Thursday, September 13, 2007

New York Times and Mexican Trucks

The DOT gave permission to a Mexican trucking company last week to begin hauling freight in the US under a pilot program that will allow about 500 trucks from 100 Mexican carriers. Environmental and safety regulations that apply to American trucks would supposedly apply to Mexican trucks. The US House has already voted to cut of funding for the program.

The NYT Editorial states they suspect that the Teamsters oppose this program to "stave off the competition" and that the Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo to enforce environmental laws. This opposition increases costs to companies and consumers; and tells Mexico that when it comes to free trade the US only likes it one way. The long haul fleet is much more modern than the critic's caricatures. Congress should allow Mexican trucks through.

Would it surprise you that I might have some disagreement with this editorial? Every industry that has insourced labor from Mexico has shown falling wages, is it any wonder that the Teamsters would oppose this move? If the Teamsters do not oppose this move with the full force available to a union, they have lost their minds. The Teamsters have the membership numbers to throw down the threat of a strike to break this one, assuming it's not an empty threat. The Sierra Club doesn't trust BushCo? They must read papers and listen to the news. Companies and consumers pay, that's odd, labor is generally paid for, you might think China and poison goods would be a hint about paying. The long haul fleet is modern, and is going to be checked? I don't think it's a great idea to run foreign nationals from one of the most corrupt nations in the world up and down our highways in 60,000 pound trucks. In fact, I believe we've already imported more than enough Mexican labor, there might be something to be said for US labor not being Mexico's number one source of income. Maybe something like this makes it real clear that NYT's Editorial Board is salaried and pretty much completely disconnected from working Americans. If you don't see the potential to get bitten by this, you may have that in common with them. I suppose it would be unfair to mention the Mexican truck that blew up and killed at least 37 people, since this "pilot" program wouldn't allow hazardous loads...sure, pilot and then? When exactly does BushCo get stopped from crushing labor for the benefit of the plutocrats?

8 comments:

KISS said...

I always wondered at the admiration for the " Paper of Record", that lofty plane was never ever on the same plane as we normal everyday types were. The NYT always were an elitist Bunch of hypocrites. I say this as I was a reader through-out the 60's and 70's. Glad you are coming around Chuck.

Zak J. said...

Clearly none of the NYT editorial board have ever driven a car through Mexico.

This is nuts.

Steve Culley said...

Our national policy of exporting jobs and importing people has to end. Any bets that the coyote express will soon be busted for hauling drugs and illegals?

Jack said...

"Maybe something like this makes it real clear that NYT's Editorial Board is salaried and pretty much completely disconnected from working Americans."

That's exactly what I thought when I read this. These blue blooded elitists are ensconced in their little Manhattan-center-of-the-universe bubble, living in an echo chamber populated by fellow white-collar open-border elitists. What do they care if the rest of the country goes to hell? After all, what's the problem with 10% of Mexico's population living in the US? And half of the rest of them wanting to come here? Just means cheap nannies and housekeepers for everyone, right?

That editorial was typical of the NYT. What a self-important rag that paper is. I hope the Teamsters do strike. It'll help bring attention to the destructiveness of NAFTA. We need to repeal NAFTA now! Are any of the presidential candidates talking about this? I know Obama isn't. I know Clinton isn't. I know Rudy Mussolini isn't. And I know Ron Paul is. Paul says in no uncertain terms that we need to get out of NAFTA, get out of GATT, and get out of all the other globalist agreements that are gutting our economy one job at a time.

Chuck Butcher said...

The NYT seems to have a virtual case of schizophrenia, they will report on the economy, showing degredation of wages and increasing disparity in wealth and turn around and write something like this in an editorial. This was not a guest column, this was from their board. Seemingly they don't pay attention to their own stories or are unable to connect the dots.

They've been whacking the BOR drum, on First and Fourth Amendment grounds and the Constitutional guarantee of Habeas Corpus and then cannot refrain from bashing the Second, applauding NY,NY's gun laws. It is very difficult to tell just exactly what the Times calls principle.

Steve Culley said...

New York Times, Portland Oregonian, same thing

Zak J. said...

Regarding the NYT on the 2nd Amendment, I quit taking them seriously after one of the reporters went to a gun show and wrote about the tables full of "semi-automatic revolvers." Clearly an expert to write on such a topic. : )

Chuck Butcher said...

I haven't ever taken them seriously on the 2nd, thus it's a little tough to take them too seriously on the rest of it, but they sure will protect the 1st - since they own a newspaper.