ParanoiA

That doesn't seem fair in the least. Hell, I'm *still* not sure what to retool for. What design are they to hang their hat on? The volt? We're talking billions of dollars here and they're going to have to make a dramatic change and the whole market is teeming with R&D right now. One day this is hot, the next day something else. No one is sure about hydrogen or electric or something else. Then there's the infrastructure to support refueling whatever tech they choose. And there still isn't a car to roll off the conveyor yet. I'm not understanding what exactly they should be retooling for just yet. Would seem better practice to continue R&D until they have a solid, dependable alternative that they can mass produce and sell. Remember, alternative vehicles are quite expensive and most of us cannot afford to subsidize their R&D with early purchases. And the last thing they need to do is jump the gun and retool, lock-in some design that barely cuts the mustard only to be outshined by a competitor that was a bit more patient and rolled out a superior model. If they did jump too soon, we'd all be complaining that they tried to "profit" off of our aversion to oil and "they deserve it" and that's why they're going bankrupt and yadda yadda yadda. But there wasn't the same demand for them that there is now. They aren't oil companies. They don't give a crap what you want them to make. Granted they have a symbiotic relationship with oil, but oil depends on them, they don't depend on oil. They'll make whatever auto matches your energy source if there is demand for it. But oil was cheap, like it's always been, and that infrastructure was there and the people demanded gas guzzlers and they made them. I don't see the problem with GM there. I see a problem with us, the consumers. We want to blame big oil and automakers for OUR demands. Hilarious. It's like watching a teenager make believe that all of their problems are someone else's fault, while you explain to them that it's not, it's their own. We didn't want electric cars Phi. Only a handful of people did, and if I remember correctly, it was government coersion that got the EV going. Yeah, and that matches the attitude and spirit of those that were touting the energy challenge like going to the moon. Remember that? We just as easily could still be complaining about their lack of foresight and effort in retooling if they had made smaller changes like the Japanese. Instead, they seem to have complimented the grandoise nature of our demand for alternative fuels by going for 100% electric. I will tell you, a hybrid has never been a possibility for me. It's all or nothing. It's all electric, hydrogen, perpetual motion...something, but I've never been satisfied with hybrids, even as a bridge. I'm not alone, and I'll bet GM had me in mind. Same with Tesla motors, Zap autos..etc.

I have this vision of a young 20 year old trying to follow his orders, do his job and not let his unit down while immersed in drama most of us will never really experience. In that environment, receiving an order to kill another human being is pretty intense - and that's not even an illegal order in combat. I don't see parsing the legal from the illegal in the middle of chaos or drama that most don't feel equal to in the first place. We talk a good game here in the safety of an electronic forum where we are free to search, read, google whatever philosophical notion we want, no stop watch, no actual consequence to be responsible for whether or not we act or don't act. We often overlook that any refusal to carry out an illegal order also carries consequences - in the form of dead american bodies they will be responsible for, or losing their career, or even facing charges for insubordination. And further, there's none of us around to share our insightful ideas of morality and legal perfection to influence them. They only have themselves to consult.

I agree, and as long as that's the area of contention, then I'd say we're looking at this fairly level headed.

I'm thinking of the powerless here though, not those who are technically "under" Bush's orders, but holds the reasonable capacity to defy illegal orders - which also requires there to have been documented authority that such orders would be illegal. I don't like retroactively punishing people for wrongful actions that were ambiguous at the time. And I especially don't like punishing the lower ranks for following orders. Military efficacy depends on following commands without hesitation.

I have another question...weren't they building cars we wanted three years ago? Weren't we buying the holy hell out of SUV's and knock-off hummers? I haven't been following the market, so I'm probably way off. But it seems disingenuous to act as if all three of them were building cars nobody wants - as if we ALL rejected oil and gas while they "forced" the issue and tried to make us keep petrol in our lives. It seems more like WE changed what we wanted, in a very short period of time when gas hit 4 bucks a gallon, and now we want to act like they should have already had electric cars rolling off the proverbial conveyor belt. I can't help but consider the undeniable truth of markets - that they sell us what we buy. They pander to the public's demand. It's odd that all three would would pander inaccurately.

Just seems like unions could end most criticism and the natural force against them if they changed their attitude to more of a labor provider rather than a labor lawyer. I was asked to steward here where I work and turned them down kind of brutally since I personally despise my union. Anytime they hand you a freakin' "book" of union bullshit, you know you're on your employers chopping block. I'll never forgive them for screwing with the demand for my labor. It's like watching Herm Edwards take a number one offense and reduce them to complete losers.

Hopefully Bush will pardon those that were following orders.

npts2020, what's your problem? Haven't you got the message yet? This economic voodoo meddling is our chosen method. Stop whining about fiat currency, printing money, infusing capital here and there, as if they don't know what they're doing. These are really smart people and they know how to expell bad debt and bad investment without consequences. Next up: protecting the animal kingdom from natural selection. We can still evolve without all of this death and unfair mating practices!! We just need to get in there and take control like we do with all systems.

Well, in that case, I can only speak for myself. You've done a terrific job on this, quoting Articles and Clauses to support your arguments and they're well made. I don't think I'm equal to your challenge, and I have my own reservations and thoughts I'm still working out as well. My remark though about Skeptic biting his tongue had to do with his arguments about the law being applied equally to everyone. Certainly not cut and dry, but entirely fascinating. The equal protection clause, as I understand it anyway, has to do with applying a law to one person, but then not applying it to another. That's different than a law that effects one person's choice, but doesn't effect another person's choice. In the latter statement the law is still being applied, it just effectively doesn't matter since that person's choice doesn't violate the law. In other words, if I want to marry a woman, the gay marriage ban doesn't effect me, but it still applies to me. There are plenty of laws on the books that apply to everyone, but don't effect everyone. Like requiring a license to pilot an aircraft. It doesn't effect me since I don't care about piloting in the first place. But, to be clear, I'm not strong enough on the particulars of Equal Protection to be confident in all that, it's still preliminary for me.

Because when someone makes a valid, clinical argument on the specifics of the laws and how they are negotiated or to be interpreted, you reply back as if they are a bigot and support suppressing homosexual unions. That's what happened to Skeptic. He was trying to argue the details of the laws and rights and how they may or may not be applied in various forms - but he was interpreted as making arguments against homosexual unions. And further, most others in that thread made the same mistake in judgement, even Pangloss. Just my opinion of course. It seems a better argument for the courts. They, most certainly, will be acclimated to the nature of law and how rights are specifically applied and restricted and not as susceptible to infering value judgements from clinical arguments.

He should have figured it out himself. However it doesn't make me mad because I don't care about public perception. That's for HIM and his company to be mad about - or any investor in their business - people that are affected by public perception. I still don't see why anyone else should be upset about other's perceptions. I think I'm being misunderstood, to a point, or maybe I'm not understanding Phi, but it's not important enough for a line by line exchange. They messed up with public perception and that will hurt them, and they deserve it.

I'm being a little sarcastic though...I prefer a real "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as in: We don't ask what your orientation is and we don't give a crap so save the energy in telling us. The difference being that currently the definition suggests that you CAN tell us if you're hetero. I want that stricken. I don't want to know what you screw. I'm not sure why anyone would think we need to know what they screw. Weird.

Public perception = what other people think. I've spent my entire life hearing and then practicing not to care what other people think. The only point I'm really making here, and it's pretty lame considering the gravity of the situation, is that "appearances" is that game you play with the american sheeple and that's the kind of thing I'd like to see dissappear. There's nothing healthy or accurate about the notion of "appearances" and has no place in intelligent conversation except in the form of analytical prediction. But note the difference between analysis and personal opinion. Appearances should mean absolutely nothing to us in terms of our personal position, while being relevant only to critical analysis. That was my point. You stated you were upset about appearances, which suggests, to me anyway, that you're invested in the "game" rather than real substance. I just found that to be odd. And as an example, I threw in the civil union scenario. Again, why should I care about "appearances" here? Appearances is for the symbolic crowd. Substance should matter infinitely more. It shouldn't matter if the country is homophobic, I'm not going to be pissed off at a CEO for consequential "appearances" from coming out of the closet. That sounds more like an analytical deduction, which I can agree with. Fair enough, maybe I would. But the substative insult of maintaining their luxury, which I doubt is necessary, is what upsets me. Not the fact that it made other people mad.

It seems we're doomed to repeat the previous thread on this topic. I know Skeptic is holding his tongue...or his wrist I suppose.

That question is too open ended and this story has not developed enough facts to really comment on. It's sad. And I suspect the boy really was abused, and I further suspect the friend with his dad was a potential abuser. But, obviously, it's much too early to conclude anything really.

Yeah, I respect that too. That's the kind of thing I fully support and expect from the private sector. You want to keep government from legislating morality and lashing out against your profiteering? Then, demonstrate it's not necessary. Show the people that you can be decent and considerate, and maybe they won't force you to be so using laws and expanding government power.

Yeah, I like this guy. Thanks for the reference. Also for the link on the Austrian take on the Great Depression by Rothbard. I'm wading through it a little at a time. I think I could really benefit from reading a point by point debate on Austrian ideas verses Keynesian, or Friedman economics. When I get through this, and have a better grasp on these various theories and approaches, I may have to look for something along those lines. "He ran both his initial campaign and his re-election campaign as "100% positive," never mentioning his opponent once" - Sorry Obama lovers, but THAT'S a candidate running on change. THAT'S literally putting your money where your mouth is.

Great post iNow. Not sure there's anything I could add that wasn't covered in it. So, I'll nit-pick Phi for All... This seems a weird take actually. You're not bothered by the incident, rather you're bothered by appearances? That's essentially what that boils down to. Appearances is the last thing thinkers like us should be worried about. Do you care about the public relations gaff that might be caused if a CEO of a major company came out of the closet and engaged in a civil union? I sure as hell don't. Substance over symbolism, I say. No, I'm pissed that they aren't operating in "survival" mode, as iNow put it. The public relations gaff just makes them look stupid and completely out of touch with public expectation of a bankrupt executive. Even sharing a private jet would still piss me off. Granted, maybe I'm too ignorant about the daily grind of executives in a massive corporate atmosphere, but I would think it's not actually necessary to have a private jet to get where you need to go. A nice perk, with practical application of course, but necessary? I'm not buying it. I get your drift here, but tell me how this really applies when you're facing bankruptcy. Imagine how much respect they would get from the employees of the company if they demonstrated their own cut back in expenses. It's hard to sell the notion that the union is draining you when you insist on blowing money as if there's no financial jeopardy. Where's the pass on bonuses? Where are the cut-backs happening? For the record, I do believe their union is completely ridiculous and shares a huge part of the blame here, if not half. Just like these executive jokers, they refuse to recognize their financial predicament and respond to it responsibly. Like all unions, they're like an activist group blaming everything wrong with the company on management and promoting militant anti-productive, anti-business motivations. They have no business sense and behave like lawyers trying to squeeze every penny out of the "rich greedy management that's out to get them".

I'm 37 and I've struggled paycheck to paycheck my whole damn life. Nothing has changed from one recession to another; from one "booming growth" to another. The perception of doom and gloom, in my experience, comes from media. Sensationalism, never forget, drives the media business. I'm not saying things aren't tough, not by a long shot. Rather I'm saying the media has a tendency to exaggerate, and I'm not sure how much stock you put into that or not. Mostly I just don't play along with recessions and booms. I've never really cared what's going on. I buy a car when I need a car. I don't delay because the TV told me it's a recession and I could lose my job. I don't make any changes in my life at all whatsoever due to the economy. Maybe I'm lucky, I don't know, but I've never been burned by it. That bit of success is what leads me to believe too much of it is overblown. I put out a small fire in one room of my house and by the time the rumor gets around the corner my whole house burned down and my family is dead. To answer your question, no I don't think you're being overly compassionate. And, in fact, I think your take is more mainstream than this board might suggest.

The problem is, iNow, you're argument applies to all business that goes out of business - all of it. You're making an argument that all of us are connected enough in our economy that none of us have the right to fail. If you allow that thought to ferment, how long until you restrict my right to take business risk? After all, why should you and everybody else suffer from my auto manufacturing business going under just because I, the owner, took an unfortunate risk to make cars than run on old cheese? It's dangerous to freedom in the pursuit of property to make such a strong principle out of our interconnected nature. I realize we all will suffer to some extent, our finances mingle on several levels, but that doesn't justify the horrible precedence of bailing out big business - seriously, you're not going to like the consequences of corporate america realizing that they're too big for risk. For business to work for the people, as designed, they need to be mortal. No, not to punish her. To demonstrate plates are required for eating food. Big difference. We don't want everyone dropping their plates, thinking they'll get fed anyway, while they enjoy walking around with their arms free - in the face of the rest of us responsible enough to be careful with our plates. (...er, something like that...) Well...you did liken this to a plane taking a nose dive...sounds fatal enough to me.

Well that's just where we disagree. I simply don't believe it will be as bad as you think it will be. I don't believe it is a mortal wound by any stretch. I think it's a necessary wound, though, absolutely. But I appreciate your analogy, and would actually agree to some extent, just to limit the damage, if I believed it to be that bad. I guess we'll see.

Funny, the list of stuff cited not likely to happen is the stuff I find more important than the list of stuff cited likely to happen. But I think I agree with the analysis. Sad as it is. By the way, don't ask don't tell is more appropriate. In the military, why is your sexual orientation of any relevance whatsoever? Homo or hetero, we aren't using sex to kill our enemy.......right?

Well, first, it's perfectly legal to be a terrible dear hunter. If white people are allowed to dance, then you really have no argument here. J/K. Also, people come in all flavors. Some could be innocent, reasonable people trying to make it day to day with a fairly ethical approach. Some could be soldier types attempting to oppress the people and remove their freedoms with force, no doubt using terrorism and fear to justify it. It's nice to be armed for the latter, and assault rifles are more effective than hunting rifles and handguns.