AirTalk debates allowing Americans to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy after new Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell questioned the current policy, which does not allow it. We also dive into the world of nonbinary gender pronouns; how serious is North Korea about taking to the U.S. and what’s in it for them?; and more.
After Senate introduces new bipartisan school safety bill, a look at California’s current policies
In response to the Parkland shooting, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and 21 of his bipartisan colleagues announced support of a new bill that calls for additional school safety protocols – but how would this play into the California school system?
Larry speaks with Jeff Solomon, a consultant working with schools to develop emergency plans, including ones for active shooter situations, to find out.
Guest:
Jeff Solomon, consultant who works with schools in California and other states on creating critical incident management plans; director of the schools division for D-PREP, a training and consulting services for disaster preparation and emergency response based in Folsom, Calif.
Should it be easier to wipe out student debt in bankruptcy?
More than 40 million Americans hold nearly $1.4 trillion in outstanding student loans, according to MarketWatch.
Last Thursday, the new chairman of the Federal Reserve questioned why struggling borrowers can’t discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. In a response to a question about whether high levels of student debt create a drag on the economy, Jerome Powell told members of the Senate Banking Committee that policymakers should foster the idea that Americans can borrow to invest in themselves and expressed concern about the treatment of student loans in bankruptcy.
Student loan discharge, some argue, may encourage entrepreneurship and boost the economy. Others say a discharge would allow borrowers to abuse the loan system and incite colleges to raise tuition. If the court discharges student loans, lenders will be stuck with the bill.
Would making student loans easier to forgive via bankruptcy help or weaken the economy? Call us at 866-893-5722.
Guest:
Richard K. Vedder, an economist and distinguished professor of economics emeritus at Ohio University and senior fellow at The Independent Institute
I’ll have what they’re having: gender neutral pronouns and how to use them properly
The growing awareness of the range of gender identities and people’s rejection of the gender binary has resulted in the rise to prominence of the singular “they,” as well as “neo pronoun” alternatives.
Someone who identifies as nonbinary, genderqueer or transgender, for example, might prefer to be referred to as “they” or “ze” rather than the gender-conforming pronouns “he” and “she.” Some with particularly conservative feelings about the English grammar may bristle at the sound of “they” describing a singular person, but how rigid are those grammatical “rules” and how frequently have they changed in the past?
The rising usage of non-binary gender pronouns has not only increased the visibility of those in the world who don’t conform to the traditional idea of gender, but also created a teaching moment about recognizing and respecting the identities of those who reject the gender binary.
What are the political and historical implications of the singular “they?” If you’ve chosen to use a gender neutral or non-binary pronoun like “they,” “ze,” or “hir,” how have people reacted? How do you explain to them why you chose the pronoun you did and what it signifies?
Call us at 866-893-5722.
Guests:
Dennis Baron, he is writing a book on the history and politics of gender pronouns; professor of English and Linguistics at the University of Illinois
Erika Price, who identifies as non-binary and uses the pronouns them/them; they’re a professor of psychology at Loyola University Chicago; they tweet
North Korea says it’s willing to consider denuclearization – how serious is the gesture and what’s in it for them?
North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has reportedly said that he is open to talking to the U.S. about denuclearization.
That’s according to South Korean envoys who were in Pyongyang over the last two days, which ended with an agreement that Kim and South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in would meet later in April. North Korea has made gestures towards denuclearization in the past, but this would be the first time the possibility has come up under Kim Jong-Un.
How serious is this proposal from North Korea and what are their motivations? How would the U.S. and South Korea approach such negotiations? And is there any chance that North Korea might rollback its isolationist practices, and if so, what would their soft landing into the international landscape look like?
Guests:
Abraham Denmark, Asia Program Director at the Wilson Center in D.C.; former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for East Asia (2015-2017)
James ‘Spider’ Marks, expert in national security, military and intelligence; he is a retired Major General with over 30 years in the U.S. Army
Trafficking, technology experts discuss proposal designed to curb sex trafficking via the web
Bipartisan agreement in Congress seems rare these days, but last week the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow websites to be held accountable for sex trafficking that happens on their platforms.
The law – called ‘FOSTA,’ short for Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act – was introduced by Missouri Republican Congresswoman Ann Wagner, and would change Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to allow websites to be prosecuted for any content found to “knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking.” Currently, Section 230 prevents attorneys and states from suing websites for content that third parties post on their platform.
Supporters of Rep. Wagner’s bill say Section 230 has been applied too loosely in the past, and that this bill gives victims of sex trafficking real tools to go after websites that might have facilitated crimes committed against them.
But Silicon Valley tech companies, free speech advocates, and even sex workers have spoken out in opposition. Tech voices argue the bill would erode at a law which has allowed the internet thrive, and that companies might pay less attention to moderating user-generated content on their sites for fear that knowing about it could open them up to lawsuits. Sex workers say not only does the bill conflate sex work with sex trafficking, but it could also put sex workers in danger by forcing them to solicit work on the street instead of online, where they hold more control over their safety.
Do you think this legislation would be an effective way to combat sex-trafficking or do you see it as an erosion of free-speech and an open internet? If you’re a sex worker, how would this legislation impact your work?
Guests:
Mary Leary, professor of law at The Catholic University of America where she studies multiple areas of law including human trafficking and technology; she is a former prosecutor and has held executive positions at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse
Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Technology and Democracy
Calif. Senator introduces bill to ban cosmetics tested on animals
A California senator has introduced a bill that would prohibit the sale of animal tested-cosmetics in the state.
Senator Cathleen Galgiani introduced the California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, SB 1249 last week citing “inaction at the federal level.” The bill would make it unlawful for any cosmetic manufacturer to import or sell any cosmetic, including personal hygiene products such as deodorant, shampoo, or conditioner, if any component of the product was tested on animals after Jan. 1, 2020.
In 2014, the California State Legislature passed the Cruelty Free Cosmetics Resolution urging Congress to prohibit animal testing for cosmetics and to phase out marketing animal-tested cosmetics. Some argue that drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe for human beings. Others say there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living body and that animal-testing is essential.
What do you think? Call us at 866-893-5722.
Guest:
Kristie Sullivan, vice president of research policy for the nonprofit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, one of the cosponsors of SB 1249
Valerie George, chair of the California chapter of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of cosmetic science; she is also vice chair of the Committee on Scientific Affairs for SCC nationally