Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen
AirTalk

AirTalk for August 31, 2011

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at the opening of Camino Nuevo Charter Academy.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at the opening of Camino Nuevo Charter Academy.
(
Antonio Villaraigosa/Flickr (cc by-nc-nd)
)
Listen 1:33:44
Teachers to get first crack at Public School Choice. Doctors want to ban furballs from in-cabin flying. NRA continues to push for expanded 2nd Amendment rights. Are random roommates overrated? Plus, the latest news.
Teachers to get first crack at Public School Choice. Doctors want to ban furballs from in-cabin flying. NRA continues to push for expanded 2nd Amendment rights. Are random roommates overrated? Plus, the latest news.

Teachers to get first crack at Public School Choice. Doctors want to ban furballs from in-cabin flying. NRA continues to push for expanded 2nd Amendment rights. Are random roommates overrated? Plus, the latest news.

Teachers to get first crack at Public School Choice

Listen 23:35
Teachers to get first crack at Public School Choice

The Los Angeles Board of Education unanimously voted to give teachers and administrators, instead of charter groups, first grabs at fixing L.A. Unified school campuses. For the last two years the board had allowed charter operators and other independent groups to take over new campuses before giving those within the district the chance. The board also established a November 1st deadline for teachers and staff to agree to a new collective bargaining agreement. If L.A. Unified and the union can’t reach an agreement, then any organization can vie for the campuses. But teacher union leadership asserts that it is not obligated to accept any conditions set by the district, although they say they’re ready to bargain. This policy change ONLY applies to new campuses; older schools are still wide open to whoever wants to take a crack at them. Board members and the UTLA have both pointed out, however, that charter groups rarely want to bid on existing schools, preferring instead to focus on new campuses. Will the union and the district be able to come to a labor agreement and set this policy in motion? If they do, will charter groups shift their focus to older schools? And, who runs a school better - teachers and school administrators, or charter groups?

Guests:

Warren Fletcher, President, United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)

John Deasy, Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District

Jed Wallace, President and CEO of the California Charter Schools Association

Mayor requests special jobs rules for LA

Listen 7:11
Mayor requests special jobs rules for LA

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants local workers to fill the 166,000 future jobs expected to open from federally funded, regional transportation projects. But federal rules forbid local hiring preferences on publicly funded transportation projects. The mayor wants to change that rule and sent MTA board member, Richard Katz to DC to make this proposal. Federal law says that all U.S. taxpayers pay for such projects and should be given an equal opportunity to be hired. With the election year quickly coming up and a stale economy slowing down employment, lawmakers may be willing to give California special treatment. The state’s unemployment rate of 12% is the second highest in the nation. And it’s higher in Los Angeles County, at a stubborn 13%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The U.S. Department of Transportation said it would work with Congress to promote rules that will encourage local hiring. Still, some big business groups contend that it’s an unfair initiative on the mayor’s part. The question remains – should such projects prefer local hires? Is it fair, even though 30% of funds come from U.S. tax dollars? How does this affect you?

Guest:

Richard Katz, a mayoral appointee to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board. He traveled recently to Washington, DC to pitch Villaraigosa’s jobs proposal.

Doctors want to ban furballs from in-cabin flying

Listen 15:50
Doctors want to ban furballs from in-cabin flying

Earlier this week, a woman at LAX was caught trying to smuggle rare birds onto a flight by stuffing them into socks, then taping them underneath her clothes. You don't have to go to such extremes to take your cat or dog on board, but some doctors in Canada want that to change. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is calling for a ban on all pets travelling inside aircraft cabins on all Canadian airliners. At the CMA annual general meeting last week, seventy-five percent of delegates voted in favor of the motion. It states that in-cabin pet travel "exposes many travelers to allergens that can make their journey uncomfortable, painful, and even dangerous." It goes on to explain that the World Health Organization categorizes allergies as a disability. The CMA argues airlines should be forced to accommodate for that disability. It makes an exception for service animals, such as seeing-eye dogs, but otherwise insists Fluffy and Fido belong in the cargo hold. This isn't the first time the issue has been debated in Canada. Its largest carrier, Air Canada, banned pets from cabins in 2006, but later reversed the decision, they say, because of customer demand. What do you think of flying pets in the cabin versus the cargo hold? Have you ever experienced a bad allergy attack on a flight? If allergies are indeed a disability, who should have to accommodate for it? Have you ever booked a flight for your furball on Pet Airways -- an airline dedicated to flying pets and only pets? How good or bad are airlines at making happy companions out of two-legged and four-legged travelers?

Guest:

Dr. Mark Schonfeld, M.D., CEO, British Columbia Medical Association; Mover of the Motion at the CMA Annual General Council

NRA pushes for expanded 2nd Amendment rights

Listen 30:19
NRA pushes for expanded 2nd Amendment rights

Three years ago, the Supreme Court angered gun control advocates when it overturned Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns. Their ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller established that the 2nd Amendment provides an “individual right” to possess guns in the home for self-defense; two years later, a similar case in Chicago led them to extend the ruling nationwide. Since then, over 400 legal challenges have been filed, as gun owners and across America seek the right to carry concealed firearms in public as well; nearly all have been rejected by courts at the state level. Here in California, Peruta v. County of San Diego unsuccessfully sought to allow gun owners to obtain “concealed carry,” or CCW, permits in the name of self-protection; that case is currently under appeal. Now, the National Rifle Association is asking the Supreme Court to hear two cases that would fire up the debate once again. In Maryland, one man is challenging his conviction for having a legally acquired gun in a bag in his car as he was driving home from his girlfriend’s house. And a Virginia man is appealing his one-year sentence for having a loaded weapon in his car while he slept in a national park; since he frequently travels for work and has to sleep in his car, he claims he needs the gun for safety. The NRA is asking the Supreme Court to take up the issue in order to correct what they say is a “widespread misapprehension that the 2nd Amendment’s scope does not extend beyond the home.” Does the “right to keep and bear arms” apply only at home? Should law-abiding, upstanding citizens with permitted weapons be allowed to take them to work, to the store, on road trips? Who should be allowed CCW permits, and under what conditions? Are our courts protecting us or endangering us by restricting legal handgun use?

Guests:

Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and co-author of their recent report, Hollow Victory

Alan Gottlieb, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation

Are random roommates overrated?

Listen 16:44
Are random roommates overrated?

Who can forget that moment when you dropped your boxes at the door and shook hands with the person that – for good or ill – would be sharing a tiny square box with you for at least a semester? In many cases our college roommates opened our eyes to a viewpoint or perspective that was wholly different from our own. In many other cases we angrily complained to campus housing (and anyone else who would listen) about the slob-like behavior or late night carousing of the person we were forced to share a room with. But today’s freshmen may not get that chance. More and more colleges are depending on online systems and social media to allow students to choose who they’ll room with. At schools that don’t offer housing choice, kids can still go online, check out their potential roommate and start complaining to the housing office if they don’t like what they see. The Association of College and University Housing Officers International says roommate selection cuts down on conflict and frees up housing personnel, but does it also rob kids of an important rite of passage? Studies have shown that students who have a roommate from a different ethnic background become more open-minded about race. If kids choose, will they choose someone just like them and miss out on the opportunity to broaden their horizons? On the other hand, when roommates can find no middle ground there’s a chance real harm can come to one of them, as in the case of gay Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, who jumped to his death after his roommate videotaped him having a sexual encounter with another young man. Clementi had asked for a transfer from university housing, but was waiting for it to be granted. And what about YOUR experience with your own college roommate? What was the experience like for you?

Guest:

Alma Sealine, President of the Association of College and University Housing Officers-International (ACUHO-I); Director of Housing at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH