I agree (including board members)! They come with too much baggage.
I think that Apple has always leaned a little to the left -- but, to my knowledge, never tried to impost their views or proselytize anyone.
Yeah, Apple makes no bones about being a left-leaning company. Indeed, Jobs was quite openly left-leaning in his views. It has always been that way. (I personally believe that companies should be completely above politics in their public persona, but what employees do in their spare time is entirely their own business).
Apple consumers in the far right fringe must have to live with some major cognitive dissonance....
But then I suppose you only see things in some oversimplified binary black and white.
Um... you should be the one paying attention: I said 'far' right. Not binary in the least. That's at least two shades of black and two shades of white.
You weren't paying attention. It wasn't just the "far right" (whatever that is to your mind) that opposed Carney. But then I suppose you only see things in some oversimplified binary black and white.
True it was also all those self-labeled "centrists" that see the ACA as socialized medicine threatening the American Way of Life who are still waiting for their personalized copy of Barack Obama's "long form" birth certificate to be delivered to their bunker.
Full Definition of SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
: medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation
In what way does the ACA not conform to the definition of socialized medicine
In order to engage in rational and reasoned conversation about a topic, one should at least understand the accepted definition of the topic ... call a spade a spade.
In what way does the ACA not conform to the definition of socialized medicine
In order to engage in rational and reasoned conversation about a topic, one should at least understand the accepted definition of the topic ... call a spade a spade.
Look that up in your Funk & Wagnals
"definition of socialized medicine", Well let's see : it's people paying for the coverage with their own money (with some government support for low income citizens) and the insurance companies are private and the service providers are also private. So that's NOT "socialized medicine". Unlike Great Britain and some others.
": medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation"
"medical and hospital services" are ALL provided, not by "the state" but by private providers and the funds for the insurance coverage is predominantly private (other than some low income citizen subsidies) so that doesn't fit either.
Now what The Founders set up in 1798 that was signed into law by The Founder President John Adams was "socialized medicine" for sure, mandatory fees collected from citizens specifically to fund government built, staffed and run medical facilities, nicely laid out in the history of the Uniformed Public Health Service. Heck there's language in the ACA that specifically prohibits government intrusion in to medical services (contrary to the "Death Panels" bumpersticker).
Indeed, Jobs was quite openly left-leaning in his views.
Jobs also had some views that were definitely not left. He was very much against some unions I recall.
Yes!
And other Apple CEOs of note: Mike Scott, Mike Markkula and John Sculley, were, likely, right-leaning -- consistent with many executive leaders from industry (in that era)
This is just an assumption -- I don't recall any notable political activities from any of them.
Maybe Apple should emulate IBM in its glory days -- no imposition of politics on its employees, and even-handed support (or non-support) of the major parties by the company and its executives.
"definition of socialized medicine", Well let's see : it's people paying for the coverage with their own money (with some government support for low income citizens) and the insurance companies are private and the service providers are also private. So that's NOT "socialized medicine". Unlike Great Britain and some others.
That's one definition ...
But another could easily be: If you don't have the choice to opt out -- then a socialized system is being imposed upon you!
I suspect the Merriam-Webster definition is closer to the mark than either your or my definition.
BTW, I've always paid for my own health care from Kaiser-Permanente, and Blue Cross before that -- both before the ACA. I chose to enroll and chose the coverage -- it was not imposed upon me.
Yeah, Apple makes no bones about being a left-leaning company. Indeed, Jobs was quite openly left-leaning in his views. It has always been that way. (I personally believe that companies should be completely above politics in their public persona, but what employees do in their spare time is entirely their own business).
Apple consumers in the far right fringe must have to live with some major cognitive dissonance....
I'm an optimist in the sense that I believe humans are noble and honorable, and some of them are really smart. I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups. And I remain extremely concerned when I see what's happening in our country, which is in many ways the luckiest place in the world. We don't seem to be excited about making our country a better place for our kids.
I used to think that technology could help education. I've probably spearheaded giving away more computer equipment to schools than anybody else on the planet. But I've had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is not one that technology can hope to solve. What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of technology will make a dent.
It's a political problem. The problems are sociopolitical. The problems are unions. You plot the growth of the NEA [National Education Association] and the dropping of SAT scores, and they're inversely proportional. The problems are unions in the schools. The problem is bureaucracy. I'm one of these people who believes the best thing we could ever do is go to the full voucher system.
I have a 17-year-old daughter who went to a private school for a few years before high school. This private school is the best school I've seen in my life. It was judged one of the 100 best schools in America. It was phenomenal. The tuition was $5,500 a year, which is a lot of money for most parents. But the teachers were paid less than public school teachers - so it's not about money at the teacher level. I asked the state treasurer that year what California pays on average to send kids to school, and I believe it was $4,400. While there are not many parents who could come up with $5,500 a year, there are many who could come up with $1,000 a year.
If we gave vouchers to parents for $4,400 a year, schools would be starting right and left. People would get out of college and say, "Let's start a school." You could have a track at Stanford within the MBA program on how to be the businessperson of a school. And that MBA would get together with somebody else, and they'd start schools. And you'd have these young, idealistic people starting schools, working for pennies.
There's nothing wrong with big companies. A lot of people think big business in America is a bad thing. I think it's a really good thing. Most people in business are ethical, hard-working, good people. And it's a meritocracy. There are very visible examples in business of where it breaks down but it's probably a lot less than in most other areas of society.
I'm not suggesting Steve Jobs was a conservative but I also don't think he was a typical liberal. I think Tim Cook is.
And other Apple CEOs of note: Mike Scott, Mike Markkula and John Sculley, were, likely, right-leaning -- consistent with many executive leaders from industry (in that era)
This is just an assumption -- I don't recall any notable political activities from any of them.
Maybe Apple should emulate IBM in its glory days -- no imposition of politics on its employees, and even-handed support (or non-support) of the major parties by the company and its executives.
Yes, I personally would prefer if Apple stayed more a-political. It's good business because every company has a customer base with different political views. Being mostly neutral doesn't alienate any of your customers.
I agree. It is wrong to declare that Steve Jobs was a typical liberal.
He stood for many things that the left hates.
He was probably more libertarian. I doubt he would have let Apple be paraded in front of congress to discuss their tax practices, and I doubt he would have released diversity data on Apple's workforce (which Cook says Apple is going to do). There are a lot of changes Cook has made/is making that I think are the right moves. I like the fact that Tim visits factories in China. I like the supplier responsibility work he's initiated. I like that he visited the corporate campus in Austin (something Steve never did). And I like that he's making Apple more open and allowing executives to have more visibility (seeing Craig and Jony doing selfies with WWDC attendees was very cool). But in other cases I think Apple could do a better job going on the offensive and not letting others create the narrative around the company.
Jobs was a closet conservative and didn't suffer fools gladly - meaning Obama. Steve told him he was a "one termer" according to the Isaacson bio. You can't get more liberal leftist than the closeted lefty BHO.
Yeah, Apple makes no bones about being a left-leaning company. Indeed, Jobs was quite openly left-leaning in his views. It has always been that way. (I personally believe that companies should be completely above politics in their public persona, but what employees do in their spare time is entirely their own business).
Apple consumers in the far right fringe must have to live with some major cognitive dissonance....
I'm not suggesting Steve Jobs was a conservative but I also don't think he was a typical liberal. I think Tim Cook is.
Wow! Thanks for that link!
I didn't pay much attention to Jobs when he was at NeXT -- too busy trying to survive in a an increasingly commoditized retail computer business in Silicon Valley. Then we sold the business in 1989 and retired to Arizona -- missed that whole Internet thingie.
Anyway the linked article expose a side of Jobs that I've never seen before. I suspect he was like most people -- left leaning on some topics and right-leaning on others.
All that hyperventilation from the far right (in the previous thread) came to naught..... but it sure was funny watching them getting their panties in a bunch! " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
(For the record, I think Apple should stay away from these political types, left or right).
I'm on the right, not far right and I couldn't even watch Jay Carney. That poor guy had the worse job in the world. He would take a beating everyday.
(For the record, I think Apple should stay away from these political types, left or right).
Absolutely, and they can start by cutting Al "global warming dead weight" Gore lose. I mean, what exactly does he contribute to the board?
Certainly not the political pull that normally would justify such an appointment. When Amazon gets Apple run up on anti-trust, for breaking Amazon's monopoly, you know Apple's political capital is zero.
Anyway the linked article expose a side of Jobs that I've never seen before. I suspect he was like most people -- left leaning on some topics and right-leaning on others.
Aka a Libertarian. He believed in individual freedom, both social (Eg: gay marriage) and economic (e.g.: not using taxes to punish success.)
After he died in an interview with Woz, it came out that Atlas Shrugged was one of the books Jobs liked back in the day.
Most people, if they weren't twisted up into knots by the two party partisans would recognize that they are libertarians.
Aka a Libertarian. He believed in individual freedom, both social (Eg: gay marriage) and economic (e.g.: not using taxes to punish success.)
After he died in an interview with Woz, it came out that Atlas Shrugged was one of the books Jobs liked back in the day.
Most people, if they weren't twisted up into knots by the two party partisans would recognize that they are libertarians.
It's people like Glenn Beck who inaccurately self-identify as Libertarians who have mildly tainted the popular notion of what a Libertarian "is"... One clue, it ain't Glenn Beck.
Comments
I agree (including board members)! They come with too much baggage.
I think that Apple has always leaned a little to the left -- but, to my knowledge, never tried to impost their views or proselytize anyone.
Yeah, Apple makes no bones about being a left-leaning company. Indeed, Jobs was quite openly left-leaning in his views. It has always been that way. (I personally believe that companies should be completely above politics in their public persona, but what employees do in their spare time is entirely their own business).
Apple consumers in the far right fringe must have to live with some major cognitive dissonance....
Um... you should be the one paying attention: I said 'far' right. Not binary in the least. That's at least two shades of black and two shades of white.
Indeed, Jobs was quite openly left-leaning in his views.
Jobs also had some views that were definitely not left. He was very much against some unions I recall.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized medicine
In what way does the ACA not conform to the definition of socialized medicine
In order to engage in rational and reasoned conversation about a topic, one should at least understand the accepted definition of the topic ... call a spade a spade.
Look that up in your Funk & Wagnals
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized medicine
In what way does the ACA not conform to the definition of socialized medicine
In order to engage in rational and reasoned conversation about a topic, one should at least understand the accepted definition of the topic ... call a spade a spade.
Look that up in your Funk & Wagnals
"definition of socialized medicine", Well let's see : it's people paying for the coverage with their own money (with some government support for low income citizens) and the insurance companies are private and the service providers are also private. So that's NOT "socialized medicine". Unlike Great Britain and some others.
": medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation"
"medical and hospital services" are ALL provided, not by "the state" but by private providers and the funds for the insurance coverage is predominantly private (other than some low income citizen subsidies) so that doesn't fit either.
Now what The Founders set up in 1798 that was signed into law by The Founder President John Adams was "socialized medicine" for sure, mandatory fees collected from citizens specifically to fund government built, staffed and run medical facilities, nicely laid out in the history of the Uniformed Public Health Service. Heck there's language in the ACA that specifically prohibits government intrusion in to medical services (contrary to the "Death Panels" bumpersticker).
Yes!
And other Apple CEOs of note: Mike Scott, Mike Markkula and John Sculley, were, likely, right-leaning -- consistent with many executive leaders from industry (in that era)
This is just an assumption -- I don't recall any notable political activities from any of them.
Maybe Apple should emulate IBM in its glory days -- no imposition of politics on its employees, and even-handed support (or non-support) of the major parties by the company and its executives.
This seems like a job that can be done by a current higher level executive. Why not Schiller?
That's one definition ...
But another could easily be: If you don't have the choice to opt out -- then a socialized system is being imposed upon you!
I suspect the Merriam-Webster definition is closer to the mark than either your or my definition.
BTW, I've always paid for my own health care from Kaiser-Permanente, and Blue Cross before that -- both before the ACA. I chose to enroll and chose the coverage -- it was not imposed upon me.
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html
I'm not suggesting Steve Jobs was a conservative but I also don't think he was a typical liberal. I think Tim Cook is.
I'm not suggesting Steve Jobs was a conservative but I also don't think he was a typical liberal.
I agree. It is wrong to declare that Steve Jobs was a typical liberal.
He stood for many things that the left hates.
Wow! Thanks for that link!
I didn't pay much attention to Jobs when he was at NeXT -- too busy trying to survive in a an increasingly commoditized retail computer business in Silicon Valley. Then we sold the business in 1989 and retired to Arizona -- missed that whole Internet thingie.
Anyway the linked article expose a side of Jobs that I've never seen before. I suspect he was like most people -- left leaning on some topics and right-leaning on others.
This seems like a job that can be done by a current higher level executive. Why not Schiller?
He already has a job.
All that hyperventilation from the far right (in the previous thread) came to naught..... but it sure was funny watching them getting their panties in a bunch!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
(For the record, I think Apple should stay away from these political types, left or right).
I'm on the right, not far right and I couldn't even watch Jay Carney. That poor guy had the worse job in the world. He would take a beating everyday.
(For the record, I think Apple should stay away from these political types, left or right).
Absolutely, and they can start by cutting Al "global warming dead weight" Gore lose. I mean, what exactly does he contribute to the board?
Certainly not the political pull that normally would justify such an appointment. When Amazon gets Apple run up on anti-trust, for breaking Amazon's monopoly, you know Apple's political capital is zero.
So, why give him all that stock?
Anyway the linked article expose a side of Jobs that I've never seen before. I suspect he was like most people -- left leaning on some topics and right-leaning on others.
Aka a Libertarian. He believed in individual freedom, both social (Eg: gay marriage) and economic (e.g.: not using taxes to punish success.)
After he died in an interview with Woz, it came out that Atlas Shrugged was one of the books Jobs liked back in the day.
Most people, if they weren't twisted up into knots by the two party partisans would recognize that they are libertarians.
Aka a Libertarian. He believed in individual freedom, both social (Eg: gay marriage) and economic (e.g.: not using taxes to punish success.)
After he died in an interview with Woz, it came out that Atlas Shrugged was one of the books Jobs liked back in the day.
Most people, if they weren't twisted up into knots by the two party partisans would recognize that they are libertarians.
It's people like Glenn Beck who inaccurately self-identify as Libertarians who have mildly tainted the popular notion of what a Libertarian "is"... One clue, it ain't Glenn Beck.