Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Prime Minister of Crimea signed official documents to incorporate Crimea into the Russian Federation.Will the United States and E.U. impose oil and energy sanctions on Russia? Are we spending too much money on airport security? Later, why are good managers so difficult to find?
Will the US and EU use energy sanctions against Russia?
Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Prime Minister of Crimea signed official documents to incorporate Crimea into the Russian Federation. The ceremony took place in Sevastopol, the swift result of Sunday’s vote on the referendum to annex Crimea. Ukrainian government has expressed anger over the referendum and its results, calling the annexation a “robbery.”
Russia defied sanctions from the U.S. and European Union in its bid for Crimea, prompting international criticism and discussion about what the future holds in the politically tense region. Will the United States and E.U. impose oil and energy sanctions on Russia? What kinds of international intervention would be effective? How might things proceed?
Guests:
Stephen Blank, Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council
Tim Boersma, fellow in the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution - a Washington D.C. based public policy think tank: Boersma wrote this recent opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times “Russia's advantage”
Sacramento Democrats feeling the loss of supermajority power
California Democrats lost their supermajority in the state Senate on Sunday, when Sen. Ron Calderon took an indefinite leave of absence to fight federal corruption charges. The legislative impact was felt Monday, when two proposals pushed by Democrats failed to garner the necessary Republican support.
Less than two years ago, California Democrats won historic two-thirds control over both the Senate and the Assembly—nixing the need for a single Republican vote on any piece of legislation. It was the first time in more than 80 years that one party controlled two-thirds of both houses.
Now, with two Democratic Senators on leave facing criminal charges—Calderon of Montebello and Sen. Roderick Wright of Inglewood—the ranks of Democratic senators is down to 26 of 40—one under the majority won in 2012. This means, for the first time in a while, they’ll need GOP help to move legislation.
On Monday, a Democrat-led effort to revamp campaign finance fell one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Lacking Republican support, Democrats also shelved a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn the state's ban on affirmative action in higher education.
Democrats could win back their supermajority before the end of the legislative session on August 31—if a Democrat is elected in a special election to replace Sen. Wright. In the meantime, the shift is sure to lead to more partisan battles in Sacramento.
Would you like to see the Democrats to regain a supermajority? Or is the legislative process healthier without a supermajority? Do you want to see more bipartisan agreement?
Guest:
Dan Walters, Columnist, The Sacramento Bee
The big business of betting on March Madness/Phil Jackson hired by the Knicks
The annual college basketball tournament known as March Madness is here once again. If you work in an office, there's a good chance you've been hearing about it for weeks. The office bracket pool has become a regular part of the annual tradition.
In addition, gambling on March Madness has become a big business. Government employees are prohibited from taking part in office pools, and many states outlaw betting on March Madness brackets.
However, thanks to the Internet, free brackets are still widely used and accepted, and monetary betting happens offline. In addition, these sports brackets are often the first time young people and college students experience gambling.
How did March Madness become such a phenomenon? How big is the March Madness gaming industry? What are the legalities associated with betting on fantasy sports?
Guests:
Ben Bolch, NBA columnist for the LA Times
David Carter, Associate Professor of Management and Organization & Executive Director of the USC Sports Business Institute. Author of the book, “Money Games: Profiting from the Convergence of Sports and Entertainment”
Are we spending too much money on airport security?
Passengers at American airports have been enduring long security lines and invasive screening techniques for more than a decade now in the name of preventing more incidents of terrorism. But a new report suggests that all the money being spent on airport security might not be worth the cost.
The report published in the March issue of the Journal of Air Transport Management suggests that airports are not good targets for terrorism and therefore it would make sense to actually cut back on some security measures.
The study, titled "Cost-benefit analysis of airport security: Are airports too safe?" relied on data from Los Angeles International Airport before the Nov. 1 attack that killed a TSA agent and wounded several others.
The researchers looked at several potential terrorist attacks at the airport including a gunman and several types of bombs and concluded that it would not be worth the money to beef up security by adding bomb sniffing dogs, permanent vehicle search checkpoints or blast deflection walls at the airports.
Travelers might complain about the extra hassles of airport security but is it still worth it? Is spending vast amounts of money on extra airport security worth the cost given the rarity of these incidents? How much security is too much?
Guests:
Erika Aguilar, KPCC Crime and Public Safety Reporter - Erika joins us from LAX following LA Mayor Eric Garcetti’s news conference about the “After Action Report” on the November 2013 LAX shooting
John Mueller, political science professor at Ohio State University and author of ‘Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them’ (Free Press, 2006)
Brian Michael Jenkins, Terrorism Expert and Senior Advisor to the President of the Rand Corporation
Scientists discover a ‘smoking gun’ in the Big Bang theory of the universe
Physicists are popping the champagne corks after announcing a major discovery that backs up a long suspected theory called cosmic inflation - a twist on the Big Bang theory. Scientists say that a split-second after the Big Bang, the newly formed universe ballooned out at a pace so astonishing that it left behind ripples in the fabric of the cosmos.
Although many scientists already believed that an initial, extremely rapid growth spurt happened, they have long sought the type of evidence cited in the new study. The results reported Monday emerged after researchers peered into the faint light that remains from the Big Bang of nearly 14 billion years ago.
The discovery is being hailed as potentially one of the most important pieces of research in the past two decades and included researchers from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the University of Minnesota, Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory working at the South Pole.
How are scientists able to study something that happened billions of years ago? What does this discovery tell us about the early moments of the universe?
With files from the Associated Press.
Physicist Andrei Linde gets the surprising news that his decades of research have finally paid off:
Guest:
Sean Carroll, Senior Research Associate in Physics at California Institute of Technology
Good managers are hard to find
The right leader makes the workplace -- a study from Gallup has found that even though naming a manager is one of the most important decisions a company makes, over 80 percent of the time, they make the wrong choice. Businesses fail to choose the right candidate for a management position 82 percent of the time, according to a new study from Gallup.
The result of poor management choices can cost billions each year and can sour a work environment. In 2012, Gallup reported that only 30 percent of U.S. employees are engaged at work; this new research suggests that only 10 percent of people have the traits necessary to motivate employees and turn higher profits.
What are the signifiers of great managers? How can businesses pick and choose to make sure people with the relevant skills end up in leadership positions? What do good and bad managers do for their employees?
Guest:
John Boudreau, Ph.D., Professor and Research Director at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business and Center for Effective Organizations; co-author of 'Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital'
Make your picks in 2014's Public Radio Bracket Madness!
UPDATE: KPCC's Public Radio Bracket Madness is over. Click here to see who won!
It's March, which means it's time for KPCC's second annual Public Radio Bracket Madness — the bracket poll in which we ask you to pick your favorite public radio shows!
Vote here!