Today on AirTalk we'll take a look at County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's decision not to run for L.A. City Mayor, a new report which claims that 40 percent of all food in the US is thrown away, the groundswell of support to revamp California's environmental laws, whether or not dad's have the proverbial "biological clock" as well, if sleeplessness differs between ethnic groups and a conversation with Catherine Hakim about her new book; The New Rules: Internet Dating, Playfairs and Erotic Power. Plus, the latest news
Zev Yaroslavsky is out of LA Mayor’s race, and plans to leave politics
Officially, he’s Supervisor Yaroslavsky, holding one of the most powerful positions in local government. But you probably know him simply as Zev.
He’s been the silent candidate in the Los Angeles mayor’s race — with nearly 40 years of experience between his time in the City Council and on LA County’s Board of Supervisors, he might have upended every other campaign.
But as Zev announced on his blog today, he will not throw his name in the hat. “Four decades is long enough for any citizen to hold elective office,” Yaraoslavsky said in a statement. He plans to leave the political arena when his term at Supervisor is up in December, 2014.
Zev explains his decision on AirTalk:
On the decision not to run:
"I've been doing this job as an elected official ... for over 37.5 years. It was a close call for me because I care about the city and I thought I could bring my talents and expertise to help turn the city's fortunes around – I think the city has a lot of challenges but a lot of opportunities. But at the end of the day, I was pulled in the other direction. I don't want to be doing this for eight more years. I don't want to be doing this until I'm 73-years-old."
On how his family factored into the decision:
"It's an entirely personal decision. I have a new granddaughter up north; every time I go see her I feel very guilty about leaving my post. I think when I retire from elected office in 2014, it will be close to 40 years, and I think four decades is enough for any official to serve."
On what he's going to miss:
"I'm not sure I'm going to miss anything, to be honest with you. In life, you change jobs, you change careers, you retire ... and you move on."
On his plans for the future:
"I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about exactly what I'm going to do. I want to write, I may want to teach – I certainly will be involved in the body of politic in the city of Los Angeles in some fashion – but I'll do it as a citizen, and not as a politician, not as an elected official."
On how politics don't consume his whole life:
"It's hard for people to understand this, especially in the political class, but my life doesn't revolve around coveting the next office. I've only held two offices in 37 years ... I've been very fulfilled and very gratified by the opportunities that I've been given by the people who elected me."
On how his lifestyle will change:
"I don't know. I'm a 'type A' personality, I've burned the candle at both ends, I haven't had a legitimate vacation of more than five days in 25 years. I thrive on this and I love it, but I'm at the point where I can say honestly to myself and to my constituents that come December 2nd, 2014, I will have had enough and I want to do some other things."
On the difficulty of the coming mayoral election and its impact on his decision:
"Obviously no election is a slam dunk, but I don't think anybody would argue ... that I certainly was right in believing I had as good a shot as anybody winning that election."
On how the length of the term was an issue:
"It wasn't about the election. It was about doing it for eight more years. Mayor of Los Angeles — mayor of any big city — is a very high-stress job, not all of it productive, but all of it stress. Doing that till I'm 73 years old, then what? I don’t want to regret in 2021 the things that I didn't do."
On whether or not health reasons influenced his decision:
"Absolutely no health reasons. I did one of my fastest four mile runs this morning. I'm watching my health very carefully. I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes about 12 years ago, and that's well under control."
On whether or not he'll endorse someone in the mayor's race:
"I have not given that any thought. It's obviously too early for me to even think about that, but I know them all. They're all good people ... I'll talk to all of them. I heard from a couple of them already this morning, and I'll try to be as much help in giving them my unsolicited advice as possible. I've never played that game of exacting concessions in exchange for an endorsement. First of all, I don't think that endorsements are all that they're cracked up to be. I think people vote for the candidate and they're a lot less influenced by the people who support them than most of us think they are."
On the issues the next mayor will have to face:
"I'm going to be an advocate with all of them on the issues that I think are important. I think transportation in the city of Los Angeles is the critical issue. Extending the subway to the West Los Angeles Veteran's Administration is long overdue ... The next mayor needs to be unambiguously committed to the extension of that subway and the other regional transportation projects. I would hope that every candidate endorses Measure J on the ballot this November, which would extend the half cent sales tax."
WEIGH IN:
What’s Yaroslavksy’s legacy in LA? What does this mean for the mayoral race? And can the man who entered politics at age 26 really step away?
Guest:
Zev Yaroslavsky, Los Angeles County Supervisor representing the Third District, which comprises much of the City of Los Angeles, including the San Fernando Valley, Hollywood and Los Feliz, the Wilshire corridor, and West Los Angeles; the cities of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Malibu, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Westlake Village and San Fernando; and unincorporated areas including Topanga and the Santa Monica Mountains
Land of plenty, home of the waste
Looked in the fridge lately? Are molds gathering on last week’s Fettuccine Alfredo or slime lurking on that heirloom lettuce?
A new report says 40 percent of food in the United States is thrown away. The Natural Resources Defense Council report says edible waste amounts to $165 billion in waste annually and is stressing natural resources. The biggest offender is the home consumer. The study shows that American families throw out 25 percent of food and drinks they buy and cheap, abundant food is blamed for the caviler tossing of edibles.
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s Food Scrap Management program reports: “Californians throw away nearly 6 million tons of food scraps each year. Rather than throwing away excess food, manage it through source reduction, feeding people, feeding animals, industrial uses, and composting for soil restoration.”
What can be done to curb food waste? How can consumers change habits to decrease waste? Will rising food prices solve the problem on its own?
Guests:
Jonathan Kaplan, Senior Policy Specialist, National Resources Defense Council. He supervises Dana Gunders who authored the report.
Diana Rivera, waste management specialist for CalRecycle, a state agency that has authority over solid waste in California
Is it time to scale back California’s environmental law?
Sacramento is abuzz this week over what not might at first seem like a sexy subject: the state’s environmental regulation. Just after the EPA was created forty two years ago, California passed the most stringent state law to safeguard the environment.
The California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA as it’s commonly called, intentionally slows developers down. New projects must disclose the impacts they’ll have — like noise, pollution, and traffic—and take steps to mitigate those negative effects. Now, business groups say the law, while well-intentioned, is out of date. The state has passed over 100 environmental statutes since the ‘70s and CEQA is no longer needed.
President and CEO of the LA Chamber of Commerce, Gary Toebben, supports changing CEQA and says that it has allowed businesses to become common targets of non-environmental lawsuits.
“This legislation does not lower any environmental standards in our state and it does not exempt any projects from these environmental standards,” Toebben said. He explained that the bill would only stop people from abusing CEQA for their own gains.
Those who support changing CEQA often complain that the rules are too complex. The regulation costs money and jobs, and contributes to the sense that California is hostile to business.
But, environmental groups counter, this is a cheap attempt to use the bad economy as an excuse to save money and time at the cost of average citizens. Lawmakers have been waiting to see whether a bill would be introduced that could be passed quickly, before the state legislature adjourns, August 31.
State Senator Michael Rubio complied Wednesday night, turning his bill about King River fisheries into an echo of the talking points that have been circulating the capital.
Opponents to the change, like the senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, David Pettit believe that by affecting CEQA’s mitigation process, the bill proposed by Senator Rubio, SB 317, would only weaken the states environmental policies.
“The proposals would gut CEQA. It would cut the heart out of CEQA. The desire to eliminate lawsuits for non-environmental reasons...[the] Rubio proposal has nothing to do with that,” Pettit said, “If that’s a change people wanted it, it’s easily done and it can be done in a regular session with committee hearings and not rushed through at the last minute.”
He point out CEQA’s mitigation requirement was much more stringent than any other state or federal law, and empowers people to take on developers in their area who may be responsible for such things as increased air pollution.
But Toebben was vehement that Pettit had entirely misread and misunderstood SB 317 bill.
“The thing about this law...is if [environmental policy is] covered in any other part of the law [that] the legislators or local city council members have written, it will still be covered,” Toebben said. “It will not allow people to file frivolous lawsuits that have nothing to do with the environment.”
Ideas that companies when approaching development projects would operate as if by a “checklist,” focusing on local and zoning laws without considering bi-products of development like air quality was a “bogus claim,” he said.
Pettit acknowledged that abuses can and do occur — although he claims they are rare — when it comes to CEQA, but that such abuses occur in all realms of the law.
Weigh In:
Would this proposal streamline or gut the landmark law? What do you think? Is it time to scale back environmental regulation? And if so, does it need to happen right away? Or should our state representatives wait until next term?
Guests:
David Pettit, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council; supported speeding up CEQA requirements for LA football stadium project; but opposes current efforts to change the law
Gary Toebben, President and CEO of the LA Chamber of Commerce; member of the CEQA Working Group which is pushing for changes
Dads have a biological clock too
A team of researchers in Iceland has made a genetic discovery that could have major implications for older dads. Those who become fathers later in life, they say, pass on genetic mutations to their children at nearly double the rate of younger dads.
The child of a 20-year-old dad has 25 random mutations that can be traced to his father, while the child of a father in his forties can have up to 65. By contrast, women of any age pass on around 15. While most of the mutations were insignificant, the researchers did link them to an increased likelihood of diseases such as autism and schizophrenia.
Out of the 78 father/mother/child genomes sequenced, over half of the children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and 21 with schizophrenia. In fact, the figures indicate that increased rates of autism over recent decades could account for 20 to 30 percent of autism cases.
Guest:
Kári Stefánsson, M.D., co-founder and CEO of deCODE genetics Inc., and senior author on the study
Arthur Caplan, Professor of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center
Lost sleep may be linked to racial differences
The correlation between sleep quality and overall health has long been known; lack of shut-eye has been shown to contribute to health problems such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure. More recently, sleep researchers have also seen a disparity in quality and quantity of sleep among different racial and ethnic groups.
Several studies have found that minorities are more likely to have unhealthy sleep patterns such as taking longer to fall asleep, shorter sleep times and more interrupted sleep. In fact, one study found that on average, black men slept 82 minutes less a night than white women. And while Mexican immigrants seem to sleep well, their U.S.-born children are much more likely to toss and turn.
Why the differences? Social scientists point to factors such as higher poverty rates, greater concentration of minorities and immigrants in inner cities, stress resulting from unemployment, multiple jobs and odd work hours. Cultural differences, too, play a part: children of blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have regularly enforced bedtimes and routines than white children, which researchers say translates into less classroom success.
How to break this cycle of social, educational and economic disadvantage? Should public health policy put more emphasis on healthy sleep?
Guests:
Lauren Hale, Ph.D. , associate professor of preventive medicine, Stonybrook University Graduate Program in Public Health
Michael Grandner, PhD., University of Pennsylvania Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology
Having your marriage and cheating on it too
It’s the stuff of daytime soaps, country music lyrics and French cinema, and it usually ends badly. There’s no good way to cheat on your spouse, is there?
Not true, says controversial sociologist Catherine Hakim. In a recent op-ed in The Telegraph, Hakim says that a “playfair,” with clearly defined rules and zero expectations that either partner will leave their spouse, is perfectly okay. In fact, she writes, it can be a healthy outlet for unmet expectations of intimacy at home - as long as everyone understands the parameters.
Just as the pill freed both men and women to break long-held taboos against premarital sex, the internet has changed the concept of dating for both singles and the well-hitched. Married people can now meet others who are outside their social circle and out for a fling, giving them ample opportunity to quietly arrange for a matinee or a weekend away. Other countries are way ahead of Britain and the U.S. in this respect, says Hakim. Nordic countries embrace “parallel relationships,” French couples accept that “adventures” are a part of married life. But are U.S attitudes towards l’affair shifting?
Hakim joined AirTalk to discuss her controversial ideas, shedding some light on her findings and conclusions.
“I noticed there have sprung up a whole variety of websites dedicated to marital dating,” she explained, referring to the sites dedicated to the “playfairs” she discusses in her soon-to-be-released book, The New Rules: Internet Dating, Playfairs and Erotic Power. “I was interested in exploring why this has happened, why there are so many new websites, who are the people who go down this road, what happens when they go down this road.”
Some online dating sites now cater to married men and women who are strictly in the market for a dalliance. And Hakim says the “security, anonymity, and discretion” of the internet is making such extramarital affairs all the more appealing -- users meet partners without risking being caught or hurting loved ones.
“Before people would only meet colleagues at work, in the neighborhood, family, et cetera, and of course, affairs in that context would be disastrous because people would notice. But through the websites people are meeting complete strangers,” Hakim explained. “They make sure the people they are going to meet are not going to be people related or connected to them in any way. … These tend to be affairs that are kept discreet, that don’t affect the main marital relationship and in many cases solve problems of marital relations gone sour, sex-starved marriages, or celibate marriages.”
On the phones and online listeners seemed to overwhelming disagree with Hakim. One user, Kat Lilore said wrote:
“I'm bothered by the lack of a third option to the two implied premises of: find extramarital relief so as to stay in an unhappy marriage, or ultimately leave. How about working on the marriage? Ostensibly you chose your partner because they satisfied you and you they; if things have soured or dulled, communication & effort would seem the prescription...”
However, there were individuals who said they had experienced the positive effects of extramarital affairs.
One man detailed how he had been the “other person” in the relationship, and in the end, it was only about mutual satisfaction -- the woman always returned to her husband and children. However, he admitted he may not be so keen on the idea if he had been the one cheated on.
Hakim says she is not proposing there is a more “progressive” idea of marriage, only that there are two models -- an Anglo-Saxon model based on absolute fidelity, and the continental European idea of possible infidelity and forgiveness because marriage is based on longevity and responsibility, not solely sex.
“The people who go on these websites are not seeing [marriage counselors],” she said. “They are people who define their marriage as happy and contented and working very well. They wouldn’t dream of turning up in the offices of counselors.
Weigh In:
Some online dating sites now cater to married men and women who are strictly in the market for a dalliance. Is having an affair an acceptable way to “fill in the blanks” in a marriage that has outlived its sexual vitality? Could you accept your spouse having a bit on the side, if it meant you could do the same? Have you explored the idea yourself?
Guest:
Catherine Hakim, author of the forthcoming book The New Rules: Internet Dating, Playfairs and Erotic Power (Gibson Square Books); social scientist at the Centre for Policy Studies and author of numerous books, including Erotic Capital: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and in the Bedroom (Basic Books)