After Friday's shooting at LAX, debates have arisen over whether TSA agents should be armed. We'll talk about what kind of security changes, if any, should take place at airports. Then, is the limit for non-economic malpractice damages too low? The Supreme Court's review of prayers before government meetings and Marvin Gaye's family's lawsuit against Robin Thicke over his song "Blurred Lines." Do they have a case? Later, we're talking to the author of a biography of Jim Henson, the man behind the muppets.
Should LAX shooting spark security changes at airports?
The shooting at LAX on Friday has renewed questions on airport saftey. Over the weekend, the union representing TSA workers--the American Federation of Government Employees--called for screeners to have the power of arrest and wanted to see armed security guards at every airport checkpoint.
Others have suggested that some TSA workers should be able to carry guns themselves. Should there be armed guards at every checkpoint? Should TSA workers be armed? The debate underpins the larger question of just how safe can we make our airports.
Interview Highlights:
David Borer, General Counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees
What would your union like to see in regard to changes in airport security?
"We're calling for a thorough review of law enforcement support for our officers in airports. We have 45,000 TSOs and related personnel in the airports who are not law enforcement officers. Who rely on local law enforcement. We want to review that now in light of what happened on Friday and in light of the current state of things in airports around the country."
Do you think it makes sense to arm some TSA officers at checkpoints?
"I think yes, part of what should be considered now is should there be created a layer of law enforcement officers within TSA to handle the security at the checkpoint? As we heard from the LAPD (sic) chief, his officers were recently removed from the checkpoint area and stationed out to maneuver around in the terminals, but not stay there at the checkpoint. We want to look at that. Is that the best way or should there still be a presence at the checkpoint? We think if there's a presence at the checkpoint it certainly makes sense that it be a TSA officer who is trained as a law enforcement officer."
Marshall McClain, President of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association
Do you have concerns if TSA was to have selected officers who were trained and armed at checkpoints?
"I would like a better response in terms of how TSA and administrator Pistole is going to respond because we brought some of these very concerns to him because it is a bigger issue than LAX, myself along with Paul Nunziato from New Jersey Port Authority talked about having a more robust screening station and having some fortifications put in place and making some mandates across the board on a federal level and his response was more about budget concerns as to do that.
"Even as we speak now they're nationally looking at taking all the TSOs off of the exit screening lanes to put local law enforcement there or local security there. So there's been some discussions that have happened more on the hill or DC that don't really include local law enforcement. I mean even the decisions earlier to try to put knives back on planes. That had to be a national outcry, but administrator Pistole was insistent on doing that."
If there are select TSA officers that are armed, what is the potential conflict with officers from airport police?
"Whether its local airport police, whether its county municipalities, whoever's there, there are the trained officers, they're actually trained to do the job, they're experts at the job. So to now create a level within TSA of armed to do what police officers are already trained to do, I think that's just a bad idea, to try to train up 30,000 people under that system? That's not what they were hired to do, that's not what TSA was created to do."
What about the shift in policy to have airport police moving around the airport not in fixed locations?
"Some of the things we raised up with administrator Pistole were those very things: fortifying the stations having the officers on a raised platform, putting more biometrics in place, putting monitors in place for live fees to the officers could see those things. We're a proponent of having both in place. Having the roving patrols, which actually work, they were 60 seconds behind the suspect and took him down. But because it is a fixed post, it is a security screening system, you need to have an armed response to have to deal with that threat."
Has there been any cutback in airport police?
"The airport police is not paid out of city or state or federal taxes. We're completely proprietary, we're actually paid out of landing fees. The letter in response from administrator Pistole actually says this, 'As budgets for all federal, state and local agencies become tighter, adopting a standard the removes flexibility may prove counterproductive to overall security postures at large airports.' So the comment that professor King talked about in saying inadequate security at LaGuardia was exactly why we went to talk to TSA to make it mandatory standard of a 300-foot rule around the actual screening stations.
"This is a money issue. Even the fact that they're talking about removing the TSOs from the exit lanes to save $800 million for TSA. That's what they're talking about, so we're talking about budgetary issues as to why people are moving things around. We do want to have the officers the flexibility to not be sitting in a chair all day long for 10 hour or 12 hour shifts, and really it's a target there with a wooden post in front of them. But there are some talks that need to happen and putting aside the ideas of the money issue because those money issues and savings to TSA, have actually be utilized elsewhere in areas that are outside of the screening station."
Joseph King, Ph.D., Associate Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York:
Do you think changes are called for at LAX?
"Airport security is very difficult if you want to maintain an open society. Where do you put the security? Do you begin at curbside where you can't even come into the building unless you're screened? Do you begin it at checkin counters? Or as TSA does, do you put it at a choke point along the way. Most airports in the United States have adapted that method and the local police, whether they be city police or the port authority in New York or LAXPD, they have a limited force and they have limited budgets, which always enter into these things.
"When you look at the airport itself, you're talking about how many locations? Kennedy Airport is 8-10 terminals. All of them have multiple exits and multiple entrances. How can you secure that? What about curbside? If you look at the Moscow bombing at the airport, it was someone coming into the baggage area and blowing up an unsecured baggage area. If you look at other shootings around the world, its the attack that takes the least point of resistance.
"I think that for the protection of these federal employees, that the federal government has to take some unilateral action to secure not just LAX or JFK or LaGuardia, but to secure all the airports around the United States where their officers are stationed. I think that in the long run the most logical solution is to have a select cadre of TSA officers, whether they are going to be called screeners or whether they're going to change them to homeland security police officers, which are already in existence, and train them in the use of firearms and the use of combat situations."
Is it even possible to secure every entry and exit at an airport?
"In the United States with the level of freedom we have you cannot secure it, and we don't have the siege mentality that the Israelis have. If you secured every checkpoint at the airport, what's to stop them from driving up with a car bomb? If you secure the airports to that extent that they'll go for a softer target, you'll have the same thing you had in Kenya at the mall. You can't secure everything. At least we can't."
Guests:
David Borer, General Counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA screeners.
Marshall McClain, President of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association
Joseph King, Ph.D., Associate Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York; Served 33 years as Supervisory Special Agent in Charge of the Terrorist & Middle East Division, US Customs in New York; Former Chief, National Security Section, Department of Homeland Security in New York; Dr. King is also a survivor of, and was a rescue worker at the 9-11 event at the World Trade Center.
New proposed ballot measure would lift cap medical malpractice damages
A ballot measure cleared for circulation last week would subject doctors to drug and alcohol testing but a separate provision of the measure would have a much greater impact on the medical community. The ballot initiative would raise a cap on noneconomic medical malpractice damages that was set at $250,000 in 1975 by adjusting it for inflation.
The new cap would raise the limit on damages for pain, suffering and emotional distress caused by medical malpractice to roughly $1.1 million. Supporters are still collecting signatures on the measure and already it’s shaping up to be one of the most expensive fights in California history.
The California Medical Association has already spent $5 million to defeat the measure and it isn’t even on the ballot yet. Backers of the measure say the cap is too low and dissuades lawyers from taking on malpractice suits. That same $250,000 limit placed in 1975 is worth only $58,000 in today’s dollars. Is the limit for non-economic malpractice damages too low?
Guests:
Dr. Paul Phinney, Immediate Past President of the California Medical Association and a practicing pediatrician
Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog
SCOTUS Preview: Should city councils be allowed to say Christian prayers before meetings?
The U.S. Supreme Court takes up two interesting cases this week. Today, the question is whether steelworkers should get paid to get dressed. In the case, Sandifer versus United States Steel Corporation, steelworkers in Gary, Indiana are up against the country’s largest steel company.
They argue that the plethora of protective equipment they’re forced to wear, including helmets, face protectors, earmuffs, fire-retardant boots and jackets, isn’t clothing, it’s gear and they should get paid for the time it takes to put it on and take it off. Their bosses disagree. What will the robed justices decide about donning and doffing?
On Wednesday, they’ll take up whether to let city councils open their public meetings with prayers to Jesus Christ. This case involves a complaint from Susan Galloway, who is Jewish, and Linda Stephens, an Atheist, about the Christian prayers at town board meetings in Greece, New York. The two women said the “felt like outcasts,” with a Christian minister at the podium. A lower court decided in their favor.
If the Supreme Court upholds that decision, it could lead to a major change in the law separating church and state. Should Christian prayers be allowed by city councils? What impact might this case have on the court’s traditional opening invocations that call for God’s blessing?
Guest:
Lisa McElroy, Professor of Law, Drexel University's Earle Mack School of Law & Supreme Court scholar
Marvin Gaye’s family sues Robin Thicke over 'Blurred Lines'
Looks like the lines are blurred when it comes to copyright infringement of the popular summer hit, “Blurred Lines.” Marvin Gaye’s family is suing Robin Thicke and producer Pharrell Williams claiming they stole the musical composition of Marvin Gaye to make the song, “Blurred Lines.”
This new suit was actually filed as a counter-claim to another case that Thicke and Williams tried to establish with the court that the song did not infringe on Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit, “Got to Give it up.” In the suit, the children of Marvin Gaye use evidence pointing to interviews in which Thicke openly admitted to drawing inspiration from “Got to Give it up,” to record his song.
This is not the only song the Gaye family is accusing Thicke of infringing on. The family also cites Thicke’s 2011 song, “Love After War,” saying it copies, Gaye’s 1976 song, “After the Dance.” The family is seeking damages up to $150,000 for each copyright infringement, as well as a portion of profits from both songs.
Do you think the songs sound similar? Where are the lines drawn between inspiration and copyright infringement? Is being reminisce of a “sound” grounds for infringement? Who do you think should win this case?
Guest:
Robert Fink, Professor of Musicology, UCLA Herb Alpert School of Music
Jim Henson: The man behind the muppets
Who can forget Kermit the Frog, Bert and Ernie, Miss Piggy, and the Muppets? These creations that have become a childhood staple are from the creative mind of Jim Henson. In a detailed biography by author Brian Jay Jones, the book gives the first complete look at the iconic figure that created some of the most memorable characters on television.
The book will explore Henson’s childhood in Mississippi, to the creation of The Muppets. Jones delves into Henson’s involvement with Sesame Street, Henson’s contributions to Saturday Night Live, and his feature film projects. This intimate portray talks to those who knew this dreamer best, and showcases the man behind such beloved characters was a shrewd businessmen who never stopped creating.
Guest:
Brian Jay Jones, Author, “Jim Henson: The Biography;” Previous celebrated biography by Jones was “Washington Irving: An American Original;” Jones works as a writer, speechwriter and policy analyst in various levels of government, including ten years in the U.S. Senate