The more things change, the more they stay the same.
To wit: Much has been said about the ongoing, never-to-be-settled, question of "buying domestic."
While looking for something else today, I ran across this Letter to the Editor that was published in the long-since defunct evening Indianapolis News just before Christmas 1963. I penned it and sent it in as a 17-year-old:
5359 Mark Lane
Indianapolis 26, Indiana
December 19, 1963
The Indianapolis News
Office of The Editor
Indianapolis, Indiana
Dear Sir,
As a firm Studebaker advocate, I have been carefully watching the current events concerning Studebaker's shift of Automotive Division production to Hamilton, Ontario, and am indeed sorry for all the Studebaker workers who will no longer be building the only automobile that was Indiana-built in recent years.
However, I must question the concern expressed by our state officials over their new problem of the unemployment of some 4,500+ workers. Are these not the same men whose contemporaries in our state government often "signed on the dotted line" for the state of Indiana, contracting for several score or hundred non-Studebaker cars or trucks, thus taking the state's transportation needs outside the state to be fulfilled? It is doubtful that many of these now problem-laden men personally drive Studebakers.
Certainly, they must be concerned about this unemployment problem as part of the duties of their positions, but it seems to be rather nearsighted on the part of their fellow workers to have agreed to use non-Indiana-built vehicles just a short time ago and, obviously, increase the load on their fellow man.
Yours truly,
Bob Palma
The above letter I remember introducing me to the world of Government BS at the tender age of 17. That's because when they printed the letter in the paper, they asked someone in the state motor pool for a response. They printed his remarks after my letter, in which the spokesman said, "there were some cars and trucks for which Studebaker didn't build a vehicle of those specifications."
I remember thinking at the time, "Boy, what a crock; they could easily change a few specifications to use Studebakers, or Studebaker would build to their specs if given a chance." Thus my formal introduction to authentic bureaucratic BS!
Indeed: The more things change, the more they stay the same...although I think it is getting a little deeper out here! <GGG> BP
To wit: Much has been said about the ongoing, never-to-be-settled, question of "buying domestic."
While looking for something else today, I ran across this Letter to the Editor that was published in the long-since defunct evening Indianapolis News just before Christmas 1963. I penned it and sent it in as a 17-year-old:
5359 Mark Lane
Indianapolis 26, Indiana
December 19, 1963
The Indianapolis News
Office of The Editor
Indianapolis, Indiana
Dear Sir,
As a firm Studebaker advocate, I have been carefully watching the current events concerning Studebaker's shift of Automotive Division production to Hamilton, Ontario, and am indeed sorry for all the Studebaker workers who will no longer be building the only automobile that was Indiana-built in recent years.
However, I must question the concern expressed by our state officials over their new problem of the unemployment of some 4,500+ workers. Are these not the same men whose contemporaries in our state government often "signed on the dotted line" for the state of Indiana, contracting for several score or hundred non-Studebaker cars or trucks, thus taking the state's transportation needs outside the state to be fulfilled? It is doubtful that many of these now problem-laden men personally drive Studebakers.
Certainly, they must be concerned about this unemployment problem as part of the duties of their positions, but it seems to be rather nearsighted on the part of their fellow workers to have agreed to use non-Indiana-built vehicles just a short time ago and, obviously, increase the load on their fellow man.
Yours truly,
Bob Palma
The above letter I remember introducing me to the world of Government BS at the tender age of 17. That's because when they printed the letter in the paper, they asked someone in the state motor pool for a response. They printed his remarks after my letter, in which the spokesman said, "there were some cars and trucks for which Studebaker didn't build a vehicle of those specifications."
I remember thinking at the time, "Boy, what a crock; they could easily change a few specifications to use Studebakers, or Studebaker would build to their specs if given a chance." Thus my formal introduction to authentic bureaucratic BS!
Indeed: The more things change, the more they stay the same...although I think it is getting a little deeper out here! <GGG> BP
We've got to quit saying, 
Comment