Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Can you cross-post your latest blog over here so we can discuss it?

you mean link it?

http://muchedumbre.com/obama-a-muslim-phuleeze (http://muchedumbre.com/obama-a-muslim-phuleeze)

Sure, why not? We'll discuss tomorrow. I'd like to hear your opinion of what a "real Christian" church is.

Glad you believe Obama's not Muslim and is an American. But a couple things in your blog merit questioning, over and above your persistent use of Rasmussen as a source.

1. I honestly couldn't believe that 35% of Democrats believed Bush had specific knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Did he have some knowledge something would happen? Yes.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2009/08/a_quick_lesson_how_to_misinter.php


That's kinda my train of thought on this...

2.  Your comments regarding Obama and Trinity United. I've never really pictured Trinity United when thinking of Obama's faith, I think he has faith. More...


I wouldn't say that's entirely accurate, either. This article gave me a better understanding of Obama and his faith:

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html


At the time, Obama was a young man who'd been through a spiritual journey, not uncommon for someone with his background. If anything, the Trinity United Church of Christ (which, btw, is a part of the much larger and mainstream United Church of Christ) afforded him an outlet to become a part of the black community and do what his heart's desire was: to organize, teach and help those in the community become better people.

Granted, Wright was a bit of a crazy guy, but Obama's mission wasn't to pray before Wright, it was to lay the foundation of a political future. Which he did quite well. As you admit:

I suspect most churchgoers had a hard time imagining someone being in a church with a minister like that unless he shared those views.  The fact that Obama praises Wright in his books speaks for its self.  Obama wouldn't be the first politician to use their church membership for political gain, but for mainstream America, but that church is not mainstream, regardless of the denomination it belongs to.

So how do you see it?  Did he accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and personal savior, or is he merely "nodding to the local superstitions.?"

I disagree...let's look at Catholics. Many Catholics approve of abortion, yet none of their priests do. Should they not attend church because of that?

Just because you support your minister, doesn't mean you approve of every word he says. Eventually, whether because of the election or not, Obama had to split with Wright. From my article:




Hence my question. What do you consider a "mainstream" church?

That's not an issue with protestant churches much.  The Catholic church is a heirarchy.  You can't start your own Catholic church with your own special beliefs.  You are pretty much stuck with what Rome gives you.  That's why you do have in America cafeteria catholics, who pick and choose what beliefs they want.

With most Protestant churches when people don't like the minister or the message, they beat feet.

But I think the crux of what you are getting to is you want to say that Obama didn't really beleive the kooky stuff coming out Wright's mouth.  You are making a defense that Obama didn't make (up until the day he actually left the church).

I think his books and public comments before he denounced Wright speak for themselves.


Are you talking overall or just Christian?

Yeah...Tell that to the Protestants in general and Lutherans in particular...



Wait. Didn't you just say;



No. What I'm saying is that Obama attended the church in spite of the few crazy things Wright said. (He also preached the value of the family and other worthy causes that folks like you and the right wing overlook in demonizing him and the church.) Remember, the Trinity United Church preached many more mainstream, conservative issues than one of it's ministers upset over how America treated the black person. I'm sure the Catholics and Christians would be more vocal if they had been the oppressed as opposed to being the oppressor.

http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/


Let's just go with

What do you consider a "mainstream" church?

I think Obama is Christian because he wanted to be in poltics. I think had he just intended on being a professor, we would have seen him more 'agnostic' (or just non-practicing)than anything else. I think the idea of family and community is something he truly believes in, but I don't think he feels that you also need Jesus Christ the way real hard-core Christians do.

That doesn't mean he's not religious, it just means I  don't think it would be a priority in his life if it wasn't a priority of politics.

I certainly don't hold his lack of true-blood,hard core devoutness against him.. nor do I hold it against him if he 'fakes' it. I find it more of a sad commentary on our part that we would have our pols  fake it rather than to be adult about it and move away from where they are all forced to have a Jesus fish on their bus and a flag-pin on their lapel ...

if he was Muslim I can't see that I'd care...any more than if he was Jewish...  but, I do admit that if he was a Jehovah Witness,Scientologist,Mormon.. well I would have issues.

so maybe I need to be a little more 'adult' myself as well... :-\

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\  wss.
 


At least you're honest. ;)

I really am not sure what you are trying to get to with that question, but I suppose I would answer that all of them seem mainstream.  At least until you delve deep down in their theology.  Case in point, the Mormons.  They have a set of surface beliefs that seem fairly generic protestant, untill you delve deep into it, and it starts looking more like Scientology than Methodists.

Thats a good example:  Scientology.  I barely regard it as a religion, more like a scam.

One could consider the Mormon practice of tithing or the Catholic practice of poking you in the face with a donation plate a scam too, ya know.

**EE voice**

Scientology is no different than any other religion. It's based on a book and mythological creatures.

**EE voice**

As a general rule of thumb, "**EE voice**" never helps you with an argument!

+5

I know...but it makes for a lot of fun!

Disclaimer: That was a proper analogy. :P

Another blog with no link....

tsk tsk

Ok. I'll bite since you don't care to pimp your blog here.*

http://muchedumbre.com/madison-the-end-of-the-public-sector-union

Don't forget, Mike, I was a State employee too. You're leaving out some critical information in your post. There's a huge difference between public employees and public employees (See what I did?). Along with the teachers, firefighters, highway patrol, health department workers (that's where you were, right?), are the clerical workers, the cafeteria workers, the bathroom cleaners, and so on.

Then there's the appointed State employee. Usually a political crony of whoever is in office at the time, put there, and taken out, of his/her job by the whims of a politician. Frequently they're politicians themselves, having been disposed of by a previous gubernatorial administration. In the past, some of these appointees were actually professionals who knew the in's and out's of the department they were leading. They actually cared about the  teachers, firefighters, highway patrol, health department workers, social workers, clerical workers, cafeteria workers, bathroom cleaners, physicians and so on.

Of course, we both know that after all these years of Republican governors, that's no longer the case. So even the department heads are politicians. They don't care about those under them. Hell. As long as they get their raise, oops, sorry bonus, from the Governor they're happy. The little guys? Those raises went away years ago....

Here's another important point you left out. I didn't belong to the union when I worked for the State but I know this: As a professional, my salary was about 60% of a like-position "on the outside". In order to attract professionals like me, or schoolteachers, or social workers, or cafeteria workers, or bathroom cleaners; or physicians, the State proffered excellent benefits in the form of health care and retirement plans geared towards providing us a career as opposed to a job, despite the ridiculously small salary. Not for free, mind you, that was only for the Department Heads, we had to contribute to our retirement and health care just like everyone else.

I also knew that, although I wasn't a union member, the unions negotiated with management to secure the future of myself and my co-workers, not the political appointees (management itself) looking to make a quick buck at the expense of our schoolteachers, social workers, clerical workers, cafeteria workers or bathroom cleaners; or physicians.

What else did the union do for me? They insured that the Governor or Agency Head, the newly-elected or appointed official given a job not based on qualifications or compassion (like the teacher, social worker, cafeteria worker, bathroom cleaner, or physician) wouldn't fire me and my co-workers just because we belonged to another political party.

That's why unions, while flawed, are a good thing. Could they use some tweaking? Sure...

Unions could use some work to modernize and update their business plan.

Two years ago, GM was flawed and many, including you, said they must be destroyed.

Instead, GM reorganized, modernized, and updated their business plan. And is, today, more successful than it's been in years.

Part of that successful reorganization was the effort of the unions restructuring and capitulating to management in the form of wages, benefits, and pensions. In Wisconsin today, the unions are agreeing to pay more into their pension plans, make salary and benefit concessions, and work with management (the State) to better everyone.

But, that's not good enough!

Management (the State) has already promised the shareholders (the rich corporate interests in Wisconsin) tax breaks allowing their profits to grow even more. How are they paying for this? By killing the rights of the middle class to fair and honest wages and working conditions!.

The unions are powerful, just not as powerful as they were years ago. Big Business and Big States (with their political appointees) are even more powerful. They are grabbing more and more power with every Citizen's United (what a misnomer!) case out there. Bashing and destroying unions are the right wing, pro-rich, trickle down philosophy dream of every Republican, Libertarian, and Tea Party member out there.

If anything, I see unions growing, especially here in the South, in response to the union-busting bills being initiated by the likes of the Governor of Wisconsin and our very own Florida Gov. Jar Jar Binks.

It's high time the American people stood up to these people. Since when did it become popular to hate on teachers, police and firemen?

oops! I forgot.


I'll be more than glad to pimp your blog for you. Hell, Elross won't!  ;D

I've noticed recently that your blog has become a little more well-written, sourced, and shows a smidgen of actual compromise in your heavy-handed conservative views.

I commend you. Good work!

Well, thanks.  If it's more well written, I would just have to put it down to practice.  The more your write, the better you write.  However I don't think I compromise my views, they are merely more varied than you probably have given me credit for.  Particularly when it comes up to issues that have just not really come up before, like public sector unions.  I think it would be difficult to say I had much compromise there.  I made it clear that I really didn't believe in the concept of public sector unions at all.  However, that's also an opinion of several prominent people on the left, as I made the point to quote in my blog.  On the partisan political angle, of it though, the Democrats have to be in whole hog with the concept.  So they blur the distinctions between private sector unions and public sector unions.  At least on MSNBC. 

But I didn't see this issue coming, and although I clearly see the long term consequences of public sector unions getting their way (Greece) in the short run, I would not have put it on the front burner like Walker did.  Big gamble. 

I recognize the distinction between State employees who are career service and those who are appointed.  Obviously appointees deserve no protections, but every state has career service employee protection enshrined in State law.  So they all have more protections than most non union state employees.

I wouldn't exactly use GM as an example.  Arguing that their bailout deal allowed their union contracts to be restructured isn't exactly a stirring defense of auto worker unionism.  You seem to be conceding that unions were part (although not all) of the problem with GM.  I do still think GM should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy.  We would have a leaner, more efficient (although admittedly smaller) company if that had been allowed to happen.  Bailing out Chrysler in the 80's really didn't cure it's ills.  It just allowed it to limp along for years until they got another bailout.

As far as private sector unionism, I don't see that growing at all.  Public unions are a different matter since that is up to politics, not the cries of the oppressed state employees.

I'm curious why such an attachment to bouncing fox and msnbcnn corporate news talking points. Since it's where most get their news it's certainly a fine place to reference and they do get some things right such as Katie Couric and vaccines. The wealth of more informed and objective news is thankfully growing and of course I would never say that such and site is the one you can always trust. Something Paul Jay at the real news say's is that there are plenty of good reporters and producers at all the outlets but if they are corporate funded the objectivity can be compromised. I'm not trying to imply that you may already not be doing a healthy harvesting of data. For those that may not have started yet it's refreshing to disconnect from what a few old men in suits want you to be focused on that day and think for yourself, research, cross reference.

Umm...you do know that's exactly what happened, don't you?

No it didn't.   The administration put together an "extra-legal" deal to restructure GM without resorting to bankruptcy.  Extra legal because although bankruptcy law is... law, the restructuring deal short circuited bankruptcy court, which the administration wanted to avoid since a bankruptcy judge could have thrown out all of the union contracts.  They did a lot of hinky stuff with that deal.  The law can be so bothersome sometimes!

OH NO! Not more conspiracy theories!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/gm-bankruptcy-begins-ny-d_n_209605.html

This wasn't in the distant past, this was less than two years ago.

The White House came up with the restructuring plan before Chapter 11 was even filed, that basically short circuited federal bandruptcy law.  Remember?  The US government ended up with a 60% ownership stake in GM, Canada end up with ownership,the Treasury guaranteed some GM's debt, and the bondholders, which are given a higher priority under actual bankruptcy law, were forced to accept equity instead of repayment of the debt.

In other words, the company was largely nationalized.

Odd that your Huffington piece pretends that this was just another Chapter 11.  It wasn't technically inaccurate, but so incomplete as to be deceptive.

I'm sure in the long run, it will have the same success as the Chrysler bailout did.  It will allow the company to limp along for a few more years.

Of course I remember! Bush started it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19auto.html



That claim's been made before but I just don't see the legitimacy to it. How can a company be "nationalized" when the government doesn't run it? From Geithner:


As far as your gloom and doom predictions for GM? Seems like they're not doing too bad...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41754811/ns/business-autos/

Bush started it, you approve of it.  Interesting.  I guess you guys were not as really as far a part as you pretended.

The company is nationalized because most of the ownership of the company is in the hands of the government, well two of them, the US and Canada, although mostly the US.  I don't know what the current percentage is post-IPO, but before that it was 60% just for the US government.  That's a pretty large majority share of stock.  The owners determine the board, which appoints the CEO.  And fires the CEO.  Just ask Rick Wagoner!

So I'm not sure how Geithner can say that they have a hands off approach.

As far as my doom and gloom prediction, based on recent sales I would say it's right on track!   

http://tinyurl.com/6ejco72

My prediction about GM is that with a bailout, the company would limp along without making the major changes needed to innovate and grow.  That was exactly the purpose of the administration restructuring plan, to prevent the paring down of the company that would have occurred in true bankruptcy proceedings.

Look at Chrysler.  It got a bailout in the 80's, and that was called a success simply because the company paid back their loans.  But the company has just limped along going from one owner to another until, yes more bailouts.  Some success.

Sometimes a company, like Gotham City, needs a good enema.  Preventing that doesn't do the company any favors, it's purely political.

When GM regains it's old market share and kicks Honda's ass off the top ten list all the way back to Japan, then yes, you can say the restructuring and bailout was a success.  I won't be holding my breath though.


(fixt your link to make it shorter)

Oh..I'm not giving Bush credit. Just some of his more intelligent advisors who knew the catastrophy the downfall of GM would case to our econony.


Those are stock sales, not vehicular sales or company profit. I already posted a link to them. I think you know why the stock sales took a small hit, but who in the hell tracks stocks based on a monthly total? If that's how you buy stock, have I got a deal for you!

But, hey, I'll play that game! From November (notice how the stock price hasn't really changed that much?):
 
http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LC2CER0UQVI901-7PLPV8BD6VNDLVM1871BE5TQBB

So was GM nationalized or not?

Ok. I'll give in. According to this:


One could say that for a short period of time GM, and Chrysler, may have been nationalized.

Much like when Reagan and Bush nationalized the savings and loans in the 80's and 90's, huh? Or, say, the steel mills, railroads, coal mines or even the Louisiana Purchase?

I don't consider "nationalization" to be a dirty word, no more than I would consider "liberal" or "teacher" a dirty word. Sometimes the government has to step in to prevent mass financial chaos, and both parties have been "guilty" of nationalizing private enterprises to achieve a common goal.

How 'bout a GM division whupping it up on Toyota?

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2011/03/buick-sales-soar-past-lexus.html

Beleive it or not, I'll be happy if the company succeeds (after every share of government ownership is excised of course).  I think it's way to early to say since they are not really standing on their own yet.  Chrysler was declared a success just for paying back it's original loan, but the problems that led Chrysler to financial collapse in the first place continued for years.   Meanwhile the foreign auto makers took a larger and larger share of the US and world car market.  These bailouts don't fix the problems, they help these companies avoid fixing the problem.  That's the real problem!

Do American made and foreign cars stand up under the scrutiny as far as the label. Off the top of my head local examples: BMW  Plant 30 minutes away, Factories that make parts for Honda and other foreign(traditionally)cars support our American economy.

The line is much more blurred than it used to be.  According to trade rules, we call some cars American made, even if put together in Mexico, as long as a certain percentage of parts come from the US/

My Subaru is considered American-made. In Indiana by *shudder* non-union workers (who happen to be paid union wages, duh).

Interesting Forbes article on the Volt, savior of GM:

http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels.html (http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels.html)

Chevy Volt: The Car From Atlas Shrugged Motors


The Chevrolet Volt is beginning to look like it was manufactured by Atlas Shrugged Motors, where the government mandates everything politically correct, rewards its cronies and produces junk steel.

This is the car that subsidies built. General Motors lobbied for a $7,500 tax refund for all buyers, under the shaky (if not false) promise that it was producing the first all-electric mass-production vehicle.

least that's what we were once told. Sitting in a Volt that would not start at the 2010 Detroit Auto Show, a GM engineer swore to me that the internal combustion engine in the machine only served as a generator, kicking in when the overnight-charged lithium-ion batteries began to run down. GM has continually revised downward its estimates of how far the machine would go before the gas engine fired, and now says 25 to 50 miles.



Virtually nothing that we have been told about this car is true.  Somehow, I don't think this is going to save GM.

That's old news and untrue.

Try again.

Jeez...can't do anything right!

Hey, trying to keep it with the topic.

Obviously we have different ideas on organization.

From an automotive journalist:

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/first-drive-in-the-electric-chevrolet-volt-thats-right-not-a-hybrid


As far as sales are concerned, it's as subjective as the gas/hybrid/electric thing:

http://gm-volt.com/2011/02/02/as-volt-sales-outpace-the-leaf-gm-works-on-lowering-price/

For a company of that size, I wouldn't count 321 sales as "red hot."  Does that include the fleet vehicles that GE bought?

As gas prices soar, I would hope those sales figures increase.

As far as what the Volt actually is, read carefully from GM's own FAQ:

http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/ (http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/)

The electric motor directly propels the car. The battery can power the car for the first 25 to 50 miles. After that, should one continue to need to drive, the on-board gasoline generator provide electricity for the motor and participate in driving the car.

The Volt is a series vehicle meaning only the electric motor powers the car at all times, the gas engine is just a generator for making electricity once the battery is depleted.  A little like the Prius, the engine does help spin the wheels after the battery is depleted.   GM engineers chose to do this because it improved efficiency by 10 to 15 percent.



After that the gas engine will kick in and allow the car to be driven an additional 344 miles on a full tank (9.3 gallons) of gas.



?


I dunno, maybe I should just learn to trust large companies more like you do, but it sounds as if GM leaving enough wiggle room in their FAQ to drive a hybrid through.

Doods. Pay attention!

http://popculturedoneright.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,259.0.html

Neither do I. Of course, in your usual fashion, you left off the remainder of the sentence:

You realize that including that part of the sentence makes it sound even stupider.

It's sounds really phony to brag about selling every Volt your making when you've only sold 321.  If that's all they're making, they better have a back up plan to save that company.  The Volt ain't it.

Correct. GM isn't planning on it to be the savior of the company. Ask the Cadillac CTS, Buick LaCrosse, Regal and the Chevy Cruze about that.

hmm...wonder what gm's estimated or projected earnings,sales etc are for their overseas market...like...china ?

Good point but I'm afraid lilMike would call that capitulating to the enemy or something silly like that.  ::)

Either a lucky guess or insightful question.  GM is counting foreign sales from it's subsidiaries from overseas, including China.  Or at least it was prior to it's last public offering.

Why shouldn't they?