AirTalk

Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more. Hosted by Larry Mantle

AirTalk for

AirTalk for August 29, 2011

From This Episode

1

Could initiative reform destroy direct democracy?

California Democrats are pushing several bills that would make the initiative process more difficult. Among them are proposals that would raise the filing fees for initiatives, require signature gatherers to wear badges showing whether or not they’re paid, and one that would list the largest donors to any initiative in the voter information guide. Democrats say these new rules will make the initiative process more transparent. According to them big-money interests have hijacked the process in recent years and passed laws that have put untenable restraints on lawmakers. According to state Senator Mark DeSaulnier, one of the major backers of the bills, legislators are hamstrung by initiatives that earmark state funds for expensive projects and programs while making it difficult to raise taxes. Detractors aren’t having it. They say the democrat’s reform bills are nothing more than an attempt to destroy direct democracy in the state. Both parties have benefited from the initiative process over the years, but initiative experts say the new proposals would have a greater impact on republicans. It’s unclear whether or not the bills can pass. Some of them may need republican support to do so and that’s unlikely. It’s also unclear whether or not Governor Jerry Brown will sign any of these bills into law. He’s long been a supporter of initiatives and recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed paying signature gatherers. Is the initiative process out of control? Or just working for the wrong side according to the majority democrats in the legislature? Do any of these bills stand a chance? Will they reform the initiative process and make it more transparent or destroy it and dismantle the most direct route voters have to democracy?

2
3
4

Biden on China’s one-child-policy – gaffe or diplomacy?

Vice President Joe Biden has stirred up controversy again over something he said, which, his spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff asserts, he didn’t really mean to say. On August 21st Biden was in China giving a speech to Chinese leaders. In response to a question about that nation’s one-child policy, the V.P. said, “Your policy has been one which I fully understand—I'm not second-guessing.” He then added that the policy was economically unsustainable. On Tuesday, Mitt Romney’s camp issued a statement saying that “Biden should have condemned it in the strongest possible terms. There can be no defense of a government that engages in compulsory sterilization and forced abortions in the name of population control.” In response to the criticism, Biden’s office issued its own statement, “The Obama administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The Vice President believes such practices are repugnant.” But this hasn’t stopped the GOP from blasting Biden for supporting China’s “gruesome and barbaric” one-child policy, which was adopted 30 years ago. China’s policy limits most couples to one child, with exceptions made for rural families and for couples whose first child is a girl. Many couples willingly follow the rule, but coercion is common. And couples who break the law face fines or joblessness. Whether Biden supports the policy or not, the kerfuffle begs many questions. Do lawmakers routinely say one thing in one country, and something else altogether upon returning home? Is that diplomacy or duplicity? If Biden does support or “understand” China’s policy, is it right or wrong for him to say so? And moral questions aside, is China’s policy economically unsustainable?

Recent Episodes from AirTalk

Russian doping scandal, do warning labels matter & TGI-FilmWeek!

A new report reveals that Russian officials were systematically doping over 1,000 athletes for the Olympic Games; the latest on the impeachment of South Korea’s president; 30 years later, we revisit CA’s warning labels – do they actually make a difference?; plus, Larry and KPCC film critics review ‘La La Land,’ ‘Office Christmas Party’ and other recent movie releases. TGI-FilmWeek!

How to label attacks against police officers, LA to sue big-name retailers & a closer look at the life of Pope Francis

A new bill calls for attacks against law enforcement to be under the purview of California's hate crime statute; the Los Angeles city attorney's office is expected to file suit against Macy's, Sears, Kohl's and J.C. Penney for false reference pricing in their marketing strategies; Mark Shriver's intimate portrayal of Pope Francis in his latest book; and more.

Latest Trump tweets go viral, Pentagon report finds $125 billion in waste & living inside of Facebook bubbles

After President-elect Donald Trump tweeted about the cost of Air Force One, Boeing's stock went down as much as 1 percent - we take a look at how journalists and news outlets should report on the future president's Twitter platform; the Pentagon killed an internal report that found $125 billion in administrative waste; bursting through Facebook bubbles in a heated and contentious election cycle; and more.

Mutiny among Electoral College members, the future of grocery shopping with Amazon Go & tech-privacy vs. counterterrorism

Intense debates have sparked among the 538 members of the Electoral College, who are set to cast their votes on December 19 - are they bound to support their state's candidate, or should they be free to vote their conscience?; Amazon launches a new market shopping experience without cash registers or lines; and we take a look at how counterterrorism efforts continue to impact personal privacy and tech concerns one year after the San Bernardino shooting.

Browse the AirTalk Archives

    Enjoy AirTalk? Try KPCC’s other programs.