Today on Airtalk we get stuck on malfunctioning amusement park rides, consider the pros and cons of labeling genetically modified food in California, take a look at proposals to the visa system, dig deeper into Chick-fil-A's recent announcement to no longer fund anti-gay groups, and take a look at post-Nelson Mandela South Africa.
Knotts Berry Farm’s Windseeker leaves riders hanging at 300 feet
Typically, Knott’s Berry Farm in Buena Park isn’t at its most frightening until Halloween, when it transforms into Knott’s Scary Farm.
But yesterday, some patrons of the amusement park got an early overdose of fear. Riders on the Windseeker attraction, a carousel that takes people around in a circle at about 300 feet in the sky, got a thrill when it malfunctioned. While a few fits and starts are common at theme parks, this was more than just a bump in the road. In fact, it took three hours before the ride started again, and patrons were stranded at the very top of the ride with their legs dangling in the air.
No one ended up getting hurt, and the ride itself is back in working order, but how often do things like this happen? What’s the protocol for preventing and fixing such a problem? How do Knott’s and other parks deal with the public fallout? Do those Windseeker riders now have lifetime passes to ride whatever they want? If they do, will they even use them? Have you ever experienced a similar situation on a ride at an amusement park? How amusing was it?
Guest:
Robert Niles, Editor, ThemeParkInsider.com
POLL: Do Californians have a right to know if food has been genetically engineered?
We’ve put “plastic or paper” to rest, but that doesn’t mean our choices at the grocery store are getting any simpler. We may soon have to decide between genetically engineered food or not. That’s if voters approve Proposition 37, or the “California right to know genetically engineered food act,” in November.
Prop. 37 would require companies that produce genetically modified food products to label them as such in California.
Those in favor of the measure point to the fact that other countries around the world have mandatory label requirements for genetically modified food products.
"This type of labeling is already in place in 50 other countries, and what we're seeing here in California is a huge people's movement for the right to know what's in our food. This is just a basic human right," said Stacey Malkan, spokesperson for the Yes on 37 campaign.
She added that we’re entitled to know if and how our food is genetically engineered, because of the potential risks such foods have to our health (actual health effects have not been officially determined).
"This corn has been on the food supply in the United States for 20 years, and it's in many of the foods on supermarket shelves. It's in corn chips, and kid's cereal, and all sorts of foods," Malkan continued. "There's obviously a need for rigorous independent research for these foods that hasn't happened."
Detractors of the statute claim it’s a divisive food labeling proposal designed to waste taxpayer dollars, and that it will inspire frivolous lawsuits and increase food costs by the billions.
Greg Palla, a farmer from Kern County and spokesperson for the No on 37 campaign, said like others, he doesn't want his loved ones ingesting unsafe food. But according to Palla, the initiative is more complicated than slapping a label on a product.
"I don't think anyone is opposed to consumers knowing as much as they can about the food they eat," he said. "But the fact of the matter is this particular initiative is so poorly crafted and so underhanded in a number of ways that they've gone about trying to get the voters unsuspectingly pass a measure based on a simple approach of wanting to know more about food."
He said hidden aspects include completely exempting whole classes of food products, such as alcohol, and the potential for nuisance lawsuits that could cost people working in the industry time and money.
Food giants opposed to the measure, such as Pepsi, Nestle and Campbell's Soup, along with bioengineering companies like Monsanto and DuPont, have raised over $32 million in total campaign cash, almost 10 times the amount raised by its supporters. Interestingly, big names in the organic aisle, such as Kashi and Horizon Organic, have also joined the anti-labeling effort.
Prop Breakdown
Official Title: Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food InitiativeRequire labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibit labeling or advertising such food as "natural." Exempt from this requirement foods that are "certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."
Answer our poll and post your opinions in the comments!:
Weigh In:
Why is so much money being spent to defeat this measure? And if it doesn’t pass, is it only a matter of time before labeling becomes a federal mandate? Do you worry about the health effects of genetically engineered foods?
Guests:
Stacy Malkan, spokesperson for the Yes on 37 campaign
Greg Palla, farmer from Kern County and spokesperson for the No on 37 campaign
Should the US give highly-skilled immigrants a boost to the front of the line?
A bill being heard on the House floor today aims to boost the nation’s brain trust.
HR 6429, known as “The STEM Jobs Act,” would offer 55,000 visas per year to foreign-born graduates of American universities with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math. These highly-prized “STEM” graduates, says the bill’s author, House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), are an asset to U.S. businesses and innovation and should be prioritized when it comes to green cards, rather than taking their skills and knowledge back to their home countries.
One problem: the measure would eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which uses a lottery system to ensure that visas are spread among a wide variety of applicants from underserved countries, such as Poland, Ireland and a number of African countries. Critics of the bill object to giving STEM immigrants preference over others who may not have the advantage of an advanced education.
A competing bill, sponsored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California), would grant special visas to the “best and brightest” without cutting back on the number of Diversity Visas.
Should the U.S. give highly-skilled immigrants a boost to the front of the line? Or should it keep the playing field level for all education levels? How do we decide who is most welcome to our shores?
Guests:
Robert Hoffman, senior vice president for government affairs, Information Technology Industry Council
Mary Giovagnoli, Director of the Immigration Policy Center
Chick-fil-A says it will no longer fund anti-gay groups
Chick-fil-A is going to stick with chicken and get out of politics. The about-face comes after the fast-food chain faced pressure from a Chicago politician trying to stop a new location opening in his city.
Alderman Proco (Joe) Moreno negotiated a change in the company’s donation policies. Chick-fil-A reportedly sent a statement to Moreno stating: “The WinShape Foundations [a non-profit funded by Chick-fil-A] is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas.”
WinShape had donated millions of dollars to anti-gay groups previously. In meetings, company executives said they would no longer do so. The Georgia based company caused a stir earlier this summer when its president, Dan Cathy, told “The Baptist Press” that his business was “guilty as charged” of supporting “the biblical definition of the family unit.” It sparked boycotts and boycott-backlashes.
How much pressure has the chain been under in recent weeks? Did they not receive enough support from customers with similar beliefs? What does this say about mixing business and beliefs?
Guests:
Drake Bennett, writer, Bloomberg business week
Will the dreams Mandela had for South Africa be fulfilled?
Most people know the story of South Africa’s miraculous transformation from an tumultuous apartheid state into Nelson Mandela’s “Rainbow Nation.” However, many are less familiar with what has happened in the years that followed since, ushered in by Mandela’s presidency in 1994.
Author Douglas Foster shines light on South Africa’s lesser known post-apartheid era in his book “After Mandela: The Struggle for Freedom in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Foster describes how the country experienced various periods of unrest as it struggled with economic disparity, AIDS, and political turmoil. Foster further examines the enduring racial tensions in South Africa, where half the population is under twenty-five and knows Mandela only as a distant historical figure.
Most of all, Foster strives to comprehensively answer the question: what will become of the South African dream of freedom and equality articulated by Mandela when he fearlessly became the nation’s first black president?
Guest:
Douglas Foster, author of “After Mandela: The Struggle for Freedom in Post-Apartheid South Africa” (Liveright Publishing); associate professor at the Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University. Formerly senior editor at the Center for Investigative Reporting and director of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.
Live Event
Douglas Foster will discuss and sign copies of After Mandela at Book Soup in West Hollywood tonight at 7pm.