Latest news with #CCRG
Motor 1
9 hours ago
- Automotive
- Motor 1
'Do Not Drive:' Ford Issues a Recall for Super Duty Trucks With Bad Brake Pedals
Ford is warning 2025 Super Duty owners not to drive their pickups. They might have a brake pedal assembly that lacks a retaining spring that's designed to secure the brake booster pushrod to the brake pedal, which can result in the loss of braking power. The recall affects just 2,345 2025 Ford Super Duty trucks, ranging from the F-250 to the F-550. The automaker began investigating the problem in late May after team members at the Kentucky Truck Plant notified Ford's Critical Concern Review Group (CCRG) of a missing brake pedal retaining spring on a 2025 F-350. Photo by: Ford After that, Ford's CCRG reviewed a May 5 report of a service technician having no braking force during a pre-delivery inspection of a Super Duty, with the brake pedal 'swinging freely,' according to the Safety Recall Report . Ford then received a warranty report in early June of another F-350 with a missing spring that a tech found during its inspection. The CCRG, through its investigation, learned that an operator new to the job and still in training had built both trucks with the missing retaining spring. It also found that the camera system designed to monitor production was down during certain periods, so Ford is also recalling those vehicles without sufficient visual evidence that they were correctly built. Ford says it has already begun notifying affected owners. The automaker says it'll instruct them to work with their dealer to complete the inspection, as the automaker does not want owners driving their vehicles. Here Are More Recalls You Should Know: 'The Pedal [Could] Shift Out of Position:' Honda Recalls a Quarter-Million Cars Over Faulty Brake Pedals Ford Issues Do Not Drive Order for Exactly Three Broncos Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily. back Sign up For more information, read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use . Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Share this Story Facebook X LinkedIn Flipboard Reddit WhatsApp E-Mail Got a tip for us? Email: tips@ Join the conversation ( )
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DOGE's rampage through institutions has parallels in China's Cultural Revolution
Watching the Trump administration's so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)' bulldoze through government institutions, I cannot help but be reminded of the Central Cultural Revolution Group (CCRG), a pivotal organization in the early years of China's Cultural Revolution from 1966-1976. I was three years old when the Cultural Revolution was launched by the Chinese Communist Party's paramount leader Mao Zedong. At the time, many of Mao's comrades in the top leadership ranks had challenged his power and authority due to his string of disastrous and deadly policy failures (including the Great Leap Forward and the Great Famine). Mao aimed to pull them down through the Cultural Revolution by inciting the masses to rebel against them. Established in May 1966 by Mao, the CCRG surpassed the Chinese Communist Party's Politburo in power and became a ferocious instrument of Mao's political agenda aimed to purge 'bourgeois' elements, reshape Chinese government and society, and consolidate Mao's authority. While it may seem like a stretch to compare President Trump's DOGE with Chairman Mao's CCRG due to their vastly different political foundations, having lived in both systems, I believe there are valuable lessons to draw from this comparison to preserve America's constitutional democracy. DOGE and the CCRG share striking parallels as unconventional entities wielding immense power, disrupting established systems and leaving lasting impacts. Both represent populist-authoritarian experiments that bypassed formal legal frameworks, operated with significant public support, and targeted entrenched bureaucracies. However, their contexts, methods, and consequences differ in ways that highlight the resilience — or lack thereof — of constitutional governance. Both DOGE and the CCRG emerged as tools for populist authoritarian leaders — Donald Trump in the U.S. and Mao Zedong in China — seeking to reshape government and consolidate power outside traditional legal frameworks. DOGE was not established by Congress but by presidential fiat under Donald Trump, while the CCRG replaced existing party structures to serve Mao's vision. Neither adhered to constitutional norms or institutional checks, relying instead on the charisma and authority of their leaders. DOGE has gained access to critical U.S. government systems, including Treasury payment platforms managing trillions of dollars annually, while dismantling agencies like USAID. Similarly, the CCRG became the de facto top authority in China during the early years of the Cultural Revolution, sidelining even the Politburo Standing Committee. Both entities operated with sweeping mandates to reshape governance with little regard for law or traditional political norms. Elon Musk framed DOGE's mission as a fight against 'the tyranny of bureaucracy,' resonating with voters frustrated by inefficiency. Similarly, Mao's CCRG mobilized millions through slogans like 'Smash the Four Olds' and 'Down with the capitalist roaders inside the party,' targeting intellectuals, officials and traditional elites perceived as obstacles to revolutionary progress. During this period, all major decisions required CCRG approval. It controlled access to Mao's directives and sidelined other CCP leaders who opposed or questioned its radical agenda. In both cases, these populist narratives initially garnered significant public support. The CCRG's radical policies led to mass violence, economic collapse and millions of deaths during the Cultural Revolution. While DOGE has not caused such human suffering, its undermining of federal agencies risks long-term damage to U.S. governance by weakening regulatory frameworks and fostering cronyism. Both experiments exemplify how unchecked power can destabilize political systems. Despite DOGE's overreach, the U.S. retains a functioning legal system capable of imposing limits on Musk's actions. Congressional investigations and media scrutiny have raised alarms about DOGE's legality and ethical implications. In contrast, Mao's China lacked such institutional safeguards; dissent was brutally suppressed through imprisonment and killings, enabling unchecked radicalism. My father was a local party chief at the time the CCRG ascended. Like millions of other CCP officials whom Mao no longer trusted, my father was targeted and assaulted by rebels mobilized by Mao. I was sitting in my house when I looked out the window and witnessed a group of men savagely punching and kicking my father for what seemed like an eternity. They beat him mercilessly, but apparently not to kill him, because he was still breathing when they hauled him away in their cart to a countryside detention camp. This was my first memory of terror in my life. When the CCRG had completed its task of fetching chestnuts from the fire for Mao — bringing down his political enemies and punishing disloyal bureaucrats — it lost its value to him. The political chaos it created, along with its members' corruption and vicious persecution, provoked resentment from both the public and bureaucrats, ultimately threatening Mao's authority. The CCRG quickly fell out of favor; most of its members sooner or later became victims of political struggles and were imprisoned even as despised enemies of the people. Elon Musk has faced criticism for extraordinary conflicts of interest as his private enterprises benefit from his government role. DOGE has run roughshod over laws, judges, government employees and lawmakers. This intertwining of wealth and power undermines democratic norms but remains subject to potential legal accountability. The CCRG is remembered as one of modern Chinese history's most radical governing bodies. Its policies caused immense suffering and left deep scars on Chinese society. While it succeeded in consolidating Mao's authority during his lifetime, its actions ultimately discredited his legacy and led to significant reforms under Deng Xiaoping after 1978. Even today, it serves as a cautionary tale about unchecked power wielded by ideologically driven leaders operating outside established legal frameworks. The CCRG's eventual downfall offers a warning for the DOGE. Mao dissolved the group when its radicalism became untenable even within his regime. Similarly, DOGE may face growing resistance from Congress, courts, or public opinion as its overreach becomes increasingly apparent. While America's legal system provides mechanisms for accountability absent in Maoist China, these institutions must act decisively to prevent long-term damage. Both DOGE and the CCRG illustrate how populist-authoritarian experiments exploit public discontent to amass power while bypassing institutional safeguards. However, their differing contexts underscore the importance of rule of law in containing such threats. The U.S.'s ability to check the DOGE will determine whether it becomes a disruptive footnote or a harbinger of deeper democratic decay. This article was originally published on
