Rhetoric 3371 Questions

This article ignited a lot of thoughts about the history of America for me. When I was reading about Ford’s hiring and labor policies it was so telling of the times, Ford hired immigrants, African Americans and people who were mentally challenged and disabled on multiple levels, but not so that they could keep good esteem with the public for being equal opportunity employers like large corporations today, Ford just wanted to take advantage of cheap labor from desperate people who would do mind numbing labor for the most menial of wage possible. That is a disturbing thought and it seems it was also a popular way of running business back in the early days of American industrialization. I also found a passage about the transition from cobblestone streets to paved roads, that brought up a nostalgic thought, not for me per se, but for that part of a person that longs for the old history to still remain amidst the urbanization of the city. Now everything is just paved ways roads and highways. When I come across an authentic cobblestone road as you sometimes find in small towns it has this old world feeling to me, it shows that not everything in our history has just been covered over by a layer of asphalt and erased from memory, but there is still some of that history as simple as it may be, same as it was over 100 years ago. This once again brings me back to my thoughts that correlate with the desert island or the romantization of the western world during the gold rush, that curiosity about the days without technology and a better, faster more efficient everything.

Automobiles and Automobility:

I found the end of the reading to be very interesting. Discussing the problems of automobiles, and the steps taken toward improving them, shows how new technology can both help and hurt a society. It discussed how individuals try to develop solutions without actually giving up the new technology. New technology is always rough around the edges when first introduced into society, however, as time progresses, further research and advances make the technology more desirable; for both mankind and the environment. A great example was the improvements made to automobiles. While we are still greatly dependent on automobiles, improvements made to them are lessening the burden associated with this dependence.

Automobiles and Automobility was an interesting article that I enjoyed reading. I was amazed at all of the correlation between how the auto industry uses to run their operations and how they run them now. Ivy pointed out how Ford used disabled people and immigrants for cheap labor, which still happens today. I American auto industry is really suffering right now so they are cutting many American jobs, taking their operations overseas, and replacing American workers with foreign workers or immigrants. While reading the article I found it interesting that our interstate system took so long to form. We had automobiles for years before we developed an infrastructure. I believe we had the technology but the main question is why didn’t we use it? This same thing applies to our current interstate system as we know it today. We are years behind technology in this interstate system as we can’t deal with certain weather related conditions, the interstate is becoming intolerable to the traffic volume, and its braking down. The German Autobahn is the most sophisticated and technologically advanced roadway system in the world. One would think that the US, with its power, technology and so called “wealth” would build a safer, longer lasting, and more dependable roadway.

I want to comment on Jackson's piece. He seems to try and do away with the dichotomy of man and nature. His references to Anderson are good, and I do think that man is a part of nature, but can we so easily say that the city can be seen the same way that the Grand Tetons or the Lost Forty are seen. I think that it is in the spirit of 'nature loving' that we should view the city as a kind of environment, as a kind of natural setting, but I cannot let myself accept the proposition that there is no difference. The ciy for me is unnatural by the fact that we have engineered it, and I think I agree with Thoreau that we must get outside the city to understand nature because our perception within it will constrained. It may be constrained to a kind of nature, if you can view the city that way, but it will not take in the voice without metaphor that a position outside the hustle and bustle of civilization offers us.

I was reading Cowan's piece about the car and the apprentice's story. I understood how the apprentice had to give up the autonomous mop in order to save the shop and town, but don't see how that commits us to give up the car in order to save the country and the world. Maybe I'm not supposed to see that. I guess I don't think that automotive transport of some kind is something we can remove from society and not face a catastrophic depression. I don't really know where I'm going with this, but I liked his comparison of all the virtuous attempts to synthesize the car problems - like Nader's 'muckraking' book - to the apprentice's frantic search within his master's spellbook. I think I'm going to leave this incoherent rant up because sometimes doing these postings I have nothing to say and spend time contriving a response to meet the course requirements. I guess I could do better if there was something to respond to... ah well I did learn that ford motor company had a police force that pressured its workers into conforming to its policy by spying and intimidation.

The automobile came at the perfect time. Everyone was fed up with railroads and large corporations who controlled when and how everyone traveled. The system was confusing, time was confusing, and the amount of pollutants that could be directly seen from railways all added up. When the car came around people loved the idea. It was a personal form a transportation, and extension of the home, if you will, that people could make entirely their own. The convenience of traveling when one wished was fantastic, and all without the piss and fecal matter of the modern steed. What I also found interesting was how much the production of the car catalyzed the progress toward the current industrial model we see today. The advent of the car and its function (for a small group of people or family) meant that many would have to be sold and for cheap so that everyone could afford one. This meant cutting cost where necessary (e.g. labor and parts) and also improving efficiency in the manufacturing process (assembly line and type of employee). To me this symbolizes cut-throat business. Why do something to help people when one can exploit? The fact the Ford used immigrants, amputees and even convicts on his assembly lined sickened me. Also, he had people devoted to the extinguishment of unions and employee unification. Does this not sound like another corporation we see today? The best thing about the car was that the manufacturer of the car shouldered no responsibility for the infrastructure required to run it (streets, cleanup, and highways). These costs were pawned off to the city, state and national bodies. Ford, more like FU^*. Although, I do love my mother’s Ford Taurus.

I thought this article gave an excellent history of the automobile, from the first home made autos to the present day cars. It was also nice to read more about the thermodynamics behind the first internal combustion engines. Where would we be if it weren’t for the Otto Cycle?! I find it interesting that the American cars were already bigger in engine capacity and interiour room than all other competitors by the early 1930’s. For the most part, it is still like this today. The automobile industry is similar to the railroad industry. At first, cars were praised because of their ease. I know I’d take exhaust over 2.5 million pounds of horse manure, 60000 gallons of urine, and 15000 dead horses on my city streets. However, just like the trains’ effects on the environment, cars inevitably followed in their tracks (NO PUN INTENDED).

Will the current wars in the Middle East eventually lead to an oil shortage which was experienced in the late 1970’s? How long will it take our nation, and the world for that matter, to produce renewable and clean energy sources on a large scale for autos?

David Lunde - my roommate had a farliy new ford taurus... until its transmission dropped out and it went straight to hell.

This article, coming after our train section, really helps puts american history into prespective for me. ONe thing i could not help but think trough this article was: in twoo hundred years when students learn about this time in text books, what are they going ot have to say about it. will the people of the automobile era be seen as some quaint simple people enjoying automation or will they be seen as the god-forsaken fools who wasted away and incredibly powerful enerygy source in just over one hundred years. How will history see us?
the other thing that kept coming up ikn my head from this article is man what huge country this is. i hear questions like comments about how we could be more like european or asian countries with our transport or work, but the thing is this country is so effing huge that what works for those countries would never work here. maybe that is why small businesses die here, because if you want to do something for the masses, you have to do it very efficiently for many people. ha i could go on for a while but thats pry good.

one more thing that got me was how young this counrty is. i can't help but seeing the u.s. like a growing child, going through phases, and often treating the things around it like playthings.

I think that it is very rare that we think about the history of the automobile, in fact it is hard to imagine having a slow auto. We are all so consumed by the fancy styles and better gas mileage that the first few automobiles don’t even compare in the least. Also I guess I was a little shocked to think that America was a late bloomer when it came to automobiles. It was something I had known but one of those things you never think about. And it is just more surprising when you do, in America we like to think of our selves as always being on the edge of cutting line technology. But things such as the auto show that is hasn’t always been that way.

After reading Cowan’s “Automobiles and Automobility,” it made me realize that the unexpected consequences of automobility: safety, environmental degradation, and the climbing of the fuel price are problems that society continues to face today. Is the automobile technology resolute? Safety and the automobile have progressed. The regulations and traffic laws that have been established have proven to provide a secure and safe means of transportation. The environmental situation is difficult. Emission test have been given to regulate how much pollution is put into the air by each vehicle. However this still does not resolve the issue of toxic gases bellowing into the air at an exponential rate. This issue will only be resolved until a more efficient and environmentally safe substitute replaces oil. The fuel price will always be any issue unless the political argument is resolved. The Untied States can’t just assume that the fuel will be around forever, but that it will become non existent soon. This is why it is so important to invest money in programs and organizations to replace oil with a more efficient and cleaner means of fuel. The automobile has been a necessity in the United States since the early twentieth century. For that reason the priority to make it human safe, enviormentally safe, and to find another means of fuel is essential to fulfilling the progress of the automobile.

And I thought our problems from automobiles were relatively recent. Not true at all, they had traffic and pollution in the 20's! Then it got worse, and more problems were added (rising prices of fuel for instance).

After reading more and more of these articles I am beginning to hate big business (even more). The railroad corporations, now the car and oil corporations...and the government has to keep stepping in to keep things under control. If anything I say give more control to the government, since it is clear that corporations will never solve the problems they've created. More government control on business! Unless...somehow government officials got elected that were part of these ruthless profit-hungry corporations, then I suppose we would really be screwed. But that would never happen...

Ford and his engineers created the assembly line technique which enabled him to hire unskilled laborers rather than the craftsmen that were required previously. After hiring them he paid them a “far higher wage rate” and offered an 8 hour day so that he could retain a workforce in a monotonous job setting. Ford wanted to “price his cars at a level that every worker could afford and to pay his workers at a level at which they could become his best customers.” Historically, the auto industry has been a fairly high wage industry for unskilled labor. I owned a business for 26 years and I understand the fine balancing act required to stay financially healthy so that you can continue to provide a service or product at a reasonable price and pay employees a fair wage. Government or union interference can cause a lot of hassles that only make it more difficult. It seems to me that Ford was trying to be a fair and honorable employer while also protecting his business. If the business is run into bankruptcy, no one benefits, including the employees.

While reading Automobiles and Automobility I could not but help link it to our discussions about the railroad system. In discussions one of our main topics we talked about were the effects the railroads had on our environment. So my question is why are we not as hard on cars as we were on the trains? Cars to me seem just as damaging to the environment. Highways and roads just like train tracks plow thorough our country and ruin habitats for animals. It seems impossible for me to drive the 4 hour drive from my house to campus without seeing a dead deer, raccoon, cat, or skunk on the side of the road. Why are we not as bitter towards the cars as we are towards the railroad? They seem to have many of the same damaging effects. Is it because we continue to use cars, do not have another alternative, or are not willing to give up that luxury yet?

There were a lot of negative consequences that arose from the automobile, but I am sure glad we have them today. I found it fascinating that Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile. I think that type of thing happens a lot in America, where we take credit for everything innovative that is made or designed. Oh well I don't think it is that big of deal. Probably irritates other countries, in this case Germany, when we do it though. But that started making me think of misinformation. How we are often misinformed with news propaganda.

Getting back to the article, cars do a lot of damage to the environment and there is a lot of death that results because of it. However, it's imperative that we have automotive transportation. Actually automotive technology has gotten so good that a lot of fatalities are now prevented. I think the automotive industry should be commended for that.

I didn't think we invented the automobile... maybe that's because I'm a bit of a car geek, but I also don't remember ever being taught that Ford invented anything other than the assembly line. The fact that he didn't quite do that is interesting.
I was also suprised by what I took as a positive spin on the development of the auto-industry, and the opportunities that Ford gave to untrained employees (given Cowens negative view). Then I read everyones comments, and nobody took it that way but me. What was so bad about giving people who would be getting paid less a little more? Is that taking advantage of them? Or should we be paying untrained B.A. degree people like me to be developing space shuttles? I wonder more about other companies following in Ford's footsteps when it comes to hiring people to watch their employees and the expense involved in that process.

I didn't think we invented the automobile... maybe that's because I'm a bit of a car geek, but I also don't remember ever being taught that Ford invented anything other than the assembly line. The fact that he didn't quite do that is interesting.
I was also suprised by what I took as a positive spin on the development of the auto-industry, and the opportunities that Ford gave to untrained employees (given Cowens negative view). Then I read everyones comments, and nobody took it that way but me. What was so bad about giving people who would be getting paid less a little more? Is that taking advantage of them? Or should we be paying untrained B.A. degree people like me to be developing space shuttles? I wonder more about other companies following in Ford's footsteps when it comes to hiring people to watch their employees and the expense involved in that process.

What part have the big oil companies had in the non-advancement of America in alternate/renewable energy sources such as solar, water, and wind energy. If big oil wasn't such a huge part of our economy would the government begin funding/research for alternate energy sources sooner. We could have been a world leader in alternate sources and we would not be in the situation we are in right now, in which, we are worrying about the pollution and costs of natural gas/oil.
It's interesting how the big companies in America can even go as far as being influential in the government. The government should be independent from any American business to keep progress in America going, and to ensure that we can continue to advance and be a world leader in technological advancements.

As an engineering student, I especially enjoyed the beginning of the article with the history of creating the automobile and the engine. A major change was in order to create a small self-propelled vehicle. The first four stroke engine of 1876 was quite similar to the four-stroke engine of today; that to me is an engineering marvel of its time. Enter Henry Ford and the world of automobile manufacturing changed forever. Many disliked this lack of human effort going into the manufacture of the automobile, but it allowed for greater efficiency and created the opportunity for more people to afford autos. Automobiles were seen as a more efficient means of transportation once a greater number of people could afford them. Much like with the railroads, there was of course a backlash against the automobiles, but in a majority rules society, automobiles thrived and took over electric trains in the bigger cities which of course led to many problems such as accidents.

The story of the apprentice and the mop really demonstrates how hard it is to sacrifice something that has simplified life. While the invention of automobiles has simplified our lives by allowing us to travel large distances and carry about our everyday routines, it continues to destroy the environment. The invention of hybrid cars and vehicles that can run off of e85 ethanol fuel are a start to save the environment but it is up to the user to implement these new technologies. What I have noticed as a driver is that American’s like their big SUV vehicles, they are everywhere on the roads and are notoriously known for being gas guzzlers. No one wants to drive around a small, slow hybrid vehicle. I do not know about everyone else, but I prefer a car that has power to it. The quicker it picks up speed, the better. Hybrid and e85 vehicles do not pick up speed as quickly which may be a reason why the idea of them has not caught on as quickly. A main reason I can think of as to why someone would purchase a hybrid vehicle is because it saves money, not because it is environmentally friendly.

This class has definitely opened my eyes to historical events that I knew partly, and as a result paid little attention to. I find it quite interesting how automobiles have evolved, and how much of an influence big companies have had on the American society. The execution of the assembly line was a great way to cut down cost and speed up production. Ford’s tactics, in my opinion, were not completely ill-intended, because he opened the door for people who were not given many opportunities (if any for that matter), and took into account his economic situation. Now when I pass train tracks or get in my car, I am reminded of the history behind such technologies, and marvel at how far we have come. I am eager to see what is in store for us within the next 20-30 years.

This class has definitely opened my eyes to historical events that I knew partly, and as a result paid little attention to. I find it quite interesting how automobiles have evolved, and how much of an influence big companies have had on the American society. The execution of the assembly line was a great way to cut down cost and speed up production. Ford’s tactics, in my opinion, were not completely ill-intended, because he opened the door for people who were not given many opportunities (if any for that matter), and took into account his economic situation. Now when I pass train tracks or get in my car, I am reminded of the history behind such technologies, and marvel at how far we have come. I am eager to see what is in store for us within the next 20-30 years.

Wow. I guess we all would have been better off without cars. I feel as if there has been more bad than good that has come out of the making and perfecting of today's vehicles. First of all, Mr. Ford and his hiring of convicts, mentally handicap, etc.; so his employees will not know any better and form a union against his company? Who does this guy think he is? And it also sounds like we were just asking to global warming and oil disputes with foreign countries back then too. Why are we not stopping this madness? I decided to ask myself that same question. I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that I love my car. The car I bought when I was a senior in high school defined my personality perfectly. It was a Dodge Avenger and NOBODY had it in my small town and I liked it that way. I really do not think Americans are ever going to get away from their dependency on cars. For one thing most of us need them to get groceries, go to work, get to a friend's house, etc. But we also use cars to define our personalities. We pride ourselves on our cars. We wash, wax, vacuum them, and when they are clean, we take them to Sunday church for people to admire (which is what Sloan was getting at with his different departments, colors, shapes, etc.). Therefore (for now) forever feeding into what seems to be hurting us most...the addiction of our motor vehicles.

This article put a different spin on the idea of "equal opportunity employer." It almost seems like all it means is "we'll hire anyone as long as we can pay minimum wage." Granted that may not be what EOE means nowadays with most corporations, but Ford seemed like a pretty huge a-hole to me. Nothing really has changed in manufacturing since then. We may have minimum wage, but that doesn't stop factories from outsourcing to countries to pay poor saps pennies an hour.

I, like a couple other students, am surprised to hear that America was one of the late bloomers in the auto industry. This was very surprising to me after growing up learning how the Ford Model T revolutionized the automobile industry. I associated Ford, and America, with starting the automobile revolution, not just an assembly line manufacturing revolution. On a different note, it is without question the automobile has left some scarring marks on the environment and many problems have been created, but I cannot picture a world that contained no environmental scars, traffic jams, fatal accidents, smog, and the automobile. The government, manufacturers, and the public in general seem to be doing quite a bit to prevent and/or lessen these problems associated with the automobile. However, I cannot picture any one of these disappearing completely. What more could be done? If cars are becoming cleaner and consumers, roads, and cars are becoming safer does the solution lie in the shear number of cars on the road? Even if every automobile was removed from the face of the earth wouldn’t the damage have already been done? While I understand the sense of urgency, and I encourage progress to be made in solving the problems, I feel comfortable saying that Earth will keep spinning whether the automobile is around in large quantities or not at all.

I, like a couple other students, am surprised to hear that America was one of the late bloomers in the auto industry. This was very surprising to me after growing up learning how the Ford Model T revolutionized the automobile industry. I associated Ford, and America, with starting the automobile revolution, not just an assembly line manufacturing revolution. On a different note, it is without question the automobile has left some scarring marks on the environment and many problems have been created, but I cannot picture a world that contained no environmental scars, traffic jams, fatal accidents, smog, and the automobile. The government, manufacturers, and the public in general seem to be doing quite a bit to prevent and/or lessen these problems associated with the automobile. However, I cannot picture any one of these disappearing completely. What more could be done? If cars are becoming cleaner and consumers, roads, and cars are becoming safer does the solution lie in the shear number of cars on the road? Even if every automobile was removed from the face of the earth wouldn’t the damage have already been done? While I understand the sense of urgency, and I encourage progress to be made in solving the problems, I feel comfortable saying that Earth will keep spinning whether the automobile is around in large quantities or not at all.

I read things in this article that I have NEVER read before. One thing in particular that I had never heard was that there were so many patents on the automobile, and actual lawsuits against Ford after his invention. In elementary school I learned that Henry Ford invented the automobile and the assembly line and that was it. I was surprised to hear that Henry Ford was this kind of mean guy who hired the cheapest labor he could find just to make a buck. I also had no idea that America, seemingly the mascot for the automobile, was a little behind other countries on the invention of the automobile.

The railroad was a great way of transportation but took time to connect cities and places by railroad. The automobile came along and the road system was not developed like that of the railroad system. In order for the automobile to flourish there had to be a road system that was efficient as well as comfortable. People wanted a paved road system and a much more developed one. The government got a few roads going and soon the automobile would become very competitive with the railroad. As we know today the railroad is not competitive with the car at all. People who grew up in this part of history experienced 2 great transportation technologies. I wonder what kind of technologies like this are in our future?

So many people wrote about how terrible either Henry Ford was or how awful the automobile is so I feel the need to write positive things. After reading Cowen's overly negative view of the automobile and everything associated with it I feel bad for her. It must really suck to have such a negative viewpoint of the world. Ford payed his laborers $5 for unskilled labor as it says in the reading. That was a great wage back then for working anywhere. The Federal minimum wage now according to the U.S. Dept. of Labor is $5.15. When it comes to running a business it makes sense to hire whoever will get the job done correctly and efficiently for the least amount of money so you can compete. If that means that you are hiring criminals, handicapped people etc. what is wrong with that? I also feel that the automobile doesn’t destroy the world anymore than anything else we would use to transport goods and people. If we still drove around wagons pulled by horses you would all be complaining about the awful erosion problems that the wagon tracks cause and the smell of the horse manure.

First of all, I was surprised to learn how highly anticipated the automobile was. Though the people of the 1920's may not have foreseen the complex drawbacks to the car that we are now engulfed by, they could easily imagine the structure of a world shaped by automobiles. Are there are there any technologies now that we understand and anticipate the use of, but have yet to integrate into our infrastructure? Or will most of the technologies that shape out future come as surprises?

Also, it's really upsetting to learn even more negative details about car manufacturers. It seems as though these companies have a long history of ignoring the demands (and needs) of their consumers. Is it really that much more cost effective to not make changes? It seems that providing what the public wants and asks for would always be the best move. Perhaps people just weren't being assertive enough in their demand. Perhaps we still aren't. Then again, could a widespread public demand for something like electric cars ever happen? And even if it did happen, would it change anything? Or is our oil dependency too complex to be pushed aside by demand? Again, I wonder how much we could change, if only the public were a bit more assertive. (Of course many people would first need to be convinced of the need for these technologies...though I'm not sure why they aren't convinced of that now...)

I don't think people realize how evil the car industry actually is. I have to agree with Dave Mercer, I am starting to hate big business more now that I am reading about all their foundings. It seems that companies are lacking the social responsibility to do what is right in the area of morals and try and do what is right in the area of profits. I understand that in competition companies must do all they can to win. However what is winning when you look at so many abandoned auto plants with cities in ruins because their is "cheaper" labor overseas? With the idea that many families in India will be buying their first car in the near future, it is a scarey thought to think about the dynamic that area of the world will play on the whole oil situation.

I tend to agree, at least to a certain extent, with Tim Z. As I was reading this article I wondered to myself what alternatives we had/have, given the increase in population. Short of government restrictions on reproduction, we'd have the same amount of people as we do today using what for transportation, horses? What the planet would look like/smell like if that were the case is far less appealing than its current condition. There are positives to the automobile, and there are constantly positive, eco-friendly automobile technologies being developed.

In terms of the workers Henry employed, the overall mindset of society was completely different then. EOE hadn't been thought of, there were no social programs, and people such as those employed by Ford were often cast out by society. Did Ford get cheap labor? Yes. As long as he wasn't mistreating the people he employed, and he was paying them a fair wage, he was also doing them some good.

A main theme was brought to my attention with this reading. Every major transportation technology that sparked America's economic and social growth was actually invented abroad. We weren't the brains behind the science, but behind the capital. We have always been and always will be venture capitalists. The American nature seems to be highly focused on money. Of course, it is a great talent to be able to use all of the resources available to you to boost your society. In fact, we've been doing that since the day we landed at Plymouth Rock.

A main theme was brought to my attention with this reading. Every major transportation technology that sparked America's economic and social growth was actually invented abroad. We weren't the brains behind the science, but behind the capital. We have always been and always will be venture capitalists. The American nature seems to be highly focused on money. Of course, it is a great talent to be able to use all of the resources available to you to boost your society. In fact, we've been doing that since the day we landed at Plymouth Rock.

A main theme was brought to my attention with this reading. Every major transportation technology that sparked America's economic and social growth was actually invented abroad. We weren't the brains behind the science, but behind the capital. We have always been and always will be venture capitalists. The American nature seems to be highly focused on money. Of course, it is a great talent to be able to use all of the resources available to you to boost your society. In fact, we've been doing that since the day we landed at Plymouth Rock.

The introduction of the automobile, and moreso after the mass-production of cars increased, we see a shift of Americans as producers to a population of consumers. Previous technological innovations expanded the reach of American settlement; once we reached the west coast, we could only turn our innovation interally to individual family needs. Most significantly, the power of time and transportation was now in the hands of individuals--not large corporations that fixed schedules and pricing to accommodate a competitive environment.

how cryogenic differs from the existing fuels

Hello. UTDDDC2 [url=http://www.tUTDDDC3.com] UTDDDC3 [/url] Thanks

Hello. BKEPEA5 [url=http://www.tBKEPEA3.com] BKEPEA6 [/url] Thanks

Hello. SGQMKL5 [url=http://www.tSGQMKL3.com] SGQMKL6 [/url] Thanks

Hello. JEJOD5 [url=http://www.tJEJOD3.com] JEJOD6 [/url] Thanks