One can hear fervent appeals to save the three top US auto manufacturers - GM, Chrysler and Ford - from going under. To lend greater urgency to this, it is being disseminated that if these three American auto giants are not saved, potentially one or all three of them may be purchased by some company in India or China.
Before looking at this China/India angle let us very quickly try to understand why these three companies are in this disastrous situation in the first place!!
Did it ever occur to the top management of these companies as to how the Japanese car manufacturers, like, Toyota and Honda, are making fairly big profits from their plants in North America whereas they (US auto makers) are struggling? Why did it never occur to these three sinking companies that they should look closely and find out the reasons how Toyota and Honda were continually increasing their market share in North America ?
It is not that here is someone trying to be wise with the advantage of hindsight. No, this is not the case. The fact of the matter is that even a novice management graduate also knows that there is no room for complacency or arrogance or aversion to change in 21st century business environment, especially, in an industry like auto industry.
Auto industry typically thrives on innovation - whether it is to do with newer models or new technologies, better features, cost reduction or smarter customer service approaches. The three US giant auto-makers totally failed on this front. Of these the worst performer on the innovation front has been GM who lived in their own world of fantasy thinking like morons that the world will move according to their whims and fancies.
These American auto-makers never bothered to heed customer complaints, or seek customer feedback. They thought they can continue to make giant gas-guzzling monsters and the blinkered north American customers will continue to buy their crap. Yes, this was true till the Japanese came on the scene.
The Japanese were quick to realise that they probably couldn't make their way in to the pick-up truck segment and, therefore, they should adopt innovation, aggressive salesmanship and top-class customer care - both pre-sales and after-sales - in the car segment. And, they went after the car segment with well thought out strategies.
Honda and Toyota diligently worked on customer feedbacks and were nimble footed in bringing out new models, making changes in existing models to meet the public demand and taste, and their budget too. Obviously, they started catching customer attention more and more. Initially the American companies could unsettle the potential customers by letting an undercurrent flow in the market that Japanese cars/vehicles are not reliable, safe etc.
But companies like Honda and Toyota countered this perception by offering still better value for money. They improved their quality to such an extent that the customers started to ignore and then disregard any information about unreliability of Japanese vehicles. Soon Toyota, Nissan and Honda introduced their luxury segment vehicles, namely, Lexus, Infiniti to convey to the market that their products are not only good and reliable, they are capable of bringing upper crust vehicles too to the discerning customers.
Gradually, the situation in US and Canada changed so much so that the pre-owned Japanese cars started commanding better prices as compared to pre-owned GM, Ford or Chrysler cars. Only some selected brands like Escalade or Lincoln carried some reasonable value in the pre-owned auto sale segment. Eventually, the American auto brands fell far behind their Japanese counterparts.
GM or Chrysler didn't bother to change their models nor did they bother to see any virtue in manufacturing fuel efficient vehicles. Nor did they think of innovating and competing in terms of prices. They simply didn't try. Their overheads may be higher as compared to Honda, Toyota but the American auto industry didn't bother to trim overheads or handle inventory as efficiently as the Japanese auto makers do. In fact, the Japanese auto makers took inventory management to a different level altogether.
Of the three, Ford at least tried, albeit much later in the day, to keep in step with Honda, Toyota, Nissan by introducing competing models. Ford Escape, in fact, became one of the most favourite models in Canada. Their another model - Mustang - appealed to the hip crowd and carved a niche for itself. But then Ford made some acquisitions, e.g., Jaguar, Land Rover that didn't work well. They had to eventually let go off them.
So, what is currently facing GM, Chrysler and Ford is no surprise at all. It is so ironic that the country which boasts of top engineering schools, best management institutions should be finding itself in dire economic straits. It clearly goes to show that you don't need Harvard or Stanford to excel in business and beat the competition. What you ACTUALLY need is open mindedness, pragmatic business sense, desire to work hard, non-complacent and unarrogant attitude.
Let us see what plans the three about-to-sink American auto makers bring to their lawmakers so that the US Congress gets convinced about providing financial succour to them. It will indeed be sad to see the demise of American auto industry which was once a proud creation of American Henry Ford!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
"TEAM OF RIVALS' MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST RECIPE FOR OBAMA
It is interesting to read that people are finding similarities in names of rumoured appointees to President-elect Obama's cabinet and what former President Abraham Lincoln did during his cabinet formation process. Induction of some of Lincoln's rivals in his team has been called "team of rivals".
In Obama's case his Democrat race rival Hillary Clinton's name is doing rounds for Secretary of State's position. In fact, Mr. Obama has already chosen one of his rivals - Democrat nomination race rival Joe Biden - as his running mate.
It seems Mr. Obama derives lots of inspiration from former President Abraham Lincoln and it is possible that he may be thinking seriously about co-opting some of his 'rivals' in his cabinet or for some important position in his administration.
However, one hopes that the similarities between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln would end at team formation level only.
What I am alluding to is that Dei Gratia there would be no similarity between the two with regard to end of their political careers. Media reports indicate that a certain section of American society is not able to reconcile to Obama's victory for American presidency.
Let me illustrate this point. MSNBC ran a report on Nov 15 titled "Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - From California to Maine, 'hundreds' of incidents reveal racism in America". Two sections of the report particularly caused some unease and concern. One stated - "One (incident) was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: "I hope Obama gets assassinated."
The other stated - "Potok (Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes), who is white, said he believes there is "a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them."
One hopes that Mr. Obama will be provided impregnable protection by the concerned security agencies and he will be able to usher in the 'change' that he wants to bring in the country.
Back to his "team of rivals". Mrs. Clinton for Secy of State is in my opinion not a good strategy for simply the following reasons: Did Senator Clinton really do something notable in foreign policy matters? What is her claim to fame in terms of diplomatic achievement, and what did she do in her career, including when she was First Lady, to justify that she has some special acumen for full-time diplomatic assignment?
Media reports say that John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration for Secy of State position. John Kerry?!! Does he have the necessary rapier-like sharpness and the grasp to justify even shortlisting? In 2008 he appears too dull and out of depth to merit any consideration.
Of all the names, Bill Richardson seems to be the best candidate of them all. He has undertaken 'real' diplomatic assignments; he has good grasp of energy issues too. He seems to be slightly less sharper though than he used to be 8 years ago.
I wonder, is there no one else in whole of US who could be talent scouted for this position, say, someone like Condi Rice? If the eventual appointee has to be from someone who endorsed and/or campaigned for Obama, in that case Richardson seems to be the best bet.
If at all, Mrs. Clinton could be assigned to overhaul the health care system because the campaign rhetoric of both Clinton and Obama on health care issues were almost same. For this assignment any baggage of Bill Clinton will most likely not be an impediment for Hillary - neither during the cabinet nomination process, nor during discharge of her job. To be honest, Bill can be a real nuisance. He is too shrewd to be corralled.
Let us hope Obama's well wishers and able advisers will guide him to zero in on most appropriate choices to fill his cabinet positions. As well, President-elect Obama and his family will be suitably protected from all potential dangers and hazards. The world is waiting with bated breath for Mr. Obama to step in to White House and help usher in changes the world desperately needs.
In Obama's case his Democrat race rival Hillary Clinton's name is doing rounds for Secretary of State's position. In fact, Mr. Obama has already chosen one of his rivals - Democrat nomination race rival Joe Biden - as his running mate.
It seems Mr. Obama derives lots of inspiration from former President Abraham Lincoln and it is possible that he may be thinking seriously about co-opting some of his 'rivals' in his cabinet or for some important position in his administration.
However, one hopes that the similarities between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln would end at team formation level only.
What I am alluding to is that Dei Gratia there would be no similarity between the two with regard to end of their political careers. Media reports indicate that a certain section of American society is not able to reconcile to Obama's victory for American presidency.
Let me illustrate this point. MSNBC ran a report on Nov 15 titled "Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - From California to Maine, 'hundreds' of incidents reveal racism in America". Two sections of the report particularly caused some unease and concern. One stated - "One (incident) was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: "I hope Obama gets assassinated."
The other stated - "Potok (Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes), who is white, said he believes there is "a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them."
One hopes that Mr. Obama will be provided impregnable protection by the concerned security agencies and he will be able to usher in the 'change' that he wants to bring in the country.
Back to his "team of rivals". Mrs. Clinton for Secy of State is in my opinion not a good strategy for simply the following reasons: Did Senator Clinton really do something notable in foreign policy matters? What is her claim to fame in terms of diplomatic achievement, and what did she do in her career, including when she was First Lady, to justify that she has some special acumen for full-time diplomatic assignment?
Media reports say that John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration for Secy of State position. John Kerry?!! Does he have the necessary rapier-like sharpness and the grasp to justify even shortlisting? In 2008 he appears too dull and out of depth to merit any consideration.
Of all the names, Bill Richardson seems to be the best candidate of them all. He has undertaken 'real' diplomatic assignments; he has good grasp of energy issues too. He seems to be slightly less sharper though than he used to be 8 years ago.
I wonder, is there no one else in whole of US who could be talent scouted for this position, say, someone like Condi Rice? If the eventual appointee has to be from someone who endorsed and/or campaigned for Obama, in that case Richardson seems to be the best bet.
If at all, Mrs. Clinton could be assigned to overhaul the health care system because the campaign rhetoric of both Clinton and Obama on health care issues were almost same. For this assignment any baggage of Bill Clinton will most likely not be an impediment for Hillary - neither during the cabinet nomination process, nor during discharge of her job. To be honest, Bill can be a real nuisance. He is too shrewd to be corralled.
Let us hope Obama's well wishers and able advisers will guide him to zero in on most appropriate choices to fill his cabinet positions. As well, President-elect Obama and his family will be suitably protected from all potential dangers and hazards. The world is waiting with bated breath for Mr. Obama to step in to White House and help usher in changes the world desperately needs.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
WILL BUSH TRY EARTH SCORCHING TACTICS TO MAKE LIFE DIFFICULT FOR OBAMA?
From the various dicussions on the American TV channels I get an impression that President Bush is rushing some executive decisions which may not be very easy for President-elect Obama to overturn. Some commentators are of the view that while leaving office Bush wants to make sure that Obama should not be able to implement his campaign promises so very easily.
It seems that the Bush tactics is to somehow make Obama look bad in the eyes of the people who are eagerly waiting for 'change' to happen in US in various facets of life of an average American. If this was true, then it must be said that Bush is a master actor - better than Brando, Hanks, Hoffman. Why I say this is because on one hand the outgoing highly despised president went on record to say that 'he will do everything possible for a smooth transition of President-elect Obama', while on the other hand he is reportedly spreading thorns in the path of the incoming president.
It can be argued that nothing had happened in the aftermath of the election that could have engendered a change of heart of the idiot-like, moron-like Bush. Surely, he or his party don't gain anything by extending constructive cooperation to Obama. If Obama can deliver on what he had promised, his stock in the eyes of the American people will go sky high.So, from Republicans' perspective, Obama's presidency should be made as difficult as possible.
Republicans are fretting no end after humiliating defeat in congressional elections. Recent ilk of the Republicans have had training from Karl Rove in how to carry out negative game plans. And, from this guy probably Bush learnt that shamelessness is a virtue in politics.
Whether it is financial succour for the soon to collapse American auto industry or timely support to the ailing banking sector, Bush administration doesn't seem to be in mood to do anything that may remotely look similar to what Obama was rooting for lest such an action should put the Democrat in brighter light.
Even if Bush wanted to adopt a conciliatory approach in his last days of lameduck presidency, his no. 2, i.e., Vice-President Cheney will not let do it. The twisted faced trigger happy egotistical tin god is so stubborn in his attitude that he can not bring himself out of the gutter politicking habits.
So, I don't think it will be prudent for Obama camp to believe that there will be some positive outcome of the one hour plus meeting held between the outgoing and the incoming Presidents. On the contrary Obama should plan for how to tackle the slew of last minute decisions that Bush will leave behind for his successor to grapple with and get bogged down.
One must say that such a tactics - something akin to earth scorching - is not going to help the American people at large. It is unfortunate that the Americans got Dubyah as President who excelled in screwing up everything that made US the most powerful and number one country in the world. The result - today US is having to go to world with a begging bowl in hand to save it from further economic hammering.
At best what the American people can do is to pray to God to give a modicum of sense and intelligence in the thick and dense head of George W so that he could do something to help large sections of the society. But it is pray only that people can do, and hope for the best. After all, you can not reduce a single day from now till Jan 20 - the day on which the people will see the back of intellectually challenged G W Bush.
It seems that the Bush tactics is to somehow make Obama look bad in the eyes of the people who are eagerly waiting for 'change' to happen in US in various facets of life of an average American. If this was true, then it must be said that Bush is a master actor - better than Brando, Hanks, Hoffman. Why I say this is because on one hand the outgoing highly despised president went on record to say that 'he will do everything possible for a smooth transition of President-elect Obama', while on the other hand he is reportedly spreading thorns in the path of the incoming president.
It can be argued that nothing had happened in the aftermath of the election that could have engendered a change of heart of the idiot-like, moron-like Bush. Surely, he or his party don't gain anything by extending constructive cooperation to Obama. If Obama can deliver on what he had promised, his stock in the eyes of the American people will go sky high.So, from Republicans' perspective, Obama's presidency should be made as difficult as possible.
Republicans are fretting no end after humiliating defeat in congressional elections. Recent ilk of the Republicans have had training from Karl Rove in how to carry out negative game plans. And, from this guy probably Bush learnt that shamelessness is a virtue in politics.
Whether it is financial succour for the soon to collapse American auto industry or timely support to the ailing banking sector, Bush administration doesn't seem to be in mood to do anything that may remotely look similar to what Obama was rooting for lest such an action should put the Democrat in brighter light.
Even if Bush wanted to adopt a conciliatory approach in his last days of lameduck presidency, his no. 2, i.e., Vice-President Cheney will not let do it. The twisted faced trigger happy egotistical tin god is so stubborn in his attitude that he can not bring himself out of the gutter politicking habits.
So, I don't think it will be prudent for Obama camp to believe that there will be some positive outcome of the one hour plus meeting held between the outgoing and the incoming Presidents. On the contrary Obama should plan for how to tackle the slew of last minute decisions that Bush will leave behind for his successor to grapple with and get bogged down.
One must say that such a tactics - something akin to earth scorching - is not going to help the American people at large. It is unfortunate that the Americans got Dubyah as President who excelled in screwing up everything that made US the most powerful and number one country in the world. The result - today US is having to go to world with a begging bowl in hand to save it from further economic hammering.
At best what the American people can do is to pray to God to give a modicum of sense and intelligence in the thick and dense head of George W so that he could do something to help large sections of the society. But it is pray only that people can do, and hope for the best. After all, you can not reduce a single day from now till Jan 20 - the day on which the people will see the back of intellectually challenged G W Bush.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
MR. OBAMA, PLEASE HANDLE INDIA (AND KASHMIR ISSUE) WITH CAUTION!
This is a open letter to President-elect Barack Obama on the above subject.
Dear Mr. Obama,
Hearty congratulations to you on your election to the presidency of United States of America!
Many, including me, heard your comments on your first press conference with great interest. The media is also reporting about your team formation process and the 'deliberate haste' that you are proposing to exercise. So far so good.
However, there are some media reports that suggest that you are considering to bring in former President Clinton to act as a mediator for resolving Kashmir issue. You are reported to have said during your luncheon meeting with Clinton in New York recently, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between India and Pakistan and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that Pakistan can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (on Pak-Afghan border).”
The news is also rife that Gen David H Petraeus, who took over as commander of the US Central Command on October 31 and visited Pakistan and Afghanistan soon after that, has reportedly nominated Ahmed Rashid and Shuja Nawaz, author of the recently published book on Pakistani Army called "Crossed Swords", as members of a brains trust to advise him on a new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ahmed Rashid (along with Barnett Rubin) in an article in Foreign Affairs called for a “grand bargain” in which the Pakistani state trades a course correction on its western front with a more sustained international effort at resolving the Kashmir dispute with India. Former Pak president Pervez Musharraf justified abandoning the Taliban regime in September 2001 as a legitimate price Pakistan had to pay in order to keep up its support for militants in Kashmir.
But the outgoing US administration rightly found it difficult to accept such a trade-off, especially, after the brutal murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl which highlighted the fact that there are no walls that separate the terrorists operating in different parts of Pakistan.
Mr. President-elect, the foregoing, which I tried to keep as brief as I could, is meant to provide a background so that I could make a sincere request to you: In your administration's eagerness to deal with anti-American forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan please do not push anything on India regarding Kashmir.
Mr. Obama, American interests will be best served if your administration can get Pakistani military to forswear involvement in politics for all time to come. Once that step is taken in earnest, the policy of building alliances with or tolerating terrorists in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Pakistan itself would naturally come to an end.
Instead of achieving the above, if your advisers get launched on the so-called “grand bargain” trajectory, it will be like trying to address the surface rather than trying to hit the root cause. And, in the process the strong partnership which got built between US-India during the last four years can potentially get undone.
Mr. President-elect, India has unhappy memories of some of your foreign policy advisers — Anthony Lake, Strobe Talbott, Robert Einhorn and Richard Holbrooke. Please tell your State Dept folks to DELINK Kashmir from any US strategy on Afghanistan. It doesn't require much brain to understand that support to any terrorist elements, be it in Kashmir or in any part of the world by any govt (in this case Pakistan) is totally unacceptable.
What I am trying to say, if your policy advisers tell you that to incentivize Pakistan (read Pak military & ISI) to help US in winning against Taleban, US has to mediate and 'solve' Kashmir issue (in some way that would please Pak), there is nothing more foolish, illogical, unethical, unprincipled than this.
If YOU didn't subscribe to anything Bill Ayers purportedly said about radicalism, how can you let your judgement be clouded by any "grand bargain" strategy which predicates itself on pleasing one set of radical elements (i.e. the militants in Kashmir) to almost beg support from a govt (Pakistan) to serve US interests.
If you don't handle the Kashmir issue from moral, logical grounds you may end up screwing up an excellent alliance that got built up between US and India - an alliance which has far more strategic spin-offs for US than one could imagine.
My suggestion to you would be that before embarking on any US-Pak-Afghan policy that potentially impacts India, please have a chat with your running mate, Joe Biden. He will have a lot to contribute in finding a strategy that on one hand will get US its desired outcome, but at the same time it will not seek to bulldoze India in some uncomfortable situation which will have immense potential negative knock-on effect.
You may also like to consult Karl Inderfurth, one of your foreign policy advisers.
I hope you will handle India (and Kashmir issue) in a 'deliberate' and sensible manner. Please remember it takes a long time to build a mutually advantageous alliance; and it takes a far shorter time to weaken and/or destroy that alliance!
With warm regards.
Dear Mr. Obama,
Hearty congratulations to you on your election to the presidency of United States of America!
Many, including me, heard your comments on your first press conference with great interest. The media is also reporting about your team formation process and the 'deliberate haste' that you are proposing to exercise. So far so good.
However, there are some media reports that suggest that you are considering to bring in former President Clinton to act as a mediator for resolving Kashmir issue. You are reported to have said during your luncheon meeting with Clinton in New York recently, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between India and Pakistan and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that Pakistan can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (on Pak-Afghan border).”
The news is also rife that Gen David H Petraeus, who took over as commander of the US Central Command on October 31 and visited Pakistan and Afghanistan soon after that, has reportedly nominated Ahmed Rashid and Shuja Nawaz, author of the recently published book on Pakistani Army called "Crossed Swords", as members of a brains trust to advise him on a new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ahmed Rashid (along with Barnett Rubin) in an article in Foreign Affairs called for a “grand bargain” in which the Pakistani state trades a course correction on its western front with a more sustained international effort at resolving the Kashmir dispute with India. Former Pak president Pervez Musharraf justified abandoning the Taliban regime in September 2001 as a legitimate price Pakistan had to pay in order to keep up its support for militants in Kashmir.
But the outgoing US administration rightly found it difficult to accept such a trade-off, especially, after the brutal murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl which highlighted the fact that there are no walls that separate the terrorists operating in different parts of Pakistan.
Mr. President-elect, the foregoing, which I tried to keep as brief as I could, is meant to provide a background so that I could make a sincere request to you: In your administration's eagerness to deal with anti-American forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan please do not push anything on India regarding Kashmir.
Mr. Obama, American interests will be best served if your administration can get Pakistani military to forswear involvement in politics for all time to come. Once that step is taken in earnest, the policy of building alliances with or tolerating terrorists in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Pakistan itself would naturally come to an end.
Instead of achieving the above, if your advisers get launched on the so-called “grand bargain” trajectory, it will be like trying to address the surface rather than trying to hit the root cause. And, in the process the strong partnership which got built between US-India during the last four years can potentially get undone.
Mr. President-elect, India has unhappy memories of some of your foreign policy advisers — Anthony Lake, Strobe Talbott, Robert Einhorn and Richard Holbrooke. Please tell your State Dept folks to DELINK Kashmir from any US strategy on Afghanistan. It doesn't require much brain to understand that support to any terrorist elements, be it in Kashmir or in any part of the world by any govt (in this case Pakistan) is totally unacceptable.
What I am trying to say, if your policy advisers tell you that to incentivize Pakistan (read Pak military & ISI) to help US in winning against Taleban, US has to mediate and 'solve' Kashmir issue (in some way that would please Pak), there is nothing more foolish, illogical, unethical, unprincipled than this.
If YOU didn't subscribe to anything Bill Ayers purportedly said about radicalism, how can you let your judgement be clouded by any "grand bargain" strategy which predicates itself on pleasing one set of radical elements (i.e. the militants in Kashmir) to almost beg support from a govt (Pakistan) to serve US interests.
If you don't handle the Kashmir issue from moral, logical grounds you may end up screwing up an excellent alliance that got built up between US and India - an alliance which has far more strategic spin-offs for US than one could imagine.
My suggestion to you would be that before embarking on any US-Pak-Afghan policy that potentially impacts India, please have a chat with your running mate, Joe Biden. He will have a lot to contribute in finding a strategy that on one hand will get US its desired outcome, but at the same time it will not seek to bulldoze India in some uncomfortable situation which will have immense potential negative knock-on effect.
You may also like to consult Karl Inderfurth, one of your foreign policy advisers.
I hope you will handle India (and Kashmir issue) in a 'deliberate' and sensible manner. Please remember it takes a long time to build a mutually advantageous alliance; and it takes a far shorter time to weaken and/or destroy that alliance!
With warm regards.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
IF OBAMA WAS 'INFLUENCED' BY REV WRIGHT THEN McCAIN COULD BE A 'COMMUNIST'!
The McCain campaign is running an ad which purportedly seeks to convey that since Senator Obama attended Rev Wright's church for number of years, surely he must have been 'influenced' by Wright's ideology. The ad seeks to sow race based division to get the white votes for the Republican ticket.
Now, let us see what McCain himself says about what he went through during the Vietnam war. He says that he 'carries scars on his body' which he claims were inflicted on him by the North Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war. People know that he was a POW for five and half years.
Let us think about it a bit dispassionately and logically. It is common knowledge that North Viets, who were communists, tried all they could to brainwash their prisoners with the communist ideology apart from whatever level of torture they would decide to inflict on the POW's to extract information. McCain, in fact, did eventually sign a confession to his supposed crimes against the Vietnamese people and holds that it was only extracted after weeks of pain inflicted by his tormentors. In a more recent interview Mr McCain explained the signing of the confession as his failure.
Therefore, it stands to reason that McCain must have undergone a sustained brainwashing regimen during the five and half years of his captivity. Mind you, brainwashing in captivity is carried out based on proven psycho-neurological methods. These methods, as would be obvious to any layman, are designed to cause far more effective and permanent change in thinking pattern of a person (in this case the POW's) as compared to any speech delivered in an open and religious environment (of a church) where the fundamental focus is on God, Jesus, Bible and the associated teachings.
People very well know how effective the indoctrination processes are in a regimented camp, or in a school or in captivity situations. Classic example in modern days are the Muslim radical suicide bombers who are indoctrinated in a closed environment. McCain never denied that he was brainwashed. And, the military records are also not public about what kind of debriefing he received from US military after his release from captivity.
So, what makes the American feel so safe to believe that McCain is not a communist in his thinking?! One may argue that he is a Republican, and hence he cannot be a communist. But people forget that so many American double agents who worked for former Soviet Union (and may be working now for Russia) appeared totally western in thinking and never betrayed any communist leaning whatsoever.
It is also important to bear in mind that the brainwashing methods adopted by the communists were so effective that it used to become part of the psyche of a person, and worst part of it is that the brainwashed person would never know that he has got changed as a result of brainwashing. That person's changed thinking gets revealed at most unexpected moment, at a moment that would be most damaging to the system to which he is assumed to be loyal.
A minor manifestation of that can be exemplified. When McCain said he wanted more troops in Iraq, as long as it takes, to 'defeat' the enemy, in fact, his sub-conscious was dictating the rhetoric rather than the logical faculty of his brain. The fact of the matter is that in his sub-conscious he carries the emotional scar of a shot down pilot and a prisoner. So, in his overt behaviour McCain likes to see the 'enemy' pummelled to pulp whether or not it is dictated by the ground realities.
Likewise, his every reasoning will be clouded by the emotional scars, and may be by the brainwashing that he might have had at the hands of communist North Viets. It will not be surprising to see McCain making bizarre decisions. His recent rushing to publicly announce that he advised the Georgian President that US will protect Georgia against the Russian 'invasion' is a classic example of that.
On the other hand, what is the extent of any likely effect on a person, who is sitting as a part of a congregation, of any talk delivered to the crowd essentially in a religious environment ? Moreover, the sermons vary every week unlike the brainwashing in a torture chamber where the indoctrination dose is thousand times heavier and dangerously focused to cause maximum alteration of a POW's mind.
What I am driving at is this: if McCain would say that he is not a communist because he could somehow sustain all the brainwashing at the hands of the communists since he had the mental strength, what makes him (and his party) to believe that Obama did not have the mental strength to prevent him to be affected by Rev Wright's so-called anti-white speeches?
In summary, if someone would be so foolish to believe by the McCain ads that Obama was 'influenced' by Rev Wright's speeches, in that case such a person should also be willing to believe that McCain could also have been 'influenced' by the brainwashing by the communists and, hence, the 72 year Senator could be a 'communist'.
One hopes that the American society will not get divided by the poison filled tactics of McPalin who are getting desperate and increasingly seem to be losing their mental balance. Again, a dangerous sign how disastrous and damaging these two can prove to be for US's interests when under pressure. God save USA from these psychopath-like hackers of American societal fabric.
Now, let us see what McCain himself says about what he went through during the Vietnam war. He says that he 'carries scars on his body' which he claims were inflicted on him by the North Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war. People know that he was a POW for five and half years.
Let us think about it a bit dispassionately and logically. It is common knowledge that North Viets, who were communists, tried all they could to brainwash their prisoners with the communist ideology apart from whatever level of torture they would decide to inflict on the POW's to extract information. McCain, in fact, did eventually sign a confession to his supposed crimes against the Vietnamese people and holds that it was only extracted after weeks of pain inflicted by his tormentors. In a more recent interview Mr McCain explained the signing of the confession as his failure.
Therefore, it stands to reason that McCain must have undergone a sustained brainwashing regimen during the five and half years of his captivity. Mind you, brainwashing in captivity is carried out based on proven psycho-neurological methods. These methods, as would be obvious to any layman, are designed to cause far more effective and permanent change in thinking pattern of a person (in this case the POW's) as compared to any speech delivered in an open and religious environment (of a church) where the fundamental focus is on God, Jesus, Bible and the associated teachings.
People very well know how effective the indoctrination processes are in a regimented camp, or in a school or in captivity situations. Classic example in modern days are the Muslim radical suicide bombers who are indoctrinated in a closed environment. McCain never denied that he was brainwashed. And, the military records are also not public about what kind of debriefing he received from US military after his release from captivity.
So, what makes the American feel so safe to believe that McCain is not a communist in his thinking?! One may argue that he is a Republican, and hence he cannot be a communist. But people forget that so many American double agents who worked for former Soviet Union (and may be working now for Russia) appeared totally western in thinking and never betrayed any communist leaning whatsoever.
It is also important to bear in mind that the brainwashing methods adopted by the communists were so effective that it used to become part of the psyche of a person, and worst part of it is that the brainwashed person would never know that he has got changed as a result of brainwashing. That person's changed thinking gets revealed at most unexpected moment, at a moment that would be most damaging to the system to which he is assumed to be loyal.
A minor manifestation of that can be exemplified. When McCain said he wanted more troops in Iraq, as long as it takes, to 'defeat' the enemy, in fact, his sub-conscious was dictating the rhetoric rather than the logical faculty of his brain. The fact of the matter is that in his sub-conscious he carries the emotional scar of a shot down pilot and a prisoner. So, in his overt behaviour McCain likes to see the 'enemy' pummelled to pulp whether or not it is dictated by the ground realities.
Likewise, his every reasoning will be clouded by the emotional scars, and may be by the brainwashing that he might have had at the hands of communist North Viets. It will not be surprising to see McCain making bizarre decisions. His recent rushing to publicly announce that he advised the Georgian President that US will protect Georgia against the Russian 'invasion' is a classic example of that.
On the other hand, what is the extent of any likely effect on a person, who is sitting as a part of a congregation, of any talk delivered to the crowd essentially in a religious environment ? Moreover, the sermons vary every week unlike the brainwashing in a torture chamber where the indoctrination dose is thousand times heavier and dangerously focused to cause maximum alteration of a POW's mind.
What I am driving at is this: if McCain would say that he is not a communist because he could somehow sustain all the brainwashing at the hands of the communists since he had the mental strength, what makes him (and his party) to believe that Obama did not have the mental strength to prevent him to be affected by Rev Wright's so-called anti-white speeches?
In summary, if someone would be so foolish to believe by the McCain ads that Obama was 'influenced' by Rev Wright's speeches, in that case such a person should also be willing to believe that McCain could also have been 'influenced' by the brainwashing by the communists and, hence, the 72 year Senator could be a 'communist'.
One hopes that the American society will not get divided by the poison filled tactics of McPalin who are getting desperate and increasingly seem to be losing their mental balance. Again, a dangerous sign how disastrous and damaging these two can prove to be for US's interests when under pressure. God save USA from these psychopath-like hackers of American societal fabric.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
UNBIASED ASSESSMENT OF McCAIN-PALIN RHETORICS
I heard both McCain and Palin's Nov 1 campaign speeches. I heard with an open mind, and memorised the key points. Mentioning them below, and the questions that immediately came to my mind in their context is written in Red within brackets alongside:
McCain: "Obama is a re-distributor of wealth; I will help create wealth." (Q: How does McCain propose to do that? No hint of that from Mc, or any explanation about his strategy)
McCain: "Obama will increases taxes on you; I will reduce taxes." (Q: What did Mc mean by 'you'? Did he mean all the middle class folks standing in the crowd? Is Obama going to tax every middle class earner, or, just the people having annual income more than $200,000? Will Mc's tax reduction be significant for middle class, or will it benefit the rich more? Mc does not shed any light on this aspect)
McCain: "Obama's tax policy will impose taxes on 50% of small businesses, like that of Joe-the-Plumber." (Q: Is the 50% figure accurate? On what basis Mc said 50%? Do 50% of all small businesses in US really earn more than $200,000 annually?! Btw, Joe-the-Plumber is not a small entrepreneur, nor does he plan to buy one, and Joe's annual income is not even $80,000; so, how is Joe-the-Plumber going to be impacted by Omaba's tax policy?)
Palin: "Joe-the-Plumber got Obama to state in very simple terms what he (BO) is going to do - Obama is going to re-distribute wealth, like socialism". (Q: Is increasing taxes on higher income brackets, and decreasing taxes on middle class 're-distribution' of wealth? Can this be characterised as socialism? Graduated tax rates, i.e., higher tax rates on higher taxable income is something very common in various G-7 and other OECD countries. Is Canada or Japan or Germany or Italy a socialist country?! Then what is Palin talking about when she says Obama is going to spread 'socialism?!)
In summary, from the analysis of campaign statements of McLin coming just 3 days before the election, I am not finding anything in their rhetoric that tells the American people about their plans, about what they are going to do. Instead, their whole rhetoric simply revolves around how 'bad' is Obama and his plans.
To any thinking, discerning, rational voter the above would immediately convey that McCain-Palin have nothing substantive to offer which will really help the larger sections of the population (i.e. middle-class). In fact, if one reads their statements carefully, quite often they are found to be deriding themselves (e.g. 'draining the Washington swamp').
If one takes in to account the inaccuracies/gaffes committed by McCain and Palin and juxtaposes with the above analysis, one would come to the inescapable conclusion that these Republican candidates are totally incompetent, unqualified, intellectually deficient for the posts they are running for.
On top of that if you place the recent indictment of Palin in 'Troopergate' incident, her connections with black magic, McCain's recent actions with regard to handling of US economic crisis, you will shudder (unless you are a blind and irrational McLin supporter) to visualize America's future in the hands of these two incompetent persons.
The question is: would the American people like to see the beginning of America's decline by electing McPalin? Well, this is a decision only the American people can make. Hope they will pause and invest their full wisdom before making this decision!
McCain: "Obama is a re-distributor of wealth; I will help create wealth." (Q: How does McCain propose to do that? No hint of that from Mc, or any explanation about his strategy)
McCain: "Obama will increases taxes on you; I will reduce taxes." (Q: What did Mc mean by 'you'? Did he mean all the middle class folks standing in the crowd? Is Obama going to tax every middle class earner, or, just the people having annual income more than $200,000? Will Mc's tax reduction be significant for middle class, or will it benefit the rich more? Mc does not shed any light on this aspect)
McCain: "Obama's tax policy will impose taxes on 50% of small businesses, like that of Joe-the-Plumber." (Q: Is the 50% figure accurate? On what basis Mc said 50%? Do 50% of all small businesses in US really earn more than $200,000 annually?! Btw, Joe-the-Plumber is not a small entrepreneur, nor does he plan to buy one, and Joe's annual income is not even $80,000; so, how is Joe-the-Plumber going to be impacted by Omaba's tax policy?)
Palin: "Joe-the-Plumber got Obama to state in very simple terms what he (BO) is going to do - Obama is going to re-distribute wealth, like socialism". (Q: Is increasing taxes on higher income brackets, and decreasing taxes on middle class 're-distribution' of wealth? Can this be characterised as socialism? Graduated tax rates, i.e., higher tax rates on higher taxable income is something very common in various G-7 and other OECD countries. Is Canada or Japan or Germany or Italy a socialist country?! Then what is Palin talking about when she says Obama is going to spread 'socialism?!)
McCain: "Palin and I will drain the Washington swamp." (Who or what is Mc referring to as 'swamp' in Washington? Does he mean - economic mess, trillion dollar deficit, collapsing health care, and so on? Well, all this happened and/or got exacerbated during the last 8 years of Bush tenure. And, McCain supported Bush 90% of times; so, which swamp will he clean? Does he mean to say that he will clean himself - his own brain? Isn't it all contradictory?)
In summary, from the analysis of campaign statements of McLin coming just 3 days before the election, I am not finding anything in their rhetoric that tells the American people about their plans, about what they are going to do. Instead, their whole rhetoric simply revolves around how 'bad' is Obama and his plans.
To any thinking, discerning, rational voter the above would immediately convey that McCain-Palin have nothing substantive to offer which will really help the larger sections of the population (i.e. middle-class). In fact, if one reads their statements carefully, quite often they are found to be deriding themselves (e.g. 'draining the Washington swamp').
If one takes in to account the inaccuracies/gaffes committed by McCain and Palin and juxtaposes with the above analysis, one would come to the inescapable conclusion that these Republican candidates are totally incompetent, unqualified, intellectually deficient for the posts they are running for.
On top of that if you place the recent indictment of Palin in 'Troopergate' incident, her connections with black magic, McCain's recent actions with regard to handling of US economic crisis, you will shudder (unless you are a blind and irrational McLin supporter) to visualize America's future in the hands of these two incompetent persons.
The question is: would the American people like to see the beginning of America's decline by electing McPalin? Well, this is a decision only the American people can make. Hope they will pause and invest their full wisdom before making this decision!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)