On corporate economics and comment moderation

Sigh...

A poster named Lenard Neal wrote in a comment today taking me to task for my commentary regarding the Ford plant in my previous post.

Lenard is apparently upset because I said that the unions killed off the massive Ford Motor Co. Rouge plant after Ford weakened it by failing to reinvest in it when they had the money.

Lenard replies that Henry Ford made the plant work by paying his employees a living wage that allowed them to buy his cars. Well Lenard is right on that, and I've never argued otherwise. Lenard also claims that Henry Ford was not a Democrat. Again...Duh. No issue here. Henry Ford did a lot of things back when he built and ran his empire. Some were good, and some were not. All in all though, I personally admire the man despite his flaws. He exemplified "capitalism" and showed what a man could do if the government would just stay out of the way.

But Henry Ford ran the company from 1906 until 1945, when he was replaced as President by his grandson, Henry Ford II. He was and is ancient history as far as Ford Motor Company is concerned. My claim stems from some of Ford Motor Company's decisions in the 1960's and 1970's, long after Henry Ford was away from the helm. In the days following World War Two, American industry was on top of the world. As about the only country with an intact industrial infrastructure left, we were making everything for everybody and life was good. However, many of our heavy industries, to include the steel and automotive industries, took the record profits that they made in the post-war decades and reinvested them in other areas, all too often failing to upgrade aging plants and machinery. As a result, a day came when new European and Asian steel mills and auto plants came on line, able to make better products more efficiently because they were using state-of-the-art technology while our firms were still using the same old stuff from decades past.

You see these furnaces at Rouge, Lenard?

Let me date those for you. Furnace A came on line in 1920, and Furnace B in 1922. Furnace C, the most modern blast furnace there today, came on in 1948. And Rouge Steel still uses those antiques today (except for the one that finally blew up in 2001, nearly killing two workers), supplemented by two electric furnaces that they added in 1976--furnaces that were fine for the 1970's but which are unable to produce steel as good or as cheap as newer plants do overseas today. Add to this Ford's decision in the 70's to stay away from production of small, fuel-efficient cars that cost them a lot of their market share, and suddenly it's obvious why this plant and Ford Motor Company in general went into the red, big time. Ford's steel demand actually dropped off so much due to declining car sales that they told the Rouge plant to start selling excess production on the world market, a market in which the inefficient plant could not compete, especially when handcuffed by the unionized workforce that demanded higher pay than any other auto workers or steel workers anywhere in the world. So yes, Lenard, Ford Motor Company was crippled and nearly killed off by bad business decisions in the 1960's through the 1980's, and the unions made it nearly impossible for them to compete with European and Asian companies that were using newer technology and processes and a trim, non-union workforce to made better cars cheaper. That's why Ford Motor Co. finally sold the Rouge Steel plant off in 1990, retaining a mere equity interest and buying roughly 30-40 percent of the mill's output these days. A Russian company, Severstal, owns those blast furnaces today and the big Dearborn Assembly Plant where so many of the cars were once made is gone now, replaced like many other auto plants by a vacant lot. How many union workers get a paycheck from those vacant lots, Lenard? The unions could have been content with a living wage, but they demanded buckets of cash for the most menial worker, topped off with lavish benefits and pension plans that no company today can afford to pay out. In many instances, labor unions have priced themselves right out of work by placing too high a value on the labor while refusing to let plants modernize with new technology because it might replace a few workers who pay union dues. And if the workers are total boat anchors who suck at what they do because they drink or use drugs or have bad attitudes? Too bad, because unions exist to keep just such people employed no matter how big a drain that they are on the company.

Now we could have discussed this like grown-ups for a while and maybe even had some fun doing it, but Lenard had to go and get personal and launch off into a screed about what he thinks my life and background are. Aside from the fact that he totally missed the mark, why do so many people do that when there's no need for it? A little civility and who knows, but we could have had quite the debate. But as it is, Lenard proved the need for comment moderation when he went to the personal and began hurling obscenity in lieu of trying to convince me with facts or sound theory.

Ah well...

Another critic arrives!

Back in November, I tossed up a quick post about Courtney Fletcher, the woman who ran out and held a press conference after she fell off a rope swing on someone else's property adjacent to a hiking trail.

Well Courtney has found the post and taken issue with the tone of it and some of your comments. Feel free to follow up with apologies or constructive criticism as your heart and mind dictate:

The Courtney Fletcher article w/ commentary

Oh my! Elizabeth Collins is going to sue Lagniappe!

Most of you will recall how back on June 11th I opined about the case of Liberal Moonbat Elizabeth Collins, the ex-teacher who got herself fired after repeatedly maligning a child, the child's parents and eventually the private school that employed her, all because the child in question pushed back at Elizabeth's continued introduction of her leftist political opinions into the classroom and responded by turning in an assignment that was critical of Elizabeth's hero and personal messiah, Barack Hussein Obama.

I invited Elizabeth and her supporters to come on over here and discuss the issue since Elizabeth, in true liberal fashion, deleted most of the posts to her blog that were critical of her actions or even called them into question even as she wrote about it extensively.

Well she didn't rush to pop on over, and I finally gave up on waiting and moved on to other things. But this evening I got this wonderful surprise in this blog's comment section--a missive from Elizabeth, basically saying "I'll get you, my pretty...and your little dog, too!" Of course like a good liberal, she's threatening to sue me...and Lagniappe.

Her letter follows. Then my reply.

Whoever you are, your verbiage is vile, your facts are wrong, and I would ask you take down this slander (untrue, as it is unverified) before I sic my lawyer on you and your dog.

Your litle friends here did send me messages and all did so anonymously, though I see their names on your page. That's interesting. I guess people feel freer to be nasty when they don't use their names.

I am never nasty and I always use my name.

I never indocrinated anyone, never did anything wrong, never pushed any political agenda. Were you in my class? Do you know what my class was? Try college-level argumentative rhetoric based on political and social justice issues.

Could you handle that class? I asked for sophisticated discourse, not rants that are reminiscent of that clownish Glenn Beck. I didn't get that in one case, and as a teacher who aimed to craft effective lessons, I was "dismayed."

I don't care what you believe, as long as you can express those beliefs intelligently and in a non-hostile manner.

Do some more reading, do some more research, and I strongly suggest you edit this post to eliminate the defamation I see everywhere.

And in response, I say:

Sue me and my dog?

Well Lagniappe and I discussed that, and we're unanimous our response:

BRING IT!

Silly Liberal...Rights are for everyone, including the one guaranteed by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

And you might want to have your lawyer explain the concept of "public figure" to you. Like it or not, you are one, at least within the context of this widely-published story. And since you initially sought the publicity yourself when you called the reporters, granted interviews, and blogged about it extensively yourself, good luck trying to convince a judge that no man or dog can offer up additional opinions on the topic that you started.

That aside, all I've done is comment on the news story about your professional demise. I didn't offer up a single original bit of prose, much less claim that it's factual. Don't like the story that I quoted from? Take it up with the source. If/when they retract it, let me know and I'll modify this article, which, BTW, has drawn thousands of hit to my site. (Thank you very much.)

But getting back to that "public figure" issue, I would suggest that you refer your attorney to the seminal case on public figure exceptions, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

You see, Elizabeth, I have a law degree. And I have teaching experience. And in answer to your question, yes I could handle your class. You see, you were an English teacher. You were hired to teach this stuff:

Nouns.


Verbs.


Pronouns.


Adverbs.


Conjunctions.


Seriously, Lagniappe and I could easily do that. In fact, we just did. If any of your ex-students can learn a few simple but catchy tunes, they can go away with all of the English they need to get into college-level courses. So put that in your bong and smoke it.

EDITED TO ADD:
Shortly after finishing this post, Lagniappe and I received yet another missive from the redoubtable Miss (Mrs?) Collins:

Mr Dogface,

Your posting, I regret to inform you, is full of mistruths. I never told students to view my blog; I was always careful not to have anything weird or controversial on there. (Now, I don't care anymore.)

Unprofessional, you say? I call your use of that word libelous.

Do you have any understanding of my qualifications and expertise? No. But trust me, it's a very impressive resume, a thousand miles away from "unprofessional.'

Yes, i am a public figure now. I can thank people such as yourself for making me so.

Do you read books? You might be interested in mine. There are two coming up. I doubt they will be available at Wal-Mart, but if you ever hit actual bookstores, look for them...though it may be two years or so. Publishing is slow.

At any rate, I suggest you read more right now to better understand what you are ranting about. You have no idea what actually happened.

When someone gives you death threats is it unprofessional to mention that? I think people have the right to know so that it never happens to any other (good) teacher again.

How about an apology? What others have done to me and what you also have done to me is terrible, heinous, and that's what I call unprofessional...
though I don't know what your profession even is.

It definitely isn't journalist, informed citizen or writer.

I think it's hack, troll, or just generally nasty person.

Good luck finding a woman to put up with that; I suggest rewording your "want" ad. It's mildly off-putting, to say the least.

How hurtful. But I note that like a true Liberal, she's not exactly falling all over herself to take responsibility for a situation that's pretty much entirely of her own making.

Oh, and Elizabeth, sweetie...if you want to apply for the position, I'll need some quality face and fully-body photos and a copy of your bank statement and credit score. I'm open to all attractive women--even liberals--but they've got to be able to cook and clean and promise not to natter on about the environment, the poor and other such tripe.

Here come the Rambos...

Well judging by a few of the e-mails that I got today, and comments that I declined to publish, I'd say that the angry militia fringe has once again found this humble blog and taken offense with something that I posted. (Real buncha First Amendment swells, ain't they? NOT!)

The uproar this time appears centered around my post suggesting that people who flock to the Civilian Marksmanship Program just to glom onto cheap ammo and guns to squirrel away are somehow less deserving of it than the actual program participants and match shooters that it was intended for. Of course, like the potheads from Boulder that I offended last week, almost all of the feedback I'm getting contains obscenity or a personal insult of some kind, along with the usual label of "elitist" and dire predictions about how, when the time comes and the government turns on us all, I'll probably be siding with the government. I'm also being called a traitor for not standing with other gun owners.

Excuse me? I hate to tell my critics, but you guys are the lunatic fringe and you're out of step with the rest of us--the vast majority of Americans who own guns for hunting, self-defense, competition or basic recreational shooting. Most of us don't buy into your conspiracy theories about how "the government"--every single elected official and bureaucrat--is all secretly planning a big swoop in which they suspend the Constitution, take all the guns away from everyone, and do all sorts of other bad things. In case you haven't noticed, this government--made up of regular people just like anyone else here--can't agree on even the most mundane matters on any given day. How could they possibly all conspire to topple America as we know it AND keep it a secret when they can't stop anything else even remotely confidential from leaking out? Wake up, whacks...take the tinfoil hats off and calm down.

Now what's truly pathetic is that in a nation where so many people claim to care about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms--and I'm one of those--more than 95% of gun owners don't even bother belonging to the National Rifle Association--the only group that actually stands up for gun rights and the shooting sports and which has the power to make a difference. I belong to the NRA for that reason. I'm betting that few if any of the screamers calling me names do. Nah. They're too busy typing in internet forums telling each other how the NRA is a bunch of sell-outs because it doesn't win every single fight. And they can't give the NRA $35.00 because they need to buy another gun or more ammo, not to shoot it but to hide it for the day when the black helicopters land and take the rest of their stuff. They worry so much about losing their gun rights but they won't do a damned thing today to help those of us who are working to prevent it from happening.

So if my criticism comes from people like that, I say "good". These aren't my allies or anyone that I want around me, good times or bad. I value the company of most of America's shooting community because by and large, gun owners are among the most responsible and law-abiding demographic in our society and most are just good, solid American folks. But these crazies that infest the gun forums on the internet? The ones who don't want to help the rest of us pull the wagon but instead sit around planning for the day when they can rise up and take the wagon under the guise of fighting some sort of domestic tyranny? Screw 'em. They're just a small bunch of bitter no-life-having sad sacks who talk the talk but don't do much else. I'm much happier to be a member of the sane majority of the pro-gun community, the one made up of everyday people, of police officers, veterans, hunters, target shooters, recreational plinkers and people serious about their self-defense. And it's those people--the ones that do belong to the NRA and/or the CMP--that are keeping America free every day while the Walter Mitty types fantasize about a day when they can stand up and fight the rest of us and actually be taken seriously for once in their pathetic lives.

It just galls me to think that the regular decent people who shoot the Garand matches and youth shooting events, either at the Nationals or at the local gun clubs, will face a day when the cheap ammunition for training runs out because it all got bought up by a bunch of squirrels who just hoarded it all up in their basements or sold it at the gun shows for a profit.

Funny...You'd think with two wars going on right now, all those internet big-talkers who want to fight someone so bad would have enlisted years ago.

Oh that's right. The military has weight limits and psychological examinations. Oh well...


Edited to add: At least one critic has pointed out that I own a Browning Model 1919A4 .30 machine gun. I do and I'm rather proud of it, hence it's appearance on this blog from time to time. However they also assert that my gripe is that I want to buy CMP ammo for the Browning, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
That beautiful gun subsists on the large stocks of foreign surplus from places like Taiwan and Turkey, countries thoughtful enough to put it on Browning links before eventually surplusing it off. I bought a lot of that when it was cheap...far cheaper than even CMP ammo. It also gets reloads, lots of reloads, fresh off my press. But it doesn't get any of that CMP ammo that I've purchased over the years. Nope. That stuff's for my Garands and Springfields, and they may shoot a little slower than the Browning but between practice and matches, they get out to the range a lot more than it does.