Data Centers

GE thumbs its nose at outsourcing, builds world-class data center

While most companies are rushing to outsource as much of their IT as possible, GE just made a huge investment in its IT operations with one of the world's state-of-the-art data centers.

At a time when more and more companies are rethinking IT and considering how much of their data center they can outsource to the cloud, General Electric is going 180 degrees in the opposite direction. On Thursday, GE unveiled its new state-of-the-art "green" data center on the same site in where the world's first commercial computer was deployed in 1954.

The new data center was conceived and architected by GE's internal IT department (along with a few strategic partners) at GE Appliances & Lighting in Louisville, Kentucky. The data center itself is located within the massive complex known as "GE Appliance Park." Interestingly enough, the site has a distinguished history for IT innovation. In 1954, the Louisville GE complex became home to the first UNIVAC computer that was deployed in a private business. Before that UNIVAC at GE in Louisville, all computers had been part of government projects. That first UNIVAC was used to run a single business application: employee payroll.

GE's 2011 data center is also breaking new ground in IT. It is one of the world's first data centers to achieve LEED Platinum Certification. LEED is for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and it is awarded by the U.S. Green Building Council for projects that go above and beyond standard building codes to create sustainable, energy-efficient buildings. It's tough to get the basic LEED certification, and only 6% of all LEED buildings achieve the Platinum certification.

"We have a long, long history of firsts," said Alan Kocsi, CIO of GE Appliances & Lighting.

There were a number of things GE did to land the LEED Platinum mark:

  • 98.3% of the walls, floors, and roof were existing space that didn't require new construction
  • The data center is 34% more energy-efficient than a comparable code-compliant building
  • It reduces by 50% the amount of space used by the previous data center, as a result of using high-density servers
  • Water consumption inside the building is being reduced by 42% of the industry baseline by using ultra low-flow fixtures
  • 50.7% of construction materials were sourced regionally
  • 30.2% of the building materials were recyclable materials
  • 85.4% of construction waste was diverted from the landfill (mostly through recycling)

However, the new GE data center isn't just about saving energy, going green, and reducing the power bill. It also has to power the aggressive goals that GE Appliances and Lighting has made to expand its U.S. manufacturing operations in the years ahead. As such, the new data center provides four times the capacity of the previous data center.

The company needs all of that computing power to support a $1 billion investment that it's making to upgrade its appliance product line and create "Manufacturing Centers of Excellence" in the U.S. that will create 1,300 new U.S. manufacturing jobs by 2014. That includes 400 jobs that are being transferred from China to GE Appliance Park in Louisville in 2012 to build energy-efficient water heaters.

The IT to power this investment in appliance manufacturing in the U.S. will be run out of the new Louisville data center, which will also power the work of 27,000 employees in over 100 countries who all work for the GE Appliances & Lighting division.

"This is a historic day for GE Appliance Park," said Jim Campbell, CEO of GE Appliances & Lighting. "It wouldn't make sense to invest a billion dollars without putting some of that money into IT."

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said, "This could have easily been outsourced." He praised GE for making an investment in American manufacturing and using U.S. technology to build a a data center that will deliver "state of the art data to make state of the art decisions."

Fischer also thinks middle America can land a lot more of these types of deals. "In this part of the country, we've got a competitive advantage for advanced manufacturing," he said.

That jives with the message that GE CEO and Chairman Jeff Immelt has been telling anyone who will listen across the United States for the past couple years. Immelt has been preaching "American Renewal" through a focus on innovation and investment in R&D and manufacturing. Below is one of GE's ads that it has been running to promote Immelt's vision.

As for the Louisville data center itself, it is a Tier 3 data center (98 minutes of down time per year) with all of the latest bells and whistles, including:

  • Redundant power and cooling
  • Massive battery backup as well as dual generators
  • Biometric authentication
  • "Man trap" entrance door to prevent "tailgating"
  • An incident response command center
  • Collaborative, reconfigurable work spaces for IT professionals
  • Separate work space for maintenance crew

Chet Guess, COO of GE Appliances & Lighting, said, "This data center is a real investment in our future. Built for high-density computing with the use of virtualization, this new data center will give us more than four times the capacity of our old data center. This will give us the flexibility to radically adapt and change to new market requirements and customer needs. This will give us a 25-plus year trajectory of growth in this business... This new data center will house Enterprise Resource Planning [ERP] systems that will help GE implement lean manufacturing processes to improve operational efficiencies, to drive cost down, to improve customer service through better fill rates and billing systems... What I'm most proud of is the successful completion of a $48 million project that was an investment in this team, this business, and this community. And, I'm proud of the manner in which we achieved it. As you look at LEED certification, of all the buildings that implement LEED certification in this world, only 6% of those buildings achieve Platinum certification and we're one of them. That's a true testament to GE's commitment to this team and business, and also to its environmental stewardship."

Photo gallery

Photos: GE's LEED Platinum data center

Also read

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He writes about the people, products, and ideas that are changing the ways we live and work in the 21st century. He's the co-author of the upcoming book, ...

170 comments
Raj Kapoor
Raj Kapoor

Although not always the first, GE is a leader in using latest but proven technology, sometimes they even have given new products and materials. GE business is prudent for getting returns on its investment. We do not need just "ENERGY STAR" appliances, we also need reliable and long life appliances that are energy efficient. I am still using a Kenmore-Best refrigerator that I bought in 1980, although I have replaced two other refrigerators that I purchased in 1992 and then in 2003, these refrigerators did have energy saving stickers on them but did not last long enough to recoup the energy used to produce it. With off sourcing not only America has lost its edge in R&D, it has also lost that reliability and life of the equipment. If we can bring it back to USA and beat "Lower prices, always" with 'Best from the rest" or like KENMORE-BEST, it will be start of new day in USA. Can the largest half a trillion dollar company can do something like this or will continue the quest to produce richest family or richest people in the world remains to be seen. Having been to Colorado Springs and seeing how business was handled at NWRA, my opinion is that more of the US pride has to be brought back to USA that previous generation before Baby Boomers had it. Let us be productive but conservative in business world and not just on taxation or government size.

Wirekat
Wirekat

Anyone know where I get my GE frig fixed?

Oddmoore
Oddmoore

GE thumbs its nose at outsourcing, builds world-class data center (HERE). That includes 400 jobs that are being transferred from China to GE Appliance Park in Louisville (That's also HERE) and so on and so on...Lol

sewmorebag
sewmorebag

Does this mean that I can have my Help Desk job back? It was sent to India in the later part of 2001. GE was gracious enough to fly all of our replacements to Fort Wayne, IN and put them up in luxury apartments for two weeks while we trained them on how to do our jobs. Every night they were wined and dined at all of the fine eating establishments. Then, at the last minute, they were gracious enough to allow us to attend the going away part they threw at a japenese steak house before their departure back to India. They even gave them going away presents and called each person up individually so the manager could present them with the gifts. So other than the free meal, we got our pink slips the next day. Further inciting my disgust that when I contacted our state work force development office, they informed me that since the job was "office" (not production), there were no benefits for the jobs sent off shore.

Shankarl
Shankarl

I think people should see different sides of coin. Please note that the jobs sent out are not premium jobs. They are mundane tasks and companies are getting done them at peanuts cost. Who is eating those profits? Is it the people who did the jobs? Or people who lost jobs in USA? No one!!! I think this will continue till the time the cost different is huge and companies need too many semi skilled people, just like buying cakes from your neighborhood store.

Professor8
Professor8

I was all ready to congratulate them for turning away from the dark side... and then I reached the part about the non-functional plumbing and "Biometric authentication", "'Man trap' entrance door to prevent 'tailgating'", and ERP, and realized they're still part of the same old "it's fine for us to violate our customers' and employees' privacy (and their customers' privacy -- think medical records, stupid-meters, etc.), but the public mustn't look at us execs and our accounts" crowd. And just when we need to find out how much of a kick-back they're getting from the feral federal government for all the radical environmental whackoism. If they're using Intel processors, they're already 20 years behind, but otherwise they seem to be "leading the way" toward economic death and destruction.

ernie49
ernie49

If all our beloved Companies came back what a wonderful life it would be...As the song goes. Maybe they are not still around but remember Philco ,RCA, Zenith, Emerson just to name a few...How about my old employer CitiBank Cust. SVc Telephone unit in New York or all the service unit who use to service our own people. Wish they came back too. The USA would be the great nation it deserves to be....that is our unemployment problem not lack of jobs but it's outsourcing.

tutor4pc
tutor4pc

If GE had trouble with outsourcing and now wants to have IT in close proximity they may have learned something. If they now learn something about making good products I might see GE in a different light. Right now I avoid GE as much as a car buyer would avoid a Yugo.

RayAhern
RayAhern

This isn't journalism - it's just lifting the Press Release from GE and plastering it to make some web-content! Those environmental claims are pretty mediocre and the idea of GE as a saviour from outsourcing... Why then 'am I being speaking to my name is being Brian from Mumbai' every time I deal with GE? Think I might drop off TechRepublic's mailing list after this atrocity!

Srch4it
Srch4it

Jason - your headline and takeaway are certainly surprising news to anyone that has worked at GE anytime over the last 20 years or so. Would love to see a follow up on the current number of outsourced employees. Coincidentally, Alan Kocsi was the offshore "relationship manager" that would come around to help IT managers expedite the move offshore during my time there.

jwebfoot2togo
jwebfoot2togo

The author says that GE was the first to use the univac other than the government. Silly me I always thought they were one and the same. Lord knows that they definetly been having a loving relationship for decades.

qmax1992
qmax1992

GE's investment has been in GE. Period. Look at their tax records. Their finance and tax department is larger than the IRS. We need to start an internet/e-mail campaign to boycott GE and all it's products (other like companies as well) until they bring jobs to America. And as for comments from wayne.h.johnson@... "Let's get something straight, jobs are not a 'right;' companies do not have a 'right' to exist. Capital (money and labor) will go where it can make a profit, and that's exactly the way it should be." Yes, technically you are right. However, what good does it do to create a company if that creation helps to collapse the nation you reside in? There has to be a bigger cause than the bottom dollar. Whatever happened to helping your fellow man or re-investing IN YOUR COUNTRY?

wayne.h.johnson
wayne.h.johnson

GE is the poster child for crony capitalism. Immelt is looking to cash in on selling out the US to Obama's socialism. From Obamacare to 'Global Warming' and its feckless solution (i.e. green technology) Chairman Jeff has gotten into bed with the political Left. No thanks. I'll take the inherent risks of the free market and keep my freedom.

jring281
jring281

1. Is this a Freudian slip, "That jives with the message that GE CEO and Chairman Jeff Immelt has been telling anyone who will listen..." Did the author really mean 'jibes' or has Immelt been spending too much time with the jive-talkers in the White House? 2. Notice the irony of "Massive battery backup as well as dual generators, Biometric authentication, and ???Man trap??? entrance door to prevent ???tailgating??? but no prevention that keeps fault-ridden, buggy software from entering the system.

JCitizen
JCitizen

it is just a matter of time before our labor costs become cheaper than the foreigners. Then BAM! The companies of the world will be outsourcing to the US!

gejettest
gejettest

Just a little too late for aircraft engines, though. GE outsourced many of the engine programs we did in Ontario, Calif. We were there since 1954, closed down in 2006 (main plant) then in 2010 (test cells). Great company to work for, but in the end we are all just numbers.

jbobst
jbobst

I worked for GE when an engineer was not some computer twinkie and the company was not afraid to take on builders of the worlds largest electrical goods, like locomotives and power transformers bigger than your house and jet engines that surpassed everyone else's. Nowadays, the sad remnants of the company have been surpassed in almost every field. Where I live numerous winds farms are up and operating, some almost visible from the GE plant that just closed and sold off all the equipment. Sadly, GE was a dollar short and years behind while the Vestas turbines were installed, hundreds of them. The financial division of the company still deludes itself by thinking that their gambling activities are supporting the phony bottom line of 'profits'. Looks to almost anyone with any sense as a giant Ponzi scheme and the idiots in the stock market seem to be finally getting it. The new IT center is just a sop to the financial lads who can't see the cliff approaching. Until more companies in the US come to their senses and start making all kinds of stuff here, we will soon be having Mandarin as our language of choice. Bits, bytes and all that are useful but ephemeral tools, not the real enduring products this country built its culture on. Joe

wayne.h.johnson
wayne.h.johnson

qmax, My posts have focused on the proper role of the federal government. I'd like to think that if you and I were to hash things out over a few beers we'd find our views are far more alike than they appear. This article is about GE's having built a data center, ostensibly as a recommitment to keeping jobs in America - green jobs, no less. Many comments became political because GE is among the largest corporations in the US and GE's chairman, Jeff Immelt, is an avid rent seeker of government largess (a.k.a. crony capitalism). Immelt supports Obama's crony capitalist - socialist - policies because they will benefit GE and Immelt. Immelt supports Obamacare likely because GE can secure enormous contracts with the federal government once its takeover of the health care industry is complete. Immelt supports global warming - though it's been wholly discredited - because he stands to make huge profits when GE supplies the so-called green technologies (wind turbines, etc.). The antidote to crony capitalism and an overreaching, overbearing federal government is a freer free-market. Socialists hate free markets because free markets do not need central planners. The federal government's meddling in the housing market caused the collapse of our financial markets. Ignoring the time-tested realities of economic laws, the federal government insisted the prices of houses could rise forever even as it forced banks to lend money to people without the means to pay it back. Their actions led to aberrations within the real price of housing. We are all suffering the unintended consequences of the federal government's meddling. At best it was misguided benevolence. At worst it was the pernicious milking of the middle class. For me, the final analysis is the paring back of the federal government's interference in the lives of individual citizens; i.e. a return to a more constitutionally limited government. Once the federal government is restrained within its constitutional limits, I agree with you that we are here to help one another. Dependency upon government largess enervates people and creates an enfeebled and docile citizenry. If we intend to remain free, a citizenry capable of self-government, then the vast majority of individuals need to find their own strength. They'll do that by competing in a fair and free market. Let me be clear, a free-market is not for everyone. Not everyone is capable of competing in a free-market. That's why we need a societal safety net, but let's make it a reasonable one. I believe in America. I believe in American Exceptionalism; and I'm not fooled by the siren song coming out of Washington, telling me to lay down my burden and handed over to them. Do you not see the danger in that? Peace

JCitizen
JCitizen

You are not going to get me to NOT fly on a Boeing just because it has GE engines! It is just too much cheaper than driving long distances! Plus, I can't stand any other model of dishwasher other than a GE model. It is not like politicians have not offered a fairer - flatter tax structure - but they won't discuss it, because congress is mostly lawyers, a tax model that is easy to understand would get many a tax lawyer fired. You don't think they would cut their own throat do you? If you want to fix the situation, run for congress. Then maybe there would be fewer lawyers making all the rules!

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

What is notably missing from the neocon sound-bites is the idea that being an American means having responsibilities to and for other Americans.

curtfell
curtfell

all then need to learn Indian accents before applying for a telephone customer support job?

adornoe
adornoe

Corporations are not just simply going to bring plants and jobs back to the country for the sake of hiring more Americans. It doesn't work that way. And, if government were to "force" those corporations into bringing back their operations and jobs to the country, then you'd see a lot more corporations going out of business and a lot more unemployment than before the act to make them bring back the jobs and plants.

RipVan
RipVan

And it originates from those people who tell OTHERS to never stereotype. Go figure...

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

We''ll need to learn to speak Indian or Mandarin with American accents.

JCitizen
JCitizen

He is just commenting on reality. Eventually the dollar will drop so low, that US labor will be the cheapest in the world. We will be a second or third world county by then, if we don't watch out!

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Just asking...although I suspect I already know.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

to leave my culture in its Petri dish... ;-)

JCitizen
JCitizen

I do so like butchering the English language; it is a habit of being a back woods hick. I like my culture, so I tend to rub it in everyone's face - then laugh! HA! I really do need to bone up on my Russian and German anyway.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Most native-born Americans don't even know their own language. Oh, they can speak it, but they don't [u]know[/u] it.

JCitizen
JCitizen

a language! HA! At least one who is not already an emigre.

adornoe
adornoe

I said. So, it's you that's not worth my time. But, I consider it a duty to battle the ignorance and the lies, and you are full of ignorance and lies and spinning. So, for the time being, while I'm still here, you are one of my favorite targets to do battle against. BTW, meanings change with time, just like "liberal" doesn't have the meaning it had in early political history, and the political meaning of the word is very far from the dictionary meaning. Same with "conservative", where some conservatives of the past aren't any better than some liberals of present day. So, the meaning of conservative also evolved, and I'm not anywhere close to some current republicans, like Romney, who call themselves "conservative". Mitt Romney is no conservative at all, and his government health-care system, which he advocated and signed in Massachussetts, was an early model for Obamacare. He's a moderate democrat disguised as a republican, in the same mold as McCain. So, you are the one with the ignorance about what it means to be a modern day conservative.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

and explains much. [i]Being a conservative in today's world doesn't depend upon going too deep into history. [/i] I'd say it's been real, but it's been more unreal than not. Anybody who ignores history is no longer worth my time...

adornoe
adornoe

doesn't change who I am or what my beliefs are. And, for your information, and as can be proven by the record, when it comes to being radical in tactics and deeds and the spoken word, there is no more radical ideology than that being practiced by democrats and liberals and progressives. When they lose the argument based on points, they always resort to violence or to demonizing the opposition, which is exactly what you are doing right now. You can't win an argument on the merits of your position, and neither can liberals or progressives, and thus, they have to become the radicals with rhetoric and violent tactics. That is evident everyday in the news. I may not be a liberal, but that's because liberalism is not what it used to be and it's evolved into an evil ideology. Even Ronald Reagan had to leave the party that he considered a home for his political beliefs, that being the democrats, and he did what I did and what most "neo-cons" did. Did you know that "neo-cons" are mostly conservatives after conversion from liberalism? But, again, look up which side resorts to violent tactics and nasty rhetoric the most. If you were to do be fair in your analysis, then you could only come up with the left as being the most radical. Again, you are wrong in your rhetoric and beliefs. Why not try to do some real thinking and some real investigation, before making asinine statements like you did above?

adornoe
adornoe

understanding of what it means to be a conservative. Being a conservative in today's world doesn't depend upon going too deep into history. Just look at what the real conservatives say and do. There have been too many "conservatives", who, after one examines their records and deeds, were no better than liberals and progressives. Your form of "conservatism" might be more in line with what Canadians believe to be a conservative, but, much of that conservatism is not much different from what democrats in the U.S. believe. Now, concerning McCarthy, there is nothing that McCarthy ever said that hasn't turned out to be true about communists in Hollywood and in government and in the higher education systems (colleges and universities). Though McCarthy might have been harsh in his rhetoric and took a no-holds-barred approach, everything he stated has been borne out to be truthful. There might have been republicans who reprimanded McCarthy for his approach, but his accusations were in fact truthful. Look at the following (and there is a lot more like that): From IBD: 03/24/2011 Caught Red-Handed Freedom's Enemies: A collaborator of the Rosenbergs admits his previously unknown Soviet espionage more than 60 years after the fact. It's just the latest revelation that the anti-communists of that era were right. The "innocent victims" of the Red Scare were once legion like suave U.S. envoy Alger Hiss, who doubled as a Soviet spy chief, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who gave Moscow A-bomb plans. The latest debunking of this myth is Rosenberg fellow spy Morton Sobell, who finally admitted it in 2008. But in a December interview with Ronald Radosh and Steven Usdin, Sobell, 93, added that he gave hundreds of secret Air Force documents to the Soviets in 1948. Sobell also fingered William Perl, who had been attending the City College of New York with Sobell and Julius Rosenberg, and worked at a Virginia Army air base during World War II. Perl had denied wrongdoing, but was convicted of perjury in 1953. "I did it for the Soviet Union," said Sobell, a Red-diaper baby whose parents were both Communist Party members who hosted meetings in their home. In case you didn't know, the secret communists of 20th century history and their pawns have just been rolling out from under the bed in recent years. British historian Christopher Andrew in 2005 revealed that Salvador Allende, elected president of Chile in 1970 on a 36% plurality and the first Marxist ever to win power through the ballot box, was for all intents a KGB agent. "What Allende's KGB file describes as 'systematic contact' with him began after the establishment in 1961 of a Soviet trade mission in Chile, which provided cover for a KGB presence," Andrew notes in his book, "The World Was Going Our Way." Speaking of Chile, recently declassified FBI files reveal that a 29-year-old then-junior prosecutor in Massachusetts named Edward Kennedy on a 1961 tour of Latin America "made arrangements to 'rent' a brothel" in Santiago "for the night," and "met with a number of individuals known to have communist sympathies." Author Paul Kengor several years ago revealed that a May 14, 1983, highly classified letter from the head of the KGB to Soviet premier and former KGB chief Yuri Andropov found the so-called Lion of the Senate trying to collude with the Kremlin on undermining President Reagan's defense policies. Even the so-loathed Sen. Joseph McCarthy has been rehabilitated, by M. Stanton Evans in "Blacklisted by History." Evans illustrates, for example, that U.S. Army counsel Joseph Welch's famed "Have you no decency?" line during McCarthy's televised hearings was actually a melodramatic deceit; Welch himself had weeks earlier fired the "young lad" he accused McCarthy of slandering, admitting that he was indeed a member of the National Lawyers Guild Communist front group. The evidence just keeps coming that most of what those irresponsible "Red baiters" were saying in the 1950s was right. You should also read the book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies, by M. Stanton Evans Here's a review of that book: Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies: Evans aims to give empirical proof that those Senator McCarthy accused of spying for the Soviet Union in the 1950s were guilty of it: e.g. two decades of House and Senatorial memos, 1930s Congressional spy investigations, government reports on security, official lists of named security risks, two decades of FBI reports with margin notes, transcripts of FBI wiretaps, notes from political strategy meetings squirreled away in boxes, and so forth. This pastiche of evidence plays the devil with the book's narrative for the first few chapters. Be that as it may, if one accepts these documents as factual, then one must accept the guilt of those McCarthy accused. In Evan's view, McCarthy was more sinned against than sinning. He conducted his inquiries fairly, did not slander, and did not steamroller anyone. He was an exceptionally bright, lower-class, self-made man who raced through high school and law college. He was a judge while only in his thirties. As junior Senator from Wisconsin (age 41) he threatened to mortify the Whitehouse, Democratic Senate, and State Department, with revelations of a "massive" communist penetration of the U.S. government. Each threatened institution had enough individual power to poleax him. Despite that, the first wave of retribution couldn't touch him, because what he said about communist infiltration was "old news" in Washington circles, and there was years of evidence to prove it. When Democrats lost the House and the Presidency in 1952, McCarthy alienated Eisenhower by soundly condemning George Marshall for losing China, then going after some of Eisenhower's job nominees as communists sympathizers (which Evans argues they were). By 1954 McCarthy held a tiger by the tail, and it finally ate him with some Republican help. According to Evans, those who brought McCarthy down did to him what legend says he did to others--they smeared him by innuendo, told outrageous lies about him, even deleted or altered sections of Senatorial reports, to make him look not just bad but horrible. It worked. Newspaper cartoonists of the day drew pictures of him coming out of sewers walking on his knuckles; Hollywood films have ever since depicted him as a Neanderthal booze-hound . . . hence the title: Blacklisted by History. Yet, writes Evans, what the junior Senator from Wisconsin charged was practically dead-on correct in nearly every instance. He was being fed information by fed-up government insiders. (Interestingly enough, notes Evans, several important items connected to the truth of McCarthy's charges, once in government archives, were removed decades ago. Their titles are still listed but the documents are gone.) Evans put forth an argument for reevaluating who and what Joseph McCarthy was. Perhaps most important of all, he suggests that a counterfeit, confabulated story of "McCarthyism" is the dominant one held to this day by popular history.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

But, based on his opinions, he's definitely a radical.

JamesRL
JamesRL

I'm using a frame of reference that goes back centuries. As for McCarthy, I find it ironic that someone who claims to be such a supporter of the constitution would have a hero who time and time again acted against the constituion. Ellen Schrecker wrote: "in this country, McCarthyism did more damage to the constitution than the American Communist Party ever did." McCarthy attacked freedom of speech, and instituted guilt by association. I have no problems with prosecutions of people who commit treason or spy for other countries, but the vast number of people whose lives were ruined by McCarthy's went far beyond those who acted on behalf of the Soviet Union. As for the "truth" of his accusations, he called Truman, and his Secretary of Defence Marshall(who served in WWII with great honor as the Army's chief of staff) soft on communism, and implied they were treasonous. The number of communists in the state department from McCarthy's speeches changed from 205 to 57 to 81, depending on the day. McCarthy went through State department libraries to root out books he wanted removed. In short, if you didn't agree with him, you were a communist, and you didn't deserve the protections of the first and fifth amendments. If disagreeing with McCarthy makes me a liberal, then I guess Eisenhower and many other Republicans of the day were liberals. The Senator who began the censure motion of McCarthy was a Republican.

adornoe
adornoe

a conservative. If anything, you are a moderate liberal, or a RINO, like I said before. When it comes to being a conservative, yes, there should be a very narrow definition of what it means, otherwise, the definition can be bastardized and before long, even progressives will be deemed conservatives. Your definition of conservative is more closely related to a moderate democrat in the U.S,, or a moderate republican, which is the same as a RINO in the U.S. And, one doesn't have to go to a university to learn about politics or about the definitions of different political ideologies. Life's lessons can be better and more thorough teachers, if one bothers to pay attention. BTW, I asked you a question about Senator McCarthy, who was a conservative, and you didn't even acknowledge the question. So, do tell me about McCarthy. What did he do or say that wasn't true?

adornoe
adornoe

From what can be deduced from your posting history, you are an ultra-leftist, bordering on Marxist. I was a liberal, and I grew out of that stupidity. If you are a conservative, then so was Lenin and Castro and Chavez and Ho Chi Minh and Mao and Hitler (he too was a socialist). You need to re-examine what it means to be a conservative. You sound far worse than even Obama and all the other liberals in congress. Next you're going to tell me you love the "tea party".

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Adornoe; You're a Liberal. I'm not. Whatever your beliefs, I have no doubt that they are damaging, and also no doubt that you support harmful forces in the world. I am a conservative. I try to avoid that which is damaging, and to limit that which is harmful. How else would I conserve?

JamesRL
JamesRL

I've been a card carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada since the 70s. (it has changed its name). I've studied political science at university, worked for a conservative Member of Parliament, and worked for the Conservative party. I have always believed in many conservative principles, like reducing the role and size of government, individual liberty, and the ideal of a free market. But I also recognize that we have never had a truly free market, and it may be unobtainable. I am more of an economic than a social conservative, I think the government ought to stay out of the bedrooms of the nation, that freedom of religion and speech doesn't mean just supporting my speech or my religion. On social issues, I'm more of a libertarian, and I find the mixing of politics and religion to be repugnant. As for the consitutional argument, I'm sure you are aware many people attempt to claim unconstitutional acts against any and all presidents, the only standard is when such claims are substantial enough to actually make it to a Supreme Court hearing. I may not fit your narrow definition of what a conservative is, but your definition is yours. My point about the bailouts is that the processes started before the election was held, before Bush was a lame duck, while he still had control over what was going on. I doubt that if the crisis had happened 6 months earlier anything would have been different, and I would agree that if Obama had lost and McCain won, there would still have been bailouts. I know what Marx wrote, I know what real socialists are and I know what real communists are. One of my profs had been a professor in Poland and had left because she was told to join the party or give up her position. She went on to become an advisor to Ronald Regan. You seem very restrictive on your definition of a conservative, but very loose in your definition of a socialist. Your slippery slope is perhaps steeper than the rest of the world's slipper slope. You would have failed that prof's course.

adornoe
adornoe

who even in the face of 100% proof to the contrary, insisted that the enemy troops were nowhere close. You can't continue to be in denial all your life, and eventually, you have to start to realize that, perhaps you've been wrong on so many beliefs for so long. Even I, as a liberal, had to start examining what I was actually supporting with my liberals beliefs, and though it was tough to admit, I had to give in to the reality that liberalism was actually very damaging to the country and to the people.

adornoe
adornoe

It doesn't matter how much you might want to defend your positions, from the sounds of it, at best, you're just a RINO, and a RINO is not much better than a democrat that pretends to be fiscally responsible. There are republicans, and there are conservative republicans, and then there are RINOs, and you are, at best, a RINO. McCain and others like him are your heroes. And McCain is really a democrat in republican pin-stripes. You are closer to what Senator Lieberman represents. He's not a republican, but he's at least a reasonable democrat. And, oh, btw, what is it that Senator McCarthy ever did or said that was not true? Again, you sound like the typical liberal who likes to demonize any republican. I'll bet you agree with the liberals in congress who want the "tea party" to go "straight to hell". Also, you, like AnsuGisalas, should start paying attention to the news, because, Obamacare is already headed to the Supreme Court. If you were a true republican, you wouldn't be using the "if" as in "if it's unconstitutional"; you would be calling it what it certainly is, and that is " it is unconstitutional".

adornoe
adornoe

because, in every one of your statements, you make the mistake of painting everything as simple black and white. When Bush was at the end of his term, that's when the economic crisis reared its ugly head, and that crisis was a long time in the making, taking decades before it crashed the economy. Now, Bush, realizing that he wasn't going to be leading the economy in the near future, had to delegate a lot of decisions to those that would still be around, and some of those were McCain and Obama, and thus Obama and McCain became part of the architect team to make decisions to try to rescue the economy. Bush made some very bad moves in trusting a RINO and a progressive and the liberal congress to create policies for the economy. Nothing good ever comes from liberal economic policies, and we're experiencing the results right now. Bush might have signed the paperwork for the loans to GM and Chrysler, but he actually have very little to do with the making of that policy. Bailing out AIG and the banks was also something that Bush delegated to congress and to Obama and McCain. Again, a very bad decision, and we're not out of the woods yet on the repercussions from those decisions. The aftershocks are still being felt, and there will be many failures still to come from the bad policies. And YES, it was Obama as one of the chief architects of the bailouts, along with congress, that gave us the bad policies. The stimulus is not something that anybody can just simply dismiss as being inconsequential. Nobody should ever think that spending close to a trillion dollars, and having most of it going down the drain, is inconsequential. That money could have best been used by corporations to create real long lasting jobs, and we'd have created real growth in the economy. A trillion dollars can go a long way in the hands of the right people,and government is absolutely the wrong kind of people for managing money. Bush is not without fault, but Bush was also at the end of his term, and he was mostly delegating to those that would be overseeing policy after he left. You, like the democrats, would have put blame on Bush, no matter which way the economy and policies turned.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Using your own brains, challenging the facts and premises rather than accepting truisms and dogma as fact. Like I said, I wish there were more like you, in all political persuasions!

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

However, I've seen many such attempts in the past, it's a good-cop/bad-cop method; one participant is reasonable, and uses a wide-cast net (seemingly adhering to the limitations on meaning that widened scope dictates), while another takes this widened "commonly established fact" and uses it without any constraints on meaning depth. You're paving the way for more rabid team members to say "Yeah, what he said! Now let's kill the commies, and abolish public schooling, too!" As such, I respectfully reject your even-handed description, as it is too academic for the level of discussion.

wayne.h.johnson
wayne.h.johnson

There is no single definition of socialism, and various policies and programs can be socialistic in nature without the entire country being socialist. Furthermore, socialist countries fall along a spectrum from weak socialism (1970s Britain) to strong socialism (the Soviet Union). It should be noted that Marx makes no distinction between socialism and communism; indeed, Marx's "scientific socialism" is communism. By and large socialism is central planning on a grand scale; e.g. our public education system. To be clear, I don't advocate doing away with our public education system, but I recognize that it is socialist in nature, a monopoly mandated by the federal government and every state government. Predictably, without competition the quality of public education has decreased significantly over the past several decades. Vouchers anyone? The Wikipedia article Nick smugly suggested I use to brush up on the "actual" definition of socialism correctly points out that socialism is a system of government in which property is largely owned or controlled by the state rather than by individual citizens. A closer reading reveals that socialism also involves wealth redistribution. Presumably, Nick and others will recall Obama's desire to do just that. Indeed, a reading of Obama's two autobiographies reveals that, during college, he attended, and was sympathetic to, several socialist gatherings and policy positions. Furthermore, there is nothing in Obama's actions and policies that suggest his favorable view of socialism has changed. For example, he still favors socialized medicine. Nick claims that Warren Buffett has been called a socialist. I'm not aware of that or the reasoning behind it, but it seems like a red herring to me.

JamesRL
JamesRL

If one of the big banks, or one of the big automakers had been on the brink, the market driven guy in me would say let it fail. But when it looks like a whole industry sector is going to fail, it would be an unwise leader who does nothing. And GM and Chrysler are paying off the loans even faster than the plan, imagine that. I'm a pragmatic conservative, though some don't think I'm conservative at all. I recognize that there is no such thing as a perfect democracy, no such thing as a perfect free market, no such thing as perfect equality of opportunity. I don't think governments should be giving tax payers reductions (especially the rich like Warren Buffet who pays little tax anyways because he has some many loopholes) unless and until the spending side of the house is under control. I do believe in limited government stimulus. I don't believe in long term government market distortions (like agricultural subsidies). I don't think everything that comes out of a conservative's mouth is golden, I don't think everything that comes out of a liberal's mouth is untrue. Furthermore, I know that liberal and conservative politicians don't believe that either, but they pretend to in front of the media to "energize their core constituency" as they now say, back in the day, they used to say pandering. Most of all, I think political leaders, regardless of their political affiliation, have a higher duty to their country and its citizens than they do to their party, and a responsibility to lead in the national interest. That doesn't mean letting the clock almost run out before reaching a compromise. That doesn't mean spending more time on school yard name calling than on moving forward with legislation. I do think that the US will have to deal with its debt. But I also know what has been created over decades cannot be wiped away in years. Japan was in a worse financial situtation in the 90s, they have travelled a long hard road to recovery, and they haven't reached their old levels of prosperity yet. But they didn't panic, they set a course and they kept at it. I don't think Obama will go down as one of the most decisive or effective American presidents. But he isn't a communist. If Obamacare is unconstitutional, bring it to the supreme court.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

If only there were more of your kind, instead of all these con-servatives with their bile-spewing and their oversimplification of all issues under the sun.

JamesRL
JamesRL

Who approved the initial loans for GM and Chrysler - Congress, before the 2008 election. Who approved the $17 bailout on top of the loans - George Bush, that commie! Under whose watch did the fed bailout AIG ? Hint, it wasnt' Obama. The "insane" stimulus pales in comparison to the financial and auto sector bailouts.

adornoe
adornoe

no matter how much he denies it and no matter how much democrats deny it, and no matter how much the left-wing media wants to cover for him. He was brought up around communists, and he learned from communists and he collaborated with communists and he's acting like a communist right now, with the insane spending and stimulus and takeover of the car companies and Obamacare and many other edicts which can't be construed as anything other than communist in nature. And, he is one of the biggest proponents of doing away with our constitution. His words are easy to find as well as his communist associations. Stop being so much in denial!

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

was how I read it, as well. Ain't it a pity when misuse of the language blows your point out of the water?

JamesRL
JamesRL

To some people(and I'm not suggesting Max) anything that either: a) increases the size or scope of the government, or b) shifts wealth away from the wealthy is considered socialism. By that definition most US governments since the depression have been socialist. Its a pretty broad brush with lots of tar. Funny thing in the great white north, our "socialist" party, the one affiliated with big labour, has recently debated about whether to take the word out of their party's statement of principles. That party, by the way, has held power in a few provinces at times fo restraint, and has actually reduced the size of government to try and balance the budget. Do we now have to call them neocons?

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

Heh. [i]"...we're headed toward the inevitable ruin of socialism."[/i] I thought he meant Obama was ruining socialism... :D

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

And that's all the word is any more when the talking herd can call Warren Buffet a socialist with a straight face. Might I suggest you brush up on the actual definition of socialism?

wayne.h.johnson
wayne.h.johnson

In our Democratic Republic, the solution is to elect representatives who will put the leviathan federal government back within the constraints of our Constitution. Government is a necessary evil, but it's become something unhealthy. When we have a socialist for president (Obama) who empowers self-affirmed communists (Van Jones) then we're headed toward the inevitable ruin of socialism.

Editor's Picks