World

Who is Responsible, GM, ACORN or Both?

by politisite | October 6, 2009 at 03:35 pm

230 views | 54 Recommendations | 10 comments

By Albert N. Milliron, Editor, Politisite.com

From 1959 through the seventies Consumer advocate Ralph Nader went after the automobile industry for safety issues in American vehicles. He wrote, “The Safe Car You Can’t Buy” and “Unsafe at Any Speed.” In these articles he blamed General Motors. Lawsuits prevailed and General Motors was ruled to be responsible for the dangers of the automobiles.

If an assembly line worker accidentally punctured a gas tank during installation on a GM vehicle, who would the courts find responsible? General Motors? Yes, GM would be ultimately responsible for the actions of it’s assembly line workers.

In comparison, when workers at several offices offer inappropriate advise to a Prostitute and Pimp on how to falsify tax documents, set up a fraudulent business, and help establish a means to financially benefit from underage illegals as dependents. Who is responsible?

In addition, when workers in several states falsify voter registration documents. Today, the Atlas Shrugs Blog had an exclusive interview with a former ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, worker, who admits that the organization encouraged throwing out Voter registrants who marked that they wanted to register as ‘Republican’ in the garbage. Who is responsible?

According to Bertha Lewis, CEO of ACORN, it is the individuals at fault as the problems are not systemic. What?

I am sure, beyond doubt, that Bertha Lewis would have joined Ralph Nader in going after General Motors for individual assembly line failures on automobiles manufactured between 1959 and the late seventies. In fact, Lewis has gone after many companies for just that, individual failure within an organization. So why, isn’t ACORN responsible for its own internal and individual failures?

I am Just Wondering.

2 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

rng

at 16:41 on October 6th, 2009

I think the analogy is off.

A GM vehicle is a corporate produced and endorsed product. If your new boat sank, you would sue the manufacturer who warranted the product.

ACORN is an organization and a service provider. If a doctor gives a bad diagnosis is the AMA liable? If a swim coach drowns a kid is the American Swim Coach Foundation (or whatever it is called) liable?

It doesn't equate either legally or logically.

I am not defending ACORN, I am not a fan, but this argument doesn't seem supportable to me in terms of a logical comparison.

politisite

at 16:48 on October 6th, 2009

Thanks for your comment. In defense, Acorn Housing is a Corporation. The employees are paid. The entities you are speaking of are professional organizations. One can sue a doctor and the Hospital where he works. I do see your point, I did not expect my thinking to be a highly significant correlation. My thinking was more along the lines of comparing apples and oranges as fruit. They have many differences, but a good amount of similarities as well. Thanks again

René

at 20:41 on October 6th, 2009

rng, your analogy is off. specious argument.

rng

at 05:13 on October 8th, 2009

okay then, so you must be right as you support your case so well, my bad

Roy C

at 18:46 on October 6th, 2009

If the corporation is negligent in such as way as to further the malfeasance or misfeasance of their employees, then the corporation is co-responsible with the employee.

For example, a school is not held responsible for a teacher who is abusive if the school did due diligence before hiring the teacher, but if the teacher demonstrates something off and nothing is done, then the school is co-responsible.

Same here. But, we don't need to sue ACORN, just deprive it of public funds.

And, yes, some of the ex-ACORN people are excellent people and got fired when they turned whistle-blower.

politisite

at 19:22 on October 6th, 2009

Roy,

Thanks for bringing up the ACORN 8 who were fired when they asked for an audit as they were concerned about funds missing. They are the ones who love working with the poor and gave this organization credibility.