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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (702257)	3/3/2013 5:12:36 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1578238

What does a community agitator need, first and foremost, to agitate against? An enemy. You know, Alinsky’s Rules et al.: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. ...” “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Republicans, with their “kick me” signs on their backs were a natural. But why would an American President spend his days agitating instead of working with Congress and business leaders to build up the economic sector, or develop meaningful bipartisan tax reform to stimulate business and jobs? The answer, as they say, is complicated but has been well chronicled. The short answer is that Barrack Obama isn’t like other leaders. Where previous presidents – some more misguided than others – attempted to encourage economic growth through the mechanisms of capitalism and free markets, hallmarks of American democracy, this President does not. The “one we’ve been waiting for” to “fundamentally transform America” is committed to quite a different economic model: social justice. This “spread the wealth around” because “at some point I do think you’ve made enough money” system of redistribution has far more use for government than it does the private sector, and Obama governs accordingly. If you think social justice is just a fringe element of extreme left wing politics you are partially correct. It is extreme, but fringe? No. Not anymore. If you think otherwise I suggest that you take a closer look at the handbooks, curricula and syllabi from the colleges and universities you hope to send your kids to. You’ll discover that not only is social justice an inherent theme in multiple liberal arts programs, but in the schools of education and social work/welfare it is a primary element: Here is how it is defined by the Berkeley School of Social Welfare: “Social Justice is a process, not an outcome, which (1) seeks fair (re)distribution of resources, opportunities, and responsibilities; (2) challenges the roots of oppression and injustice; (3) empowers all people to exercise self-determination and realize their full potential; (4) and builds social solidarity and community capacity for collaborative action. And any curriculum where you find “social justice” you will find its companion piece “community organizing.” This definition, compliments of the University of Wisconsin: “Community organizing is the process of building power through involving a constituency in identifying problems they share and the solutions to those problems that they desire; identifying the people and structures that can make those solutions possible; enlisting those targets in the effort through negotiation and using confrontation and pressure when needed…” Nor does this social justice indoctrination begin at the university level, but I’ll get into that more tomorrow. For now just recognize the natural affinity of the two: social justice provides the objective (i.e. redistribution of wealth) and community organizing supplies the tactics, ala Alinsky’s Rules. When these two strains of sociopathy were allowed to mate they mutated into a rather virulent strain of political philosophy that is deeply embedded in Barack Obama’s DNA. Treating this type of political mutant like an average political foe is like treating cancer with “the pain killer.” You’ve been warned. TOMORROW: Know Thy Enemy, Part I Barack Obama did not bring us to this first circle of hell on his own. He was aided and abetted by 1) an education system with a relentless propaganda agenda, 2) a media oligopoly that has completely abrogated its First Amendment responsibility and 3) a celebrity dominated culture that is largely a product of the first two. deweyfromdetroit.com

To: longnshort who wrote (702257)	3/3/2013 5:47:57 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 1578238

You don't know WTF your talking about and really sound double stupid......anyone associated with manufacturing anything knows that mgmt is the difference between good product and bad and between profit and loss..... It might be fun if you came up with links to some of those stories but that will never happen. You're happy being a liar.

To: longnshort who wrote (702257)	3/3/2013 5:53:07 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578238

Ok, let's take your little just-so story at face value. Let us assume all of the quality problems at the time was because of sabotage by union workers. What kind of poor work conditions would lead that to happen? And that is directly at the feet of management. But, your story doesn't hold water. Many of the things you describe would be caught at the various inspections the cars went through before shipment. Not all, but a lot of them. So on that basis it just doesn't make sense. From the view point of W. Edwards Deming, it doesn't make sense either. He had experience with American manufacturing techniques during WWII and made a career out of how to fix a lot of the problems. But, American companies, especially the American auto industry didn't listen. But the Japanese did. Later, Ford did when they were failing in the late 1970s. But, after listening to Deming, they soon became more profitable than their other American rivals. Deming considered 85% of quality problems are due to management, Ford didn't. When they changed things, turned out they were wrong and Deming was right.