Protesters #occupy ports from Long Beach to Seattle. Budget shortfalls will trigger major cuts, but who will be feeling the most pain? Murals to flower on L.A. walls once again. Supreme Court to take up Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. What words should be banned from the English language?
Occupy movement takes to California's ports
It's a day of action in Long Beach, Oakland, Portland and Seattle. Protesters in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement have coordinated blockades at the ports up and down California's coast. Long Beach had as many as 400 demonstrators march on the Port of Long Beach.
They targeted a dock facility leased by SSA Marine, a shipping company that is partially owned by Goldman Sachs, according to the Associated Press.
The buoyant crowd faced police who threatened to use physical force, tasers and dogs. The situation took a rapid turn when heavy rain poured down. Protesters dispersed. It's unclear whether they will continue.
At the Port of Oakland, an even bigger picket began before dawn. Several hundred people were blocking big rigs from reaching the docks. A spokesman for the port, Robert Bernardo said maritime operations have not been disrupted yet. Some workers at the ports are represented by the International Longshore & Warehouse Union.
Occupy organizers wanted union members on board but the ILWU said, "None of [the shutdowns are] sanctioned by the membership of the ILWU or informed by the local and International leadership."
WEIGH IN:
The union's president, Robert McEllrath, has expressly supported the Occupy Wall Street movement apart from today's actions. Why the divide? What's the reasoning behind blockading west coast ports? Oakland mayor Jean Quan urged protesters to consider the impact on port workers. Is that short-sighted, or does she have a point?
Guests:
Krissy Clark, Los Angeles Bureau Chief, KQED's The California Report
Caitlin Esch, Reporter, KQED
Kristian Foden-Vencil, Reporter Producer, KOPB, Public Radio in Portland
Bryan Buckalew, Reporter, KUOW, Public Radio in Seattle
Budget shortfalls will trigger major cuts, but who will be feeling the most pain?
When Jerry Brown and the legislature passed the state budget last year, they based their numbers on what some Republicans called "overly-optimistic" tax revenue projections. Unfortunately the numbers didn't go in their favor.
According to a recent analysis from the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), revenues rose by $3.7 billion less than the lawmakers projected back in June. But Governor Jerry Brown was adamant about balancing the budget, so a mechanism was inserted in the budget that would trigger billions of dollars in cuts from important services if tax revenues weren't at projected levels.
The language states that the cuts would be triggered only after two different revenue projections were released. The first from the LAO, and the next from the Department of Finance. Whichever report showed higher revenues would be the report that the state would use to trigger the cuts, and determine how deep the cuts would be. That Department of Finance report comes out next week.
The agency's Deputy Director of External Affairs H.D. Palmer says their numbers are sure to be different from those the LAO came up with, because LAO has to finalize their numbers before a critical piece of data comes out from the state Franchise Tax board.
Either way, cuts are on the table, including $100 million apiece for the UC and CSU systems, reducing school funding and a small but significant cut to the state library system.
WEIGH IN:
Just how different will the two revenue projections be? The cuts have to go into effect by the beginning of the year; how much will be cut and who will be the hardest hit?
Guests:
Julie Small, KPCC Reporter
H.D Palmer, Deputy Director of External Affairs, Department of Finance
Murals to flower on LA walls once again
Los Angeles was once a virtual street art gallery, boasting hundreds of works by prominent artists such as Judy Baca, Frank Romero, Shepard Fairey and Saber. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, from Venice to Boyle Heights, city walls and stretches of freeway could be found illustrating themes of the civil-rights movement, anti-Vietnam War activism and Chicano- and black-pride movements.
But for the past ten years, L.A.'s mural artists have had to contend with a poorly written ordinance that deems original outdoor art illegal by lumping it in with commercial signage. This has stymied the street art community and put treasured artworks in jeopardy.
How did this happen in a city once known as the street mural capitol of the world? Call it a bureaucratic collage. In the late '90s, outdoor billboard companies sued the city for restricting street advertising, claiming First Amendment right to commercial speech. The resulting proliferation of billboards and confusion over what constitutes commercial art led to an out-and-out moratorium on murals of all kinds.
As a result, artists and property owners have been fined, over 300 murals have been painted over and cherished older works have been left to vandalizing and graffiti. In 2008, artist Kent Twitchell won a $1.1 million settlement against the U.S. government for painting over his work on a downtown L.A. building. This year, a Valley Village resident was fined $360 by the Building and Safety Department and forced to obliterate a mural she’d commissioned on her fence. Last week Councilman José Huizar announced a new draft ordinance that will allow murals to flourish once again in L.A. Aside from giving artists leeway to again take to the streets, he wants to provide more funding to kickstart new projects.
The ordinance, spearheaded by City Planner and art lover Tanner Blackman, is modeled after one in Portland, Oregon, which aims to protect original works of art by distinguishing them from commercial signage. Among other guidelines, property owners must get a city permit, agree to maintain the work unchanged for five years, and may not accept money for the use of their space.
A mural would be approved if it reached the minimum requirements dictated by the ordinance, and Blackman said he understands nearby residents may have complaints about aesthetic. One regulation requires that muralists hold a community workshop where plans can be discussed. "Although it cannot serve as a veto, we hope it serves as a 'good neighbor' policy to allow people the forum for discussion," Blackman said.
Specifics in the ordinance offer little about limits to the subject matter of a mural. "What we want to do is allow artists to express themselves as freely as possible, within the confinements of the First Amendment" Councilman Huizar said.
However, whether someone can sidestep such limits remains to be seen. "It's kind of a dicey area already," Blackman said. "If I paint my home in zebra stripes – is that a mural or a paint job?"
The City Council hopes the ordinance will put to rest a long-time legal battle and restore beauty to city walls. Street artists and the art community have applauded the move.
WEIGH IN:
Will we see a new generation of muralists beautifying the streets of L.A.? Would you welcome murals in your neighborhood? Can the ordinance prevent the creep of commercialism onto buildings and fences? What defines art, and does it belong on our city walls?
Guest:
José Huizar, City Councilman, 14th District
Tanner Blackman, Los Angeles City Planner
Supreme Court to take up Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070
Today, the Supreme Court announced that it will take up the federal challenge to Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070.
The bill, which was passed by Arizona’s legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, was partially blocked by a federal judge on the eve of its implementation. It has spawned similar laws in other states, requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone pulled over or stopped for an unrelated violation. If one couldn’t prove their legal residency, they would then be detained.
After SB 1070's passage, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in Phoenix against it, citing the federal government’s role as the exclusive enforcer of national immigration laws.
Most of the law was prevented from taking effect by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, which was upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Gov. Brewer appealed to the high court, much to the chagrin of the Obama administration, which is not eager to have such a divisive issue potentially dominate the media during the upcoming election.
The effect such a topic could have politically is uncertain, however. For instance, Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the architect of SB 1070, lost his position after a recall election was petitioned against him. Still, other states besides Arizona enacted similar laws to handle illegal immigration on their own terms and have joined Arizona’s legal fight in the Supreme Court. Thus, whatever decision the Court comes to will have broad repercussions on immigration reform in the near future.
WEIGH IN:
What is the legality of these immigration laws? Are they constitutional or not? Why did the Supreme Court decide to take up the case? Now that the economy has clearly become the number one issue in the upcoming election, how much impact will this have politically? What are your thoughts on how illegal immigration is being handled on the national and state levels?
Guest:
Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State; Constitutional law expert and Former Law Professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC); Former Counsel to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (from 2001-2003, he was the Attorney General's Chief Adviser on immigration law)
Larry Rosenthal, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law
Which words should be banished?
Sarah Palin may stand by "refudiate," but wordsmiths the world over say its use should be repudiated – no matter how "viral" it went. In fact, that made-up word landed on the 2011 List of Banished Words, compiled annually by Lake Superior State University.
"Googling" last year's list reveals other linguistic pet peeves such as "epic," "fail" and "Facebooking." Now, LSSU is accepting new nominations for words and phrases that deserve to be "Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness."
The "back story" on LSSU's popular list began in 1976, when former LSSU Public Relations Director Bill Rabe – father of KPCC's OffRamp host John Rabe – and a group of friends contributed a few expressions they couldn't stand, thereby forming the inaugural list of linguistic shame. After that, the nominations stacked up and Rabe's group, known as "The Unicorn Hunters," had plenty of fodder for future lists.
Thomas Pink, who took over responsibility for the list as new public relations director, said that so far this year, "amazing" has topped other words as most submitted. "It kind of surprised us that it hadn’t made the list in the past, because it's certainly been around a lot," he said.
Many phrases that peeved listeners were ones perhaps unintentionally tacked on to sentences, such as "he/she was like" in place of "he/she said," and "you know." Tom from North Hollywood spoke on air, noting that "you know" had "already been used by several of the people calling in."
Certain words, such as "irregardless," become so commonplace that officials eventually give in and add them to dictionaries. Pink said that "it seems to happen over the years."
So far this year, the nominations include "not gonna lie," "man cave" and "Californicate."
WEIGH IN:
Are there other nonsensical, annoying, or fake political words you'd love to see banned? The deadline to submit them to LSSU for consideration is Dec.15. "Irregardless," AirTalk wants to hear from you today. So "man up" cats and kitties, and share your favorite hated words or phrases right now. "Anchor-babies" anyone? "Just sayin'."
Guest:
Thomas Pink, Director of Public Relations for Lake Superior State University, in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan; LSSU compiles the Banished Words List every year