Charlie Beck says let ‘em drive. Should birth control pills be available over-the-counter? Final GOP face-off before Super Tuesday. Heartland leaker comes clean, stirs ethical debate. What is the state of white America?
Police Chief Beck: Let undocumented immigrants drive
Should undocumented immigrants be given an opportunity to obtain driver’s licenses in California? Absolutely, said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, who announced Wednesday that he’s proposing that California institute a policy for allowing non-resident drivers to obtain provisional driver’s licenses. Beck said the move will not only make roads safer and decrease the number of hit-and-run accidents, but will also help police identify people they come into contact with on California roads. Beck’s predecessor, former Chief William J. Bratton, also voiced support for the idea.
Beck held a press conference today not to campaign for the licenses, but to defend the comments reported in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday regarding the issue. KPCC’s Ruxandra Guidi was on hand at the conference and said that Beck’s main point was that having a cadre of unlicensed and unregistered drivers on the roads is an endangerment to society.
He also cited similar policies already in place in Utah and Washington that allow undocumented people to obtain a provisional license that allows them to drive, but that bars them from using it to obtain other benefits. The policy in those states has decreased the cost of traffic police there and it has allowed police to keep better track of who’s on the roads.
Some critics of Beck’s move question whether or not this is simply a politically motivated maneuver aimed at getting on the good side of Latino population. While KPCC reporter Frank Stoltze acknowledged that politically “it’s not necessarily a bad move” for Beck, he went on to say that Beck’s main motivation is from a purely public safety point of view.
“There’s a problem with folks that are involved with hit and run accidents. Many of those people, according to Beck, are people who are unlicensed drivers and undocumented,” said Stoltze. “If you require them to get a license you are requiring them to have the training. You end up with more skilled undocumented drivers.”
While it is estimated that there are tens of thousands of unlicensed undocumented drivers on the roads, it’s impossible to know the actual number. According to a recent Automobile Association of America Foundation for Traffic Safety study, five percent of drivers involved in fatal accidents were unlicensed and 18 percent of fatal accidents involved unlicensed or invalidly licensed.
“This is a chief who comes from the old LAPD which is a relatively conservative organization, who over time has changed his thinking about a whole variety of issues,” said Stoltze. “He is interested in taking what he considers is a more practical approach to all of these unlicensed undocumented drivers.”
Some critics of Beck’s policy are uncomfortable with the idea of rewarding people who are in the country illegally with the gift of legal driving status and the additional perks that a driver’s license can provide.
At the press conference, Beck insisted that giving licenses to undocumented drivers would be the opposite of rewarding, because requiring them to be licensed means they’d have to register their car, get insured and follow the law.
From the phones:
Being involved with an unlicensed and uninsured driver can be a hefty financial burden. Caller Whitney from El Monte had a personal experience with being the victim of such an accident. “I was hit by an undocumented person at one time. Fortunately I had uninsured motorist coverage, but I had zero financial recourse on that issue to collect any kind of damages, I was stuck paying the bill and there was nothing I could do about it.”
Some critics argue that Beck’s policy would be seen as rewarding people who enter the country illegally. Whitney agrees: “From a police chief perspective, it’s simple, give us a way to track people so when something does happen we can figure out who’s at fault, people pay their taxes, people register their vehicles,” she said. “From a political and a personal standpoint, it’s very unsavory. I don’t like the idea of these undocumented immigrants being able to have the privilege of driving on the road.”
Caller Joe from Echo Park, a 30-year resident of the city who is an undocumented immigrant originally from South America, offers a different perspective. “I would get a license if I could. I would go tomorrow and get it, because I have to drive, regardless of to go to work or run errands. I am forced to do it without a license, not because I want to, but because I have to,” he says. “I don’t see why they are making it into an anti-immigrant situation to forbid us from something we want to do and need to do. “
WEIGH IN:
Do you think the roads would be safer if illegal immigrants could have driver’s licenses and does the safety issue outweigh possible disadvantages of licensing illegal immigrants?
Guests:
Frank Stoltze, KPCC Reporter
Ruxandra Guidi, KPCC Immigration Reporter. She was in the plaza in front of LAPD headquarters where Chief Charlie Beck is making a brief statement on the topic of driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants
Should birth control pills be available over-the-counter?
The pill was first approved for oral contraceptive use in the United States in 1960. It’s one of the most studied – and some say, safest – medications on the market today. Yet, in most countries, including the U.S., women still need a doctor’s prescription to obtain them.
But there’s a growing movement underway to change that. The Oral Contraceptives Over-the-Counter Working Group is a coalition of health workers and advocates aiming to remove prescriptions as a barrier to pill access. They argue that prescription-only access to birth control is patronizing to women, limits contraceptive freedom and is ineffective against teen-pregnancy rates.
Obstetrician Malcolm Potts, who’s been studying contraceptives for decades, says not only is the pill safe, it has many health benefits such as a significant reduction in ovarian, uterine and bowel cancers and even melanomas. “The epidemiological data on pill safety are now so compelling,” Potts wrote in an op-ed in Monday’s Los Angeles Times, “that it seems likely the Food and Drug Administration would go along with such a proposal. The dose does not have to be adjusted to fit the user, and no one — not even a toddler who found her mom's pills — has ever died from an overdose.” But to date, the FDA has never approved a “chronic use” medication, a drug taken daily for an unlimited amount of time, without a prescription.
So why isn’t the pill, like aspirin, available in every pharmacy? What would it take for the FDA to lift the prescription-only regulations? What impact might this change have on the cost of birth control and the battles over who’s going to pay for it? Is the pill really safe enough to be used without doctor oversight?
Guests:
Dr. Malcolm Potts, Bixby Professor at UC Berkeley, obstetrician and reproductive scientist who has studied oral contraceptives since the 1960s
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, breast surgical oncologist
Final GOP face-off before Super Tuesday
The men battling for the Republican presidential nomination knew how high the stakes were for last night's debate. The sparring was energetic and relentless with much of it targeted on Rick Santorum. For the first time, he had to defend his position as a climbing candidate. However, post-debate analysis says he did not hold up well.
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul launched tag-team attacks on Santorum's self-proclaimed status as the only true conservative. They took turns criticizing Santorum's record in Congress, his spending on earmarks, his support for the No Child Left Behind act. "I have to admit, I voted for that," he said. "It was against the principles I believed in, but, you know, when you're part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team," he said referring to President George W. Bush's education plan. The audience replied with boos.
How will Santorum's performance affect his surge? Were any debate moments memorable enough to affect the wave of upcoming primaries?
Guest:
Mark Barabak, Political Writer, Los Angeles Times; joining us from Mesa, AZ
Heartland leaker comes clean, stirs ethical debate
Last week we brought you the story of several documents that were leaked from The Heartland Institute regarding their plans to push an anti-climate change agenda in public schools. Heartland is an organization based in Chicago that is a consistent voice against the climate science and global warming.
Heartland claimed the documents were stolen from them and further, that one of them is a fake. On Monday the person responsible for duping Heartland out of their papers and posting them online came clean. He’s a well known climate scientist and journalist named Peter Gleick.
In a statement posted on the Huffington Post, Gleick says he was anonymously sent one document that had described Heartland’s education strategy. In an attempt to confirm the details in the original email he used a false name to get more documentation from Heartland. He calls this a serious lapse in “professional judgment and ethics.”
And it appears many of his colleagues agree with him. From the Union of Concerned Scientists to the National Center on Science Education, a group that Gleick was about to take a board post on, all condemn his methods while insisting that the real bad guys here are still Heartland for attempting to undermine climate change education. Others say Gleick’s leaking of the Heartland documents has finally exposed the groups methods and motives and least he had the guts to take responsibility for this actions.
Georgia Institute of Technology Professor Judith Curry, however, doesn’t see it that way. She says Gleick has allowed Heartland to claim the moral high ground and destroyed his career in one fell swoop.
So, what’s the real story here? Heartland’s education agenda? Or Gleick’s failure of integrity? Most scientists agree that climate change is real and it’s manmade. If that’s the case, did Gleick’s ends justify the means? And what of Dr. Glieck himself? He testified to congress about scientific ethics, he wrote about the subject a lot. Did he snap?
Guests:
Scott Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences, Suffolk County Community College; co-founder of the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, a group that connects climate scientists to lawmakers and the media.
Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
What is the state of white America?
Whites in America are divided into two groups: a new upper class, defined by educational achievement, and a new lower class, characterized by the lack of it. This, according to libertarian and social scientist Charles Murray, means our nation is coming apart at the socioeconomic seams.
In his new book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010,” Murray argues that those in the new lower class are less industrious, less likely to marry and raise children in a two-parent household and more politically and socially disengaged. Why does Murray’s research focus on whites? Because, he posits, our assumption that race is the great divider is wrong. It’s really about class. And if upper class whites have reached their elevated status by adhering to values like frugality, monogamy, the pursuit of higher education, postponing pregnancy…they ought to champion these values and preach them to their less fortunate brethren.
But, Murray claims, they don’t currently do that. Instead, upper class whites maintain a ho-hum, non-judgmental attitude about lower class behaviors and attitudes and shirk their rightful duty to lead by teaching. Without that, our society will be driven farther and farther apart, resulting in greater economic polarization, as well as wage and opportunity gaps.
How truly different is this from the past? Is this a dangerous situation? How responsible are the more fortunate among us? Can anyone tell others how they should live their lives?
Guest:
Charles Murray, Author of “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 – 2010” (Crown Forum)
Read an excerpt of Murray's book below: