Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (56786)	12/10/2008 11:58:58 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224738

A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River . Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale-boosting programs and teamwork posters. The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American management laid off one ro wer, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses. The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India . Sadly, the End. Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages. TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US . The last quarter's results: TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses... IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (56786)	12/11/2008 7:09:10 AM
From: lorne	Respond to of 224738

Obama adviser endorsed Blago-style politics in 2005posted at 10:58 am on December 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey Send to a Friend \| Share on Facebook \| printer-friendly I doubt too many people around Barack Obama would have any criticisms for US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald or offer any defenses of Illinois politics now. In 2005, however, Obama’s chief political adviser did both in the pages of the Chicago Tribune. While Fitzgerald probed the endemic corruption in the Land of Lincoln, David Axelrod scolded him for criminalizing the normal trading of interests in Chicago-style politics: Patrick Fitzgerald’s charges against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich have drawn a chorus of shock and outrage. But Barack Obama’s message man David Axelrod once staked out a much more nuanced position on Fitzgerald’s anti-corruption crusade. In a 2005 op-ed, Axelrod argued, in effect, that trading political favors – including jobs – is part of the grease that makes government work. He ripped Fitzgerald at the time for trying “to use the criminal code to enforce (his) vision” of “entirely remov(ing) politics from government.” The piece in the Chicago Tribune was prompted by Fitzgerald’s indictment of aides to Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley for conspiring to give city jobs as political favors. Daley was Axelrod’s client at the time. Once again, this demonstrates the links between Barack Obama and the Daley Machine in Chicago. Axelrod serves as the liaison between the two, having spent years working in the Machine before becoming Obama’s right-hand man. In 2005, before making that transition, Axelrod put himself out front in trying to politicize Fitzgerald’s investigation and keep it from reaching his boss, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. And now? I’ll assume Axelrod will keep quiet out of a sense of self-preservation, but the charges against Governor Rod Blagojevich don’t differ much from what Axelrod defended in 2005, except that Blagojevich made the transaction a little too specific. Three years ago, Axelrod defended the concept of horse trading: Daley ally and adviser David Axelrod said that some of the alleged conduct, such as faking interview results, would be clearly wrong. But he said Fitzgerald’s effort to criminalize patronage could eliminate job recommendations altogether. “His grand vision is of a day when you just go, put in your application, take a test and get hired, and recommendations have no place,” Axelrod said. “It’s a very sobering and profound thing. I don’t think it’s legally just, and I don’t think it’s wise.” How does that differ from this, except for the colorful expletives? Throughout the intercepted conversations, Blagojevich also allegedly spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat and expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including: frustration at being “stuck” as governor; a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor; a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016; avoiding impeachment by the Illinois legislature; making corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office; facilitating his wife’s employment as a lobbyist; and generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office… In a conversation with Harris on November 11, the charges state, Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.”… As recently as December 4, in separate conversations with Advisor B and Fundraiser A, Blagojevich said that he was “elevating” Senate Candidate 5 on the list of candidates because, among other reasons, if Blagojevich ran for re-election, Senate Candidate 5 would “raise[] money” for him. Blagojevich said that he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided Blagojevich with something “tangible up front.” That sounds exactly like what Axelrod defended three years ago when his then-boss found himself under Fitzgerald’s microscope. This scandal will do what the national media refused to do during the campaign: tie Obama directly to this kind of corrupt political maneuvering and force some answers as to why Obama managed to rise so fast in that environment. His alliance with Axelrod should be Exhibit A.