Warning: I'm tired and rambling...
So I just watched Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" tonight for the second time in 6 years. The last time I watched it, my automotive and economic background was limited. Now, older and with a better insight on how the world works, I think I dislike Roger Smith even more than Michael Moore -- strange coming from a libertarian like myself.
In fairness to Smith, GM's necessary vehicle downsizing program began in the early 70s, but resulted in the downgrading of quality with junk from Chevy (Cavalier, Corvette), Buick, Olds, and Cadillac (any of the above) littering American roads. Cost cutting seemed to be as dominant as efficiency downsizing, if not moreso.
Badge engineering, another cost-cutting effort, destroyed brands like Buick and Olds. Consumers eventually stopped seeing Cadillac, Buick, Chevy, and Olds, and started to see only GM. An Olds looked and felt like a Cadillac. A Buick or Chevy was hardly different except in trim levels and features.
And despite all of his hack-and-slash short-term profit-maximizing efforts, GM's market share declined from 45% to 35% by 1990. The only thing he seemed to help create at GM was Saturn, an investment that has proven itself to be charming, but completely unprofitable even to this day.
So what is Roger Smith's legacy? GM is no longer seen as America's hero to the working man. Oldsmobile is dead. We have to put up with Saturn (ugh). Flint, Michigan is a wasteland. And GM's market share is smaller than ever. Blame competition if you want, but the real blame goes to shortsighted shareholder whores without a long-term corporate vision.
Anyone can cut costs and put results on paper, making themselves look good for the moment and ignoring subjective factors that may be equally or more important.But only successful men and women in business can LEAD. Smith was NOT a leader. He was a pathetic number pusher.
I'm also sick of hearing guys like William Clay Jr. whine about the UAW. Yes, the UAW is a strong impedement to progress. But more damaging than unions are nonsensical short-term strategies that destroy quality, customer loyalty, and the national economy. The UAW became a cheap excuse for the folks at the top to continue their self-destructive policies.
They come in, lay off a few thousand people, close some factories, cut some corners in quality, turn a larger profit, steal all the glory, take all the credit, and leave a mess behind them.
Note: The Big Three today are GM, Ford, and Toyota.
-Jesda
GM, Roger Smith, and Michael Moore
Yesterday morning, I tuned to Fox to get their take on the dismal job creation numbers shortly after they were released. This important number was being discussed all over the other news services but not a mention in the 45 minutes or so I endured Fox. I guess they were having some frantic meetings about how to properly present this telling item. I'm sure they eventually covered that news but I had to get moving and never saw a word about it from them. I suppose they were having trouble "balancing" that news item.
What have I started? I was referring to the main Fox network and their trashy prime time shows, not Fox news. (I guess you haven't seen "Network.")
But I agree with VimyJ (maybe that's why we both drive J30's) we all have to use our critical thinking skills even more these days. And you'd better all vote come November!
That could be an interesting thread....do more people that lean left drive J30's, and those that lean right drive Q45's? Nah.....
But I agree with VimyJ (maybe that's why we both drive J30's) we all have to use our critical thinking skills even more these days. And you'd better all vote come November!
That could be an interesting thread....do more people that lean left drive J30's, and those that lean right drive Q45's? Nah.....
I don't consider CNN or Fox paticularly biased in either direction. When they are reporitng the news that is. Obviously Sean hannity is biased. He's not a hard news reporter...
It's the nature of politics, and the way 24 hour news networks cover the events. Our country is very divided. With Foxs popularity, most news outlets have turned into straight analytical coverage of news.
Look at the polls for CNN. More democrats watch the station. Look at the polls for fox, more republicans watch it.
Are country is so divided nobody trusts straight news anymore.
I was watching anderson cooper, and he had an interesting story where he interviewed a kerry guy and a bush guy. Broke it down into interview time, amount of time interrupted etc etc. It was the same both ways. yet emails dictated he was biased in both directions, depending on the email
I probably came off hash, but why is the fox bashing neccasary. Is it because Jesda started a thread possibly criticizing Michael moore? You just had to get a shot in?
It's the nature of politics, and the way 24 hour news networks cover the events. Our country is very divided. With Foxs popularity, most news outlets have turned into straight analytical coverage of news.
Look at the polls for CNN. More democrats watch the station. Look at the polls for fox, more republicans watch it.
Are country is so divided nobody trusts straight news anymore.
I was watching anderson cooper, and he had an interesting story where he interviewed a kerry guy and a bush guy. Broke it down into interview time, amount of time interrupted etc etc. It was the same both ways. yet emails dictated he was biased in both directions, depending on the email
I probably came off hash, but why is the fox bashing neccasary. Is it because Jesda started a thread possibly criticizing Michael moore? You just had to get a shot in?
"Homicide b0mber", a term al Foxeerah has unsuccessfully been trying to add to the lexicon for some time.
Or Fox's insistance of using "terrorlst" instead of resistance fighter or insurgent.
Faux's agenda is pretty clear. Flapping US flag in the corner of the screen? Kind of underscores their biased slant.
Or Fox's insistance of using "terrorlst" instead of resistance fighter or insurgent.
Faux's agenda is pretty clear. Flapping US flag in the corner of the screen? Kind of underscores their biased slant.
Jes, now you're calling me a "jerk off"? I have only made factual observations. I have merely reported what Fox does, plain and simple. The unvarnished news. "Al Foxeerah" could show my bias a wee bit. What kind of jerk off are you?
In response to the 1992, I specificly watched Fox right after the numbers were released early Friday morning. The other news services were covered the story as soon as it came out. Fox didn't. Fact. This was before 9AM CST. I said in my original post that I was sure Fox must have commented on it at some ooint after they found a way to "balance" it properly.
Your centerist pal,
Vimy
PS, "Leftist" energy thread? LMAO! Leftist? You're just pissed because I have been right about everything so far. I started that thread with purely capitalist intentions I assure you and simply because you don't like the news about dimishing supply and and increasing demand doesn't make the news leftist.
In response to the 1992, I specificly watched Fox right after the numbers were released early Friday morning. The other news services were covered the story as soon as it came out. Fox didn't. Fact. This was before 9AM CST. I said in my original post that I was sure Fox must have commented on it at some ooint after they found a way to "balance" it properly.
Your centerist pal,
Vimy
PS, "Leftist" energy thread? LMAO! Leftist? You're just pissed because I have been right about everything so far. I started that thread with purely capitalist intentions I assure you and simply because you don't like the news about dimishing supply and and increasing demand doesn't make the news leftist.
Listen Mike, I've been in politics to a greater depth and degree and on as many sides of the four-pronged spectrum as most ever will. I've seen it and heard it all.
So I know when to mix politics with cars and friends, and I know when not to.
This is one of those times NOT to.
I started this thread to give a hint of praise to Michael Moore and slam corporate greed from the likes of Roger Smith. There was an automotive context here, about how bad leadership affects automobiles and the auto industry. EVERYONE missed that.
And when I say "left wing jerkoff" or "right wing jerkoff" its not the same as "Mike is a jerkoff." Its a general comment about excessive loyalty to ideology. Call yourself a centrist if you like... but I'm not one, and I dont believe you are either. I find you to be intelligent and well-researched, without a doubt, but intelligence doesnt necessarily free us from having a philosophical leaning.
I sincerely apologize if you feel insulted. That wasnt my intention.
So I know when to mix politics with cars and friends, and I know when not to.
This is one of those times NOT to.
I started this thread to give a hint of praise to Michael Moore and slam corporate greed from the likes of Roger Smith. There was an automotive context here, about how bad leadership affects automobiles and the auto industry. EVERYONE missed that.
And when I say "left wing jerkoff" or "right wing jerkoff" its not the same as "Mike is a jerkoff." Its a general comment about excessive loyalty to ideology. Call yourself a centrist if you like... but I'm not one, and I dont believe you are either. I find you to be intelligent and well-researched, without a doubt, but intelligence doesnt necessarily free us from having a philosophical leaning.
I sincerely apologize if you feel insulted. That wasnt my intention.
I have removed all my threads, after reviewing Jesdas original thread and intention, it was wrong to devulge off topic.
Centerist is misused on both sides, as a way to pander to the ever so diminishing amount of people who are still on the sidelines in this election.
In the 80s there was around 25% undecided, now it's down to near single digits. We have never been this partison or divided
Centerist is misused on both sides, as a way to pander to the ever so diminishing amount of people who are still on the sidelines in this election.
In the 80s there was around 25% undecided, now it's down to near single digits. We have never been this partison or divided
Jesda wrote: Its a general comment about excessive loyalty to ideology. Call yourself a centrist if you like... but I'm not one, and I dont believe you are either.
Oh, but indeed I am a centerist. I liked what FDR to move US society ahead. I liked a lot of what Nixon did and Clinton was the bomb.
Things are pretty scary in the US right now. Never in modern times has the nation been so absolutely polarized politically. Never has the US been so distrusted globally. Never has the nation's leadership so feared the rest of the world.
A catharsis is coming and it's not going to be business as usual. We've seen threats to constitutional rights and freedom loving traditional allies branded as enemies.
What's that saying about karma running over dogma?
PS Took the J to 120 tonight. It is a confidence inspiring automobile.
Liking Nixon does not free you from having a philosophical bent that leans leftward. One of Nixon's most significant moves was pulling out of Vietnam -- not exactly a typical right-wing move.
And its not an insult or intellectually damaged to lean either way. Taking a set of principles and values and basing one's own judgements on it is the way productive debate takes place.
For example, defining FDR's policies as "moving forward" might contrast with someone on the right who may see your definition of "forward" as movement toward socialism. Others may simply see it as active government responsiveness to human needs.
Meanwhile, someone could say Reagan moved the nation "forward" toward freedom, while someone on the left may redefine Reagan's version of "freedom" as corporate slavery.
This is all little more than a conflict of value interpretations. This country isn't so terribly divided when you set aside the policy arguments. I dont feel like I'm exploring a different culture when I spend time with my left-wing friends. It only seems divided because information is available like never before, giving folks a motive to become concerned and choose sides instead of sitting on the fence.
And we'll be fine as a nation as long as we agree that these are great:
-Jesda
And its not an insult or intellectually damaged to lean either way. Taking a set of principles and values and basing one's own judgements on it is the way productive debate takes place.
For example, defining FDR's policies as "moving forward" might contrast with someone on the right who may see your definition of "forward" as movement toward socialism. Others may simply see it as active government responsiveness to human needs.
Meanwhile, someone could say Reagan moved the nation "forward" toward freedom, while someone on the left may redefine Reagan's version of "freedom" as corporate slavery.
This is all little more than a conflict of value interpretations. This country isn't so terribly divided when you set aside the policy arguments. I dont feel like I'm exploring a different culture when I spend time with my left-wing friends. It only seems divided because information is available like never before, giving folks a motive to become concerned and choose sides instead of sitting on the fence.
And we'll be fine as a nation as long as we agree that these are great:
-Jesda
VimyJ wrote:You bring up some good points. Truly, as can be infered from my previous post, I am a progressive which, because of practical considerations at the ballot box, makes me a pragmatic centerist.
I definitely do see where you're coming from now. Even though I'm a pretty straight-up libertarian (with a exceptions), I often find myself often voting closer toward the center for strategic reasons because I live in a swing state.
-Jesda
Things are pretty scary in the US right now. Never in modern times has the nation been so absolutely polarized politically. Never has the US been so distrusted globally. Never has the nation's leadership so feared the rest of the world.
You are right, however you seem to somehow defer blame to Bush. The country was as polarized the night of the elections in 2000, as it is now. As for our allies not trusting us? How many of them can you say honestly are our allies? I think the more appropriate word would be Advesaries.
I don't see you ever talk about the Oil for food situation the UN is knee deep in. I don't see you ever talk about anything, unless it critizies Bush, and his administrations policies.
You like clinton? How about the pardoning of mark rich, the chinese scandal, or anything else shady he was involved in. Your attacks are clear precise, and clearly aimed at one person/party
Call yourself a centerist, but you clearly loathe this administration and it's policies more so then any one thing else. You are in the ANYTHING BUT BUSH camp, which is fine, just come out and say it.
Either that or be an equal opportunity basher.
You are right, however you seem to somehow defer blame to Bush. The country was as polarized the night of the elections in 2000, as it is now. As for our allies not trusting us? How many of them can you say honestly are our allies? I think the more appropriate word would be Advesaries.
I don't see you ever talk about the Oil for food situation the UN is knee deep in. I don't see you ever talk about anything, unless it critizies Bush, and his administrations policies.
You like clinton? How about the pardoning of mark rich, the chinese scandal, or anything else shady he was involved in. Your attacks are clear precise, and clearly aimed at one person/party
Call yourself a centerist, but you clearly loathe this administration and it's policies more so then any one thing else. You are in the ANYTHING BUT BUSH camp, which is fine, just come out and say it.
Either that or be an equal opportunity basher.
Why don't we just start a politics thread. That way everything can be kept seperate, and only the people who want to engage in political discussion, can take part.
That way when I go into a topic I don't have to see some erronious comments made about Fox news. I don't have to feel the need to reply to blatent lies.
That way when I go into a topic I don't have to see some erronious comments made about Fox news. I don't have to feel the need to reply to blatent lies.
Jesda - Must be interesting to live in a swing state. Nice to know you recognize your responsibility.
Here in California, no one cares! Since "they" know the state will go to Kerry, there's virtually no campaigning. I'm starting to feel like my vote doesn't count (but I know it does, somewhere, somehow.)
Here in California, no one cares! Since "they" know the state will go to Kerry, there's virtually no campaigning. I'm starting to feel like my vote doesn't count (but I know it does, somewhere, somehow.)
1992Q45A wrote: As for our allies not trusting us? How many of them can you say honestly are our allies? I think the more appropriate word would be Advesaries.
Would those be adversaries who are with us in Afghanistan. Who provided men and materials for the overthrow of the Taliban? Those adversaries who were killed by a US pilot found guilty of dereliction of duty but who stayed the course and continued on in Afghnistan? Those same adversaries who declared that they are "all Americans" in the aftermath of the devastating murder of 3000 on 9/11? Those same adversaries who opened their homes to 10s of thousands of stranded American travelers following 9/11?
I don't see you ever talk about the Oil for food situation the UN is knee deep in. I don't see you ever talk about anything, unless it critizies Bush, and his administrations policies.
The UN has a scandal on its hands and it will be very interesting to see where it leads. Already Haliburton has been implicated. But what does that have to do with any threat to US security? There are no WMD and no AQ connections in Iraq. "Oil for Food" has nothing to do with a threat to US security.
Call yourself a centerist, but you clearly loathe this administration and it's policies more so then any one thing else. You are in the ANYTHING BUT BUSH camp, which is fine, just come out and say it.
I thought I had many, many times.