U.S. nuclear regulators weakening safety rules, AP report finds. Baby boomers could bust Social Security. Is Obama black enough for blacks? Summer break: big fun or giant headache?
U.S. nuclear regulators weakening safety rules, AP report finds
The tragic meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactor has brought increased scrutiny to the nuclear regulations in this country. A new in-depth investigation by the Associated Press says federal regulators have been repeatedly relaxing safety standards or simply not enforcing them. The report looks at aging plants and pipes, changing safety margins, and what it calls “regulatory compromises.” It also found radioactive material has leaked from 3 out 4 of U.S. nuclear plants. What is the response from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)? What informs their decisions to modify safety regulations? How close is too cozy a relationship between the NRC and the nuclear industry?
Guests:
Scott Burnell, Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Daniel Hirsch, President, Committee to Bridge the Gap, a non-profit nuclear policy organization that focuses on nuclear safety, waste disposal, and proliferation
James Boyd, California Energy Commissioner
Will baby boomers bust social security?
As the country’s economic situation gets tighter and tighter, the impenetrable force protecting the sacrosanct entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and pensions has weakened. Lawmakers have realized that changes must be made, as Social Security alone will exhaust its trust funds by 2036, after which it would need $6.5 trillion over 75 years to pay all existing benefits. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), a lobbying giant which dictates the agenda for Medicare and Social Security, has a membership of 40-million strong, and will only increase as baby boomers continue to age and retire. In Frederick R. Lynch’s One Nation under AARP: The Fight over Medicare, Social Security, and America’s Future, the author places the onus on the baby boomer generation and its choice between political mobilization to fight cuts or by becoming absorbed into the AARP. Will a financially soluble compromise be reached between lawmakers, the public, and the AARP? How will the baby boomer generation handle its role as the country’s elders? Will they fight back and resist entitlement reductions, or play a role in entitlement reform for future generations?
Guest:
Frederick R. Lynch, government professor at Claremont McKenna College and author of One Nation under AARP: The Fight over Medicare, Social Security, and America’s Future
Is Obama black enough for blacks?
While President Barack Obama is juggling the struggling economy, the Middle East and a nascent 2012 campaign, he has also recently drawn fire from a group of people who once supported him wholeheartedly—African Americans. In a recent interview, Princeton professor Cornel West found fault with Obama for complying blindly with wealthy whites, going so far as to label him a “black mascot” for Wall Street. Another Princeton academic, Melissa Harris-Perry calls West’s attack personal and self-aggrandizing, but she asserts that Obama has been restricted by right-wing racism. Essayist Erin Aubry Kaplan contributed an op-ed piece to the Los Angeles Times chalking up this internal, racial conflict as a modern example of the warring ideologies of nationalism and assimilation for how blacks should exert themselves in American society. Nationalism contends that blacks must create and maintain a distinct group unity, while assimilation calls for integration into mainstream society. How can President Obama, a black man who is a product of mainstream institutions, marry these two polarized ideals? What can the President do in the short term to prove that he is a proponent of black causes? Is his choice not to focus on such issues explicitly part of a larger philosophy? As an African American, how do you feel Obama is addressing the situation?
Guest:
Erin Aubry Kaplan is a contributing editor to Los Angeles Times Opinion pages whose op-ed, “For blacks, a rift over Obama,” was published on June 19th
Summer break: big fun or giant headache?
Summer vacation is a time for school kids to stretch their legs, turn off their brains and run wild for a couple months before buckling down and getting back to learning. At least, that’s what it is now. Way back when, summer vacation was an economic and public health necessity. Schools in big urban areas were too poorly ventilated to stuff full of sweaty kids for 6 or so hours every day. Public health officials considered hot, stuffy classrooms an ideal breeding ground for bacteria and germs and worried that disease would spread rapidly in that environment. In agricultural areas many kids had to take off school and work on the family farm during the summer months. Things have obviously changed, though and recent studies have shown that kids lose a lot of what they learned the previous year while they’re hanging out at the beach all summer. That and the childcare issues many parents face are prompting some to call for the end of the summer vacation. But, year round school ain’t cheap and we’re facing massive budget shortfalls all over the country. Is the expensive worth higher test scores? And how would you as a parent, teacher, or student feel about losing your break? Or, if you already have, how’s year round school working for you?