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


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?


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

Philippine president wants to cut ties with US, should LAUSD permit after-school Satan club & TGI-FilmWeek!

Philippine President Duterte announced that he wants to sever ties with the U.S. – but what, exactly, does that mean?; potential flooding could spell bad news for L.A. River restoration plans; LAUSD rejected an after-school Satan club in an elementary school – was this the right decision?; plus, Larry and KPCC film critics review ‘Jack Reacher,’ ‘Moonlight’ and more. TGI-FilmWeek!

The final presidential debate, Prop 60's controversy over condoms & a window into Jewish humor

We dive into analysis of the third and final presidential debate - the candidates who began the evening without a handshake were asked about SCOTUS, immigration reform, their latest campaign scandals, and more - and what exactly did Trump mean about Florida?; the controversy over Prop 60's mandate to use condoms in adult films; and a chat with KQED's FORUM host Michael Krasny, a veteran of Jewish wit and humor.

Should police be on school campuses, the fight against robocalls & how Ang Lee's movie-making experiment might change cinema

According to a new ACLU study, many CA school districts outsource disciplinary action to police, to negative effect – is there value to police presence on campus?; we check in with LAPD Chief Beck on reforms and transparency demands; the latest on the FCC’s task force to fight robocalls; and Ang Lee's new film was shot at 120 frames-per-second - what that means for movie storytelling.

Browse the AirTalk Archives

    Enjoy AirTalk? Try KPCC’s other programs.