Is it just me, or ...
- Doesn't the California lawsuit against the six largest automakers suggest that politicians ought to take urine tests?
The suit seeks to hold General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Nissan and the Chrysler group liable for damages allegedly caused by greenhouses gases produced by the vehicles they sold.
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who filed the suit, says it's the first of its kind.
That's not exactly true.
It's analogous to the asinine lawsuits that try to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the damage caused by people who buy -- or steal -- guns.
It's one more (transparent) attempt to circumvent federal fuel economy standards.
The gun lawsuits are routinely bounced out of court. This one ought to be, too.
- Isn't it a little confusing how and why Ford Motor Co. board member John R.H. Bond also will be a paid consultant to the company?
Bond, retired chairman of HSBC Holdings, will do financial consulting a day here and a day there, usually just before board meetings, at $25,000 per day.
Yes, I know board members have well-defined fiduciary responsibilities and Bond is probably a brilliant financial guy, but isn't that why he's on the board?
- Wouldn't it be ironic if unions in the United States and France each lined up against an alliance among GM, Renault and Nissan because it looked like the other guy would get a better deal?
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who is not a fan of the proposed alliance, says what GM really needs to do is fix its North American operations. Now the Detroit Free Press has quoted an official of the French union, Confederation Generale du Travail, as saying that Renault really ought to be investing in France.
They probably each fear that an alliance would cost manufacturing jobs in France and the United States.
They're both right.
So much for international solidarity, eh?
You may e-mail Edward Lapham at [email protected]