"Classic case of a guy who is in way over his head with the job he got by promising voters the moon and the stars. He still thinks he's on the campaign trail, and that clever and robust speeches will console the masses."
Reply:
Wrong. He got what he wanted knowing he could not deliver what voters wanted. Since when has THAT mattered to ANY politician? Play your video games, watch reality tv, but don't interfere in the intricate policies of the powers that be. We cannot expect you, dear citizen, to understand the intricacies of governance. Leave this to the experts...we'll decide what's best for you.
General Motors slithers out of Chapter 11 and dumps billions in debt for tax payers to pick up.With big-G running the show via 60% controlling interest, the new and so-called improved GM will be focusing in on a vehicle line that includes: Cadillac, Chevrolet, Buick, and GMC.Gone by way of the scrap heap are: Saturn, Saab, Hummer, and Pontiac.
In an interview with PBS.org, CEO Fritz Henderson states that new efforts will be dedicated to customers, cars, and paying back tax-payers.Simply put, GM plans on making a profit by making a better vehicle.Now there’s a business concept!
However, according to General Motor’s Vice Chairman, Bob Lutz, in an interview with “Take Away,”, “Our problem was financial and market collapse, it wasn’t that we were building bad vehicles that the public wasn’t buying.”Right off the bat we see contradictions in the new management, but we’ll get to Lutz momentarily.
Not that Fritz is necessarily an expert in such matters, with a prolonged background in finance and a Harvard education; he’s not spent a lot of time under the hood bending wrenches. This not withstanding, if GM has just now determined that a business model built around quality is appropriate, just what in the hell was the GM brain trust doing in the past? Is this what 50 billion dollars of taxpayer’s money buys—not to mention Henderson’s 1,719,667.00 yearly compensation?
For starters, the new & improved streamlined GM will oversee a loss of nearly 30,000 American jobs.The focus according to Henderson is on “…delivering great cars; focus on the consumer; and getting our culture right.”Just how the “culture” plays a part is anyone’s guess.He further outlines three operating indicators (tied into cost structure) that “suggest” profitability:
*Fully competitive (One would speculate that this is a must?)
*Reduced fixed costs.
*Level of indebtedness eliminated (you’re welcome).
He further outlines “Great” new vehicles such as the Chevy Camaro, Chevy Equinox, and the Cadillac SRX.Fantastic!The new regime is also taking a hard line on leadership that includes:
*Getting out in the market (again, rather critical).
*Thinking about things externally (Business & proctology should always be separate).
*Getting out of the office (Lunch meetings are also important).
*Visiting Dealerships (those not boarded up) to include:
-Suppliers
-Customers
Now, here’s the rub.Bobby Lutz, Vice Chairman of General Motors, stated in an interview with “The Takeaway,” referring to the new GM, that “…the American government will take a hands-off approach,” and that “…the government is not directly involved.”Odd that he should state this considering the obvious facts that the government now owns 60+% of GM, and has instituted well documented management changes.In addition, according to GM’s very own Fritz Henderson (CEO) the government set the following agenda:
*A viable company (well yea!)
*Go deeper.
*Go faster in the restructuring plan.
*Appointment of new board members.
However, Henderson states, the government, “…did not tell us exactly what they wanted us to do. “…That’s what we’re doing.”
Hu?
According to Business Week, Bobby, was scheduled to retire from GM at the end of 2009, citing regulatory forces in Washington that force him to design what federal regulators want, rather than what consumers want.Lutz, whose full compensation in 2008 was 6.9 million, champions large vehicles and has to his credit: the Dodge Viper, Cadillac CTS, Buick Enclave, and the Chevrolet Malibu.So it’s not surprising that back in February, 2008, Lutz described global warming as, “…a total crock of shit,” and that additionally, “..hybrids don’t make sense.”
After the fall out of his comments, Lutz, has made it his business to go about giving lip service to non-petroleum vehicles, “We have to gradually transition the company to the electrification of the automobile, which with finite petroleum resources I think is inevitable.”However, in the next breath he boasts the success of the Camaro, and launches into a diatribe about why consumer vehicle purchases are not based on rationality.Translation: archaic idealisms die hard.
In the end all we see is more of the same.General Motors should have been able to die an earned death, yet we allowed our government to further contaminate the natural laws of industry and capitalism.The opportunity for a fresh breath of air in the polluted automotive industry was choked out by negligent interference from our elected officials.Shame on them.Shame on us.
Bomb Kills 25 in Afghanistan including 13 primary school children. Sadly most are too busy watching the all-MJ-all-the-time news networks to take notice. I wonder what would happen if our media gave as much ceremony to each US service man or woman killed in Afghanistan or Iraq? What if everyone just suddenly gave a damn?
I've seen a lot of Palin fans say she is an honest normal person and we are just scared of having a normal person in office. Do we want an everyday person as president? Or do we want a seasoned political professional in office? Why or why not?
Answer:
I think in order to answer this question, we have to define what exactly an, "...honest normal person," and furthermore, how that would impact public office.
More to the point, how would her back ground differ from a politician of typical elitist pedigree? In looking at Palin one has to be impressed--a pretty typical social/family as well as educational background. I personally like this aspect of Palin as suggesting a sort of American normality.
That is, nothing stands out as "extraordinary". However, there is some elitist lineage on her mother's side, but this hasn't bought her any special privilege from what I can tell.
More to the point, what you may be really asking (as so many others) is if Ms. Palin would be "politics as normal" should we entrust her into a position of high leadership...more so than her current resigned position in Alaska.
The comparison you chose was, "seasoned political professional". So again we have to look at definitions. So many US citizens draw sizable distinctions in our two party system. In fact, I think we may conclude that there is a lack of purity in the ideology of said politicians, even when we venture to the far right or left. So cutting through all the B/S we can say that our two party system is but two sides of the same coin. This can be argued; however, the trend of moderate platforms is undeniable to most.
In this regard, Ms. Palin has NOT shown to be distinctive. She has conservative views on the abortion issue (Pro-life to a fault including rape/incest), has claimed that environmental issues are not man made (although she backslid on this issue during the presidential run), and supports oil/gas exploration. This suggests that she she is likely consistent with Bush policy in regards to our interest in the middle east and so suggests that she pretty much totes the company line...however,
her record indicates a trend to buck the system, and one finds contradictions of ideology vs. action. This dates back to her earliest political days and an example is supporting government cuts, but raising taxes when she feels it's appropriate. Palin has signed huge budgets (6.6 billion in state operations) and made substantial budget/funding cuts. She defended funding for the "bridge to nowhere," but churched up that view (to the dismay of Alaskan citizens) during the elections.
So I ask, "Is Ms. Palin enough of a "maverick" to not be controlled/manipulated by special interests?" Does she trust in the tenants of a pure ideology, and is she willing to stick to these guns (no NRA pun), and if she is, will that hold up in the face of what it would take to get her name on a major party ticket in the future, or would she bend & break in a compromised effort to have watered down versions of her agendas implemented?
And if she is, indeed, this trend-bucking maverick, wouldn't special interest groups have all ready sniffed this out and relegated her to the scrap heap?
My suggestion is to follow the media which will ultimately provide the answers to these questions. If the media is building her up and seemingly prepping her for stardom, than it's one's duty to question, why?
If on the other hand, the media exploits her as a freak show, (and truthfully there is lots of fodder, ie her daughter, the Letterman thing, her resignation, policegate, etc) then she may very well be legit and therefore worth supporting--although this will do you no good as the elitist in this country still determine the appointment of important leaders. In the end it may be her unpredictability that is her downfall.
