!

TV and cars just don't get along. At least that's what I thought ten years ago, when I was standing on the side of the road, dripping sweat in 100-degree weather outside Pittsburgh, trying to tape a five-second segment on a Chevrolet Lumina for the first of many ill-fated attempts to put Car and Driver magazine on the air.

Everyone thought cable TV and its explosion of channels would be a natural place for car-based TV - but as you can see yourself, surfing the channels and catching today's offerings, good car television is still in its infancy. I'm not talking about expert race coverage of NASCAR - I'm talking about the "hey, let's put on a show!" variety that seems to work its way into the head of every network on cable (or satellite, in our case) and in the halls of the big monthly magazines.

The few notably good shows are multiplying, though. I've talked about Pimp My Ride and Overhaulin' here before (and you concurred - and added BBC's Top Gear to the list as well, with my agreement). They're probably my favorites because they assume the viewer is pretty much a mechanical idiot without dumbing down the story. I couldn't tell you if a brake rotor was going in backward or not, but I can tell you exactly where I want the built-in dashboard hibachi and drop-down 15-inch screen, or why a '63 Corvair Monza Spyder is the perfect car to take down to the frame for restoration (cheap, lots of rust-free California cars available, and unique).

These days I've added one more car show to my TiVo Season Pass - The History Channel's AutoManiac. It has Atlanta's own Bill Goldberg as the host. And until you've been in first class on Delta surrounded by a Smackdown! cast and felt tiny at six feet tall, you don't know how cool that is. And with episodes like "Death Cars" on the docket, who can argue with their content?

Ever since the first automobile rolled off the assembly line, cars have been an exciting part of life. But all too often, they've been associated with death. This episode explores some of the most infamous demises brought about by automobiles. From James Dean, who died in his Porsche Spyder, nicknamed "The Little Bastard", in September 1955, to sex-goddess Jayne Mansfield, killed a decade later in her Buick Electra, to comedian Sam Kinison, who perished when drunken teenagers smashed into his Pontiac Trans Am, we recall stars and the cars they drove on the deadly highways of America. TVPG L

No, it's not Wall Street Week, but it is a step above and beyond those numbing road-test video magazines. But don't take our word for it - ask Mr. Nielsen.