US politics

The latest drama in the Toyota recall story is now a lawyer called Dimitrios Biller. He is making the shocking, just shocking claim that Toyota withheld information from the authorities about its cars. The article is titled: EXCLUSIVE: Former Toyota Lawyer Tells ABC News, Automaker Hides Safety Problems.

Well, that's not hard to believe, is it? I mean a large corporation does some tests that show its product might not be safe, and so they don't share the information. I was looking around for information on this, and I found an old article from 1999 where I found this choice quote:

"They lie all the time," former NHTSA administrator Joan Claybrook was quoted as saying in a recent Los Angeles Times story. Industry officials denied it.

Joan Claybrook was head of the NHTSA agency from 1977 to 1981 under president Carter. If you search the internet for claims that Ford or Chrysler or GM have "withheld information" in the past, you won't be disappointed, there are many, many claims.

So, yeah, they lie all the time. Fine.

So should anyone be surprised to find out that Toyota might have withheld information. No. But still though, I don't want to presume guilt. I'd just assume presume innocence until the guilty verdict is given. But that isn't really my point. There are two things striking about this news story hack piece.

First, let's look at the source, I'm quoting from ABC's exclusive article:

About two years into his tenure, said Biller, he began experiencing mental issues, which he claimed was related to the stress of his internal battle with the company. "There was an onslaught of depression that I sustained while I was at Toyota," he said, but added that he believes he is much improved since leaving.

Biller faced depression over his internal battle with Toyota. Now, what was this internal battle about? The article explains:

According to Biller, when he was preparing information that showed possible safety issues with Toyota vehicles to provide to plaintiffs, as required by law, his boss told him to remember the "golden rule." When Biller asked what the golden rule was, he claims, his boss said, "Don't screw the client."

Okay. So let's imagine this situation. He dug up some information that would be dynamite for the plaintiffs and then threatened to turn it over to them. My gosh, after all, it's the law. We have to. Then, obviously, Toyota was like ... WTF ... so then the Biller begins to suffer emotional depression because he can't turn over the information to the plaintiffs and blames his depression on Toyota. The result?

Biller received a $3.9 million settlement when he left Toyota, and also signed a non-disclosure agreement.

And that's not blackmail? Am I misreading this, or did this guy basically blackmail the company into paying him nearly $4,000,000?

I don't know what I dislike most about this guy, that he was a cheesy lawyer hack fighting off plaintiffs for Toyota, or that he subsequently blackmailed Toyota after having promised to defend them, or that he then subsequently broke his agreement with them not to speak. In any event, that's three strikes against this guy in my book. But here he is on ABC speaking like an authority who knows what's really going on at Toyota.

Joan Claybrook says, they lie all the time. You telling me Dimitrios Biller didn't know that right form the start? Come on.

But this isn't what really riles me. Nope, not at all really. It's the racism. I don't know another word. I admit it can't properly be called racism. I don't doubt that neither the interviewer or Biller wouldn't hesitate to treat someone else like their equal regardless of skin color. So maybe a better word would be culture-ism or xenophobia or something. Yet watch the interview and pay close attention to how Toyota "culture" and finally in the climax, all of Japanese culture come into play:

The interviewer's first question is, "how would you describe the culture and the climate at Toyota?"

"Um ... from a legal standpoint I would describe it as a culture of hypocrisy and deception."

They lie all the time. Well, gosh, sure doesn't sound like apple pie and baseball to me.

Biller then goes on to state that Toyota never "fully disclosed all the information or evidence that Toyota was obligated to produce in litigation."

Yeah, right, we can assume that, after all we know -- they lie all the time. From this Biller then launches into a long list of claims that have never be substantiated or proven in court. Um ... innocent until proven guilty anyone?

Now, if you forward to the middle of the interview, you get this absurd description of Biller copying tests and stuff when a stunned supervisor walks in and tell him to stop and to never screw the client. Are you telling me that in serious cases like this there aren't teams of lawyers who discuss this? And that Biller would have just gone out and physically gotten the information and then started copying it and the supervisor would have just walked in on him? The whole story sounds bizarre -- like a Hollywood movie or something ... but I go astray.

At the end of the interview we get to the really good remarks. Biller states (emphasis mine): "You have to understand, Toyota and Japan does not have any respect for our legal system. They do not have any respect for our laws. Although they sell cars in the United States, they don't believe they have to abide by our laws. They think because we are an ocean apart, they can determine what their own laws will be when they sell their cars in our country. That is the mentality, it is a corporate arrogance that is pervasive."

Didn't you know, it isn't everyone who lies all the time, it's only the Japanese.

This is supposed to be news? How about an apology from ABC to everyone in Japan?

Okay, this post isn't on Japan. Apologies. A lot of people I know are excited about Scott Brown's senate win in Massachusetts. I'm not. In fact, it downright saddens me because he's being treated like a real alternative, when he's not. He supports the state over the law (on torture), and on many issues it's clear he'll favor corporations over individuals. Go to his issues page and judge for yourself. Here are my own comments on what he says:

On why he is running:

America is a great country but we also have some challenges that we need to solve if we're going to remain the world's superpower.

Okay so his primary goal is to keep America a super power. Okay.

On Health Care:

I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it.

He believes all Americans should have health care. Only he thinks he can finesse that better under corporatism as opposed to all out socialism. This is similar to Obama being against war, when it's a Republican war.

On the Economy:

I am a free enterprise advocate who believes that lower taxes can encourage economic growth. Raising taxes stifles growth, weakens the economy and puts more people out of work.

Okay, so he doesn't favor actually eliminating any tax, but basically just fine tuning the tax system so as to help corporate America maintain its super power state. Okay.

On Energy and Environment:

I support common-sense environment policy that will help to reduce pollution and preserve our precious open spaces. I realize that without action now, future generations will be left to clean up the mess we leave.

Whatever.

On education:

I am passionate about improving the quality of our public schools.

He's not against public education (presumably we're talking on a federal level here), instead he just wants to fine tune it so it works. He doesn't say it, but perhaps he thinks it needs more corporatism.

On immigration:

I recognize that our strength as a nation is built on the immigrant experience in America. I welcome legal immigration to this country. However, we are also a nation of laws and government should not adopt policies that encourage illegal immigration.

The usual stuff. Personally, I think the immigration issue needs to be handled via human rights. People have rights that supersede the state. What are they?

On veterans:

As a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army National Guard, I am uniquely aware of the importance and sacrifice of our men and women serving in the military. I have been a vigorous supporter of legislation providing benefits to returning service members, as well as, benefits for the families of those killed in action.

Okay. He's talking about veterans, but in general I would say, support the military, bring them home.

On gun issues:

I support safe and responsible gun ownership.

He doesn't support gun ownership. He supports safe and responsible gun ownership.

On marriage:

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

Whatever.

On Israel:

Israel has made enormous sacrifices in an attempt to secure peace – including unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

Whatever. I don't want this to be an American issue.

On Iran:

I support the bi-partisan Iran sanctions bill and believe that until Ahmadinejad gives up his nuclear ambitions he should be isolated from the rest of the world.

And so on and so forth.

Here are a scattering of issues not mentioned, the Federal Reserve, income tax, eminent domain and property rights, American independence and sovereignty and so on. He might have views on these, but they aren't important enough to put on his issues page. I actually searched his entire site for the three letters "fed" and found nothing. Try it yourself.

In response to this video:

I made the following comment over at Mutantfrog Travelogue:

You know if you think about it, Bush and Obama are only marginally different. To not acknowledge this is to be pretty naive, I think. That is there are certain parameters and paradigms of thinking that just aren't going to get transcended in mainstream politics because they're taboo.

So I mean, where were these people when George Bush was president? Where were these people when George Bush was conducting overseas wars and bailing out big banks?

They were watching Glen Beck and thinking it was all patriotic and okay, I suppose. That's the sad thing here. In some way or another, I think these people are just tools of a sort. They *justify* the idea that we should dismiss the opposition as nuts and just follow the mainstream.

Putting on my blinkers and ear plugs and taping my mouth shut. Thank you Max Blumenthal.

 Here is a thoughtful blog writing about constitutional issues with Obama's healthcare bills.

He deals with many issues, here's just one example:

HB 3200 will mandate that everyone in the United States have a National Healthcare card that they will be required to produce to get medical treatment. This will be required whether they have private health insurance or are involved in the so-called public option. There are no real options, you must have this card and it can contain any information that the Obama administration requires. It will be the “identity papers” that so many totalitarian regimes are infamous for.

The author of the blog is a constitutional lawyer and has actually taken the time out to read the relevant legislation.

 I mentioned in a recent post that the Fed has lost a legal case to Bloomberg. Now the Fed is trying to scare the judge into stalling. Here is a good update at Naked Capitalism.

From Merriam-Webster:

• Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
• Pronunciation: \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
• Function: noun
• Date: 1952
1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Well, here we go. It's not certain yet, but it looks like the (neo)conservatives might start getting on the anti-Afghanistan war bandwagon. Why? Because they're suddenly antiwar ... of course not. Because it's now Obama's war.

This is so pathetic. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm antiwar. I'm anti-state (at least in a conservative, classical liberal sense.) But it now seems that influential conservative, Tony Blankley, now sees the light on Afghanistan. (He's a neoconservative as per Merrian-Webster's number 2 definition above.)

First, how did Tony Blankley feel about George Bush's war in Iraq. Well as late as ... uh ... last year, he was defending it as a means of putting evil terrorists in their place. He said (bold is mine):

I have been told that by U.S. government experts I trust. But that is an old fact. What Osama bin Laden famously said about recruitment is also true: People follow the strong horse. And the new fact is that as we are winning in Iraq, as we are killing al-Qaida fighters and other Islamist terrorists there by the truckload (along with other insurgent opponents of the Iraqi government we support with our blood and wealth), we are proving to be the strong horse after all and can expect to see a reduced attraction for young men to join the Islamist terrorist ranks.

If that's not bad enough, read the entire article, Was Iraq Worth It?

Okay, so going over to another country and killing those who defy you is good, because it shows how macho you are and keeps them from even thinking about coming to your country. Okay. Right. Check. I mean, as recent as last year, he even thought Vietnam was good, here's what he said in the same article above:

Shortly after the fall of Soviet Communism, I had dinner with a then-recently former senior Red army general. He told me that the Soviets were astounded and impressed by the fact that we were prepared to fight and lose 50,000 men in Vietnam, when the Soviets never thought we even had a strategic interest there. They thus calculated that they'd better be careful with the United States. What might we do, they thought, if our interests really were threatened?

Wow. How about them Americans, eh? They don't f___ around. Mess with them buddy, and pow! Okay, now that was an editorial written while George Bush was still president just last year.

Now that our president is Barack Hussein Obama II. And now that this Democrat president wants a more aggressive policy in Afghanistan, how does Tony Blankley feel about that? Well, it's like Vietnam!

Oh, so you mean we need to go over there and kick a bunch of butt, right?

Ah, no. Vietnam was a tragedy, stupid, and that's what's going to happen in Afghanistan. At least that's what Tony Blankley is saying today. Who knows what he'll be saying tomorrow?

I'm with Lew Rockwell on this:

Tony, repeat after me: “One, two, three, four, We don’t want your f___ war. Five, six, seven, eight, Organize and smash the state.”

Hm, this looks interesting:

Federal Reserve loses suit demanding transparency:

A federal judge on Monday ruled against an effort by the U.S. Federal Reserve to block disclosure of companies that participated in and securities covered by a series of emergency funding programs as the global credit crisis began to intensify.

My complete *guess* is that there will be some sort of staying order, and that this will go one level up in the court system. But this looks like progress.

Should we tax junk food? After all, don't people who eat junk food burden society with their extra welfare cost? And isn't that even more true in countries where health care is either partially or fully funded via a government program?

Maybe, but maybe not. In fact, perhaps it is the government health plan that creates incentive to eat too much. The fact is, if you live in a country where your health care is paid for, a healthy lifestyle pays less than it does in a country where your health care is not paid for. That is, health less of a good investment.

Certainly in Japan, where people still have some healthy eating habits, the situation has gradually been deteriorating. At least, I've assumed that's the case simply by watching changing eating habits in the last 15 years. I'm not sure if I am statistically correct though. (I'll have to look into this.)

In any event, here's a great article on this topic at mises.org, Junk Food, Taxes, and the Market Solution.

This is quite fascinating:

What a complicated mess! Well, so long as these people are working in America, then don't they deserve the same benefits as any other worker? For example, if an ordinary worker under the law receives special protections against abusive labor practices, then this applies even to undocumented workers. So shouldn't undocumented workers be eligible to the same benefits? Hey, but then why use undocumented workers if they're going to cost so much?  ...

Again, what a complicated mess. In general, I don't support government sponsored healthcare. Not only does it lead to messes like this, but it actually sets up barriers *against* immigration. Any benefit that is bestowed upon labor via the government will raise the bar for those who want to immigrate into a country, and to the extent that the employer is somewhat responsible for the benefit, it will increase the number of employers who try *not* to "do their part" by using undocumented laborers.

Does that make sense?