Today on AirTalk we'll look back on the George W. Bush legacy on the opening of his new library. We'll also explore the ways that American mosques deal with radicalized members and look at a Florida law that may limit alimony payments. Later, we'll discuss the process of sign-cutting as it relates to immigration, remember the Armenian genocide, and speak with author Adam Grant about his book on success, "Give and Take."
The legacy of George W. Bush: How our view of a president changes after he retires
Former president George W. Bush is stepping back into the public eye after spending nearly all of his retirement avoiding media scrutiny. The Bush Presidential Library opens tomorrow in Dallas and both Democrats and Republicans are taking the opportunity to reflect on the legacy of the Bush presidency.
A Washington Post poll taken just days ago shows the former president's approval rating hitting 47 percent, way up from the 33 percent Bush had when leaving office. Has the Bush legacy rebounded only five years after he left office? How does that compare to past presidents?
Does the way a former president spends their retirement change how we view them?
Guest:
Julian Zelizer, Professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University; he is the author of many books on American political history, including the editor of "The Presidency of George W. Bush: A First Historical Assessment" (Princeton University Press, 2010)
How do mosques deal with radicalized members?
FBI agents have begun questioning members of the mosque that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the suspected mastermind of the Boston Marathon bombing, attended and where he disrupted services on two occasions.
Leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center told the Los Angeles Times that Tsarnaev visited the mosque only occasionally and didn’t believe the outbursts constituted enough evidence that he had become “radicalized.” Members of the congregation did tell Tsarnaev that he would be ejected if he interrupted services again.
"It's really rare for someone to stand up and shout, it sort of breaks protocol is somebody interrupts the sermon, so it is something that will leave a mark in people's memories," said Edina Lekovic, Director of Policy and Programming at the Muslim Public Affairs Council. "That kind of outward protest rarely happens, but it's a major indicator of where somebody is coming from, and that's by and large what we've see in American mosques that they have rejected extremists and have reported suspicious characters since 9/11."
Lekovic says that 40 percent of all terrorist plots thwarted since 9/11 have been the result of Muslim community tipping law enforcement off to suspicious activity. It is clear that American Imams have a unique advantage when it comes to flagging possible Muslim extremism, but it's difficult to tell whether someone's criticisms will equal violent act.
"The challenge is, is this a person who is theologically militant or is this a person who is militant, meaning they are violent?" said Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, Religious Leader of Orange County Islamic Foundation in Mission Viejo. "As an Imam, I would have to make that assessment. What is not tolerated in our mosques is the whole idea of insinuating, suggesting, implying suggestions of violence, there is a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to this.
How do mosque leaders detect an inclination toward “radicalization” in their members? What is the definition of “radicalization”? What procedures are in place to deal with such members?
Guests:
Edina Lekovic, Director of Policy and Programming at the Muslim Public Affairs Council
Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, the Religious Leader of Orange County Islamic Foundation in Mission Viejo; Director of the Mental Health Department at Access California Social Services
Florida law seeks to limit spousal support
Lawmakers in Florida have passed a law to cap amounts and duration of alimony payments. Governor Rick Scott could still choose to veto the controversial bill. Proponents frame it as a retirement issue. They say too many breadwinners find themselves on fixed income while paying former spouses who receive social security.
Opponents say the bill would make stay-at-home parenting impossible. As the Associated Press details, "[The legislation] would make it harder to get alimony in short-term marriages and would generally prevent alimony payments from lasting longer than one-half of the length of the marriage.The bill defines a short-term marriage as less than 11 years, in which there's an assumption that alimony would not be awarded. If alimony is granted, it would not be more than 25 percent of the ex-spouse's gross income.
For failed marriages between 11 and 20 years, there's no assumption either way, but alimony would not amount to more than 35 percent of the ex-spouse's gross income. And in long-term marriages, those longer 20 years, there would be an assumption in favor of alimony, though not more than 38 percent of an ex-spouse's gross income." In California, most of this is up to the judge's discretion. For marriages longer than 10 years, orders for spousal support are indefinite in nature. Once a payerr retires, s/he must file a motion and request the court reduce or stop support.
Is Florida heading in the right or wrong direction on this issue? With more Americans facing retirement, should there be a new policy discussion of long-term spousal support? What could be the unintended consequences of such a bill? Is it anti-family by dissuading stay-at-home parenting?
Guests:
David Pisarra, Divorce Attorney, Mensfamilylaw.com (based in Santa Monica)
Paul Nathan, Law offices of Paul Nathan (based in San Francisco)
Paths to permanent citizenship for immigrants may hinge on the art of 'sign-cutting'
If you’ve never heard of “sign-cutting,” don’t feel bad. The term refers to the art of tracking people by looking for signs that they’ve passed through an area...a footstep in the sand, a broken tree branch, a discarded apple core. The practice has become an important tool for border patrol agents on the U.S.-Mexico border who are tasked with tracking down those attempting to cross illegally and thwart their effort to immigrate. Now it’s been written into the proposed immigration reform legislation as the only accepted mode of measuring the success rate of border patrol’s efforts.
The legislation says that for the paths to permanent citizenship to open up to those hoping to officially become U.S. citizens, 90 percent of attempts to illegally cross the border into the United States must be stopped. Sign-cutters will be responsible for those counts, thus elevating an art to a science.
With all the technology available today, isn’t it strange that such important, life-changing legislation will hinge on how someone reads a set of footprints? Could this requirement give immigration reforms critics an easy loophole to kill the legislation?
Guest:
Ted Alden, senior fellow at the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations in Washington D.C., where he focuses on immigration policy
Recognizing the Armenian genocide
Today, Wednesday April 24th, marks the annual remembrance day for the estimated 1.5 million Armenians who died in the former Ottoman Empire, present day Turkey.
President Obama's official statement for Armenian Remembrance Day did not include the word "genocide" despite a 2008 campaign promise to recognize the deaths of Armenians as such. "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides," Obama said in 2008. "I intend to be that president."
Several California legislators including Rep. Brad Sherman and Rep. Adam Schiff called on Obama to use the word "genocide" but so far the White House has resisted.
Why is using the term genocide still a politically touchy subject? Is the US concerned about preserving its strategic relationship with Turkey? What would be the political fallout if the President did use the term genocide? How is this omission seen by the local Armenian and Turkish communities?
Guest:
Steven Cook, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
How successful people become successful
In his book “Give and Take,” Adam Grant explores the different ways people rise through the ranks on their way to extreme success. Can you be a giver without being a doormat? Is it better to take anything you can without returning favors, or to “match” those who give you help?
Grant discusses how some of the most famous networkers and creative geniuses personalities helped them reach the top of their fields. Are you a giver? A taker? A matcher? What’s the best way to rise to the top?
Guest:
Adam Grant, author of “Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success” and tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business