County workers clear and raze a homeless encampment beside the Santa Ana River on February 20, 2018 in Anaheim, California.; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

The homeless crisis continues to grow in the Los Angeles suburbs despite political promises.

The image that encapsulates this ever-growing issue is the homeless encampments that have been erected all over the city.

In the past week, over 400 homeless people who had camped out along the Santa Ana River were given vouchers to relocate free of charge to motels in Orange County. The program was established after a district court judge expressed concerns that clearing the Santa Ana River encampments would violate the civil rights of homeless people.

The hotel voucher program has already run into snags, as OC officials struggle to find enough motels willing to take in the population.

As Southern California struggles to deal with its homeless issues, how do you deal with this “new normal” of homelessness? Call us at 866.893.5722 to weigh in.

Guest:

Rina Palta, correspondent for KPCC, covering issues pertaining to homelessness and Southern California's social safety net

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

U.S. President Donald Trump (C) holds a listening session with students survivors of mass shootings, their parents and teachers in the State Dining Room at the White House February 21, 2018 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Last week’s shooting at a Florida high school reignited the debate over allowing teachers to arm themselves in the classroom.

President Trump says specially-trained teachers should be allowed to carry firearms on campus. CA bans the practice statewide.

What about districts elsewhere that already allow it? What are their experiences?

Guests:

Benjamin Wermund, education reporter for POLITICO Pro who’s been following the story; he tweets @BenjaminEW

John Donahue, professor of law at Stanford 

Larry Rosenthal, professor of law at Chapman University and a former federal prosecutor

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A police officer stands guard on the steps of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, June 15, 2017.; Credit: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

Next week, the nine justices on the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that could change the relationship between public sector unions and the workers they represent in more than 20 states, including California.

Oral arguments begin at 10 a.m. EST in Janus v. American Federation State, County, and Municipal Employees, which asks whether a 1977 Supreme Court ruling which is still law, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, should be overturned. In that case, the justices decided that while no one can be forced to join a public employees’ union, non-members can be required to pay so-called “agency fees,” which help defray the cost of collective bargaining. The idea is essentially that since non-union members directly benefit from the union in terms of their working conditions, wages and pensions, they should be required to contribute to the cost of negotiations even if they’re not in the union.

Plaintiff Mark Janus and his attorneys say that not only should non-union employees not have to pay the fee just to work for the state, but that requiring them to do so violates the First Amendment because, since Janus did not agree with AFSCME’s union politics, paying “agency fees” was unconstitutional compelled speech.

Those arguing against Mr. Janus say if the court finds in his favor, it could have a huge impact on public sector unions’ revenue stream, and union memberships would drop. They also argue that “Abood” is already law, and since states have learned to work around it and unions have negotiated many contracts under its rules, that now is not the time to change it.

The Supreme Court has tackled this question within the last several years, most recently in 2016 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, in which justices looked like they might overturn Abood. Ultimately, they ended up deadlocked in a 4-4 split after Justice Antonin Scalia passed away before the case could be decided.

Guests:

Jacob Huebert, attorney representing the plaintiff, Mark Janus, in the SCOTUS case, Janus v. AFSCME that will be argued Monday; he is also the director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit that focuses on protecting economic liberty and private property rights

Matt Bodie, professor of employment and labor law at Saint Louis University; he co-authored an amicus brief in support of AFSCME

Yvonne Walker, president of SEIU Local 1000, the Sacramento-based branch of the labor union representing many public employee workers

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Broward County Sheriff officers, Brad Griesinger and Jamie Rubenstein (L-R) stand guard at the entrance to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 18, 2018 in Parkland, Florida. ; Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The armed school resource deputy at a high school in Parkland, Florida, did not intervene during the shooting that left 17 people dead, according to the local sheriff.

Deputy Scot Peterson resigned Thursday after being suspended without pay pending an internal investigation, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said.

Peterson allegedly waited outside the school building for about four minutes as the shooting unfolded last week. The deputy -- who was armed and in uniform at the time of the shooting --  never went in after taking a position on the west side of the building, Israel said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.

So what are school security protocols? To what extent are they armed and how are they trained to react in these situations? And what can schools do to make security more effective?  

Guests:

Jeff Solomon, director of the schools division for D-PREP, where he does critical incident management for the public and private sector including K-12 schools in Southern California

Alon Stivi, CEO of Direct Measures International, a security consultancy, tactical training and protective services company that works with schools; he also runs an active shooter survival course which is funded by the Department of Homeland Security

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

California state Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, announces that he will take a month-long leave of absence while an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against him are completed during the opening day of the Senate in Sacramento, Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2018.; Credit: Steve Yeater/AP

California state senator Tony Mendoza resigned Thursday from the Legislature after an independent investigation found that he "more likely than not" harassed several women he worked with during his tenure at the state Capitol.

Mendoza, who represents the Artesia area, was suspended last fall when the harassment charges came to light.

He denies the charges and his resignation letter called into question the integrity of the investigation. The resignation came after Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León introduced Senate Resolution 85 on Wednesday, which cites the house's zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy and the results of the investigation as grounds to expel Sen. Tony Mendoza.

Mendoza joined us on AirTalk to discuss the allegations.

It is with great pain that I resign today from the Senate. This secretive investigation, with no Due Process and Disparate Treatment, left me with no other choice... (read my letter) pic.twitter.com/KtOoDws5mE

— Tony Mendoza (@MrTonyMendoza) February 22, 2018

Though he questioned the integrity of the investigation in his resignation letter, he said he was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations.

"I think things need to be changing in the workplace, and I agree with that. Now, if I ever, ever made anyone feel uncomfortable, and I would have — I apologize for my behavior, because that is not who I am, that's not what I'm about. And I wanted to make sure that was clear," he said.

We reached out to California's Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León but he declined to join us. He sent us this statement.

Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, another state lawmaker who represents part of L.A. County, is also on leave amid accusations of sexual harassment.

Guest:

Tony Mendoza, former California state senator (D-Artesia); he tweets @MrTonyMendoza

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Lindsey Vonn of the United States and Team USA walk in the Parade of Athletes during the Closing Ceremony of the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games at PyeongChang Olympic Stadium on February 25, 2018 in Pyeongchang-gun, South Korea. ; Credit: Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

After record-setting performances, impressive comebacks and dramatically close competitions, the 2018 Winter Olympics came to a close Sunday night.

The Olympic Games are arguably the only weeks of a year when the amount of time spent covering female athletes rivals the amount of time spent covering male athletes (although critics say some of that coverage is sexist). In fact, Pyeongchang was the first Winter Games that NBC televised more minutes of women’s competitions than men’s.

And viewers tuned in for those female athletes – the U.S. women’s hockey team’s overtime victory over defending champion Canada may be the most-watched NBC Sports Network program to air during the midnight hour.

Still, despite all of the drama and excitement, NBC’s ratings dropped halfway through the Olympics – and the growing number of ways viewers can follow the games online may be a reason why.

How did you follow this year’s Winter Games? Did you stick to traditional television viewing, rely on online streaming or just watch the highlights on social media? And how did you feel about this year’s coverage of female athletes?

Call us at 866-893-5722.

Guests:

Rick Burton, professor of Sport Management in Syracuse University’s David B. Falk College of Sport and Human Dynamics; Burton served as the chief marketing officer for the U.S. Olympic Committee at the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics, where he directed the USOC’s partnerships for International Olympic Committee (IOC) and USOC sponsorship  

Jeff Fellenzer, associate professor of professional practice at the University of Southern California, where he teaches sports business media and technology

Maureen Smith, Ph.D., professor in the department of kinesiology and health science at California State University, Sacramento; she was a lead or co-author of many of the Women’s Sports Foundation’s reports on the Olympic and Paralympic Games, including the most recent, “Women in the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games: An Analysis of Participation, Leadership, and Media Coverage” (2017)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

WASRep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, answers questions following a committee meeting at the U.S. Capitol February 5, 2018 in Washington, DC. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted to release the Democratic rebuttal of a memo released last week by their Republican counterparts relating to the committee's investigation of Russian influence in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. ; Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

AirTalk’s weekly politics segment.

Topics subject to change but here’s what we’ve watched over the weekend:

• Supreme Court won’t hear DACA dispute (also here)

• Labor unions Supreme Court case – the oral arguments heard this morning, and what are the potential impacts on public employee unions if Supreme Court rules in favor of plaintiff?

• Dems response to GOP memo, aka “Schiff memo”

• Mueller indictments, Rick Gates to plead guilty

• Congress is back today…what’s on their agenda? Chances they move on gun control? And how will they spend their time now that the DACA deadline is moot?

• Trump’s latest comments on violent video games and the Parkland shooter 

• Companies cutting ties with the NRA (Delta, American Airlines, full list here)

• Kasich’s comments on multi-party system and general concept of the end of the two-party system

• Oakland mayor forewarns ICE raids

• CA Dems won’t endorse Feinstein

Guests:

Pete Peterson, dean of the School of Public Policy and senior fellow at The Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University; he tweets @Pete4CA

John Iadarola, host and creator of the daily YouTube news show ThinkTank, part of The Young Turks Network; he also serves as a weekly co-host for The Young Turks weekly live show; he tweets @johniadarola

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Activists rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on February 26, 2018 in Washington, DC. The court is scheduled to hear the case, Janus v. AFSCME, to determine whether states violate their employees' First Amendment rights to require them to join public sector unions which they may not want to associate with. ; Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

All eyes were on the Supreme Court’s newest justice as he and his eight colleagues on the bench heard oral arguments Monday morning in Janus v. American Federation of County, State, and Municipal Employees, a case that revolves around whether forcing public employees to pay union costs of collective bargaining is a violation of the First Amendment.

The justices appeared split along ideological lines, with the lone question mark being Justice Neil Gorsuch, who apparently did not speak during oral arguments.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, it would overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,  a 1977 Supreme Court decision that forced non-union members to pay into the union to cover the cost of collective bargaining. It was 2016 when the Supreme Court considered a similar case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. In that case, the justices appeared poised to overturn “Abood” and rule in favor of the plaintiffs, but the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February of 2016 left the court deadlocked at 4-4, so Justice Gorsuch’s vote could very well be the one that makes the decision.

For a deeper dive on the legal arguments at play, listen back to AirTalk’s Friday preview of today’s oral arguments.

Guests:

Jacob Huebert, attorney representing the plaintiff, Mark Janus, in the SCOTUS case, Janus v. AFSCME, which is scheduled for today; he is also the director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit that focuses on protecting economic liberty and private property rights

Matt Bodie, professor of employment and labor law at Saint Louis University; he co-authored an amicus brief in support of AFSCME

Yvonne Walker, president of SEIU Local 1000, the Sacramento-based branch of the labor union representing many public service workers

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Competitors play video games on monitors during the Major League Gaming Pro Circuit event June 8, 2007 at the Meadowlands Expo Center in East Rutherford, New Jersey.; Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Gaming devices seem to have become an everyday part of life.

But the conversation shifted last week when Facebook pulled a violent virtual reality game from its booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland.

Criticism escalated on social media over the violent nature of a game after a video of CPAC attendees playing “Bullet Train” was posted on Twitter. Facebook’s vice president of virtual reality, Hugo Barra,  later apologized and pulled the game.

The increased public condemnation makes having a conversation with your children about their online gaming world more pressing.

We discuss how should parents talk to their kids about their gaming habits.

As a parent, is there a way where you can handle your child’s game play habits positively? How closely should you monitor your kid? And are you concerned whether video games are affecting your children negatively?

Call us at 866-893-5722.

Guests:

Jason Schreier, news editor at Kotaku, a site devoted to gaming; author of “Blood, Sweat and Pixels: The Triumphant, Turbulent Stories Behind How Video Games Are Made” (Harper Paperbacks, 2017)

Caroline Knorr, senior parenting editor at Common Sense Media, a nonprofit dedicated to help parents and kids negotiate tech and media

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Louise Anna Turpin and David Allen Turpin, accused of abusing and holding 13 of their children captive, appear in court on January 24, 2018 in Riverside, California. ; Credit: Pool/Getty Images

A little more than a month after thirteen Turpin siblings were found locked up in their home in Perris, California, Assemblyman Jose Medina (D-Riverside) is proposing stricter regulations for the homeschool system that some say facilitated an environment of abuse in the Turpin home.

David Turpin had registered their home as a private school with the state Department of Education in 2010, re-submitting the form, known as a private school affidavit, every year. Under existing California law, there is no additional oversight – no home visits or assessment of academic performance  – which has led for calls for reform.

Cue Medina’s Assembly Bill 2756, which would mandate that city and county fire departments do yearly inspections of all home schools.

Critics say the legislation unnecessarily targets home-school families in light of a case that had more to do with abuse than the homeschool system, and that home inspections are a breach of their Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Reform advocates, on the other hand, say the bill doesn’t go far enough.

If you were homeschooled or run a homeschool, we want to hear from you. Does this bill create much needed infrastructure for oversight? Or is it a violation of a homeschool family’s privacy? If you do want more oversight, what kind of regulations would be effective, if any?

Call us at 866-893-5722.

Guests:

Pam Dowling, president of the California Homeschool Network, nonprofit that aims to support homeschoolers and ensure that homeschooling remains a legal option

Hännah Ettinger, a homeschool alumni advocate with the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, a nonprofit that aims to reform policy around homeschooling to protect children

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Cars travel along State Route 110 on February 21, 2017 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Angelenos love to talk about the weather and traffic - despite the unchanging nature of both things.

We know that the weather is most likely than not going to be good, and traffic is most likely than not going to be horrible. Still, we are obsessed.

As part of the California Dream project, a collaboration between KPCC and newsrooms across the state, our transportation reporter Meghan McCarty Carino will be looking at mobility issues and how they relate to the changing idea of the California Dream.

For this segment, AirTalk wants to hear your memories from the golden age of driving in California -- a time supposedly before bumper-to-bumper traffic, where you can get from one part of town to another with little frustration. Do you remember when the freeways were new and freely flowing (or at least more so than they are today)? What was it like to live and drive around LA during that time? How have you seen things change?

In addition, how has mounting congestion changed the way you live your life in Southern California – from decisions about which jobs you take or who you have relationships with, to how often you visit the beach or go out to dinner out of your neighborhood? Has congestion changed the way you conceive of and interact with the city and shrunken it down to a smaller sphere? How does that influence what you expect of your immediate neighborhood and the amenities it offers?

Call us at 866.893.5722 to let us know.

Guest:

Meghan McCarty Carino, KPCC reporter covering commuting and mobility issues; she’s working on a series of stories for California Dream project, a reporting partnership with newsrooms across California including KPCC, KQED, KPBS, Capital Public Radio and CalMatters

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

An experimental Ford Fusion self-driving delivery car is displayed at CES in Las Vegas, Nevada, January 12, 2018.; Credit: DAVID MCNEW/AFP/Getty Images

Picture this: you pull up to a stoplight and look over at the driver in the car next to you, only to discover that there isn’t one.

How would you react? What would you think?

New rules on autonomous vehicle operations that the California DMV released on Monday get rid of the requirement that a human be in the driver’s seat while a driverless car is operating on the road. The new rule, which will go into effect on April 2, is a big step forward in the deployment and normalization of autonomous vehicles on the road.

What's your take on the DMV's new rules? How do you think you'd react to seeing a car on the road without a driver? What concerns do you have about there not being a driver in the driver's seat, even if there is still someone in the car to take over if necessary?

Guests:

Alex Davies, associate editor for transportation at WIRED Magazine; he tweets @adavies47

Ashley Z. Hand, co-founder of CityFi, a company that focuses on the integration of technology in the urban environment; formerly served as the transportation technology strategist for the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and developed public policy for shared mobility, automated vehicles and other technologies; she tweets @azhandkc

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Instructor Blanca Claudio (C) teaches a history lesson at Franklin High School in Los Angeles, California, on May 25, 2017.; Credit: ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

California law mandates that high school students take courses such as U.S. History, economics and American government in order to graduate, but Assemblymember Jose Medina (D-Riverside) wants to add one more requirement to the list: ethnic studies.

In his newly introduced Assembly Bill 2772, Medina proposes that any school that doesn’t already offer “standards-based ethnic studies curriculum” offer such a survey course by the 2021 school year, based on the model curriculum currently being developed by the Instructional Quality Commission and the State Board of Education. If the bill passes, taking this course would be a graduation requirement for students starting in the year 2023.

Proponents of mandatory ethnic studies courses say it’s important for the diverse students of California to see themselves reflected in their curriculum and that current history classes are biased towards a white, European and male perspective. That more in-depth study of race relations in the U.S. will be beneficial to building understanding and empathy.

Critics say these classes may end up being trite and unhelpful to students in an environment in which they’re already overloaded by graduation requirements.

If you’ve taken an ethnic studies course, whether in high school or college, did you find it beneficial? Do you think this should be a requirement for all high school students? What kind of material would you want such a class to cover?

Take Two talked with Assemblymember Jose Medina about this bill yesterday. To listen to the interview, click here.

Guests:

José Lara, social studies teacher at Santee Education Complex High School in South Central L.A. and founder of the Ethnic Studies Now Coalition

David Lehrer, president of Community Advocates, Inc., a nonprofit organization that advocates innovative approaches to human relations and race relations in Los Angeles city and county

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Gov. John Kasich (R) (R-OH) speaks as Gov. John Hickenlooper (L) (D-CO) listens during a press conference February 23, 2018 in Washington, DC.; Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R), speculated Sunday about an end to the two-party system in the U.S.

Kasich, a former Republican presidential candidate said on ABC This Week that he’s “starting to really wonder if we are going to see a multiparty system at some point in the future in this country because I don't think either party is answering people's deepest concerns and needs.”

Kasich’s political motives aside, it’s no secret that there’s been a splintering within the Democratic and Republican parties. The Trump and Bernie supporters challenged the status quo in 2016, and part of that result was Trump’s presidency.

But is a truly competitive multi-party system really viable? Not only would there have to be serious money behind a third-party candidate, but the support would have to be sustained over time, and include mobilization from all 50 states.

So what has been the historical impact of third-party candidates in presidential races? Larry speaks to two professors on opposite sides of the aisle today, for a look back at third party leaders and if we can really expect an eventual shift to a multi-party system in the U.S.

Guests:

Derek Muller, associate professor of law at Pepperdine, where his focus includes election law, and the role of states in elections; he tweets @derektmuller ‏

Robert Shrum, political science professor and chair in practical politics at USC; he’s an expert in presidential elections, and political advertising and policy

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Secretary of State of California Alex Padilla speaks onstage at 2018 Women's March Los Angeles at Pershing Square on January 20, 2018 in Los Angeles, California.; Credit: Amanda Edwards/Getty Images for The Women's Mar

U.S. intelligence says it has evidence of seven states whose voting process was compromised by Russia before the 2016 election.

The states affected were not informed of the breach, but according to a new report by NBC News, California is on the list.

The Department of Homeland Security said the report was misleading. NBC then pushed back, doubling down on their story’s accuracy.

It’s unclear how exactly California was compromised and whether it was a security hack into a state website or the voter registration databases. The senior intelligence officials who spoke to NBC said no votes were changed. So is the NBC report correct, and if so, when did California learn of the hack and what are they doing to secure the systems for the future?

In different voting news, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing a challenge today to a Minnesota ban on wearing clothing with political messaging to a polling place.

Larry talks to Secretary of State Alex Padilla to get his thoughts on electioneering at the polls via clothing, as well as the latest on whether California was compromised by Russia-backed covert operatives and what this means for future elections.

Guest:

Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of California

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

People rally in favor of single-payer healthcare for all Californians as the US Senate prepares to vote on the Senate GOP health care bill, outside the office of California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, June 27, 2017 in South Gate, California. ; Credit: AFP Contributor/AFP/Getty Images

The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, released a plan this week that comes very close to a single-payer health care, a system funded and administered by the government that eliminates private insurers.

The CAP plan, called “Medicare Extra for All,” would provide government-run health insurance for everyone, though people would still have the option of obtaining coverage from an employer. Many lawmakers, including Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), are backing the plan.

But not everyone is a fan. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Moffit said the CAP plan would mean “more power for politicians and bureaucrats to prescribe, define, limit or control what ordinary Americans could access from the health-care system.”

So is “Medicare for All” the solution for a universal health care? We weigh the pros and cons.

Guests:

Michelle Faust, KPCC’s health care reporter who’s been covering the single payer debate in California

Topher Spiro, vice president of health policy and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive think tank  

Robert E. Moffit, senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative public policy think tank

Sally Pipes, president and CEO and Thomas W. Smith fellow in Health Care Policy at the Pacific Research Institute

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The downtown skyline of Los Angeles, California on October 12, 2017 where a new report from USC and Beacon Economics shows Southern California's housing crisis is leading to an increase in rent for Los Angeles and Orange county into 2019. ; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

We’ve heard a lot about the City of Los Angeles working through the complicated subject of regulating short-term rentals through companies like Airbnb and HomeAway, but much less about how short-term rentals impact unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

On Tuesday, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors passed a motion that will allow them to start examining the impact that short-term rentals have on affordable housing and homelessness in unincorporated parts of the county. Specifically, the motion is aimed at finding out whether regulating these kinds of rentals could help reduce homelessness and prevent would-be home buyers with lower-incomes from being priced out of certain areas.

How will the county go about assessing the impact of short-term rentals? What do short-term rental hosts in unincorporated areas think about how regulation could impact their business?

Guests:

Molly Rysman, housing and homelessness deputy for Los Angeles County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl

Connie Llanos, Airbnb’s deputy policy manager for the Los Angeles region

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A student walks toward an entrance of the historic "R Building" on the campus of L.A. Unified's Roosevelt High School in Boyle Heights.; Credit: Kyle Stokes/KPCC

A nationwide school walkout has been set for March 14 in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Fl.

The Los Angeles United School District has responded with its policy for the planned walkout.

The district is asking parents to discourage their children from leaving the campus. Instead, it wants schools to honor the victims of the shooting by staging on-campus activities for students to participate in at 10:00 a.m. on March 14 for 17 minutes.

What do you think of LAUSD’s policy? If you are a LAUSD parent, how would you talk to your kids about the walkout? Are you in favor of your kids joining the walk out?

Guest:

Kyle Stokes, reporter covering K-12 education for KPCC

Elizabeth Mori, Oakland-based education attorney specializing in public education at Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP an education law firm that works with school districts across California on different issues

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A McDonald's sign hangs in lower Manhattan on February 9, 2015 in New York City. ; Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Women and minorities have a long history of fighting for equal rights in the U.S., but there’s another, lesser known group, that has faced a similar trajectory, using similar tactics: corporations.

In his new book “We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights,” UCLA law professor Adam Winkler traces the history of corporations’ fight for personhood under the law, from the colonial era to the landmark cases of Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. Corporations have often used the tactics of the civil rights movement, such as civil disobedience and test cases, to bend the law in their favor.

Larry Mantle sits down with Professor Winkler to discuss how corporations shaped the U.S. Constitution and democracy, from America’s early beginnings to today.

Adam Winkler will be discussing his new book:

• Thursday, March 8 at 12:30pm at ALOUD at the Los Angeles Central Library in DTLA

• Wednesday, April 4 at 7:00pm at Chevalier’s Books in Larchmont

​Guest:

Adam Winkler, author of the new book, “We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights” (Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017); UCLA law professor and gun law expert

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A border patrol officer stands guard along the U.S.-Mexico border February 7, 2018 in San Ysidro, California. ; Credit: Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images

President Trump is expected to visit the Golden State this month to check in on his baby – the border wall.

Controversy about the wall’s development hasn’t faded since the 2016 presidential campaign trail. Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday that he would delay the project’s development in California, but only until the whole wall is approved. His tweet came on the heels of a U.S. District Court Judge’s ruling which rejected lawsuits from the state of California and environmentalists accusing the Department of Homeland Security of illegally waiving environmental regulations for the replacement wall and prototype development. Trump had previously accused the district court judge, Gonzalo Curiel, of bias.

So what do the prototypes look like and what can we expect to see in the walls future development?

Guests:

Kate Morrissey, immigration reporter for the San Diego Union Tribune who’s been following the story; she tweets @bgirledukate

Ted Hesson, immigration reporter for POLITICO Pro who’s been following the story; he tweets @tedhesson

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.