Friday, November 21, 2008

so intersection camera's...

need to all be chopped down. A rash of tickets via these pieces of the big brother government have been handed out lately. This is 1984, this is Equilibrium, this is Fahrenheit 451.

Have you ever seen 2001 Space Odyssey? The man asking the computer to open the pod bay doors, that's how I feel every time I enter an intersection.

"Hal may I enter the intersection?"...I say as I approach to which I am answered in a calm robotic voice "I'm sorry, if you do that I will have to charge you a 75 dollar admittance fee."

Chop 'em down to an steel stump. Thats what i say.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

I was going to say something about this but Romney already said it better

From his op ed in the New York Times:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

So many brilliant things said here. No bailouts, no unions, no holding ourselves back from the competition because our workers feel they are entitled to more than they work for. Romney is right.
He should have won the GOP spot, Obama would have had alot harder campaign. But thats what you get for being Mormon I guess. I'm glad to see that hes still in the scene though. If he keeps making statments like this and people listen maybe he (and us) will have a future...

Thursday, November 13, 2008

A Theory/ A Prediction

Theory: Obama, the egomaniac that he is will forgo his liberal stances for a bid of popularity. The people that will hate on him the most during his tenure will be the leftists. This is not me approving of him. It's the farthest thing from that. It is just a prediction. He will do some highly liberal things, but I believe his narcissism will override many of his decisions.

Prediction: Troop Withdrawals will not happen, at least as he said he would be in favor of. He is no idiot. An all out retreat would be a disaster, he knows that. So if you voted on this idea of troop withdrawal now and forever, sorry.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Well I am reminded of a song...

Turn out the lights
The party's over
They say that
All good things must end
Call it tonight
The party's over
And tomorrow starts
The same old thing again.

Monday, November 3, 2008

A Tid Bit...

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

– Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism

All I have is…

It sounds a little like Obama’s talking points huh? In that case I have to say lookout for redemptive violence.

Election eve...

It is 11:56 on November 3, 2008. I am just wondering now what kind of country we’ll have tomorrow. Either way my dream will not be realized, in this election by any real account. So the question remains what kind of country will we live in? What kind of country is The United States now? What will it be after January 14th 2009? All I ask is think before you vote. If you can vote for a man who cares nothing for the constitution, cares nothing for its current validity, its modern pertinence, then vote for Obama. He has stated its limited outdated irrelevance, and DO NOT BE MIS-INFORMED; he has not and will not recant those statements. He will in fact act on them. His problem with the Constitution: it protects you and me from him. His solution: alter and add to the Constitution to protect his power from you and me. He understands there is weight to the document and it is restrictive to his power. He will work to alter it. If you don’t mind living in a country where you power and rights can be changed at the whim of big brother, vote for Obama. His brand of socialism sets the government up as a Demi-god, a government who decides who prospers. I have heard the news media toss around that word socialism for the past two or three weeks. The obviously left wing media condemns those who use it. The right to center media mulls it over in speech and essay. I am here to tell you that socialism is antithetical (Obama likes to use this word) to the American way of life. Now I know we have been dabbling in socialism for years now. I HATE IT. On the eve of the election of 2008 I now see an all to horrific horizon.