Hmm. It appears the government is already knee deep in its action to take over General Motors.
Articles are popping up all over proclaiming a "new" GM is emerging and it is shedding the gas guzzlers and big vehicles to focus on small cars with lots of great gas mileage.
Interesting.
Doesn't it matter at all what the public, the actual consumer market wants to buy?
Think of this. Every year there are articles and books and shows produced telling us how big people are getting. Not just from obesity, but human beings living in the U.S., due to improved health, food medicine and other positive attributes of living in a 'first world' country are getting taller, more physically robust bodies.
So, by all means, lets cram these bigger humans into smaller vehicles.
Who cares about comfort. Who cares about safety. Less car around more person obviously means safe ride right?
Who are these bureaucrats to say what types of vehicles people "should" drive anyway?
If all manufacturers make are Prius sized cars, what on earth will all the people taller than a fourth grader going to drive to work in? Will the government mandate riding the bus for anyone over 5 foot seven?
This is America. if you want the government to make all your decisions for you, there are countries that do that already, don't feel like you must stay here.
If you want to drive a small car and be "green", by god, do that. Again, this is America, you have the right to decide for yourself what to drive,, but quit forcing your desires and opinions down everyone else's throats.
By the way, take that statement into serious consideration. "you have the right to decide for yourself..."
Your freedoms in this country extend as far as your arm. They involve only you. Once you try to place expectations and demands on others, you are out of bounds.
Yes, as a 'civilized' society, we must agree on common rules and policies that are fair to the most people interests across the board. This is only in terms of the absolute basics though. Not to extend into the deepest details of every ones lives.
Let GM fail. If they make vehicles that people want, at prices people can afford, then people will buy them. otherwise, the next guy will figure something out that works.
The government has absolutely NO business running a business. This is a horrific precedent and a very dangerous step towards an America most people do not want to live in.
What next? If you can't make your house payment, or raise your kids the way the government thinks you should, they will appoint a new "Household Manager" for you?
"Big Government" needs to stay out of Big Business, and every other type of business for that matter.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
corporate minded game playing
Everyone talks about ethical behavior. some talk about practical behavior. When it comes down to the line and maybe a job, it all goes out the window and the head games begin.
For example, in a recent online article about the 'recession' and job layoffs, they discussed what groups of workers are 'targeted' more than others.
First off, in any business, times are going to change. It is inevitable. Anyone who thinks their financial levels are going to stay static over any extended period of time has no business running a business. You have to anticipate shifts in the marketplace, the local economy, etc and plan ahead accordingly to be successful.
Sometimes money will be good and you can hire more employees and sometimes money will not be so good and you might have to let some employees go.
It's uncomfortable, but much like removing a deep buried splinter, it may not 'feel' good, but once it's done you will be healthier for it.
Articles like the one I mention are common and are the subject of discussions in board rooms and managers offices all over. Who to let go and how to do it.
Because of social inventions like labor unions and lawyers, many businesses are actually afraid to let some workers go simply because they are afraid to be sued. ( This is not to say labor unions are always a bad thing, in times when corporations and business management are not looking out for the safety and working conditions of employees, they serve a valuable purpose. For companies that are not so negative, they can be as bad as the companies they claim to organize against. This is another story though that we will be talking about in the near future.)
Because of this, they contrive wild scenarios and lame plans for figuring out who to eliminate.
To be honest, the best method to use is productivity first, then attendance, after that, attitude. in that order.
There's nothing to worry about 'defending' when you base your decision on productivity. Who is getting the job done and who isn't. If you are blessed with a lot of productive people, move on to attendance. It doesn't matter if someone is a good worker when they are there, if they are missing a lot of time then they are leaving their co workers holding up their end of the work . It directly relates to productivity and again, easy to defend if someone feels they need to sue because they want to take money instead of make money.
Lastly, you look at attitude. If productivity and attendance are all near equal, then you look at who is the most disruptive. Disruptive people make it harder for others to concentrate and be productive ( do we see a theme of being productive here yet? )
I have been in management both in businesses I have owned and operated as well as for national chains. Ideally, you go for what makes the most sense. Unfortunately, sensibility isn't what gets used most often.
No, instead, they plan for "well, this guys wife is a lawyer, so don't lay him off" and " well, this woman has kids, so let's lay off the single guy who is more productive."
Games, that's what they are. It all boils down to being on the defensive and trying to plan for legal shenanigans instead of actually running a business.
What's worse is, this government is actually perpetuating these types of games by literally inserting itself into businesses and forcing demands and policies into place that have no place in these businesses.
'Corporatism' is bad enough on it's own. It encourages business executives to be lax in responsibility to and for the business and in some cases, because of governmental pre-requisites in tax policies, etc, it encourages illicit behavior.
Now, when you have government officials inserting themselves into board and vote holding positions, companies are running scared, because they know that unrealistic and overly social-conscious ideas are going to be forced on them when they may have no business being there at all.
Please Americans, just go back to plain good sense and focus on the important things in businesses. Productivity, fair pricing and being a good member of the community you are in.
Anymore of these corporatist and legal shams is beneath us.
For example, in a recent online article about the 'recession' and job layoffs, they discussed what groups of workers are 'targeted' more than others.
First off, in any business, times are going to change. It is inevitable. Anyone who thinks their financial levels are going to stay static over any extended period of time has no business running a business. You have to anticipate shifts in the marketplace, the local economy, etc and plan ahead accordingly to be successful.
Sometimes money will be good and you can hire more employees and sometimes money will not be so good and you might have to let some employees go.
It's uncomfortable, but much like removing a deep buried splinter, it may not 'feel' good, but once it's done you will be healthier for it.
Articles like the one I mention are common and are the subject of discussions in board rooms and managers offices all over. Who to let go and how to do it.
Because of social inventions like labor unions and lawyers, many businesses are actually afraid to let some workers go simply because they are afraid to be sued. ( This is not to say labor unions are always a bad thing, in times when corporations and business management are not looking out for the safety and working conditions of employees, they serve a valuable purpose. For companies that are not so negative, they can be as bad as the companies they claim to organize against. This is another story though that we will be talking about in the near future.)
Because of this, they contrive wild scenarios and lame plans for figuring out who to eliminate.
To be honest, the best method to use is productivity first, then attendance, after that, attitude. in that order.
There's nothing to worry about 'defending' when you base your decision on productivity. Who is getting the job done and who isn't. If you are blessed with a lot of productive people, move on to attendance. It doesn't matter if someone is a good worker when they are there, if they are missing a lot of time then they are leaving their co workers holding up their end of the work . It directly relates to productivity and again, easy to defend if someone feels they need to sue because they want to take money instead of make money.
Lastly, you look at attitude. If productivity and attendance are all near equal, then you look at who is the most disruptive. Disruptive people make it harder for others to concentrate and be productive ( do we see a theme of being productive here yet? )
I have been in management both in businesses I have owned and operated as well as for national chains. Ideally, you go for what makes the most sense. Unfortunately, sensibility isn't what gets used most often.
No, instead, they plan for "well, this guys wife is a lawyer, so don't lay him off" and " well, this woman has kids, so let's lay off the single guy who is more productive."
Games, that's what they are. It all boils down to being on the defensive and trying to plan for legal shenanigans instead of actually running a business.
What's worse is, this government is actually perpetuating these types of games by literally inserting itself into businesses and forcing demands and policies into place that have no place in these businesses.
'Corporatism' is bad enough on it's own. It encourages business executives to be lax in responsibility to and for the business and in some cases, because of governmental pre-requisites in tax policies, etc, it encourages illicit behavior.
Now, when you have government officials inserting themselves into board and vote holding positions, companies are running scared, because they know that unrealistic and overly social-conscious ideas are going to be forced on them when they may have no business being there at all.
Please Americans, just go back to plain good sense and focus on the important things in businesses. Productivity, fair pricing and being a good member of the community you are in.
Anymore of these corporatist and legal shams is beneath us.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
health care and a persons right to choose or not choose
Where is the line drawn between where a person has the right to determine medical treatment for themselves and their family and the governments interests intervening for "the public good"?
For example, if someone has a religious belief that does not allow for surgery as that defiles the body, they are not obligated to follow a course of action that forces it upon them.
Even if not having that surgery means that person will certainly die sooner, it is their choice to do so or not do so.
If however, someone has decided for his underage child that treatment for a lethal illness or injury will not be treated, what then?
That man is the child's parent. He has the right to make decisions he believes are in the child's best interests, both physical and spiritual.
However, the government has and continues to intervene in these cases. It is the governments contention that they know what is best for a child's health interests than the parents do. Even if it conflicts with the religion of the family.
Even worse, the government has intervened in the decisions of adults making decisions for themselves, often based on the position and intentions of a physician or hospital against the adults wishes, because they value the doctors position over the individual.
As much as they like to believe that science is the end all, be all last word on the discussion, their "science" changes all the time. One day it is "proven" that drug X will be good to treat something, Three years later, more study "proves drug X not only doesn't treat it, it might even make it worse in some cases. In the meantime, doctors, hospitals, lawyers and government officials, in the name of pseudo "truth" of their science are forcing people to use the "proven" drugs.
As tools science relies on to investigate medical issues changes and adapts all the time, the science changes all the time with it. What they thought was iron clad fact one day, can be moot or entirely reversed a matter of days to years later.
Science is not exact and it is not always right.
However, The government consistently makes laws and enforces decisions based on incorrect and sometimes 'bad' science all the time.
Government also languishes under the idea that 'more is better'. Thus, relating to human medical terms, more years to live equals a better life. Anything that prolongs a persons life is considered good, no matter how painful or uncomfortable or even damaging that might be.
Sometimes the larger population is squeamish about letting people die. So many have a religion or other idea that death is a bad thing that anything is encouraged to avoid it. They will 'vote' to make sure no one has to 'endure' the terrible thing that death is, or they perceive death is. Even to the point of making someone sicker or debilitating them. They rationalize that even though you are perpetually ill or even disabled, at least your not dead and you should be thankful to them they set in place these rules to keep you alive.
Quality of life doesn't enter the discussion until the individual is faced with living a long life of pain, illness or debilitation. Suddenly, well, maybe quality of life is important, maybe in just their case. Why no, they don't want the treatment now that will cause great suffering but extend their life a few more years. They would rather be comfortable and try to enjoy the few years they have left.
However, it is still 'easier' for the government and voters to make decisions for individuals based on what the public decides they don't want to be uncomfortable with.
I contend the government needs to stay out of an individuals choice to seek out and receive treatment, or not to. It is none of their business.
If they want to regulate doctors and hospitals to make sure they are offering services that are performed in an approved and taxable manner, fine. If a doctor or hospital is going to charge money for these services and products, they should be held to high standards to ensure things are done in an ethical and appropriate manner.
To tell someone that simply because the service and products exist, that they are obligated to use them is something else entirely.
Waffle and Pancake houses exist and are quite popular. However you don't see the government telling people they must see their local IHOP waitress for breakfast if they feel hungry or face penalty of law for not doing so.
To the government and 'well intentioned politicians with their 'friends' in the medical lobbying industry I say, offer your products and services if you must, but leave the decision of whether to make use of them to me, thank you very much.
For example, if someone has a religious belief that does not allow for surgery as that defiles the body, they are not obligated to follow a course of action that forces it upon them.
Even if not having that surgery means that person will certainly die sooner, it is their choice to do so or not do so.
If however, someone has decided for his underage child that treatment for a lethal illness or injury will not be treated, what then?
That man is the child's parent. He has the right to make decisions he believes are in the child's best interests, both physical and spiritual.
However, the government has and continues to intervene in these cases. It is the governments contention that they know what is best for a child's health interests than the parents do. Even if it conflicts with the religion of the family.
Even worse, the government has intervened in the decisions of adults making decisions for themselves, often based on the position and intentions of a physician or hospital against the adults wishes, because they value the doctors position over the individual.
As much as they like to believe that science is the end all, be all last word on the discussion, their "science" changes all the time. One day it is "proven" that drug X will be good to treat something, Three years later, more study "proves drug X not only doesn't treat it, it might even make it worse in some cases. In the meantime, doctors, hospitals, lawyers and government officials, in the name of pseudo "truth" of their science are forcing people to use the "proven" drugs.
As tools science relies on to investigate medical issues changes and adapts all the time, the science changes all the time with it. What they thought was iron clad fact one day, can be moot or entirely reversed a matter of days to years later.
Science is not exact and it is not always right.
However, The government consistently makes laws and enforces decisions based on incorrect and sometimes 'bad' science all the time.
Government also languishes under the idea that 'more is better'. Thus, relating to human medical terms, more years to live equals a better life. Anything that prolongs a persons life is considered good, no matter how painful or uncomfortable or even damaging that might be.
Sometimes the larger population is squeamish about letting people die. So many have a religion or other idea that death is a bad thing that anything is encouraged to avoid it. They will 'vote' to make sure no one has to 'endure' the terrible thing that death is, or they perceive death is. Even to the point of making someone sicker or debilitating them. They rationalize that even though you are perpetually ill or even disabled, at least your not dead and you should be thankful to them they set in place these rules to keep you alive.
Quality of life doesn't enter the discussion until the individual is faced with living a long life of pain, illness or debilitation. Suddenly, well, maybe quality of life is important, maybe in just their case. Why no, they don't want the treatment now that will cause great suffering but extend their life a few more years. They would rather be comfortable and try to enjoy the few years they have left.
However, it is still 'easier' for the government and voters to make decisions for individuals based on what the public decides they don't want to be uncomfortable with.
I contend the government needs to stay out of an individuals choice to seek out and receive treatment, or not to. It is none of their business.
If they want to regulate doctors and hospitals to make sure they are offering services that are performed in an approved and taxable manner, fine. If a doctor or hospital is going to charge money for these services and products, they should be held to high standards to ensure things are done in an ethical and appropriate manner.
To tell someone that simply because the service and products exist, that they are obligated to use them is something else entirely.
Waffle and Pancake houses exist and are quite popular. However you don't see the government telling people they must see their local IHOP waitress for breakfast if they feel hungry or face penalty of law for not doing so.
To the government and 'well intentioned politicians with their 'friends' in the medical lobbying industry I say, offer your products and services if you must, but leave the decision of whether to make use of them to me, thank you very much.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
What being "Americanated" is all about.
The term "America-nated" is based on humor found in the most recent President Bush and his ability to create new words out of thin air.
It refers to the effects of the general population living in the U.S. being subjected to growing government influence and nanny state policies that are ever intruding on day to day life.
Or, what I think President Bush would call being "Americanated".
The basis of these articles is the U.S. Constitution. The constitution in a legal sense, is America. It the the basic principals and rules which direct our laws and essentially our quality of life here.
Being based on the constitution itself, and not the modern, ever intrusive politicking that currently serves as government, this blog site is very Pro America.
One way I like to think of America and the constitution is that the constitution is a recipe. It has the basic ingredients for a good foundation and accommodating the best life for the people in general.
Like all recipes however, it is subject to the cooks in the kitchens interpretation and 'flair' if you will.
The Constitution is there to keep things on track in government. Congress, the President and the Supreme court, are likely to make changes to how it is seasoned, add ingredients, trying various and sometimes ridiculous presentations.
Never-the-less, it is still the same basic recipe and that is what this blog will focus on. The key recipe and how far the current kitchen staff is wandering from it.
I will try to avoid the' popular' political trends and not resort to partisanship, name calling or other silliness typically engaged in by elected officials and paid pundits. I say I will try and there are times I may not succeed. Especially in terms of calling something silly, well, something silly.
For the record, I am registered as an "Independent" for voting. I do not associate with any recognized political party as I think they are all corrupt.
I do not support any one current existing elected representative in any branch of the government. Again, I think they are all corrupt or had to play political games to be elected because the system itself has been corrupted.
I will be seeking like minded people to contribute articles to this blog in order to get as much informative and entertaining content as possible here. No, I am not Glen Beck. Although from time to time, he can be entertaining too. I even think once in a blue moon, he gets it right.
In general, I, and this blog are fairly conservative. Stick to the basics and stick to the facts.
Finally, I want to say that not everything posted here will be a shining example of happy-happy when talking about this country in terms of government and elected officials. Especially since I think the majority are no longer actually interested in supporting the constitution as is. I will call them out. it doesn't mean I don't support America, it means I don't support the con artists who have duped the voters into electing them.
It refers to the effects of the general population living in the U.S. being subjected to growing government influence and nanny state policies that are ever intruding on day to day life.
Or, what I think President Bush would call being "Americanated".
The basis of these articles is the U.S. Constitution. The constitution in a legal sense, is America. It the the basic principals and rules which direct our laws and essentially our quality of life here.
Being based on the constitution itself, and not the modern, ever intrusive politicking that currently serves as government, this blog site is very Pro America.
One way I like to think of America and the constitution is that the constitution is a recipe. It has the basic ingredients for a good foundation and accommodating the best life for the people in general.
Like all recipes however, it is subject to the cooks in the kitchens interpretation and 'flair' if you will.
The Constitution is there to keep things on track in government. Congress, the President and the Supreme court, are likely to make changes to how it is seasoned, add ingredients, trying various and sometimes ridiculous presentations.
Never-the-less, it is still the same basic recipe and that is what this blog will focus on. The key recipe and how far the current kitchen staff is wandering from it.
I will try to avoid the' popular' political trends and not resort to partisanship, name calling or other silliness typically engaged in by elected officials and paid pundits. I say I will try and there are times I may not succeed. Especially in terms of calling something silly, well, something silly.
For the record, I am registered as an "Independent" for voting. I do not associate with any recognized political party as I think they are all corrupt.
I do not support any one current existing elected representative in any branch of the government. Again, I think they are all corrupt or had to play political games to be elected because the system itself has been corrupted.
I will be seeking like minded people to contribute articles to this blog in order to get as much informative and entertaining content as possible here. No, I am not Glen Beck. Although from time to time, he can be entertaining too. I even think once in a blue moon, he gets it right.
In general, I, and this blog are fairly conservative. Stick to the basics and stick to the facts.
Finally, I want to say that not everything posted here will be a shining example of happy-happy when talking about this country in terms of government and elected officials. Especially since I think the majority are no longer actually interested in supporting the constitution as is. I will call them out. it doesn't mean I don't support America, it means I don't support the con artists who have duped the voters into electing them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)