Lance Armstrong sat down for an interview with Oprah Winfrey last night and today on AirTalk we're examining what the consequences of his reported doping confession will be. Later, we consider what makes a get-rich idea a pyramid scheme and speak with author Joe Krampner about the economics of peanut butter. All that and more on today's show.
Lance Armstrong sits down with Oprah Winfrey
Last night, Lance Armstrong sat down for an interview with Oprah Winfrey. It’s a dance we’ve seen in America time and time again—disgraced celebrity seeks absolution from TV icon. Say your apologies, shed a few tears, promise to never do it again and then get out of there. But will that prove to be enough for Lance Armstrong? He was a figure so central to his sport that the current situation regarding doping seems to be an indictment of cycling in general. His critics are furious with him for letting down so many people and tarnishing the reputation of an activity that was already beset with problems of athletes using drugs. Furthermore, Armstrong has been vehemently denying drug use for years now. For him to reverse his position convinces many that this move is purely opportunistic and not genuine in the least.
How can someone lie so aggressively for so long? There are fans out there who come to Armstrong’s defense. There is the old argument that all athletes at the highest professional levels use performance enhancers of some kind, so Armstrong was simply trying to keep up. Or there are the supporters who were positively affected by Armstrong’s Live Strong organization, and aren’t really affected by what may or may not have happened in the world of sport.
So who is right? Is this sincere? Is Armstrong trying to make amends with his past and move onward and upward? Or is this just a ploy to keep competing and avoid ruining his legacy?
Guests:
Dan Empfield, blogs about triathlon and bicycles at slowtwitch.com. He was an early innovator in triathlon bikes and wetsuits, and one of the best writers about triathlon. He has known Armstrong since he was a teenager.
Royal Oakes, General Counsel for the Radio and Television News Association of Southern California, and partner at Barger and Wolen, LLP.
Dan Ariely, James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University and author of “The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves” (Harper, 2012)
What if pedophilia is a genetic disorder?
New research has shown that pedophilia is not stemmed directly from childhood sexual abuse. Some of the new information on the disorder comes from the Center for Mental Health and Addiction in Toronto, where studies have been conducted on convicted sex offenders.
Increasingly, pedophilia is seen as an intrinsic disorder rather than a trait developed after suffering child sexual abuse. Genetic predisposition may delineate potential pedophiles: 30percent are left-handed or ambidextrous, and many are about an inch shorter than average, with a 10 point below-average IQ. The disorder has been found and researched almost exclusively in men.
While many perpetrators of child sexual abuse are motivated by violent tendencies, and usually choose relatives as their victims, pedophiles are more likely to see children as romantic partners. Their sexual preference may be as biologically innate as any other, and although many pedophiles struggle with their desires, many are able to control their sexual urges.
Most psychiatrists have stopped trying to change pedophile’s sexual orientations, instead opting to help their patients find the best ways to control their sexual desire, sometimes through therapy and sometimes with hormone treatment. Is there a good way to create a support system for pedophiles that keeps children safe? How will new information about this disorder change the way medical professionals approach pedophilia?
Guests:
Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Director, Sexual Behavior Consultation Unit, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Dr. Hy Malinek, Ph.D., Clinical and Forensic Psychologist in private practice in Beverly Hills; certified by the California Superior Court as a professional testimony expert; he also consults with U.S. Attorney’s Office in cases of sexual molestation and risk assessment and California’s Department of Mental Health in civil commitment of high risk sex offenders
The Avon Lady always rings twice: direct sales, MLM’s, pyramid schemes and the wisdom to know the difference
Companies like Herbalife, Mary Kay, Avon and Amway have been around for decades. Proponents of direct sales and multi-level-marketing (MLM) companies claim they offer consumers a line of time-tested, quality products that are used and endorsed by distributors and marketed with the personal touch. For some sellers, direct sales and MLM’s can lead to financial independence - perhaps even wealth - and a chance to give a leg up to friends and family.
But for every legitimate business that uses this model, there are dozens of illegal “pyramid schemes” luring the hopeful, underemployed and desperate into a never-ending cycle of spend/recruit/spend. Recently Herbalife, the poster boy for MLM’s with a 32-year track record of success, came under attack for its marketing practices. Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman publicly labeled it a pyramid scheme, pointing out the many similarities with illegitimate businesses that make money selling dreams, not vitamins.
Pyramid schemes make their top levels rich by recruiting sellers and encouraging them to purchase vast amounts of product, attend expensive sales seminars and - of course - mine their social circles for new recruits. More often than not, the riches don’t materialize and distributors end up with garages full of product, broken marriages, ruined credit and lives.
Have you ever been approached by a relative with an “unbelievable opportunity?” Have you had a great experience working in direct sales? Do you see it as a way out of debt, or a way to dig an even deeper hole? How do you tell the difference between a legitimate business and a scam? Is multi-level-marketing a stepping stone to success, or a ladder to nowhere?
Guests:
Joe Mariano, president, Direct Selling Association, a national trade association representing companies that sell directly to consumers
Stacie Bosley, assistant professor of economics, Hamline University School of Business in St. Paul, MN
California lawmaker proposes cheaper tuition for select majors
Why are California’s college graduates struggling to find employment? Northern California Assemblyman Don Logue believes it’s because too many students are graduating with liberal arts degrees and entering into a job-market without a high demand for those professions. Logue’s Assembly Bill 51 proposes capping the price of science, technology, engineering, and math degrees to $10,000 dollars, which is half of the current tuition fee, on CSU Long Beach, CSU Chico, and CSU Stanislaus. Governor Rick Scott of Florida has proposed a similar initiative in Florida universities to freeze tuition rates of these majors while tuition rates continue to rise in the other fields of study.
At the University of Florida, a group of history professors have already organized a protest petition, fearing that this move would decrease the number of students studying liberal arts and thereby decrease funding in those departments. As for funding, Logue expects the state of California to pay for the financial discrepancies for these departments, and Scott hopes that Florida’s state financing and private-public partnerships will cover the expenses.
What do you think about tiered education and a $10,000 bachelor’s degree? Do you think students will change their fields of study based on these proposals? Will this alleviate employment issues? Will it affect funding for the humanities?
Guest:
Assemblymember Dan Logue, (R), For California’s 3rd District (Northern California - Chico); Chairs the Assembly Republican Task Force on Jobs and the Economy; Also serves on Health, Elections & Redistricting, Budget, Transportation Committees
Which all-American food is helping consumers avoid eating up their finances?
Creamy, crunchy, salty or plain – how do you like your peanut butter? Although it’s not popular in other countries, more than 75 percent of the American population consumes over one billion pounds of it annually.
However, peanut butter has not been immune to social and economic trends. Sales dropped when it got a bad rap for being unhealthy, and risen again when recession-strapped families rediscovered it as a high-protein and cost-effective food.
This prompted Hormel Foods to purchase Skippy for $700 million dollars earlier this month; the company forecasts sales of $370 million this year. “Creamy and Crunchy: An Informal History of Peanut Butter, the all-American Food,” claims to be the first comprehensive history of peanut butter.
The book covers the history of the humble peanut butter’s affect on Third-World hunger, how “Choosy mothers choose Jif” made Jif number one in peanut butter sales, proper peanut butter eating etiquette, and how a salmonella scare almost ruined the entire industry.
In what ways has peanut butter influenced the American economy or society? Has the recession boosted your family’s peanut butter habit? Is there a PB&J in your lunchbox right now? What do you think are all-American foods? And of course, do you prefer creamy or crunchy?
Guest:
Jon Krampner, author of Creamy & Crunchy: An Informal History of Peanut Butter, the All-American Food (Perseus)