Here is the text of a Letter to the Editor that I sent to the Wall Street Journal.
I wish to respectfully associate myself with the comments made by Mr. John Schnapp in his article entitled The Decline of Detroit and was published in the July 14-16 2007 Wall Street Journal and can be found at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118437946701766538-search.html?KEYWORDS=schnapp&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month.
Mr. Schnapp correctly points out a number of things that people who wish to continually bash the UAW seem to miss, namely that Detroit makes cars that many people do not want for various reasons.
I get so tired of hearing the over used statistic about $1500 per car goes to pay for retirees health costs. If Detroit made cars that people truly wanted, the $1500 would decrease or be eliminated due to volume.
I am also so tired of hearing the big three state that they produce cars that the market demand. Taking a "let's see what they want and we'll give it to them" approach versus being world class and designing and building cars and marketing cars that are innovative has made the Big Three move into second rate status as an industry.
We need leadership in Detroit that will not simply bend to whatever is popular. They need to innovate to create the next generation of cars that will create the demand that they so desperately need. They did it before with the SUV and the minivan, and they now need to do it again.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
What About Muslim Moderates? - The British Have it Right
I wish to respectfully associate myself with the views put forth by Mr. R. James Woolsey and Ms Nina Shea in their article entitled What About Muslim Moderates that appeared on July 10, 2007 Wall Street Journal.
The American government and people have to become realistic as to who are friends are in the Middle East. It's all well and good for President Bush and his family to have a close personal tie to the House of Saud but it is that very relationship that keeps true voices of reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere from being heard. Mr. Woolsey and Ms Shea hit the nail right on the head when they state that certain Muslim groups are not supported because it might displease the House of Saud.
It is worth repeating that a majority of the September 11, 2001 terrorists were Saudis and it is the House of Saud that continues to propagate the Wahhabi form of Islam.
The only way this country is going to break the influence of the House of Saud is to break our dependence on their oil.
The British government has it right; they have made it a policy to work with those Muslim organization whose actions reflect their words. The United States would do well to imitate that example.
The American government and people have to become realistic as to who are friends are in the Middle East. It's all well and good for President Bush and his family to have a close personal tie to the House of Saud but it is that very relationship that keeps true voices of reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere from being heard. Mr. Woolsey and Ms Shea hit the nail right on the head when they state that certain Muslim groups are not supported because it might displease the House of Saud.
It is worth repeating that a majority of the September 11, 2001 terrorists were Saudis and it is the House of Saud that continues to propagate the Wahhabi form of Islam.
The only way this country is going to break the influence of the House of Saud is to break our dependence on their oil.
The British government has it right; they have made it a policy to work with those Muslim organization whose actions reflect their words. The United States would do well to imitate that example.
Our Own Worst Enemies - Maybe Not
I wish to comment on Alexander M. Haig's column entitled Our Own Worst Enemy that appeared in the July 10, 2007 Wall Street Journal.
It appears that Mr. Haig does not like other people's exercise of their right to vote for the politicians they want. He decries the policy of "elections at all costs". I would like to know what Mr. Haig would substitute. Would he return American policy to that sort seen in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's where United States government, either through covert or overt actions supports some strongman who will act as our proxy in whatever region the strongman is located in.
We have seen the results of policies like this all over Africa and South America. I would much rather sooner trust the peoples of the world to determine their own fate and United States government will have to adjust to meet the reality of new politics and politicians. True, there will be problems and conflicts with other governments and the United States people and its elected representatives must develop new and creative policies to engage constructively with them.
Wasn't it Barry Goldwater that said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". I guess Mr. Haig would modify that statemen to say "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice - except when it is inconvenient".
It appears that Mr. Haig does not like other people's exercise of their right to vote for the politicians they want. He decries the policy of "elections at all costs". I would like to know what Mr. Haig would substitute. Would he return American policy to that sort seen in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's where United States government, either through covert or overt actions supports some strongman who will act as our proxy in whatever region the strongman is located in.
We have seen the results of policies like this all over Africa and South America. I would much rather sooner trust the peoples of the world to determine their own fate and United States government will have to adjust to meet the reality of new politics and politicians. True, there will be problems and conflicts with other governments and the United States people and its elected representatives must develop new and creative policies to engage constructively with them.
Wasn't it Barry Goldwater that said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". I guess Mr. Haig would modify that statemen to say "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice - except when it is inconvenient".
Monday, July 09, 2007
Letter to President Bush
Below is the text of a letter I sent to President Bush.
Dear President Bush:
I want to express my anger and disappointment at the commutation of the 30 month prison sentence of Mr. I. Lewis. Libby, Jr.
I am angered because it sends a message to the American people and our allies and more importantly, our enemies, that there are two classes of justice in this country; one for the privileged and powerful and another for those not of the political elite. This nation was founded on the concept of equality before the law. That means that anyone in jeopardy before the bar of justice should meet that jeopardy on an equal footing. If people, simply because of their status or influence, can expect different treatment, our system of justice will fall like a house of cards. Your actions have set a dangerous precedence that will create more problems for future presidents. Mr. Libby should have been forced to go through the appeals process like any other citizen.
I am disappointed because your actions have lowered our nation’s stature in the community of nations. I realize that the opinion of other nations has never been important to you or your administration but it is becoming ever more evident that we will have to work with other nations to address the great social, economic and environmental problems of our age. I am also disappointed because your actions focus more scorn and cynicism to the office of president. There was a time when young people aspired to the presidency of this great nation. Do you believe that your actions have helped or hindered those aspirations? Regardless of one’s political leanings, the office of president has been one that people respect. In the final analysis, only you can judge how you have been the steward of your high office. Have you enhanced it for future office holders or have you diminished it?
Having lived all my life in Chicago, I have become very adept at recognizing political hacks of all parties and positions. You are just the latest hack with an Ivy League veneer that has made his way into the White House. You are not the first fool to occupy your office and you won’t be the last.
Your actions in regard to Mr. Libby are indicative of your entire administration. Your administration has been a monument to cronyism, favoritism, incompetence and obfuscation towards the American people whom you claim to serve but really hold in utter contempt.
I have no illusions that this note and the sentiments expressed in it will ever cross your eyes. The sycophants and ticket punchers in your administration will not permit it. I have great hope in the sensibility of the American people and they will see what you administrations and its policies have wrought and I am glad that come November of 2008, we will have the power to send you and your minions to the dustbin of history. You deserve nothing less.
Sincerely yours,
Eugene M. Giudice
Dear President Bush:
I want to express my anger and disappointment at the commutation of the 30 month prison sentence of Mr. I. Lewis. Libby, Jr.
I am angered because it sends a message to the American people and our allies and more importantly, our enemies, that there are two classes of justice in this country; one for the privileged and powerful and another for those not of the political elite. This nation was founded on the concept of equality before the law. That means that anyone in jeopardy before the bar of justice should meet that jeopardy on an equal footing. If people, simply because of their status or influence, can expect different treatment, our system of justice will fall like a house of cards. Your actions have set a dangerous precedence that will create more problems for future presidents. Mr. Libby should have been forced to go through the appeals process like any other citizen.
I am disappointed because your actions have lowered our nation’s stature in the community of nations. I realize that the opinion of other nations has never been important to you or your administration but it is becoming ever more evident that we will have to work with other nations to address the great social, economic and environmental problems of our age. I am also disappointed because your actions focus more scorn and cynicism to the office of president. There was a time when young people aspired to the presidency of this great nation. Do you believe that your actions have helped or hindered those aspirations? Regardless of one’s political leanings, the office of president has been one that people respect. In the final analysis, only you can judge how you have been the steward of your high office. Have you enhanced it for future office holders or have you diminished it?
Having lived all my life in Chicago, I have become very adept at recognizing political hacks of all parties and positions. You are just the latest hack with an Ivy League veneer that has made his way into the White House. You are not the first fool to occupy your office and you won’t be the last.
Your actions in regard to Mr. Libby are indicative of your entire administration. Your administration has been a monument to cronyism, favoritism, incompetence and obfuscation towards the American people whom you claim to serve but really hold in utter contempt.
I have no illusions that this note and the sentiments expressed in it will ever cross your eyes. The sycophants and ticket punchers in your administration will not permit it. I have great hope in the sensibility of the American people and they will see what you administrations and its policies have wrought and I am glad that come November of 2008, we will have the power to send you and your minions to the dustbin of history. You deserve nothing less.
Sincerely yours,
Eugene M. Giudice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
