AirTalk Blog
AirTalk for Wednesday, December 3
Larry discusses President-Elect Barack Obama’s choice of Bill Richardson for Secretary of Commerce. What do you think of the choice?
Then, Larry discusses bailing out the auto industry. Should Congress give the automakers the money? With what conditions? Let us know your thoughts.
And, before President Bush leaves office, he plans to put into effect a new law which is being referred to as the “Right of Conscience” rule. The new law would expand protections for healthcare workers who refuse to participate in procedures they are morally opposed to. What do you think of the “Right of Conscience” rule?
Finally, Larry talks with Ariel Sabar about his new book, “My Father’s Paradise: A Son’s Search for His Jewish Past in Kurdish Iraq.”
Tools
- December 3, 2008 9:14 AM by Jackie Oclaray
- Comments (27)
- Categories: Business/Economy, Environment, Politics/Public Affairs, Religion/Spirituality, Society/Culture
27 Comments
Why all this talk about race? Richardson is a Latino, Obama is African-American, etc., etc... To get off topic, the vote to oust LAUSD Super Brewer wasn't voted on because of the race of the one person missing. Who cares!
Martin Luther King would be so dissapointed because we care about someone's skin color more than the content of their character.
The only way I'd support a bailout is if GM would reimburse my parents for all the repairs they had to make on their Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme.
Suprisingly, after they switched to a Honda Accord they haven't had that problem. Who knew?
(To blame Detroit's problems solely on the current financial crisis is one of the most laughable things I've ever heard)
As an automotive engineer who has worked for Ford, Visteon (a tier 1 parts supplier) and Honda Research and Development, I am worried that the "strategy" for a turnaround has been mainly focused on business issues like downsizing, selling subsidiaries and workers compensation. There is talk of building more fuel efficient cars but the root of the problem is that Ford, GM and Chrysler are not efficient in the design phase. The most efficient auto makers (Toyota and Honda) need three years to design and build a reliable car. It will take Ford, GM and Chrysler much longer to fix their design process and learn how to build cars that will sell and that are reliable. From a technology standpoint, Honda first commercially produced a variable valve timing motor in the late 80's, Ford, GM and Chrysler are 2 decades behind the competition and a bail-out cannot make up for 20 years of organizational and engineering arrogance. Ford, GM and Chrysler need to stop and rethink everything, not just blame the UAW and the slumping economy.
Come on Larry:
The amount of money put into corporate jets isn't that big--it's analogous to the "welfare mom driving a Cadillac". But don't fall for the argument about the execs time being so valuable. It's just a luxury. The time of the small business person scrambling to make a sale in Oklahoma City who fights for a seat on Southwest is probably more critical.
What about the Oil Companies, with their record breaking, gazillion dollar profits, being the institutions responsible for bailing out the US Automobile Manufacturers? They are each dysfunctional, global mega-systems and industries that have been co-dependent upon each other from the start.
On the one hand, cutting out the corporate jets also costs jobs for the pilots who fly it, the mechanics who maintain it, and the companies who supply it, thus contributing to the economic downturn.
On the other, no one is out of touch these days with Blackberries and other instant communication ports available at the waiting areas of an airport or when using other means of transportation, so an executive's time is never wasted.
- Matt in Mar Vista
I was at the recent L.A. Auto show, and sat in some of the Chrysler products. They all shared something in common: horribly spongy seats and an inability to adjust them, as not enough space was allowed between the seat and door to reach the lever. Such noncompetitive designs have nothing to do with their unionized workers getting too many benefits. Build an intelligent car, and business will improve.
There is no hypocrisy. Polls showed most people were against the TARP and polls show most people oppose a auto bailout. How is that hypocrisy?
What if the US Carmakers are allowed to go into bankruptcy but the government backs all their vehicle warranties? Then they can make huge business plan renovations in bankruptcy court while simultaneously addressing the key issue they worry about, customers shunning a company that can't provide future warranty service?
I am bothered by the word "moral" in this directive. My personal "morality" can be a curtain to cover a host of qualities. For instance, as a health care provider I may choose not to provide care for blacks, or Latinos, or Republicans.
I have been listening intently to the discussion regarding the Auto industry "bail out". One call in comment and response by the speakers made me a little bit angry. The comment made was that the blue collar auto workers were not being baliled out that they would be hurt if there is no "bail out" he compared them to the financial industry bail out...seeming to indicate that the financialworkers in the industry have not suffered. One of the comments was regarding the "college educated financial people" I was laid off by the financial industry in August 2007 due to the mortgage "mess" many, many of my friends have been laid off and have been unable to find jobs. NONE OF US ARE COLLEGE EDUCATED AND NONE OF US WERE/ARE PROTECTED BY A STRONG UNION...OR ANY UNION. We are no different than the auto workers except that we work in an office and make less money than they do with fewer benefits. I am not in favor of hurting auto workers or anyone, I am in favor of the "auto bail out" because I believe that the nation will suffer with out it. But please realize that the mortgage/financial industry has many many many workers who are not college educated who are esentially blue collar workers in the offices.
Regarding right to conscience:
How about refusing to prolong the life of a suffering patient?
Certainly of questionable morality.
This may sound silly, but since this bill is aimed at any health care worker, can this also be applied to such tasks as kitchen workers who might think it is morally objectionable to let an obese child drink a soda or that someone won't take the trash out because they see objectionable reading material in the trash can?
Where does this bill draw the line on what is defined as morally objectionable?
What about not treating people the Doctor finds "morally objectionable", i.e., gay people, etc?
Does the Doctor from the Christian Medical Assn have a position on that?
This is a back door law to prevent legal abortions and legal uses of birth control through the strengthening of bigotry.
What if a nurse refuses to deliver a mixed race baby? What if a paramedic decides that saving the life of an unmarried pregnant mother is immoral? How long is it going to take for the paramedic to find another who does not share the same moral scruples and may care for the injured? Will it be before the patient has died or after?
I have an idea. If you can't meet the requirements of your job, get a new one. Accepting a job is voluntary. No one is being compelled to do anything on the job, because you can always quit. Essentially, Bush and the fundamentalist christians are asking for a free pass to decide which parts of their employment responsibilities they wish to provide and those they do not, without reprocussions. In my experience, if you don't do everything your employer asks, you lose your job, plain and simple.
Dr. David Stevens, please answer the questions Larry asks. Your inability to do so thus far only further discredits your bigoted position.
It seems to me that this is another example of a group attempting to impose their values on others who don't hold the same views. They don't seem to see that their claim of discrimination against their beliefs applies as well to the person who is denied particular, and in some cases vital services. That's discrimination as well.
The proposed regulation applies only to persons or institutions which receive federal funds. There is nothing to prevent physicians who wish to practice medicine according to the dictates of their own conscience from doing so in a setting where federal funds are not used.
There are so many compelling health care needs here and abroad. I'd rather see time, effort, and private funds go into meeting urgent medical needs. Is it a wise use of our scarce resources to push through regulations which will likely be overturned at the earliest opportunity by the next administration?
That's 2 strikes, Dr. Stevens.
Way to NOT answer another question, Dr. Stevens.
Please ask the doctor from the Christian Medical Association about whether or not a medical professional would be able to refuse to treat a gay person?
What about treating a gay person for an std, or for a urological or gynecological problem?
It appears more and more clear that there is place for "Christians" in a civilized society
I grew up in Alabama during the segregation area. Black patients were refused service in 'whites only' hospitals and doctors who believed in the separation of the races out of conscience refused to serve Black patients. Under this "broad definition" of religious conscience these and similar acts would give cover to such 'religious based' attitudes.
Larry -- You let the Christian doctor skate on the question of whether he would treat a gay person or not (Haven't gay people in CA given up enough rights for one year?)
KPCC, and especially this show, has a real homophobic bent that I would like to see you address If KPCC is anti-gay just say it plainly and I'll stop donating. Fair enough?
Why isn't Larry's first hour podcast-able? I am curious to hear the discussions re. Richardson & Big 3 bailout. Please upload the audio quickly.
We should not bail out the Auto industry. They are the result of the same market forces that all manufacturers must deal with, namely, if you don't sell what the customer wants then you're going to have money problems.
GM could make more of the EV1's (1996 Electric Vehicle) in sufficient quantities to take advantage of their Zero Emissions and good performance, only they could allow customers to buy them this time (GM only leased them to take advantage of Government incentives, and after the leases expired, they destroyed the vehicles, even though the majority of EV1 owners wanted to buy them).
The Auto Industry can make good quality, safe vehicles with good performance and very high gas mileage, and electric vehicles that don't resemble phone booths on three wheels, but instead they foist cars on the consumers that have worse gas mileage than we had in the late 1970's, and early 1980's (speaking from experience, not hype).
I believe they will bail out the Auto Industry after they publically flog them, but they will bail them out. The Auto Industry is too powerful and our politicians are too corrupt. Like the song says: "We've got the prettiest White House that money can buy"... "It's business as usual".
I could not believe that you justified the private jets of the automobile CEOs on the basis of the value of their time. If they were so valuable and brillant, their companies would not be on the verge of bankruptcy. They were corporate ostriches with their heads in the sand, refusing to provide products that the public wanted and needed. They should be forced into retirement!
I hope Bill Richardson is an effective Commerce Secretary. If measured against his lackluster terms as Governor of New Mexico--we're in for a rough ride.
I lived in Albuquerque for a few years under his reign and he was never anywhere to be found in the Land of Enchantment. He was too busy promoting himself elsewhere...on the Cable TV Talk Shows in New York City...in Somalia and Darfur...or at presidential campaign events in Iowa or New Hampshire.
As Governor, Richardson was a bully with state lawmakers in Santa Fe and it when it came to delicate and complicated legislative issues...it was always "his way or the highway."
New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the union and Richardson did little, if anything, to create economic opportunities for lower income families...protect health care programs for children...or advise against oil drilling in environmentally sensitive wilderness areas.
He also was always tight-lipped and non-comittal when asked about his stand on cockfighting...which remained legal in New Mexico until a law prohbiting the blood-sport was only passed within the last year. That's after 25 years of unsuccessful attempts to get a bill passed outlawing cockfights over past legislative sessions with Richardson at the helm.
During his recent overblown "year of water" state legislative session (focusing on the rare resource in the arid southwest)...not a single bill dealing with water issues ever surfaced from the statehouse.
Richardson is always applauded in the national media for his latino heritage but ask any hispanic person in New Mexico what he's done for them and they'll laugh in your face. He's done nothing more than drive a wedge between members of the latino community in New Mexico and he always kissed up to the corrupt strongarm NM hispanic leaders who ignored the true needs of their constituents, while padding their own pockets. Just ask Richardson's ol' pal...former state senate leader...and fellow democrat...Manny Aragon who's facing prison time for fixing a courthouse construction contract in Albuquerque for his personal gain.
I am excited about Barack Obama's presidency and I'm looking forward to Bill Richardson's try at the commerce department in this squishy economy...but to use a tired cliche...only time will tell. Meantime...the citizens of New Mexico can breathe a little easier knowing they have a new governor on the way!
Thanks for this opportunity to vent, a little. Steven in Sacramento.
Leave a comment
Please be civil, concise, and on-topic. Notes:Please read our full Terms of Use before posting.