Re: Toyota recall panic. Why is this still news?

Jeff, the relevance of the issue is that with a revolving door between regulatory agencies and the industry that is supposedly being regulated we have with Toyota floor mats being blamed in 2004 when, clearly, the problem was much more complex. The result is that more than twenty-six hundred complaints were ignored. Of course there are risks in the world. You are one risk that you have identified yourself. As a lobbyist for the LNG pipeline you hid behind Blue Oregon, the "forum" for dialogue.

That is when you sacrificed your creditability.

The news is that Toyota lied, denied, obfuscated, and STILL isn't coming clean about the acceleration problems in literally millions of vehicles still out on the road. Are you daft? I guess Nader was just being hysterical about exploding Pintos too, huh? Providing cover for a huge multinational corporation by basically saying "shit happens" is really progressive.

Lobbying for LNG? Really? I guess that explains it... Kinda like your position on beer taxes.

Another thing with Toyota is one I can speak to having worked for a domestic car brand dealer for 21 years.

I don't normally engage in Schadenfreude, but Toyota has been so arrogant over the years about their quality that I am glad to see it.

Those of us inside the industry have seen how Toyota's quality reputation exceeded the reality for years, but there was no convincing the public or the so-called consumer media of that. Toyota, and to a lesser extent Honda, have been masters at suppressing bad news. There is one level of scrutiny given Toyota and Honda and a much higher level given everyone else.

So, a little 'what's-comin'-to-ya' dished up is partly a reaction to years of ignoring Toyota quality issues by consumer magazines and major media.

Watching the Congressional questioning of the president of Toyota, I assume the real problem with Toyota vehicles is that they are not being built in rust-belt states using UAW labor. Otherwise this whole Congressional hearing circus seems like so much crap.

I did hear a commentator on NPR this morning say that many in Congress and those representing consumers were "disappointed that the president of Toyota did not fall on his sword". Given the history of Japanese ritual suicide, the comment seemed highly racist to me, especially for NPR. Does Blue Oregon have any commentators on the issue of current discrimination against those of Japanese ancestry?

I'm glad you have a sensible opinion on the religious garb bill, Jeff. I'm not sure that the bill is the right solution to the problem entirely, it'll probably have to be reworked a bit, but its definitely a move in the right direction.

KenRay wrote:

Toyota, and to a lesser extent Honda, have been masters at suppressing bad news.

Most reliability rating is set through owner feedback. Are you suggesting that the Japanese pay-off their customers, hypnotize them, or what?

My experience has been that beyond a few examples [Ford Ranger, for one], American vehicles have many more serious faults than do Japanese vehicles.

Jeff Alworth:

I find the tack of the Roberts court troubling. Vastly expanded rights for corporate "citizens;"....

Bob T:

Gosh, when Roberts et al. agree with the ACLU it still doesn't work for you. Anyway, as the ACLU was well aware, this was about speech, and not about any definition of an organization (whether a corporation, or Green Peace, or a labor union).

Bob Tiernan Portland

"I like it when he's got some sass, though I'd probably let loose a little more than he has, especially when Cantor was going through his act."

That's why, as a Republican, I have a lot of respect for Obama. He disagreed wholeheartedly with the R's on some issues, but did so in a polite, constructive, and respectful manner. If he would have "let loose a little more" as you suggest, it would've been politics as usual.

Now we know there is communication from the great beyond. The entire Republican side at the health summit was written and directed by George Carlin. Obama was good at times, but it was in the context of the theatre of the absurd in which he pretends that these Repub goofballs are serious and well-intentioned. He we sit, waiting for Godot.

Toyota is unfortunately the first successful foreign owned auto manufacturer to have issues when the federal governmetn now owns most of Chrysler and GM. Bad karma for them.

Of course if you want to close all of the toyots plants in KY, IN and OH as well as their suppliers go for it and see what happens.

As to the repeal of the religious clothing ban - Jeff please be realistic enough to remind Oregonians that the ban was voted in at the behest of the uber hate group, the KKK. That it took so long to lift the ban is the real story.

Nick Wirth:

I like it when he's got some sass, though I'd probably let loose a little more than he has, especially when Cantor was going through his act.

Bob T:

Yeah -- how dare Cantor bring a copy of ObamaCare. Didn't he know that the day was reserved for anecdotes?

Bob Tiernan Portland

Jeff, original legislative intent is often ignored in contemporary debate over public policy, much to the detriment of the discussion, IMO, because the original legislative intent is usually foundational for all the arguments that accrete like barnacles to laws over the years.

Final comment on Toyota: They are the ONLY auto company, foreign or domestic, that recruits and hires staffers from NHTSA and puts them to work lobbying their former agency.

See link to BusinessWeek

I feel like that guy on that Microsoft commercial who says "I invented Windows 7,"

Yeah, there's a lot of similarities. That has to do with the car recall too. Imagine Toyota "fixing" the problem by telling you to buy a better model. Windows 7 exists at the time it does, in the form it does, because Vista did not do what it was supposed to. Vista, in turn, is a bunch of work-arounds for XP. Since 1998, when NT 3.0 came out, MS has been trying to separate traditional Windows (Windows 1.0-3.1, '98, 2000) from the decent XP code. They have failed at every turn for 12 years.

No problem! Spin it with marketing and use cold cash to buy a market presence! So, can you imagine all the victims of the Toyota sloppiness standing around advertising the new auto, with the line, "my old lemon built this"? This is old hat, tho. How many times have you seen a story on a virus or worm that mentioned that it only affected MS OSes? EVER, in mainstream media? Imagine the Goodyear/GM consumer debacle with the news never mentioning Goodyear or GM!

Almost all new fraud in the last 15 years has been along the lines of the MS marketing model.

Pat Ryan:

Bob T,

The problem may be one of cognitive dissonance. You KNOW that the ACLU is a "far left org" and you also KNOW that Blue oregon writers and commenters a "far left", so it's not surprising that you'd be puzzled by disagreement.

Bob T:

Your premise is incorrect. I do not consider the ACLU to be a "far left org" in particular (but I do know that in your opinion it is, hence the confusion.

Pat Ryan:

The facts are, of course, very different. The ACLU's mission is about civil liberties in general and the Bill of Rights in particular.

Bob T:

Agreed. I've mentioned many times (not necessarily here) that the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights in particular) are neither left nor right documents, and the BOR itself is a list of things we agree to disagree on as much as anything else. The problem comes when people see it as including "rights" that require infringements on others. That's not what it's about. More on that later, I suppose.

Pat Ryan:

When the ACLU defends the rights of Christian students to wear anti-Islamic T-shirts to scool, I doubt you notice.

Bob T:

Oh, I'll notice it all right. But why limit this to "Christian" students when any defense of this display would apply to anyone wishing to wear such a T-shirt?

Pat Ryan:

When the ACLU defends the right to bear arms in Texas, I doubt you notice.

Bob T:

I guess it depends on what their reason is. The ACLU is not known for its interest in the Second Amendment, but that's where other groups come in to complement them. I like the combined work that is provided by the ACLU, the Institute for Justice (which handles a lot of stuff that the ACLU has no interest in, such as the right to earn an honest living, i.e. economic freedoms), and also the Pacific Legal Foundation. In recent years the ACLU has become more of a property rights defender than it had been earlier, but it's too late. Decades -- about a century, in fact -- of watering down property rights protections (using absurd strawmen such as "If we let people do things without a permit, or do them at all, they'll put in nuclear waste dumps!") culminated in the the final nail, that being the Kelo v. New London decision (we needed another Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist for that one, but it was not to be).

By the way, New York City, and the State of NY, is currently moving ahead on yet another abuse using eminent domain for "central planning" to provide a millionaire developer with property he is not able to buy from voluntary transactions with the owners (in Brooklyn), and the plans are supported by both Al Sharpton (to get "minority" jobs), and ACORN (which will get to administer millions of loan dollars). Really sad.

Pat Ryan:

When the ACLU defends Rush Limbaugh's right to medical privacy, I doubt you notice.

Bob T:

Again, I'm well aware of these sorts of things. The Libertarian Party often invites ACLU members as speakers.

What I did notice regarding this one, by the way, was how the left suddenly came out in favor of jailing people because of their political views. That's what the calls for Limbaugh's prosection were all about, and it revealed a sickening hypocrisy. One exception was the leftwing radio talk host from San Francisco's KGO named Bernie Ward who had the guts and integrity to make it clear that his views on the War on Drugs would not change and did not include an exception for someone he greatly disagreed with politically. Good for him; shame on the rest.

Pat Ryan:

When the ACLU defends the right of a corporation to free speech protection, they are in fact, arguing for corporate personhood. That you applaud.

Bob T:

You could interpret it that way, but they are also recognizing the same for labor unions, environmental organisations, anti-corporation non-profits, and so on. Again, the issue was speech. Speech. Seems to me that those who wanted the USSC to rule otherwise in that case were advocating an interpretation based on their feelings rather than what the document actually says.

Pat Ryan:

Yet it's a fact that my dog, my car, my house, and my body lice have no inherent or legal standing as persons to speak freely. None are human

Bob T:

That's because no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to get a single or collective human voice from them.

Pat Ryan:

...and neither is the C-corp of which I am one of two shareholders.

Bob T:

It's not, but you and your partner can put out a single-voice (but collectively composed) statement (opinion) which emanates from humans, which the majority opinion made clear.

Pat Ryan:

It is the straight out logic dictated by a strict constructionist view of the original intent of the founders, that leads us to conclude that the ACLU is way off base here.

Bob T:

Well, that's incorrect.

But having said all of this, I'm sure that you can agree with my other views on corporations (or labor unions and other organisations of people) which are not incompatible at all with the speech views. Although there are assets and other things that corporation laws are good for dealing with, the thing that must always be remembered is that people are behind decisions, and no laws should protect anyone from hiding behind a corporate (or labor union, etc.) front after ordering anything from dumping drums of poisons into a river, kneecapping opponents, or sabotaging equipment belonging to competitors or opponents. Accountability is too often forgotten regarding these matters, but note this recent ruling does recognize the human source of any speech, so I hope that this creates or re-establishes accountability and responsibility (two things that go hand in hand with actual freedom).

Hey, nice chatting with you, Pat. I'm sure we'll run into each other if I show up at any meetings or town halls that you you can't stay away from, either.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Back to Jeff's observations, I don't see that we have to wait to see how sartorial freedoms will play out. Who sponsored the leg? It also, unwittingly, undercuts rules about halter tops, designer clothes and gang wear. The oft-heard rationale for those restrictions is that they are "disruptive to the educational process". Imagine if a teacher showed up in a birka. That wouldn't be disruptive? But the gerl showing cleavage will get sent home. It just doesn't work on the face of it.

On the Supremes...we're never going to see a return to even the ossified principles in the Constitution. Tell me one revisionist that can even begin to argue that drug testing, breath analysis and the like aren't cases of self incrimination. You have the right to face your accuser and you can't be compelled to produce testimony against your interests. From cases involving children to the plethora of statutory crimes, those rights have been so severely eroded that yesterday's decision has little or no impact. Granted Scalia is alarming, but then, that's Justice Scalia. Point taken, I can't believe the "hate activists judges" camp produced him and Roberts.

<h2>I was thinking about that too, that perhaps we should have more complicated rules for nomination to the court. We the way things are going, if we ever get a quorum of progressives on the court, a conservative administration would probably stage a false flag attack and kill them all, blaming terrorist. Then they get to pick an entire court. How about a rule that a President only gets 1 nominee/term; the rest are interim appointments? Now THAT separates the progressives from the party animals. If anyone bother to respond to this, watch how many Dems will think it is as bad an idea as right wing trolls do.</h2>