California’s drought has reopened the debate over how much growth the state can sustain in the face of a prolonged water shortage. Also, a judge says Uber must pay a $7.3 million dollar fine and turn over specific information, or cease operations completely. Then, opponents of mandatory vaccination have started collecting petition signatures for a referendum that would appear on the November 2016 ballot.
In face of severe drought, can growth be sustained in CA?
The CA Water Commission has put in place new limits on the amount of grass and lawn space new constructions -- including homes, businesses, schools -- in the state can have.
Under the revised ordinance, only 25 percent of a new home’s yard space can be grass.
California’s drought, now in its fourth year, has reopened the debate over how much growth the state can sustain in the face of a prolonged water shortage.
Can California accommodate the kind of population and economic growth it has seen historically? Should the state consider measures to rein in new housing developments? Is the drought the immovable object that would make us rethink how much California can reasonably grow?
Consideration of Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Regulations
Guests:
Adam Nagourney, Los Angeles Bureau Chief for the New York Times. He is the reporter behind a recent story in the paper, titled “California Drought Tests History of Endless Growth”
Jay R. Lund, Director, Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California - Davis; and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
E-Fail: Judge rules Uber must pay fine, turn over info or lose operating license
Pay up or shut down.
That was the message from a judge with the California Public Utilities Commission after ruling that ride-sharing giant Uber must pay a $7.3 million dollar fine and turn over specific information, or cease operations completely.
Uber now has 30 days to pay the fine, otherwise it will lose its license to operate in California, the company’s home state. The CPUC says Uber failed to provide information about things like the number of requests it gets for accessible vehicles, causes of accidents involving Uber drivers, and how many rides are requested but not accepted. There was a September 2014 deadline for all ride-sharing companies to provide this info to the CPUC, and they say Uber was the only one that failed to do so.
No one from Uber was available for comment but an Uber spokesperson sent us the following statement: “This ruling--and the associated fine--are deeply disappointing. We will appeal the decision as Uber has already provided substantial amounts of data to the California Public Utilities Commission, information we have provided elsewhere with no complaints. Going further risks compromising the privacy of individual riders as well as driver-partners. These CPUC requests are also beyond the authority of the Commission and will not improve public safety. It is important to note there will be no suspension while the appeal is heard.”
What does this ruling mean for Uber? Do you think Uber will win its appeal? Does this decision actually hold water?
Guest:
Carmel DeAmicis, associate editor, startups, at Re/Code
Former Iran hostage on why release negotiations should have been part of nuclear deal
CBS’s Major Garrett provoked what’s become a much talked about rebuke from President Obama at yesterday’s news conference when he asked the President why he was “content” with the Iran nuclear deal while four Americans were still being held in Iran and why the negotiation for their release wasn’t tied into the nuclear deal.
Obama first responded, “The notion that I am ‘content’ as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails? Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better. I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody’s ‘content.’”
In addressing the broader notion of why the hostages were not tied to the nuclear deal, he said, “suddenly Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals. Makes it much more difficult to walk away if Iran thinks a nuclear deal is dependent” upon them.
Did the President and his negotiators make the right call in keeping the hostages out of the nuclear negotiations? To what extent will this nuclear deal make future negotiations on the hostages more tenable?
Guests:
Dalia Dassa Kaye, Director, Center for Middle East Public Policy; Senior Political Scientist at RAND
Sarah Shourd, an American hiker who was held by Iranian authorities for 410 days before being released from detention in 2010; she wrote the piece in the Daily Beast today, "Negotiating with Iran for Hostages in a Nuclear Deal Isn’t ‘Nonsense.’ Trust Me. I Was One."
Edwin Smith, Leon Benwell Professor of Law, International Relations and Political Science, USC Gould School of Law
Anti-vax referendum: Voters’ inclination to vote 'No' could undo mandatory vaccines
Opponents of mandatory vaccination have started collecting petition signatures for a referendum that would appear on the November 2016 ballot.
If it qualifies, voters would need to vote "Yes" for a new vaccination law to stay on the books (the California Constitution mandates that referenda on Sacramento legislation must ask voters to affirm [vote “Yes”] in order to pass.)
The new law aims to boost immunization rates by requiring that children be vaccinated to attend public or private daycare or school. The law eliminates exemptions based on personal beliefs and religion, while maintaining a medical exemption.
Election analysts say voters are more inclined to vote "No" on referenda - no matter the question -, which means the vaccination bill's future could be vulnerable.
Will voters be confused by this referendum? How much lobbying power and campaign financing does it take to get voters to punch "Yes?" Should governance of initiatives and referenda be reformed? If lawmakers, representing the people, pass a new bill, but special interest groups want to see its undoing, should a referendum instead ask voters to veto it (vote “No”) in order for the bill to die?
Guests:
Bob Stern, former president of the Center for Governmental Studies; Author of the book “Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth Branch of Government, 2nd Edition. (Center for Governmental Studies, 2008)
Pamela Behrsin, Vice President of Communications and Editorial Director at MapLight which tracks campaign financing
Have we gotten carried away with air conditioning?
It’s hard to imagine life without AC.
Most of us drive to work in our air conditioned cars, briefly endure the heat, then sit down at our desks in our temperature controlled offices and think nothing of it. But is all this air conditioning necessary?
Author Stan Cox of the book “Losing our Cool: Uncomfortable Truths About Our Air-Conditioned World,” looks at the impact of air conditioning and steps we can take to minimize its environmental costs.
For example, does it really make sense to have tie-and-jacket dress codes in sweltering climates? Or to construct buildings with windows that don’t open? Have we gotten carried away with this ubiquitous invention?
Guest:
Stan Cox, writer of "Losing Our Cool: Uncomfortable Truths About Our Air-Conditioned World" (The New Press, 2012)
NY Mag writer, like, totally embraces ‘vocal fry,’ ‘upspeak’ and she is not sorry
In her latest column for New York Magazine, writer Ann Friedman wonders whether all the attention paid to “vocal fry” or “upspeak”-- linguistic trends linked mostly to young women -- is another way for our culture to police the way they speak.
While those linguistic tics and speech habits (apologizing too much, using qualifiers that play down one’s expertise) common to women might make them sound less confident, Friedman says the incessant criticism isn’t helping.
Guest host Patt Morrison speaks with Friedman, as well as linguist Deborah Tannen about the subject.
Guests:
Ann Friedman, host of the podcast, “Call Your Girlfriend” and freelance writer for various publications. Her latest piece for New York Magazine is titled “Can We Just, Like, Get Over the Way Women Talk?”
Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University in in D.C. and author of many books, including “You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation” (William Morrow Paperback, 2007)