| Charlie's Dad |
In all my 43 years this Southerner has never been to Canada...well that changed on Monday when I got an expenses paid business trip to Toronto....Wow the traffic was as bad if not worse than any other place in the US.
I also noticed about 10,000 new Chrysler cars apparently stored out near the Airport...(interesting about AutoNation's accusation of excess inventory).
Rode a 30 year old Otis elevator 1000+ feet to the top of the CN Tower...had a really over priced dinner on a spinning swaying platform overlooking the city...I almost hurled...but it was memorable. I could not quite bring myself to walk out onto the glass floor...however.
I don't know what I expected as far as cars...they were pretty much the same as what we have in the South except for the few odd Smart 4 twos...they were pretty cool inperson. That's about it. I stayed in Yorktown at the Intercontinental...nice hotel I recommend.
If there are any Toronto resident's who can tell me ...What the hell are they building across the street from the Intercontinental. Looks like a cancerous tumor is eating a nice old building. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
I used to enjoy Canada.
There is so much Anti American feelings up there now, I won't go back.
I suppose I will still continue to pay for their defense tho.
As to the Chrysler "problem", it is huge.
Homer
History Keeps Repeating at Chrysler
By Alisa Priddle
WardsAuto.com, Oct 25, 2006 2:28 PM
Inventory issues repeatedly have played a dastardly role in some of Chrysler’s rockiest periods.
When Lee Iacocca assumed leadership at Chrysler in 1978, he cleaned house, including elimination of an insidious sales bank of as many as 100,000 unassigned vehicles, a pool of inventory subject to abuse to pump up production figures.
After sitting outside in parking lots for months, the units were sold to dealers at discount rates and the auto maker incurred heavy losses until Iacocca successfully ended the practice.
The auto maker that needed an act of Congress and the K car to save it from bankruptcy pulled itself back into contention and used the introduction of the minivan to return to profitability.
But history tends to repeat.
Chrysler was in trouble again in 1990, and Iacocca was forced to step down. The ghost of past troubles haunted successor Bob Eaton until he agreed to merge with Daimler-Benz in 1998 for security.
All appeared rosy during the honeymoon. At the end of 1999, Chrysler said it had about $10 billion more cash than debt.
But by October 2000, the cash had dwindled to $5.5 billion and by year’s end the rainy-day fund equaled the auto maker’s debt – net cash was zero.
And then it rained minivans.
Chrysler CEO Jim Holden oversaw a botched launch of the critical all-new ’01 minivan. The auto maker launched the ’01 model in a record 25 days and started shipping to dealers already drowning in older models that had been stockpiled, just in case.
The minivans exacerbated an inventory glut created by a mandate from Stuttgart that Chrysler show strong financials in second-quarter 2000 at any cost. Chrysler responded by building about 15% more vehicles than dealers could handle.
Holden struggled to convince his German bosses of the need for incentives, so while other auto makers were throwing money on the hood to move inventory, Chrysler dealers could not.
Finally, the bubble burst. Chrysler was forced to discount its glut of vehicles and offer large rebates in the year’s second half, especially on minivans. The fiasco essentially drained the cash reserves, contributing to a $512 million third-quarter loss, costing Holden his job.
Dieter Zetsche was sent from Germany to clean up the mess.
But two years into a successful restructuring effort, Zetsche, too, was blindsided in 2003 by the need to revalue half a million vehicles in inventory to reflect the impact of higher-than-expected incentives. The financial hit led to the cancellation of plans for two greenfield plants.
Today, Chrysler again is caught with too much inventory and controversy over its failure to disclose the number of surplus vehicles.
Ward’s data show Chrysler had a pool of about 77,000 unsold and unreported vehicles at the end of August, enough to push the auto maker’s stockpile over 575,000 units when added to its reported inventory.
Chrysler officials acknowledge the bank of unassigned vehicles, held in abeyance until dealer orders prompt their releases, reached a high of 100,000 units in July and August.
The auto maker says it returned to the practice of creating a sales bank about two years ago and insists not reporting these vehicles is common in the industry.
Other auto makers contacted by Ward’s say that is not the case.
While Iacocca must be reaching for the antacid about now, Chrysler says this unreported inventory should be eliminated by year’s end, and the practice is being curtailed because – once again – it is proving disastrous.
Chrysler reports a $1.48 billion loss in the third quarter, and the operation is under review, with everything from further restructuring to sale of its assets being considered.
The latest chapter in its rocky history will be played out into next year – just about the time the latest inventory mess is cleared up. |
|
|
| northoftheline |
Homer,
I won't deny that there is a segment of the population up here who clearly do not agree with US foreign policy regarding Iraq (just like some of your fellow Americans), but that is not, and never should be confused with being "Anti America."
Canadians as a whole perceive our neighbours to the south as our closest friends and allies.
It just seems a little odd to me that when your fellow Americans disagree on political issues it's considered a fundamentally healthy component of a modern democracy, but when others outside the US disagree it becomes America bashing. Intellectual and culturally we're closer to each other than any other country.
Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand your comment about paying for our defence, but if you're willing to pay I give you my thanks.
Living on the Canada/US border I think I can safely say most of us here (on both sides) aren't buying into that kind of politically motivated drivel. I'd suggest a lot less Fox and a lot more CNN.
Finally, and not to put too fine a point on it, you (as a vet.) more than most should know better. While Canadians are giving their lives weekly in Afghanistan at the behest of the US government, it borders on crass to take such a cheap shot at Canadians and by association our brave who serve.
Mark |
|
|
| TexInFla |
| Beautifully said, Mark. Thank you. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
Bravo. Well written.
May indeed show how YOU feel.
But Anti Americanism by Canada is well known and is spoken of quite freely.
Here's what the United States Ambassador to Canada said in 2005;
In a hard-hitting speech in Ottawa, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins lamented what he called relentless and incessant criticism of his country, which he speculated might begin to sow doubt about the strength of the binational relationship.
“Canada never has to tear the United States down to build itself up,” Wilkins said.
“It may be smart election politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it’s a slippery slope and all of us should hope it doesn’t have a long-term impact on our relationship.”
--------------------------------------------------
And what if it was Canadians that rue the Anti American sentiments?
You think it is just about Iraq?
Funny, but Canadian Consul General Pamela Wallin doesn't agree with you.
""Post-9/11 ideological differences between our governments got in the way. It wasn't that we said no to Iraq, but HOW WE SAID NO AND THE NAME-CALLING,' she said. "The new PM wants to have a frank, business working relationship and that's appropriate."
----------------------------------------------------------
And for some history on the Anti American feelings...
http://www.robertfulford.com/AntiAmericanism.html
U.S. bashing no longer a game
by Robert Fulford
(The National Post, September 14, 2001)
Anti-Americanism, a staple of cultural and political life in Canada for longer than anyone can remember, has begun to feel different since the first pictures of the World Trade Center towers appeared on our TV screens Tuesday morning. We can't hope that anti-Americanism as a habit of thought was buried beneath the rubble of those falling buildings, but there's no doubt that events are forcing us to reconsider this persistent strain in our national psyche.
'
'
We usually take this Canadian prejudice lightly, as a kind of foible, but we may have to begin seriously questioning it. Anti-Americanism is not the game that we have so often considered it. America is the most vital and progressive country in the world, the most significant source of democratic impulses, our best friend by far, and the place where much of our culture originates. If our intent is to be authentic and consistent, can we afford to share anything with those who base their politics on hating America?
Perhaps we should acknowledge that reflexive anti-Americanism (as opposed to honest disagreement with the United States) is a poison afflicting large parts of the world, a poison we should purge from our own system.
----------------------------------------------------------
Now I am not saying that everyone in Canada is anti American.
But to deny that it is not a major issue, a common, issue, a RECOGNIZED issue, is disingenuous.
I would also like to think that the Canadians are in Afghanistan to fight terrorism and are not there just because we asked. I think your young men/women are fighting for the rights of people to be free of oppression.
Now I wait for your response.
But I prefer you also respond to the people mentioned here since I am not the one who invented this issue or first talked about it. They are.
There are many more examples but my purpose is not to attack Canada, but to merely defend what I said.
And what I said was there is so much of this up there I won't go back.
Ran into it big time in the thousand lakes area. I am entitled to my reaction.
I will not comment on the despicable part of your message that seemed to indicate that I don't have the right to my opinion because I may not hold the same political beliefs as you.
Homer |
|
|
| DRIVES2FAST |
Well Homer I'd imagine there are several ways of replying to you. The first and the far to easiest would be to say "thanks Homer" and move on. I mean you chose your nomdeplume for a reason, right?
The second way would be to remind you that, rather than let your fellow countrymen fall out of the sky on 9-11, we landed your planes and took in new friends. Ask anyone of those individuals what they think of Canadians when their own government would have let them die rather than land. That's what neighbours do for each other.
We don't agree with you all the time and that's OK too. Friends don't have to agree with each other all the time, it's the differences that make us all better.
As for you protecting us I don't think your doing it for altruistic reasons. Your doing it for the same reasons you launched "Desert Shield," the first thing you wanted to do was protect the oil of Saudi Arabia.
So, as the largest supplier of oil to the US, perhaps you're just extending us the same courtesy.
What's more, your still welcome to come and visit any time! |
|
|
| hfelknor |
Kind words and I appreciate them.
BTW I don't use a nom de plume.
I am not that kind.
I am a modern day Popeye.
"I yam what I yam".
I found this one interesting.......
Homer
Poll: over 40% of Canadian teens think America is "evil"
by Arthur Weinreb, Associate Editor, Canada Free Press
June 30, 2004
Can West News Services, owners of several Canadian newspapers including the National Post as well as the Global Television Network commissioned a series of polls to determine how young people feel about the issues that were facing the country’s voters. Dubbed "Youth Vote 2004", the polls, sponsored by the Dominion Institute and Navigator Ltd. were taken with a view to getting more young people involved in the political process.
In one telephone poll of teens between the ages of 14 and 18, over 40 per cent of the respondents described the United States as being "evil". That number rose to 64 per cent for French Canadian youth.
This being Canada, the amount of anti-Americanism that was found is not surprising. What is significant is the high number of teens who used the word "evil" to describe our southern neighbour. As Misty Harris pointed out in her column in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, evil is usually associated with serial killers and "kids who tear the legs off baby spiders." These teens appear to equate George W. Bush and Americans with Osama bin Laden and Hitler, although it is unknown if the teens polled would describe the latter two as being evil. Whether someone who orders planes to be flown into heavily populated buildings would fit that description would make a good subject for a future poll.
The Liberal government came into power in 1993 gushing anti-Americanism. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s communications director, Francoise Ducros, made headlines when she referred to President Bush as a moron. Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish was picked up on a boom microphone saying, "Damn Americans — I hate those bastards". Not only did Parrish not apologize for her remarks, but she later appeared on a television show hosted by alleged comedian Mike Bullard and laughed about the incident. Parrish played to the anti-Americanism of the youthful studio audience by saying that she couldn’t guarantee that she wouldn’t do it again.
Not only did then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien not take any action against his staff or caucus members, he himself engaged in America-bashing. The depth of his anti-Americanism surfaced shortly after the 9/11 attacks when he blamed the arrogance and greed of the West (read the United States) for those attacks.
When Paul Martin assumed office last December, the childish cheap shots ended but, if anything, anti-Americanism became stronger.
Anti-Americanism played a prominent role in the election strategy of the Liberals. Paul Martin portrayed himself as the saviour of Canadian medicare while saying that if Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada came to power they would introduce "American-style" health care. Martin was happy to take credit for cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit during the 1990s when he was Minister of Finance, but he referred to tax cuts included in the Conservative Party platform as being "American-style tax cuts". Canadians who favour lower taxes or the private delivery of health care services or smaller governments or anything similar to what is found in the United States were called "un-Canadian" by Paul Martin.
It is therefore not surprising that a high percentage of Canadian youth think that the United States is evil. Nor is it surprising that this feeling is more pronounced in Quebec where Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said that he would rather live under the United Nations than the Stars and Stripes. The left wing Canadian political parties, aided by their supporters in the elite media don’t seem to be able to say anything positive about Canada without denigrating the United States in the process.
The poll results reflect that anti-Americanism will be solidly entrenched in future generations of Canadians. As well as listening to the propaganda espoused by their political leaders and the media, these kids have no experience with what constitutes real evil. They live in a country that much like pre-9/11 America, thinks that terrorist attacks are something that happens in other countries. And as the World War II veterans slowly die off, they have no conviction of the evil that the allies risked their lives to defeat.
With anti-Americanism playing such a prominent role in this past election campaign, it is no wonder that the United States was viewed in such a negative light. |
|
|
| Stoker |
hfelknor
While I appreciate your comments, I don't think you are being fair to the majority of Canadians. I work and play on both sides of the border and enjoy all my freinds. The big thing that I respect is that we have the right of free speech and we all exercise that right all the time because we have earned it.
Yes, there are people that bad mouth America and you read about it in the press, but we all know the the press has a tendency to embellish these reports so that they can sell the story. Nobody buys a good news story, they only want the racy and bad news.
I personally was disappointed when one of our MP's (Members of Parliament) a liberal, bad mouth your president. Fortunately we have a thing called elections where citizens can exercise their franchise and vote people like that out of office, which happen in January 2006.
In regards to military spending I to have an opinion as I am a member of Canada's Naval Reserve I to would like better equipment but the People of Canada decide what equipment and staffing levels we get. For your info, Canada is buying 4 C-17 Globemaster, 15 C-130J Hercules aircraft and 15 Chinook helicopters from Boeing in the next couple of years, we are hoping that we get one C-17 by next year as our cousins in the USAF have agreed to give us one from the production line instead of going to them. While that may not seem alot, this is a great deal of money for a country of only 33.5 million.
I would invite you to talk to your friends in Texas about the Calgary Exhibition and Stampede and come up and see us in July for it, in fact if you want you can stay with me and I will show you how Canadians treat our friends.
I know I have gone off topic and I will now return to the regularity scheduled website. |
|
|
| northoftheline |
Bleary eyed and reading Homers reply to my post (at 4:00am) this morning put me in quite a foul mood for most of the day. You can imagine my relief tonight when I reread the post to see that it wasn't actually Robert Redford but rather some guy named Robert Fulford who disparaged us evil American hating Canadians.
All jocularity aside, it has become obvious that I cannot win this argument with Homer. I can be right, but no one can assail such a dearly held position. Homers views on Canadians (and I suspect any who do not lock step with America) is so intrenched a view that it is beyond attack even from logic and reason. So, I simply must concede defeat.
However, I must, at least for others who will view this thread respond and hope that my words will be taken at face value.
I'm just a simple Papermaker in Canada living on a border town adjacent to other Papermakers in America. That's right, no University education, no hidden agenda, no reason to advance a pro American viewpoint from the eyes of a Canadian. The fact is that contrary to what Homer accuses me of, I'm not disingenuous, just simply stating the honest sentiments of someone who sees and associates with Americans every week. I'm not even able to fathom why anyone would think I would want to advance a view that I don�t believe as Homer is suggesting. To what end???
So, firstly, as to the comments by U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins; I agreed with him whole heartedly. I remember them well and applauded him for saying it. Clear, concise and simply put. It was refreshing, as strait talk often is. Reading the editorials of the time most Canadian also agreed.
It should be mentioned that the Ambassador was responding to rhetoric during a rather nasty Federal campaign. This tactic was so effective that it in no small measure effectively lost the election for the then governing Liberal party. That's right, anti Americanism, if you will, was at least in part sufficient to lose an election for the party that employed it. What does that say about Canadians views regarding Americans?
Look, I'm just a working man. I don't have all evening to cut and paste the searches to support my position. Let me just say this: For every Al Franken there is going to be a Bill O'Reilly. That is to say for every post that chides the ultra conservative right there is there will be one lamenting the views of liberal left . What of it? Controversy and political hay is their shtick. It's the grist that feeds that industry. Controversy is what sells newspapers and air time on talk radio as well as cable news. If you chose to hear only one extreme that's your choice, but it certainly limits your perspective and marginalises you from the rest of the world. If Canada isn't your closest friend and ally, who is? Really, who? Powers of global influence tend to evoke the strongest criticism even from those who would be their friends. It is the nature of power. Lacking any effective leverage over the greater power, lesser powers employ the only tool they have, that of verbal barbs and jabs.
All I can say is that the rhetorical devices you use Homer are a feeble way to respond to those who would legitimately question your views. Also, it can't go unnoticed, the classic tactic of claiming not to attack an opponent and then do exactly that. As if by first disclaiming it gives you licence to speak with impunity. I'll leave to others to defend positions which are in disagreement with you. Frankly, I simply can't see myself spending so much energy on someone is so hopelessly myopic.
And forgive my grammar, I really don't think that this is the proper forum for such a heated debate. Maybe another place and time. So let me moderate myself out of the debate and say to all open minded readers that Canadians are and will (I think) always be allies and kindred spirits with the vast majority of Americans.
Mark |
|
|
|
