Friends,

I drive an American car. It's a Chrysler. That's not an endorsement. It's more like a cry for pity. And now for a decades-old story, retold ad infinitum by tens of millions of Americans, a third of whom have had to desert their country to simply find a damn way to get to work in something that won't break down:

My Chrysler is four years old. I bought it because of its smooth and comfortable ride. Daimler-Benz owned the company then and had the good grace to place the Chrysler chassis on a Mercedes axle and, man, was that a sweet ride!

When it would start.

More than a dozen times in these years, the car has simply died. Batteries have been replaced, but that wasn't the problem. My dad drives the same model. His car has died many times, too. Just won't start, for no reason at all.

A few weeks ago, I took my Chrysler in to the Chrysler dealer here in northern Michigan -- and the latest fixes cost me $1,400. The next day, the vehicle wouldn't start. When I got it going, the brake warning light came on. And on and on.

You might assume from this that I couldn't give a rat's ass about these miserably inept crapmobile makers down the road in Detroit city. But I do care. I care about the millions whose lives and livelihoods depend on these car companies. I care about the security and defense of this country because the world is running out of oil -- and when it runs out, the calamity and collapse that will take place will make the current recession/depression look like a Tommy Tune musical.

And I care about what happens with the Big 3 because they are more responsible than almost anyone for the destruction of our fragile atmosphere and the daily melting of our polar ice caps.

Congress must save the industrial infrastructure that these companies control and the jobs they create. And it must save the world from the internal combustion engine. This great, vast manufacturing network can redeem itself by building mass transit and electric/hybrid cars, and the kind of transportation we need for the 21st century.

And Congress must do all this by NOT giving GM, Ford and Chrysler the $34 billion they are asking for in "loans" (a few days ago they only wanted $25 billion; that's how stupid they are -- they don't even know how much they really need to make this month's payroll. If you or I tried to get a loan from the bank this way, not only would we be thrown out on our ear, the bank would place us on some sort of credit rating blacklist).

Two weeks ago, the CEOs of the Big 3 were tarred and feathered before a Congressional committee who sneered at them in a way far different than when the heads of the financial industry showed up two months earlier. At that time, the politicians tripped over each other in their swoon for Wall Street and its Ponzi schemers who had concocted Byzantine ways to bet other people's money on unregulated credit default swaps, known in the common vernacular as unicorns and fairies.

But the Detroit boys were from the Midwest, the Rust (yuk!) Belt, where they made real things that consumers needed and could touch and buy, and that continually recycled money into the economy (shocking!), produced unions that created the middle class, and fixed my teeth for free when I was ten.

For all of that, the auto heads had to sit there in November and be ridiculed about how they traveled to D.C. Yes, they flew on their corporate jets, just like the bankers and Wall Street thieves did in October. But, hey, THAT was OK! They're the Masters of the Universe! Nothing but the best chariots for Big Finance as they set about to loot our nation's treasury.

Of course, the auto magnates used be the Masters who ruled the world. They were the pulsating hub that all other industries -- steel, oil, cement contractors -- served. Fifty-five years ago, the president of GM sat on that same Capitol Hill and bluntly told Congress, what's good for General Motors is good for the country. Because, you see, in their minds, GM WAS the country.

What a long, sad fall from grace we witnessed on November 19th when the three blind mice had their knuckles slapped and then were sent back home to write an essay called, "Why You Should Give Me Billions of Dollars of Free Cash." They were also asked if they would work for a dollar a year. Take that! What a big, brave Congress they are! Requesting indentured servitude from (still) three of the most powerful men in the world. This from a spineless body that won't dare stand up to a disgraced president nor turn down a single funding request for a war that neither they nor the American public support. Amazing.

Let me just state the obvious: Every single dollar Congress gives these three companies will be flushed right down the toilet. There is nothing the management teams of the Big 3 are going to do to convince people to go out during a recession and buy their big, gas-guzzling, inferior products. Just forget it. And, as sure as I am that the Ford family-owned Detroit Lions are not going to the Super Bowl -- ever -- I can guarantee you, after they burn through this $34 billion, they'll be back for another $34 billion next summer.

So what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:

1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.

2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)

3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.

This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.

This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.

In contrast, yesterday General Motors presented its restructuring proposal to Congress. They promised, if Congress gave them $18 billion now, they would, in turn, eliminate around 20,000 jobs. You read that right. We give them billions so they can throw more Americans out of work. That's been their Big Idea for the last 30 years -- layoff thousands in order to protect profits. But no one ever stopped to ask this question: If you throw everyone out of work, who's going to have the money to go out and buy a car?

These idiots don't deserve a dime. Fire all of them, and take over the industry for the good of the workers, the country and the planet.

What's good for General Motors IS good for the country. Once the country is calling the shots.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Odd, 4 years and still under full warranty and he's been paying for repairs?

Has this been SNOPES'd yet?

regardless of the validity, its a good idea.

Fake, but accurate.....

I wonder where I heard that before?

The whole mess should be allowed to collapse, and perhaps some better ways of doing business, and better ideas will rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes....

I actually think a TVA approach isn't a bad idea at all. Loans with the intent of rebuilding our infrastructure while bailing them out isn't a bad thing.

Still doesn't address the fact that they need to change how they do business.

Odd, 4 years and still under full warranty and he's been paying for repairs?


Yeah because warranties don't go by just years, it's 4 years or 70k miles so maybe he drove it off warranty.

Has this been SNOPES'd yet?
Snopes? Why? It's his blog post.

Eh it's more like 5 years or 100k nowdays but it's still within reason.

Being Michael Moore tho it's quite easy to believe he'd lie to help prove a point. His idea is sound, but I do think he's basically a bullshitter with big ideas.

Eh it's more like 5 years or 100k nowdays but it's still within reason.

Being Michael Moore tho it's quite easy to believe he'd lie to help prove a point. His idea is sound, but I do think he's basically a bullshitter with big ideas.


LOL...when did he lie? What documentary did he do that was false? What makes you say he is a liar?

LMAO either you are being intentionally dense, or are just a lapdog...I'm not sure which.

Either way we're not going to go the rounds. In almost every one of his "drama"documentaries he's been shown to have played fast with the little facts to prove his point/agenda.

Regardless, I like his idea here and think it's the only way the Big 3 should get any monies.

Here's an example of a warranty on a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica (which would now be a 4 year old vehicle).

Basic: 3 yr. / 36,000 mi. Drivetrain: 7 yr. / 70,000 mi. Roadside: 3 yr. / 36,000 mi. Rust: 5 yr. / 100,000 mi.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/chrysler/pacifica/100473936/standardwarranties.html

I think after reading that, you can't just make an assumption he's lying because he said he had to outlay $1400 to repair a four year old car. Now... I am not saying everything he's saying is accurate. I'm just stating you can't dismiss what's there based upon an argument about the vehicle's warranty. Anything outside of the drivetrain (and rust) is outside of warranty regardless of the mileage he's put on the car.

A Chrysler 300 has the same warranty as well.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/chrysler/300/100378299/standardwarranties.html

Oh I wasn't saying he had to be lying, just that with his past I could believe he'd lie to try and sell a point.

I myself only put aprox 10k a year on my truck, far under national average to be sure, so it'd be easy for him to exceed the mileage in that timespan.

No really, be specific, it helps build credibility when you trash someone. His documentary "Roger and Me" wasn't inaccurate or full of lies, it was actually spot on. "Bowling for Columbine" didn't have any lies in it

Then there was Fahrenheit 9/11 I guess he lied in that documentary, he said there was no WMD's and ...wait...there was none. Then there was his connecting the Saudis to terrorist financing and that was an obvious lie...but oh wait...turns out they were. But maybe it was his opposition to the Patriot Act, of course he was going to lie about that, we all know that it is used only to go after brown colored Muslims...oh wait...looks like it's used against anyone who opposes Bush..

Then there was that movie about the health care "Sicko" that was full of false hoods like Canadiens get good medical care and that Cubans have a health care system that works...what a fool he is, we all know that millions of cubans and canadiens die everyday waiting in lines at doctors offices and we know this because Bush said it's true.

We know of course that America is best at health care, what with everyone having excellent coverage, thank god we are not as socialist as those euro trash countries that think good coverage is a right, we know better that it is actually a business to make a profit from and well...if you are not a profitable investment...then oh well.

CAN YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THAT ASS HOLES LIKE YOURSELF ACTUALLY SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT THROWS PEOPLE AWAY WHO AREN'T PROFITABLE TO KEEP ALIVE? CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? LOOK IN A MIRROR AND REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE.

Oh I wasn't saying he had to be lying, just that with his past I could believe he'd lie to try and sell a point.

I myself only put aprox 10k a year on my truck, far under national average to be sure, so it'd be easy for him to exceed the mileage in that timespan.

Point being though that a large number of problems that could occur with said Chrysler vehicle aren't covered because it's been more than 3 years since he bought the car, not the mileage he put on the vehicle.

No really, be specific, it helps build credibility when you trash someone. His documentary "Roger and Me" wasn't inaccurate or full of lies, it was actually spot on. "Bowling for Columbine" didn't have any lies in it

Moore has repeatedly used editing techniques to make people appear to have said things they really didn't -- the Heston interview in BfC was probably the most cogent example, since you basically get Heston looking like a retarded nutcase because Moore didn't include nearly an hour of other interview footage.

Whether or not he's in the right, he has a history of aggressively editing to support his point, and that is not journalistic integrity. Given the piece you posted from Deepak Choprah, you should appreciate why. Moore leans much more on drama and much less on the documentary side of things.

The sad reality is that campaign donations from all of these CEOs have already paid for the bailout they are going to get. Making them come back to Capitol Hill in a hybrid is just part of the play.

Moore has repeatedly used editing techniques to make people appear to have said things they really didn't -- the Heston interview in BfC was probably the most cogent example, since you basically get Heston looking like a retarded nutcase because Moore didn't include nearly an hour of other interview footage.

Whether or not he's in the right, he has a history of aggressively editing to support his point, and that is not journalistic integrity. Given the piece you posted from Deepak Choprah, you should appreciate why. Moore leans much more on drama and much less on the documentary side of things.


Thank you for a specific incident, I'm pretty aware that he has and by his own admission edited footage, I was just hoping to have Fandros point out a specific thing or two instead of the blanket "he's a liar and can't be trusted" standard fair.

Moore has repeatedly used editing techniques to make people appear to have said things they really didn't -- the Heston interview in BfC was probably the most cogent example, since you basically get Heston looking like a retarded nutcase because Moore didn't include nearly an hour of other interview footage.

Whether or not he's in the right, he has a history of aggressively editing to support his point, and that is not journalistic integrity. Given the piece you posted from Deepak Choprah, you should appreciate why. Moore leans much more on drama and much less on the documentary side of things.

Exactly my point, and Rover wants to act as though Mr Moore is spouting gospel. He's very guilty of editing and playing loose with facts to try and sell his point.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Now read through it all Rover, both points and counter points from both sides.

Try and really read and understand past the talking points and the over all picture. See where Mr Moore does infact play towards drama in an effort to sell his point. He edited an interview with Condoleza Rice to help sell his point.

So calm down and quit barking, it's obvious you weren't being intentionally daft so that leaves me with trying to get through the bullshit.

No really, be specific, it helps build credibility when you trash someone. His documentary "Roger and Me" wasn't inaccurate or full of lies, it was actually spot on. "Bowling for Columbine" didn't have any lies in it

Then there was Fahrenheit 9/11 I guess he lied in that documentary, he said there was no WMD's and ...wait...there was none. Then there was his connecting the Saudis to terrorist financing and that was an obvious lie...but oh wait...turns out they were. But maybe it was his opposition to the Patriot Act, of course he was going to lie about that, we all know that it is used only to go after brown colored Muslims...oh wait...looks like it's used against anyone who opposes Bush..

Then there was that movie about the health care "Sicko" that was full of false hoods like Canadiens get good medical care and that Cubans have a health care system that works...what a fool he is, we all know that millions of cubans and canadiens die everyday waiting in lines at doctors offices and we know this because Bush said it's true.

We know of course that America is best at health care, what with everyone having excellent coverage, thank god we are not as socialist as those euro trash countries that think good coverage is a right, we know better that it is actually a business to make a profit from and well...if you are not a profitable investment...then oh well.

CAN YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THAT ASS HOLES LIKE YOURSELF ACTUALLY SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT THROWS PEOPLE AWAY WHO AREN'T PROFITABLE TO KEEP ALIVE? CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? LOOK IN A MIRROR AND REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE.

By the way Mr Flynt, back the hell off as you are in the wrong here junior.

LOL...that is a poor and so obviously biased account of Moore, show something non-republican and one that does not endorse Bush or the Iraq invasion.

Man the truths about him editing conversations is known and not really disputed even by you a few posts back.

Take your meds, calm down boy and breath. You really need to keep your anger in check, I know big fat chance of that but we can all hope!

Don't like my opinion fine, I'm not going to spend all day trying to convince you with threads and links until I find one you don't like. It's not like I'm the only person to see Mr Moores history of playing fast with small facts to make a claim. Climb back in Moores lap and swallow the doggie treats he hands you and it'll all be fine.

You agreed with Malse, the link I showed you made the same claims ( I agree some of the other info is biased but the truth remains).

I'm confused as to what he said here that is disputed?

Are you suggesting we check Snopes to see if he actually has a Chrysler that he had to have repairs on?

Because seriously? That's pretty fucking stupid. An entire article with some pretty decent ideas, and you attack the anecdote that offers nothing but a real face to some of the problems.

If it irritates you so, just ignore the first couple of paragraphs and you should be okay.

I'm confused as to what he said here that is disputed?

Are you suggesting we check Snopes to see if he actually has a Chrysler that he had to have repairs on?

Because seriously? That's pretty fucking stupid. An entire article with some pretty decent ideas, and you attack the anecdote that offers nothing but a real face to some of the problems.

If it irritates you so, just ignore the first couple of paragraphs and you should be okay.

Good lord, nothing is disputed I was just curious why he was spending cash on his car at the 4 year mark. At that time I had forgotten not everyone has a 5 year 100k warranty. Taleren cleared that up for me and I agreed with him.

I , and have said so hell I even suggested something similiar in one of my posts on another thread, actually support the general idea of Mr Moores post.

Rover, as Byl has pointed out, has something seriously ill going on with him and he's taking it out at every opportunity on a few of us.

I certainly didn't do anything to deserve yet another rant by Rover. However he is ...off his feed so to speak so it's to be expected.

He's off his rocker if he thinks it'll continue without some sort or response. Facts are facts, you can't be an emotional twit and expect folks to continually put up with that type of bullshit.

You guys want the same people that run the License Branch running GM? Lord help us all!!

You guys want the same people that run the License Branch running GM? Lord help us all!!

I didn't see where anyone said a specific state should take over GM...

didn't see where anyone said a specific state should take over GM...

Ok, I can use the Social Security Office as the example, to emphasize the point. I don't know of a single government run agency that I have ever had to deal with, that is ever run well. Why would this be any different.

Ok, I can use the Social Security Office as the example, to emphasize the point. I don't know of a single government run agency that I have ever had to deal with, that is ever run well. Why would this be any different.


As opposed to the way that GM, Chrysler and Ford are currently run?

As Moore points out look at the rail system, and as a matter of fact look at the military, that is run pretty good, hell, if you remove the KBR/Halliburtons and the Black waters it runs even better. Hmmm what else is government run...hmmm...Police departments, Fire Departments, some of the best hospitals in the country...hmmmm...what else...

As far as Social Security...well it would have a surplus, only problem is that Reagan started this "We can cut taxes and be responsible", thing is to make up the short fall he raided Social security and it has continued ever since.

As opposed to the way that GM, Chrysler and Ford are currently run?

Good point...

Ok, I can use the Social Security Office as the example, to emphasize the point. I don't know of a single government run agency that I have ever had to deal with, that is ever run well. Why would this be any different.

Social Security does a reasonably decent job considering they've been aggressively understaffed by idealogues above them for decades. I suppose you also think the pre-2000 CDC, FDA, FEMA, NSF, FAA, and other such systems were not "run well" despite highly successful records like the eradication of disease epidemics, the large scale elimination of food-born pathogens, dozens of pre-Katrina hurricane and earthquake recovery efforts, the development of modern computers, and ever increasing civil and commercial flight safety.

Government is not bad. Bad government is bad. You get what you deserve, or rather, vote for.

Never before have I been in agreement with Michael Moore, but on this issue I find myself agreeing with him. Doomsday is indeed at hand!


As a side note, I thought some here might be interested in another view of the vaunted Cuban health care system. A number of reports of a two tiered health system have been coming out in recent years, one tier being reserved for cash paying tourists and party functionaries, another tier for the common Cuban. What Moore showed in Sicko turns out to be the "model" system used for tourists, important people, etc. Below are links to sites showing photos of the other side of Cuban health care that didn't show up on Sicko.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004070.php

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/001470.html

http://freethoughts.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/moroon-forgot-to-tell-us-about-healthcare-for-ordinary-cubans/

Enjoy!

Those photos show something quite interesting. Most of them lack context as to what we are seeing. An old shower unit with no shower head and no hot and cold water handlesS? What makes that a bad health care system in Cuba? Why is an old woman in a hospital bed a bad thing? Look closely as the room is quite clean. Also look at the shots in the hallways, the floors have a pretty damn good shine on them.

CAN YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THAT ASS HOLES LIKE YOURSELF ACTUALLY SUPPORT A SYSTEM THAT THROWS PEOPLE AWAY WHO AREN'T PROFITABLE TO KEEP ALIVE? CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? LOOK IN A MIRROR AND REALIZE WHAT YOU ARE.


This shit is getting old, Rover.

He said quite plainly that he likes Moore's ideas that were presented, but you would rather have the same old same old verbal boxing match that gets everyone off-topic rather than actually discussing something of merit.

I thought whatever is going on with you was going to work itself out, but you just keep going for the negative over nad over and over.....it is almost like your candidate lost and you are on a mission to get back at folks.

If you really feel your initial post is important why not focus on that rather than if Fandros or anyone else has an opinion of Moore that does not match your own? Or are you only posting these days to try to pick verbal fights?

While Michael Moore might not be lying outright every time he opens his mouth. The one thing you can be sure of is he is bending whatever he finds to his reality.

The scary part of all this is, I actually agree with some of the ideas he came out with.

While Michael Moore might not be lying outright every time he opens his mouth. The one thing you can be sure of is he is bending whatever he finds to his reality.

The scary part of all this is, I actually agree with some of the ideas he came out with.


I think the idea of using the auto-makers to forge ahead with mass transit, tied in to a massive public works project to create jobs for providing track and roads and such, is a great idea. This could then create another large job pool for security staff on those mass transit vehicles. :rolleyes:

This could then create another large job pool for security staff on those mass transit vehicles.

Speaking of *fabulous* and ineffectual security staff, I was returning from a conference last week and nearly missed my flight, despite checking in in plenty of time, due to the fact that TSA only had four lines open (although plenty of employees in evidence) at the security gate of my departing airport. The American Airlines gate clerk, having to hold up the flight for the several of us in the same boat, remarked that they should rename the TSA "Thousands Standing Around" ;)

Of course, if they had sane screening protocols, paid a living wage, and required screeners to have something going on other than a pulse, it might stand a better chance of not massively sucking.

Regards,
Nydia

I did my part! I bought a new Eddie Bauer Expedition yesterday :)

Sure is much nicer than my old one :)

The scary part of all this is, I actually agree with some of the ideas he came out with.

I used to be a Mr. Moore hater, but only based of friends at work and family who refuse to listen to alternative views than their own sided ways.
Once I actually started watching his "dramas", and seeing interviews with him and listening to what he had to say, I found that I actually agreed with what he was doing. He opens eyes to those who simply don't want to believe that we have some major improvements needed in this wonderful country. Before that I was one of many who thought USA !!!!11111111!!!!, we are far from that. He was right about a lot of things way before alot of people believed him (or understood him).

heh Bise I'm looking at trading in my Avalanche for a 2008 Grand Am. Twice the Gas mileage, still under warranty and with a V6 so it still has some get up and go!!

Sure it's not a great gas saver but here in Utah you have to have a car/truck with some heft and at least front wheel drive for the snowy conditions during the winter.

Grand AM's are a solid buy. They last forever, I had one which my wife purchased new and drove it for 13 years with 230,000 miles on it. Granted around 100,000 it became a rattle trap, and this is with 3 sets of faulty struts installed, after 100,000 I just said F'it and drove it as was...it simply never died.

Another plus is with so many of that model out there that getting replacement parts is easy. I can do my own work under the hood provided I can get the parts.

Grand Am and Grand Prix share alot of the same parts and there are a ton of those on the road ( in the junkyard etc etc).

The one thing you can be sure of is he is bending whatever he finds to his reality.

In general I agree with a lot of of what Moore seems to represent, not all, but a lot. I don't watch his movies because I know I'm getting a very warped, maybe not bald face lies, but exaggerated view of the issue. I understand why he does it, if he didn't his movies wouldn't generate the mega loads of cash they do.

I like that his movies generate buzz about these very important issues, unfortunately many that see them take them as gospel and don't learn for themselves the full stories.

That being said, on this issue I'm in agreement. Giving the US automakers billions will accomplish nothing. I'm not sure taking over the companies is a great idea as I really don't think those in our government are much smarter than the a-holes in charge now (see the financial bailout). But it has to come with clear changes in operation. Look at what the successful car companies do (mostly Japanese) and emulate that. Don't build runs of vehicles based on projections, build vehicles based on demand, to name one.

I really don't think it matters though, I'm fairly certain they'll just get a handout and go back to their old ways.

The one thing you can be sure of is he is bending whatever he finds to his reality.

In general I agree with a lot of of what Moore seems to represent, not all, but a lot. I don't watch his movies because I know I'm getting a very warped, maybe not bald face lies, but exaggerated view of the issue. I understand why he does it, if he didn't his movies wouldn't generate the mega loads of cash they do.

I like that his movies generate buzz about these very important issues, unfortunately many that see them take them as gospel and don't learn for themselves the full stories.

That being said, on this issue I'm in agreement. Giving the US automakers billions will accomplish nothing. I'm not sure taking over the companies is a great idea as I really don't think those in our government are much smarter than the a-holes in charge now (see the financial bailout). But it has to come with clear changes in operation. Look at what the successful car companies do (mostly Japanese) and emulate that. Don't build runs of vehicles based on projections, build vehicles based on demand, to name one.

I really don't think it matters though, I'm fairly certain they'll just get a handout and go back to their old ways.

/nods Toyota will bounce back much quicker than our Big3 will. As they don't have tons of cash tied up in unused inventory they won't eat taxes on unsold goods and won't have to scrap models not sold.

It's definitely true that manufacturers using Lean can handle this better than others, but it's a common misconception that they don't have a glut of unsold inventory jamming up their pipelines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/business/economy/19ports.html?incamp=article_popular_5

This is hurting everyone. It's just that the imports had a better financial cushion than the domestics.

Actually no San it's a common misconception that those not understanding Lean through and through make the statement you just made.

What you linked shows Toyota using Risk management to try and fill in for long lead times. Meaning instead of making the customer wait X plus the days for transit they instead forecast to consider the lead time of shipping.

Only the models they don't build stateside are shipped thusly from Japan and as such they are generally left short a few mods that are done to fulfill the contract.

It is NOTHING like the built inventory the Big 3 have on stock and sitting awaiting better days.

Oh and Toyota is likely the car folks will want once we start purchasing again due to quality and MPG. So they likely don't see it as such a risk so much as getting ahead of the game.

For the record Toyota doesn't call it Lean, they call it TPS ( Toyota Production system ). Lean is an Americanization of the TPS so folks would use it without feeling as though we were losing our manufacturing culture.

There are actually terms in TPS that we used in Autoliv for the many processes that were in Japanese. When they started to move the processes to other parts of the plant ( GM, Ford and other domestic lines) they started using American terms because the reps from those companies didn't like using a TPS system.

Whatever you call Lean, it's just part of Kaizen. We use its ideas in software development too. I'm familiar with it.

Let's see some numbers on how many unsold cars the domestics and imports have stocked. I don't think the difference is going to be as big as you think it is. During normal consumer demand, maybe, but not right now.

Do you know what Kaizan means?

It's Japanese for change, it's not a system it's merely a process in the Toyota Production system. Continual improvement cycle is likely a better description of the term Kaizan i.e. Kaizan teams. They are usually put together to tackle one problem and then move onto improving the solution or modifying it should the problem mutate.

Sorry , you might want to do a lil more research as that's only a tiny part ( and yes it's part of the reason so many American companies are failing using it).

You need to understand all of it and I do mean thoroughly before you can use the system. You can't use part of it and say it's bullshit because it's not working.

You, and very likely the folks you work with, don't understand it or are doing a lousy job teaching you.

As a Supervisor at Autoliv in the Toyota division I had to not only learn it ( I really really really resisted it at first) but you have to teach it to a varying amount of folks.

Not sure who you're even talking to at this point...

As for total numbers? The Big 3 don't normally give out the numbers but it's MUCH MUCH bigger than Toyota or Nissan have.

Not sure who you're even talking to at this point...

You, it's clear since you brought up the term Kaizan and thought it was the system and Lean was a process in that.

It's the other way around, you don't know the teaching of TPS so you might want to do more research.

Because? You say so? Because it's conventional wisdom, so it must be correct?

You, it's clear since you brought up the term Kaizan and thought it was the system and Lean was a process in that.

It's the other way around, you don't know the teaching of TPS so you might want to do more research.

Uh? No.

Whatever you call Lean, it's just part of Kaizen. We use its ideas in software development too. I'm familiar with it.

Kaizen is a philosophy of continuous improvement. Lean, TPS, and all of that grew out of the Kaizen thing. I didn't call Kaizen the process, nor did I equate Lean and Kaizen.

Not sure what you're on the rag about here, but you're splitting hairs over the wrong minutiae altogether.

Bud before you jump on your usual holier than thou bullshit you better go back and read my post.

I said a process of continual improvement might be a better definition.

Man you are so out of your depth here, as I would be if I tried to tell you how to program.

Kaizan is PART OF THE TPS SYSTEM it sprung out of the development of the TPS system.

Sorry San, I usually accord you a very bright individual but when you are shown to be wrong you really really go far out to abuse and attempt to stonewall.

TPS grew from an idea sold to Toyota by an American some years ago. The idea was originally brought to Detroit and was shot down.

Do you know what Kaizan means?

It's Japanese for change,

Do you know? It doesn't mean change, it means continuous improvement. It's a Japanese philosophy.

Uh? Kaizen has been around longer than Toyota.

Just because whatever you're preaching was written in that Toyota manual doesn't necessarily make it true. Sorry.

I'm sure TPS is a great example of the Kaizen philosophy applied to manufacturing, but they certainly didn't "invent" Kaizen.

http://www.superfactory.com/document-archive/newsletter-articles/113-twi-influence-on-tps-and-kaizen-.html

No man, you are really really really really stonewalling here.

You apparently will keep to the usual San methods here. Stonewall, not show as being on your own boards, and spam post and denegrate folks because you don't understand.

I'm not going to keep going rounds with you, you're wrong but as usual would rather quit posting than to admit it.

http://www.gemba.com/consulting.cfm?id=144

Guess being taught by actual Toyota reps and reading the works of Mr Ohno count for nothing

I could quote Microsoft talking as if it invented open source too, but that would be just as silly. Using a biased source just shows lack of judgment or understanding, not that you're correct.

Okay , so no matter the source you are going to discount it.

I respect you too much to call you on the carpet as you deserve on this.

Carry on, it's not like I can link the reams of material I've read in book form.

TPM, MDI, 6 Sigma, SPC, all those methodoligies were all taken and refined into the huge animal called Lean. Various forms have been in existance for a long while, coincidentally Ford himself kicked it all off.

Fandro seems very versed into it, in fact cult like. Womack would be proud of you.

Those photos show something quite interesting. Most of them lack context as to what we are seeing. An old shower unit with no shower head and no hot and cold water handlesS? What makes that a bad health care system in Cuba? Why is an old woman in a hospital bed a bad thing? Look closely as the room is quite clean. Also look at the shots in the hallways, the floors have a pretty damn good shine on them.

Mostly it is the run down nature of the facilities, but here is a much more detailed link with better explanations to what you are seeing and further links to various sources that expound upon the point that Cuba's real health care system is a far cry from what they show to the outside world.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

Some of those pictures looked like they were taken at Walter Reed....

Heh, I've been studying since '96. Even 8 years after I quit working for Autoliv I've been learning more and more about it.

Even to the point I tried to push for implementing it out in Depot during their push. Sadly they did as most American workplaces do and tried to use pieces of it.

To really use it effectively you have to get your supply base up to speed 100%. Don't try to work it in the middle for the showy effects. Work it from end to end.

Snopes? Why? It's his blog post.

Yeah, the link to that really helped out...

Mostly it is the run down nature of the facilities, but here is a much more detailed link with better explanations to what you are seeing and further links to various sources that expound upon the point that Cuba's real health care system is a far cry from what they show to the outside world.

http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

I know that with the loss of the Soviet Union as an economic supporter that conditions for the average Cuban have gone back to the way they had to live under Batista, so you may be correct in this. Amazing how it ended up going back to the conditions that brought Castro to power.

One of the questions I have , with Fidel being a fading figure in Cuba, is will Pres Obama ( yes elect I know ) help to change our relations with Cuba? They have enough to offer Americans that might raise the level of wealth in the country if there was no embargo no?

Yeah, the link to that really helped out...

Yeah the whole thing is fake Sixee, in fact Moore wants to actually give the CEO's all the money they need and he's completely reveresed himself on his support for the average citizen, he now believes that unless you're a CEO or hold at the very least an upper management position you are responsible for an economic crisis.

He's doing a new documentary called: "Detroit, the truth about how assembly line workers and janitorial staff completely mis-managed the Big 3 automakers and payed the liberal media to blame it on the overworked and under paid CEO's.:"

I know that with the loss of the Soviet Union as an economic supporter that conditions for the average Cuban have gone back to the way they had to live under Batista, so you may be correct in this. Amazing how it ended up going back to the conditions that brought Castro to power.

Truthfully I doubt health care was all that much better during the height of Soviet support. The use of "model" institutions for propaganda purposes was a common tactic amongst communist governments. The Cubans have just been more successful in maintaining the illusion than the Soviets and their other clients were. Nonetheless, they can't help but have suffered from the loss of their gravy train when the USSR dissolved. Add to that the shipping out of 4000 Cuban doctors to Venezuela in return for cheaper oil and it isn't much of a surprise that things are even worse there now.

Truthfully I doubt health care was all that much better during the height of Soviet support. The use of "model" institutions for propaganda purposes was a common tactic amongst communist governments. The Cubans have just been more successful in maintaining the illusion than the Soviets and their other clients were. Nonetheless, they can't help but have suffered from the loss of their gravy train when the USSR dissolved. Add to that the shipping out of 4000 Cuban doctors to Venezuela in return for cheaper oil and it isn't much of a surprise that things are even worse there now.


That is probably it, but it still reminds me of the images during Batista's reign of terror over Cuba. I think back then there wasn't even any health care what so ever for the people. I guess we now know why only a tiny minority of Cubans left after the US pissed on Castro.

But honestly, looking through the photos of daily life on that website, it really isn't much different than here or any western country. The site points out that there is racism in cuba because there are poor black people there, it points out that sometimes people find things they need in the garbage, it points out that some people use horse and buggies...come to PA they are all over the place. It points out that there are poor in Cuba and that it has corrupt leaders...Welcome to Cuba 1955 or even Welcome to America 2008.

Let me ask this, is there really a difference in a leader that does things or pushes for laws that favor his friends and family businesses, laws from which those businesses make huge profits from and then those companies hire the leader, after leaving office, to give a speech for millions of dollars and do it repeatedly? Is that ok?

Is it ok for a person to be secretary of defense set policies that would make outsourcing the new buzzword and then leave that post and go work for, as a CEO, a large corporation and just happen to set a new direction for that company as a major contractor of everything defense related like logistics, food services, construction, retail management and other basic necessity things that a large force would need along with fixing oil wells and then the CEO gets picked for the position of VP and then is really big on starting a war with a country that didn't attack us and magically the VP's former company gets a contract for everything that is needed right down to toilet paper and then makes huge profits and suddenly decides it is better to become a corporation of Dubai where it is not subject to American tax laws? Is that ok? Or is it less criminal than anything Castro did?

Corrupt? I would say so. I would love to see legislation put in place to prevent future leaders from that sort of activity. But that sort of corruption being in the same league as Castro? I don't think so.

Regarding the photos of daily life, many of them do look relatively normal. Common people often find a way to thrive regardless of who is in charge (with the possible exception of North Korea). No doubt a large number of Cubans are quite happy with their country as is. Others not so much. Kind of like here.

I just brought this up because of the Michael Moore discussion, showing how what he sometimes touts is quite far from reality. Socialized medicine isn't the panacea many on the left think it will be. That isn't to say the US system doesn't need to be changed to help care for a larger proportion of the population than is currently the case. IMO the happy medium is somewhere in the middle where R&D is still profitable for medical/pharmaceutical companies but we aren't put into bankruptcy the moment we get sick.

Let me ask this: Is it ok for a person to selectively edit interviews and quotes to make a documentary seem "controversial" to boost sales, as opposed to "making a point"?

I think everyone gets it but Sixee.

Well, for my part I resent being bilked of cash by such a motivation. Once I discover that it's been done, I avoid seeing anything else produced by the person in question. So he'll get my money for one film, but no others. Same as if I bought a shoddy product from a manufacturer, being lured by hype or packaging only to discover its a piece of shit.

Since discovering his "stretch" for truth I've always looked hard at anything he has to say. That being said he does bring good topics to light, sad that every sane person in the world distrusts him.

He needs to find a way to get his point across without the duplicity. That being said he shouldn't be given awards for documentaries as those are supposed to be unbiased bald truths imho.

Since discovering his "stretch" for truth I've always looked hard at anything he has to say. That being said he does bring good topics to light, sad that every sane person in the world distrusts him.

He needs to find a way to get his point across without the duplicity. That being said he shouldn't be given awards for documentaries as those are supposed to be unbiased bald truths imho.

Even if he were able to produce something now without large biases, the damage has been done in that half the population wouldn't care if he said the sky was blue, they'd be skeptical.

I'm a Democrat, and I don't trust the guy as far as I could throw him. I DO think he has some great ideas. The premise in everything I've seen him produce has been excellent. He's had great info in everything he's put out, but not everything he's put out is great info.

I like many of his ideas. Anyone here that's talked to me at length knows how I feel about our health care system. I thought the premise in Farenheit 9/11 was good until he twisted people's words. Roger and Me was very good, and didn't seem as bias as some of his other works. I haven't seen Sicko though because I know of the biases in it, and I already know how I feel about our system.

I know Tale, it's sad that someone of vision can't tell the story without smearing it with untruths.

I think that Moore, and by his own admission, has erred in some of his portrayals of things but all in all he is one of the few who has dedicated himself to the advocacy of the middle class and that in itself is a noble cause in this day and age. I mean honestly if you look at so many discussions as seen even here you notice quite a bias against the employee vs the employer.

You can be an employer and still be middle class, the lines aren't that solid.

That being said you said Mr Moore erred, no that implies it wasn't intentional I think.

His actions were very intentional, in his mind the end justifys the means. I've always been leary of that character flaw.

I think everyone gets it but Sixee.

Flamebait, much?

His actions were very intentional, in his mind the end justifys the means. I've always been leary of that character flaw. It's a character flaw of the outgoing President. That's why we are all so leary of it.

Disliked that character flaw long before the likes of the Bushes were in the White house ;P

Disliked that character flaw long before the likes of the Bushes were in the White house ;P

Nixon was a classic case of that particular character flaw.

Disliked that character flaw long before the likes of the Bushes were in the White house ;P

Hiroshima = that character flaw

Hiroshima = that character flaw

I think that can be said but as my father was a WWII vet and served in the pacific it is a wholly dependent on if you were there thing. I remember my Dad would say how "The japs were sneaky" and that they would always booby trap things. My Dad never spoke of his specific experiences in detail but I do know that growing up as a kid and we would take our 2-3 weeks at the Jersey shore and he would never go to the beach, he would stay back at the house or go boating out in Barnegat Bay. It wasn't till much later in life after my own things that I realized it wasn't really that he didn't like the crowds but that he just couldn't take being on another beach.

At the end of the war he went right in to Japan as a member of the occupation forces, which pretty much means he would have been in the assault forces had we needed to invade, he was grateful that we dropped the bomb. His reasoning, and I believe rightfully so was that it save lives ultimately. The Japanese were not known to surrender and with their booby trapping of everything including surrendering troops (they would carry grenades under their arm pits and when they would raise them the grenades would fall out and kill and maim the troops taking them prisoner) and the fact that the US troops just simply were not into taking the risk of taking prisoners, it would have meant just killing every Japanese we saw. He also always said, dead is dead what is the difference if you are killed by a gun, a knife, artillery or an atom bomb the result is they all kill in war.

I think Jedd to judge that during WWII is not our place.

So what your saying is... The means justified the need to have the end jusitfy the means??? Tricky shit

So, Jedd, you would have rather the American soldier's death toll be three times what it was, to serve what purpose?

So, Jedd, you would have rather the American soldier's death toll be three times what it was, to serve what purpose?

The obvious answer is to avoid the killing of innocent civilians, but we were already killing them.

The entire US world philosophy is "The ends justify the means" just pointing it out.

The obvious answer is to avoid the killing of innocent civilians, but we were already killing them.

The entire US world philosophy is "The ends justify the means" just pointing it out.


I think in the case of war ALL nations feel that the ends justify the means, and that really goes for any nation in almost every situation, we have no special consideration in that department.

So what your saying is... The means justified the need to have the end jusitfy the means??? Tricky shit

No what I'm saying in the case of Japan the culture was not one where people, military or otherwise would surrender. They had it embedded into their thinking that to be taken prisoner was a dishonor and to fight to the death.

The destruction by the 2 bombs on Japan most likely would have been about 1% of the casualties if we were to have to have actually invaded Japan. But then again I nor you were there and my only way to have any perspective on it was from my Father and his experiences in WWII. I do know that in the case of the campaign in the pacific there were very few prisoners taken by American forces and very few prisoners taken by Japanese forces survived.

So the blood bath of the bombs would have probably been far surpassed by an invasion.

The obvious answer is to avoid the killing of innocent civilians, but we were already killing them.

The entire US world philosophy is "The ends justify the means" just pointing it out.


When you finish wringing your hands and going on with yet another "the U.S. is so terrible" spiel, try doing a bit of research on the Japanese and their conduct during WWII, with some emphasis on their treatment of "civilian" populations in China, Burma, the Phillipines, etc. In the context of that war, the use of those two bombs might well be considered the more humane option.

But then, I am not sure why this is even being discussed in a thread about Michael Moore and the auto bailout.

/shrug

If we hadn't dropped the bombs we would have had to kill every man woman and child in order to take those islands, that was just the ferocity of of the Japanese war machine. People just never seem to get that.

If we hadn't dropped the bombs we would have had to kill every man woman and child in order to take those islands, that was just the ferocity of of the Japanese war machine. People just never seem to get that.

So if another country wishes to fight us, and they have to deal with the same ferocity you would approve of them nuking us to prevent further casualties?

Just curious =)

You really think the mentality of the the American civilian, is the same as a World War II Japanese civilian?

You are trying to dress up an apple to appear as an orange, and saying, "Let's compare the two."

So if another country wishes to fight us, and they have to deal with the same ferocity you would approve of them nuking us to prevent further casualties?

Just curious =)

I don't think anyone would approve of having themselves nuked.

Jedd isn't going to be happy till he's forced to actually live in the shoes he's trying to make everyone else wear.

War should be fought at an ugly level, it should stain the soul and make you fear using it as a tool. It should be a tool of last resort so you never want to use it willy nilly.

Not the way we've been forced to wage war since ,and including, Vietnam by the spineless vocal folks like Jedd. How many more conflicts have we had because that social fear to use war simply wasn't there.

I think that if we'd have remembered how ugly war really is that there might have been one war my generation. We'd , possibly, have let the Middle East deevolve to the 14th century and maybe just , as a alliance, taken one large area and be done with the rest of it.

So much about global policy changes when you use war as a napkin to clean up lil messes instead of using it once as a clean all and regret it device.

That's what my sig , old one that I finally deleted, meant. It has reasoning far beyond what most peaceniks can understand. Loathe war, weild it with a steel glove and then help them rebuild after the fact.

Sooooo ......
how about those car companies?

Which ones?

You really think the mentality of the the American civilian, is the same as a World War II Japanese civilian?

You are trying to dress up an apple to appear as an orange, and saying, "Let's compare the two."

Do you think the American civilian would let ANYONE take an INCH of American Soil? Same result if we were to be invaded.

Jedd isn't going to be happy till he's forced to actually live in the shoes he's trying to make everyone else wear.

War should be fought at an ugly level, it should stain the soul and make you fear using it as a tool. It should be a tool of last resort so you never want to use it willy nilly.

Not the way we've been forced to wage war since ,and including, Vietnam by the spineless vocal folks like Jedd. How many more conflicts have we had because that social fear to use war simply wasn't there.

I think that if we'd have remembered how ugly war really is that there might have been one war my generation. We'd , possibly, have let the Middle East deevolve to the 14th century and maybe just , as a alliance, taken one large area and be done with the rest of it.

So much about global policy changes when you use war as a napkin to clean up lil messes instead of using it once as a clean all and regret it device.

That's what my sig , old one that I finally deleted, meant. It has reasoning far beyond what most peaceniks can understand. Loathe war, weild it with a steel glove and then help them rebuild after the fact.

Blah blah blah...

War is the failure of humanity, I accept nothing else regardless of how much you try to convince me I don't understand.

Do you think the American civilian would let ANYONE take an INCH of American Soil? Same result if we were to be invaded.


Well, there's you....and people like you, who would want to negotiate, rather than fight back.
Then there's the apathetic types that probably couldn't tell you who invaded, what; but could tell you what Paris Hilton's panty size is.
There are also people physically unable to fight back, as well as children.

Jedd, what you don't understhand is this: The Japanese culture was such, they would not surrender unless showed there was a way to wipe them from the face of the Earth. That's what Hiroshima was all about.

While we do have some civilians that would fight back, I think you'd find the majority of Americans would fit into the above categories. As long as Dancing with the Stars still comes on, they couldn't care less about who runs the show....

Blah blah blah...

War is the failure of humanity, I accept nothing else regardless of how much you try to convince me I don't understand.

Fine, you have stated your concrete, immovable position, so stop posting your argument since you will accept nothing else. Let us get back to the topic of the thread.

Jedd, what you don't understhand is this: The Japanese culture was such, they would not surrender unless showed there was a way to wipe them from the face of the Earth. That's what Hiroshima was all about.


I really didn't want to get into this but since the thread had devolved anyone ... no one who mattered thought that the atomic weapons had anything to do with Japan, it was about Russia. I'm sure plenty of people were very glad the invasion didn't happen, but Japan had been trying to surrender FOR MONTHS before the decision was made, much less the bombs were dropped.

In the end we basically gave Japan the unacceptable "conditions" under the table and off the record after we demonstrated that we were now the penultimate military power in the world, and don't you commies f'n forget it.

War should be fought at an ugly level, it should stain the soul and make you fear using it as a tool. It should be a tool of last resort so you never want to use it willy nilly.

Not the way we've been forced to wage war since ,and including, Vietnam by the spineless vocal folks like Jedd. How many more conflicts have we had because that social fear to use war simply wasn't there.

While I whole-heartedly agree with your first statement, the correlation you posit in the second is false; The decisions to restrict warfare in Vietnam did not factor in public opinion until very late in the war. Overall public sentiment was largely in favor of military action at the outset, easily better than the prelude to the Iraq war and in similar specious circumstances.

As long as people think war has no consequences other than profit, you are going to see more of it. We are a nation that has not seen the consequences of war since 1865 and the lie that war is profitable is ingrained very deep since most people don't understand the difference between a (omgz socialist!) forced deficit economy and simply dumping money into endless "defense" money pits.

Speaking of the Vietnam war... did anyone read about the Johnson tapes from October 1968 that have recently come to light regarding negotiations he had been working on between the North and South Vietnamese (the so called Paris talks)? There's a really extraordinary one where he has Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace all in the Oval Office, and he is asking them *please* not to do anything to derail the 4-party talks as he has finally gotten an agreement by all parties (including Thieu) to attend, and an agreement from the North Vietnamese to withdraw from the DMZ. Nixon, via Kissinger and his other operatives, were working behind the scenes to make sure that no progress was made prior to the election (and after the election, prior to his inauguration), fearing that an "October surprise" of a peace agreement would hurt his election chances - by convincing Thieu and the South Vietnamese government that they would be able to get better terms once his administration was in office (which worked out really well for them ;) ). Johnson knew, and was infuriated, about the activity, but was unwilling to disclose *how* he knew (via wiretapping of South Vietnamese officials), and so the talks stalled, Nixon won a narrowly contested election, and the war would go on for another five years. Nixon's ambition, as it had before and would again, superseded all other considerations.

Fully searchable (and available for purchase!) State Department archives link here, including archival tapes/transcripts from a whole bunch of folks, including :
Files of the Department of State; Files of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara; Top secret files of the Embassy at Saigon; Papers of General Maxwell D. Taylor, Chief of Staff of the Army; Files of William P.
Bundy; Papers of Admiral George W. Anderson, Chief of Naval Operations; Master set of papers pertaining to National Security Council meetings, including policy papers, position papers, administrative documents, as maintained by the Executive Secretariat; Files of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, 1961-1969, including texts of speeches, miscellaneous correspondence files, White House correspondence, chronological files, and memoranda of telephone conversations; Files created for Ambassador W. Averell Harriman and Cyrus Vance, Delegates to the Paris Peace Conference in 1968. Background documents beginning in the early 1960s. The file contains texts of documents found nowhere else; Files of negotiations for a possible peace in Vietnam, including the efforts of countries, international organizations and individuals, 1961-1967; Personal papers of Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., 1928-1968; Westmoreland Papers: Records of General William C. Westmoreland, Commander, Military Assistance Command Vietnam, 1964-1968; Files of John McCone as Director of Central Intelligence, 1961-1965;
Files of Richard Helms as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, 1965-1966; Negotiation books, negotiation background papers, briefing books, and miscellaneous documents on Vietnam, 1965-1968

can be found here:

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/vwfrus.html

Excerpts from these archives have made their way onto NPR recently (where I heard the taped conversation this week) and this might make a very interesting Christmas gift for anyone interested in that period in our history.

Regards,
Nydia

Yes, Nydia, Nixon was a man that we all loved and respected....especially those of us sitting in that barracks in Oakland waiting to fly out the next morning, watching Nixon on television stating to the American people we were sending no more troops to Viet Nam but were instead reducing our troop levels.

Great find tho', and thanks for sharing it.