Published: July 29, 2009 05:55 pm      

Letters to the editor - Thursday

GM Electronics must go ‘green’

The new GM Electronics in Kokomo, formerly known as Delco, sits in a very unique point in time. With 78 percent of the new GM ownership held by the federal government and the UAW, the metrics for success as expected by the new owners will take on a different priority than the traditional business model.

I would assume that the old Delphi way of moving work from Kokomo to off-shore sites will not be a wise course of action for this new company. With unemployment running at all-time highs and the Obama team wanting to demonstrate that this new method of federal intervention for failing companies will work, the only acceptable result is that of increased employment and profitability.

Assuming that the above statement is true, the new GM Electronics leaders should be putting together plans to be the U.S. leader in “green electronics” to make the new GM the recognized leader in safe, fuel-efficient, fully connected vehicles in the automotive world. Of course this may mean further investment by the owners (the feds, actually the taxpayers), but this will meet the important agenda items for the Obama administration: higher employment and a “greener” new GM, a “greener” USA. There can be a lot of finger-pointing as to why the old Delphi Electronics ended up as it did, but little good would come of the exercise. Besides, when one points there are three fingers pointing back!

Now is the time to look forward.

Now is the time for the company leaders to get their plans together to develop a vision that inspires the new owners that additional investment is warranted.

Now is the time for citizens of the community to contact their representatives and senators to help make the case that the new GM Electronics in Kokomo has a future worth investing in.

The new GM Electronics in Kokomo can be the successful prototype for this type of government aid – the help that results in higher community employment and a viable business.

Brad Knigga

Russiaville



Public schools, NEA stand for freedom

As a former public school teacher and professional staff person employed by ISTA and NEA, I see inaccuracy, inconsistency and irony in Peter Heck’s recent column in the Kokomo Tribune on NEA, and public school teachers’ associations.

 Peter urges public school teachers to abandon their professional associations because “NEA supports abortion”. Most unfortunately, Peter has not read and is not familiar with any of the very few “reproductive rights” cases over many years in which NEA has litigated on this subject. None of these cases concerned the right of a woman to choose an abortion, although that is and has been the law of the land since January of 1973. I urge Peter to do the research needed to evaluate the anti-union and anti-NEA materials that he is reading.

 The most famous case litigated by the NEA concerns an ex-nun working as a public school teacher in Illinois who was raped and became pregnant as a direct consequence. The teacher chose to keep the child and raise it. When she returned to teaching after the birth, she was fired by the school board for being an unwed mother. The NEA litigated her dismissal and won her job back plus damages. I hardly see this as “supporting abortion”. This case stands for the proposition that a public school teacher will not lose her job if she is raped, becomes pregnant, and chooses to keep the child. Each of the other instances when NEA has litigated in the “reproductive rights” area has been similar. Let me repeat, none of these cases has concerned a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

 While urging Christian teachers that “It’s time for us to fly”, not to join public school teachers’ unions, Peter uses the justification that NEA does not agree with his personal religious and political beliefs about choice and homosexuality. Perhaps Peter needs to consider teaching at a private religious school where he will not have to suffer the variety of students, parents, colleagues and professional associations who do not see the world exactly as he does. Yet he takes all of the benefits negotiated by a union he does not support. Peter would certainly find more homogeneity of beliefs at a religious school, where he would be paid half as much, have to pay for his own health care insurance if any is available, work longer hours, and be required to either agree with the beliefs of the sponsoring church or keep silent.

 Fortunately for the rest of us, if not for Peter, public schools are free to everyone and diversity is their hallmark. Every type of student and parent, from a variety of backgrounds, homes, religions and cultures, is welcome in public schools. Some of these students and parents may believe both abortion and homosexuality are not only acceptable, but inevitable in our shared culture. We can accept that your religious and political beliefs are legitimate and strongly held.

 Peter, can you accept those of us who do not agree with you?

 Becky J. Riggs

Kokomo