Grab Bag

There are just too many stories today to pay attention to only one. First, we look at France, where rioting is still out of control. At least it's getting better, only 814 cars were burned a night ago compared to 1400 the night before. Only in France could that be termed "getting better". It's a little ridiculous to paint this as disenfranchised youth with no prospects. These are Muslim kids, indoctrinated in radical fundamentalism by those who would exploit the chaos for their own ends. The USA Today piece is fairly typical, and also fairly comprehensive, in blaming just about anything else for the fires. They don't have jobs, they have no prospects, it's all the government's fault. Cry me a river.

This exemplifies the socialist welfare state. This is what the left idolizes and what they believe America should emulate? These are hoodlum thugs. Notice they're destroying French citizen's property, French Catholic churches, and they're attacking French authority (never thought I'd see those two words together again outside of a Napolean biography). Mosques aren't burning. Their neighborhoods aren't burning. Muslims are not dieing at their fellow Muslims' hands. This isn't South Central. This is orchestrated. Sadly, the French government doesn't have the balls to seriously crack down on the gangs. But, this one's out of our court, so all we can do is watch the pretty fires.

Then there's the $61 million dollar judgement against Ford. RightWingNews has a great discussion on it. A company gets blamed for someone dieing at the hands of another using their product. The jist of the case is this. One person carelessly fell asleep at the wheel, rolled a Ford Explorer, and the passenger died. That passenger's parents sued Ford and this was their finding.

Ford was liable in the accident because it sold a vehicle with poor handling and stability, the jury said Tuesday.

Ford blamed defective Firestone tires for the Explorer's handling and stability problems, and the company knowingly continued to produce unsafe vehicles, Bruce Kaster, an attorney for the family, said Wednesday.

"This tragic accident occurred when the driver of the vehicle fell asleep at the wheel while traveling at highway speeds. Real-world experience and testing show that the Explorer is a safe vehicle, consistently performing as well as or better than other vehicles in its class," Ford spokeswoman Karen Shaughnessy said.

Well, I guess the jury believed the plaintiff on this one. The difficulty I'm having is this. If perhaps, the Explorer doesn't have the greatest handling, does that release anyone from poor driving? Falling asleep at the wheel sort of negates any control ability. Although it looks like the driver woke in time to attempt to regain control, he failed. Accidents happen, and now a kid is dead. You don't see the parents going after the driver, though, in this suit. Why? I'm imaginging the driver doesn't have $61 million. I just have difficulty seeing how they can justify saying Ford is liable to the tune of $61 million.

If the product is unsafe, and they could prove that in court, which I'm not entirely sure they did, then the cars shouldn't even be on the road. This isn't a Grisham novel where a mother of three died because she tapped the break when she got hit in the rear quarter and the car exploded. It flipped over four times after the driver carelessly lost control. Cars flip, especially SUV's. We know this. It isn't a news flash. So how's it worth $61 million? Because the jury played to emotion and decided consequences be damned, let's stick it to Ford. So now, if this holds, Ford will end up having to either pass the cost on to the consumer (because cars aren't expensive enough) or fire people, lots of them. Did that give the rest of us justice, or just a couple of parents capitlizing on their son's loss? I sympathize for the parents, I do. No one wants to lose a child. But $61 million I guess can cushion the blow at least. Maybe they can share it with all the workers that will get laid off as a result. Still think we don't need tort reform? If not, please explain how this case was legitimate.

Then there's the story of GM laying off potentially 30,000 people. It sucks, it's horrible, and according to the headline I saw on USA Today, it's all GM's fault. And it might be, they're a big company with a history of poor financial management. But come on, let's not dodge the fact that the unions are just as much to blame. Ridiculously high wages coupled with unbelievable pension benefits have assisted to a big degree in GM's woes. But you won't likely see a major news story on that anytime soon. Just guessing there. Even Delphi, one of GM's former success stories, is taking a big hit and having to downsize or seriously cut factory wages. Did you know one of its regular programs was to find workers who, for whatever reason, couldn't stay employed at the plant a job doing some type of community service at their same wage when they left the plant?

Again, I'm not entirely sure here, but although that sounds very altruistic on the big corp's part, it doesn't speak much for Delphi's bottom line, and I'm sure this became a huge drag on them. I'd have loved to be making $20/hour+ being a mentor in a community center also, but I'm not really working for the company paying me anymore. There's no tangible benefit to them, and given enough employees (and I hear it was a fair number), that's a giant red mark.

In the end, there's going to be no winners in this GM tragedy, and I feel for everyone of those workers getting laid off. I've been there more than once. But it should serve as a big nasty lesson to the rest of us on how not to run a corporation.