Patt Morrison for Thursday, September 1, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Thursday, September 1, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

CALL-IN @ 866-893-5722, 866-893-KPCC; OR JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE ON THE PATT MORRISON BLOG AT KPCC-DOT-ORG

 

 

 

1:06 – 1:39

OPEN

 

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Life in 9/12 America: has our public health system learned anything since 9/11, are we ready for a biological attack?

 

Guest:

Jeanne Ringel, director of the Public Health Systems & Preparedness Initiative and a senior economist at RAND Health

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:30

Will 10,000 felons arriving in L.A. increase crime—or will rehabilitation decrease crime?

Come October 1, the 10,000 non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offender felons that will be transferred from state prison to Los Angeles County will begin to arrive. In response to the influx, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said Tuesday, “Public safety will be seriously jeopardized. We’re not kidding. There will be tens of thousands of people let out all over California, who would otherwise be incarcerated…. There will be a… dramatically spiking crime rate.” He made the comment at a meeting of the Board of L.A. County Supervisors, where the board postponed a vote on a plan to manage the felons. Sheriff Lee Baca, who oversees the county jails, says that with about 4,500 beds to spare, his jails likely won’t have room for the 7,000 to 9,000 inmates that are expected to arrive in the first year. For this reason, non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offender convicts, referred to as N3s, may be released early (already occurring in county jails) and new N3s will receive shorter sentences—a problem, Cooley says, because state prison time has served as deterrent.

 

In contrast, Donald Blevins, the L.A. County Chief Probation Officer, thinks he can lower crime by having the inmates supervised locally rather than by state parole officers. Blevins, who says, “It’s the combination of mental illness and addiction that leads mentally ill people to go to jail,” plans to move towards a rehabilitation approach with the convicts. Previously, parolees who fail drug tests over and over may have gone to prison; now, they could be sent to mental illness and drug rehab programs that Blevins is developing—an approach Cooley says is unrealistic. LAPD is bracing itself for this influx of felons and says it will electronically monitor parolees through ankle braces. Baca promises to provide every new inmate with an educational plan, in an effort to reduce recidivism. County supervisors have said they don’t have the projected $300 million this “inmate dumping” the state has put on them. Will crime increase when these felons arrive in L.A.? Or will rehabilitation and education work to decrease crime and recidivism? And how will Los Angeles pay to rehabilitate, educate, and incarcerate 10,000 more felons?

 

Guests:

Steve Cooley, Los Angeles County District Attorney

HE CALLS LINE 10

Backup: 213-974-3528 Sandi

 

Donald Blevins, Chief Probation Officer, Los Angeles County Probation Department

CALL HIM: 562-940-2502

Backup: 562 315 3388 Carrie cell; 562-940-2501 Patty landline

 

Lee Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff

HE CALLS LINE 12

Backup: 323-573-2387 Steve cell

 

UNCONFIRMED

Dr. Marvin Southard, Los Angeles County Mental Health Department Director

 

 

 

2:30 – 2:39

OPEN

 

 

 

2:39 – 2:58:30

Is Marriage for White People?: How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone

Should African American women marry more men who are not African American? In his book, Is Marriage for White People?, Ralph Banks says yes. Banks explains that in the past fifty years, African Americans have come to have the lowest marriage rates in the nation. One reason is that each year, for every two black women to graduate from college, only one black man graduates. This shortage of successful black men leads black women to marry less-educated and lower-earning men. And with successful black men in high demand, Banks argues, these men are less faithful. If, however, black women marry outside of their race, this could change—marriage rates would improve. Banks joins Patt to lay out his argument and hear your response.

 

Guest:

Ralph Richard Banks, author of Is Marriage for White People?

 

 

 

Kathleen Miles

Patt Morrison Program - Winner of the 2007, 2009 & 2010 RTNA Golden Mike for best Radio News & Public Affairs program and The Nation's 2010 Most Valuable Radio Voice
Southern California Public Radio - NPR Affiliate for LA

89.3 KPCC-FM | 89.1 KUOR-FM | 90.3-KPCV-FM

474 South Raymond Ave.

Pasadena, CA 91105

626-583-5170 - desk | 626-664-3688 – mobile

kmiles@scpr.org | www.scpr.org

Facebook | Twitter

---

From: Serviss, Jonathan
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:54 PM
To: Serviss, Jonathan; Watje-Hurst, Janice; Schmitt, Christina; Airtalk; Baer, Debra; Lopez, Veronica; Schmitt, Christina; Cuevas, Steven; Curtis, Craig; Devall, Cheryl; Felde, Kitty; Glickman, Paul; Guzman Lopez, Adolfo; Hurtes, Hettie; Jahad, Shirley; Julian, Steve; 'kevin@kevinroderick.com'; kpccint1; Thomas, Mark Austin; 'mayorsam.blogspot.com'; Peterson, Molly; Moran, Kari; Nazario, Patricia; Peterson, Ryan; PM; Rabe, John; Receptionist LA; Receptionist Pasadena; Roman, Nick; 'rough & tumble'; SCPR Development; SCPR Web; Small, Julie; Stoltze, Frank; Strauss, Rob; Underwriting - SCPR; Valot, Susan; Watt, Brian; Rivas, Leonor; Mitchell, Collin; Ramirez, Bianca; Peterson, Molly; Deinyan, Valentina; Conti, Noelle; Cohen, Alex; Cartier, Jacqueline; 'garylycan@sbcglobal.net'; Kim, Queena; Cohn, Jon; 'emcdonnell@npr.org'; 'ijaffe@npr.org'; 'kconcannon@npr.org'; 'qotoole@npr.org'; 'David Lazarus'; Davis, Bill; Muller, Kristen; Brand, Madeleine; 'Rainey, James'; 'arwen nicks'; 'Rachael Myrow'; Miles, Kathleen; Crowley, Mark; Smith, Jennifer; 'lindsay@laist.com'; andy@laist.com; christine@laist.com; Ferguson, Kevin; 'aimee machado'; Fox, Hayley; Baughman, Jennifer; Miller, Jennifer; 'jstewart@laweekly.com'; 'kplocek@laweekly.com'; 'commsdept@latimes.com'; 'clehman@eventful.com'; BrandShow
Subject: Patt Morrison for Wednesday, August 31, 2011

 

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

CALL-IN @ 866-893-5722, 866-893-KPCC; OR JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE ON THE PATT MORRISON BLOG AT KPCC-DOT-ORG

 

 

 

1:06 – 1:18

OPEN

 

 

 

1:23 – 1:39

The curious case of a tax increase that the GOP actually likes

For a party that has more-or-less staked its future and political reputation on a strident, universal opposition to tax increases it’s curious to note that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives might be on the verge of allowing one tax to increase.  The Social Security payroll tax was cut, from 6.2 percent down to 4.2, as part of President Obama’s stimulus law but that tax cut is due to run out at the end of this year.  The payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker’s wages, so the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the tax cut is roughly $2,100.  Since the great majority of Americans make less than $100,000 a year they pay more in this Social Security tax than they do in income taxes—in other words, the Social Security payroll tax cut helps the roughly 46 percent of all Americans who make so little money that they pay no federal income tax.  The tax cut needs Congressional approval to be extended past January 1, and while President Obama supports extending the cut it turns out that House Republicans are hesitant.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Republican leader in the House and one of the twelve members on the budget-cutting Supercommittee has said about the payroll tax “not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”  Republicans also worry that the payroll tax cut will cost the government about $120 billion a year in lost revenues, which strangely has never been a concern for them as they’ve championed income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  Is there a justifiable reason to let a tax cut lapse for a segment of the population that pays little to no taxes or should a party’s anti-tax platform apply to every potential tax increase, no matter who it benefits?

 

Guest:
James Fallows, national correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly and author of “The GOP Position on Taxes Gets Worse”
CALL HIM @

 

TBD Representative of the National Taxpayers Union

 

 

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Life in 9/12 America: 10 years after 9/11 is airport security anything more than Kabuki?

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 it was hard to believe that 19 hijackers, armed with just box cutters, could overtake four airplanes at the same time.  But the plan of attack was so simple, and aimed at such a glaring vulnerability in the country’s national security chain that it worked brilliantly with ultimately tragic consequences.  The resulting rush to beef up airport security since 9/11 has left us with a brand new agency, the Transportation Security Administration, and several new search techniques and search technologies that have all come with very high costs.  It could be argued, and our guest from RAND does so, that it was actually a relatively inexpensive measure that has been chiefly responsible for the failure to repeat the catastrophic attacks of 9/11 using commercial airliners.  Tougher visa rules, especially from countries of origin that have histories of terrorist involvement (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.), have created a barrier for would-be attackers traveling to the U.S.  The enhanced pat-downs, the full body x-ray machines and even taking your shoes off in the security line may all play lesser roles in keeping airplanes safe than the simple increased vigilance of passengers since 9/11, who now realize that they are also responsible for their own safety.  It’s also worth pointing out that while airports have taken a universal approach to screening—everyone gets patted down, even grandmothers and infants—other vulnerable points of entry, such as harbors, employ only selective screening.  Have we truly learned our lesson about travel security since 9/11 and is there a better way to make airports safe?

 

Guest:

Jack Riley, vice president & director of the RAND National Security Research Division

via ISDN

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:19

Does the emergency 911 system need help? 

For minutes, even hours, after the earthquake hit on the East Coast, residents in need of emergency assistance weren’t able to get through to 911 on their cells phones. That got the attention of the FCC. Officials at the agency say it’s a “serious concern” and will investigate what can be done to prevent it from happening again. The president of the CTIA, The Wireless Association, blamed the surge in calls for the problem. But isn’t a dramatic increase in calls to 911 to be expected after any emergency and shouldn’t the system be able to handle it?  What did perform well were social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook—40,000 Tweets in the first few minutes after the earthquake and 3 million mentions of “earthquake” on Facebook.  Is the current 911 system keeping up with technological advancements? These are questions being asked in emergency response circles and many, including the FCC, are pushing for the Next Generation 911 system. The new system will have the capacity and flexibility to include social media. So in the future it may be more effective to text for help than to call (at least from your cell phone).

 

Guest:

James a Barnett Jr., retired rear admiral and chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at the FCC

CALL HIM @

 

 

 

2:21:30 – 2:58:30

OPEN

 

 

 

Patt: We’re finished here, but the conversation continues on the Patt Morrison page at KPCC-dot-org and you can follow us on Twitter. You’re listening to 89.3 KPCC – Southern California Public Radio.

 

FROM THE MOHN BROADCAST CENTER, I’M PATT MORRISON

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Serviss
Senior Producer, Patt Morrison
Southern California Public Radio
NPR Affiliate for Los Angeles
89.3 KPCC-FM | 89.1 KUOR-FM | 90.3 KPCV-FM
626.583.5171, office
415.497.2131, mobile
jserviss@kpcc.org / jserviss@scpr.org
www.scpr.org

 

Patt Morrison for Wednesday, August 31, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

CALL-IN @ 866-893-5722, 866-893-KPCC; OR JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE ON THE PATT MORRISON BLOG AT KPCC-DOT-ORG

 

 

 

1:06 – 1:18

OPEN

 

 

 

1:23 – 1:39

The curious case of a tax increase that the GOP actually likes

For a party that has more-or-less staked its future and political reputation on a strident, universal opposition to tax increases it’s curious to note that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives might be on the verge of allowing one tax to increase.  The Social Security payroll tax was cut, from 6.2 percent down to 4.2, as part of President Obama’s stimulus law but that tax cut is due to run out at the end of this year.  The payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker’s wages, so the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the tax cut is roughly $2,100.  Since the great majority of Americans make less than $100,000 a year they pay more in this Social Security tax than they do in income taxes—in other words, the Social Security payroll tax cut helps the roughly 46 percent of all Americans who make so little money that they pay no federal income tax.  The tax cut needs Congressional approval to be extended past January 1, and while President Obama supports extending the cut it turns out that House Republicans are hesitant.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Republican leader in the House and one of the twelve members on the budget-cutting Supercommittee has said about the payroll tax “not all tax relief is created equal for the purposes of helping to get the economy moving again.”  Republicans also worry that the payroll tax cut will cost the government about $120 billion a year in lost revenues, which strangely has never been a concern for them as they’ve championed income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  Is there a justifiable reason to let a tax cut lapse for a segment of the population that pays little to no taxes or should a party’s anti-tax platform apply to every potential tax increase, no matter who it benefits?

 

Guest:
James Fallows, national correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly and author of “The GOP Position on Taxes Gets Worse”
CALL HIM @

 

TBD Representative of the National Taxpayers Union

 

 

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Life in 9/12 America: 10 years after 9/11 is airport security anything more than Kabuki?

In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 it was hard to believe that 19 hijackers, armed with just box cutters, could overtake four airplanes at the same time.  But the plan of attack was so simple, and aimed at such a glaring vulnerability in the country’s national security chain that it worked brilliantly with ultimately tragic consequences.  The resulting rush to beef up airport security since 9/11 has left us with a brand new agency, the Transportation Security Administration, and several new search techniques and search technologies that have all come with very high costs.  It could be argued, and our guest from RAND does so, that it was actually a relatively inexpensive measure that has been chiefly responsible for the failure to repeat the catastrophic attacks of 9/11 using commercial airliners.  Tougher visa rules, especially from countries of origin that have histories of terrorist involvement (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.), have created a barrier for would-be attackers traveling to the U.S.  The enhanced pat-downs, the full body x-ray machines and even taking your shoes off in the security line may all play lesser roles in keeping airplanes safe than the simple increased vigilance of passengers since 9/11, who now realize that they are also responsible for their own safety.  It’s also worth pointing out that while airports have taken a universal approach to screening—everyone gets patted down, even grandmothers and infants—other vulnerable points of entry, such as harbors, employ only selective screening.  Have we truly learned our lesson about travel security since 9/11 and is there a better way to make airports safe?

 

Guest:

Jack Riley, vice president & director of the RAND National Security Research Division

via ISDN

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:19

Does the emergency 911 system need help? 

For minutes, even hours, after the earthquake hit on the East Coast, residents in need of emergency assistance weren’t able to get through to 911 on their cells phones. That got the attention of the FCC. Officials at the agency say it’s a “serious concern” and will investigate what can be done to prevent it from happening again. The president of the CTIA, The Wireless Association, blamed the surge in calls for the problem. But isn’t a dramatic increase in calls to 911 to be expected after any emergency and shouldn’t the system be able to handle it?  What did perform well were social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook—40,000 Tweets in the first few minutes after the earthquake and 3 million mentions of “earthquake” on Facebook.  Is the current 911 system keeping up with technological advancements? These are questions being asked in emergency response circles and many, including the FCC, are pushing for the Next Generation 911 system. The new system will have the capacity and flexibility to include social media. So in the future it may be more effective to text for help than to call (at least from your cell phone).

 

Guest:

James a Barnett Jr., retired rear admiral and chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at the FCC

CALL HIM @

 

 

 

2:21:30 – 2:58:30

OPEN

 

 

 

Patt: We’re finished here, but the conversation continues on the Patt Morrison page at KPCC-dot-org and you can follow us on Twitter. You’re listening to 89.3 KPCC – Southern California Public Radio.

 

FROM THE MOHN BROADCAST CENTER, I’M PATT MORRISON

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Serviss
Senior Producer, Patt Morrison
Southern California Public Radio
NPR Affiliate for Los Angeles
89.3 KPCC-FM | 89.1 KUOR-FM | 90.3 KPCV-FM
626.583.5171, office
415.497.2131, mobile
jserviss@kpcc.org / jserviss@scpr.org
www.scpr.org

 

Patt Morrison for Tuesday, August 30, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

CALL-IN @ 866-893-5722, 866-893-KPCC; OR JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE ON THE PATT MORRISON BLOG AT KPCC-DOT-ORG

 

 

 

1:06 – 1:39

OPEN

 

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Life in 9/12 America: have 10 years of war in Afghanistan, Iraq & Pakistan been worth it?

A development over the weekend in Pakistan seems to underscore the progress made in our decade-long war against al Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.  Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, al Qaeda’s top operational planner, was killed by an American aerial drone in the remote mountains of Pakistan, yet another elimination of a top al Qaeda member as the U.S. appears to be inflicting devastating losses on its nemesis since killing Osama bin Laden.  In 2001, the US military sent a limited number of personnel into the deserts of Afghanistan to cooperate with indigenous groups from across the region.  Within the year, they successfully toppled the Taliban and severely weakened al Qaeda’s presence. Having accomplished these victories, American forces turned in 2002 to another strategy, which would prove far less successful in the long term: reforming the “Graveyard of Empires” from the top-down, through stabilizing its central government institutions. From then on, the situation worsened: Afghanistan’s own police forces collapsed, al Qaeda grew again in strength, American casualties escalated, and billions more dollars were spent on the war as the months went by. Military advisor and future RAND scientist Seth Jones observed it all while on duty in Afghanistan, while also watching Pakistan become increasingly unstable and the painful lessons from the 9/11-inspired invasion of Iraq.  There have been unquestionable victories:  first elections in generations in Iraq and Afghanistan; the killing of bin Laden and the erosion of al Qaeda’s operational capabilities; the demonstrated incredible dexterity of the American military that’s been asked to perform every imaginable operation, from nation building to city destroying, since 9/11.  But have the immense costs been worth the victories?  As we continue to look at the post-9/11 world we ask whether our decade of warfare was ultimately worth all of the sacrifices.

 

Guest:

Seth Jones, senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation; former representative & advisor for the commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations

via ISDN

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:30
Yelp wars revisited: are online review sites inaccurate and unfair—or helpful?
Because the Yelp Wars segment received such a large response last week and we did not have enough time with it, Patt is having Vince Sollitto, vice president of corporate communications of Yelp, back. He will be here, in studio, to take your calls and comments about Yelp. Have you experienced extortion, defamation, or fake reviews on Yelp? Or, have you had a positive experience on Yelp? Are these online review sites helpful to consumers and businesses alike? Or, with reports of extortion, fake reviews, manipulation of reviews, and defamation, are the sites inaccurate and unfair?

Guest:
Vince Sollitto, vice president of corporate communications, Yelp, Inc.

IN STUDIO

 

 

 

 

2:30 – 2:58:30

“Law does not mandate work-life balance” to mothers claiming discrimination after maternity leave from Bloomberg L.P.

“There’s no such thing as work-life balance. There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences.” This statement, made by Jack Welch, former chief executive of General Electric, was what Judge Loretta A. Preska of United States District Court in Manhattan quoted in her recent ruling. Judge Preska dismissed the class-action lawsuit by new mothers who claimed that Bloomberg L.P. discriminated against them when they returned to work from maternity leave by reducing their pay, demoting them, or excluding them from meetings. She wrote about federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C)’s case that “isolated remarks from a few individuals over the course of a nearly six-year period in a company of over 10,000, with over 600 women who took maternity leave” does not show a pattern of discrimination. Furthermore, “a female is free to choose to dedicate herself to the company at any cost, and… she will rise in this organization accordingly. The law does not require companies to ignore or stop valuing ultimate dedication, however unhealthy that may be for family life.”

 

Bloomberg L.P. is the financial and media services company founded by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been accused in the past of making inappropriate comments about women’s sex appeal and who the women of the suit claim is responsible for creating a workplace culture of discrimination. Is this an isolated Bloomberg issue, or is discrimination of mothers before, during, and after pregnancy a common workplace occurrence? Does it make a difference that many of these women are top Wall Street executives—at that point, are they choosing career over family? Has feminism created a Generation Y that expects to have it all—family and career—without sacrifice? Is that what men have? Should American companies do more for their working mothers like the government does and European countries do or will that sacrifice competitiveness?

 

Guests:

Sonia Ossorio, executive director, New York National Organization for Women (N.O.W.)

CALL HER:

 

Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research 

CALL HER:

 

 

Jonathan Serviss
Senior Producer, Patt Morrison
Southern California Public Radio
NPR Affiliate for Los Angeles
89.3 KPCC-FM | 89.1 KUOR-FM | 90.3 KPCV-FM
626.583.5171, office
415.497.2131, mobile
jserviss@kpcc.org / jserviss@scpr.org
www.scpr.org

 

Patt Morrison for Monday, August 29, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Monday, August 29, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

CALL-IN @ 866-893-5722, 866-893-KPCC; OR JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE ON THE PATT MORRISON BLOG AT KPCC-DOT-ORG

 

 

 

1:06 – 1:19

OPEN

 

 

 

1:21:30 – 1:39

Would you vote to end the death penalty in 2012? Anti-death penalty group aims for the ballot

Polling data from the last 50 years suggests that California voters would reject a measure abolishing the state’s death penalty if it ever came to the ballot, but Senate Bill 490 proposed just that, until it got tabled last week. Now, Taxpayers for Justice, a coalition of death penalty opponents, is going to the people. They hope to collect 504,760 signatures to get an initiative on the November 2012 ballot. They’re armed with practical statistics they hope will convince voters who aren’t swayed by moral arguments alone. For example, a recent study by a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge and a Loyola law professor found that taxpayers spent $4 billion over the last 30 years to carry out only 13 executions. Can facts like that and a still-shrinking state budget counter the conventional wisdom of the past half-century? Would you vote for an initiative to end the death penalty and spend the money elsewhere? And can life sentencing provide the same degree of punishment as execution?

 

Guests:

ALL UNCONFIRMED:

Don Heller, author of California’s 1978 death penalty statute and a former death penalty advocate; he’s now an affiliate with Taxpayers for Justice

Contact is Erin Mellon:

 

Cory Salzillo, legislative director for the California District Attorneys Association, which supports the death penalty

CALL HIM @

 

OR

TBA, Crime Victims United of California

 

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Life in 9/12 America: how should the victims of terrorism be compensated?

One of the longest running debates after the attacks of September 11, 2001 was how to compensate the victims, from the people killed on the airplanes, in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to the scores of first responders who rushed to the scene and died for their efforts.  Who received compensation, from where and for how much evoked painful memories for the family members of 9/11 victims, and even though a fairly remarkable compensation fund and effort was carried out by the government, we are set to repeat the same mistakes, possibly making them worst, when the inevitable next terror attack strikes.  The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, adopted as a direct result of 9/11, created a federal program to increase the availability and reduce the cost of terrorism insurance—problem is, the program expires next year and with the current mood of spending cuts, there’s almost no chance of its renewal.  Since 9/11 there has been little effort to craft viable public-private partnerships between the government, insurance companies and businesses about how to cover the losses of the next attack.  While we may be better prepared to prevent future attacks we may be less prepared to recover.  As part of our ongoing series examining what we’ve learned in the decade since 9/11 we look at the unheralded issue of terrorism insurance and the aftermath of the next attack.

 

Guest:

Lloyd Dixon, senior economist at the RAND Corporation

Via ISDN

 

 

2:06 – 2:19

The curious case of a tax increase that the GOP actually likes

 

Guest:
James Fallows, national correspondent, The Atlantic Monthly and author of “The GOP Position on Taxes Gets Worse”
CALL HIM @

 

TBD Republican Party member

 

 

 

 

2:21:30 – 2:39

OPEN

 

 

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30

The end of free TV?

If you turn to free, online sites like Hulu to watch your favorite TV shows after they air, you may soon be kissing that convenience good-bye. Network giant Fox has announced that the network will soon require viewers who want to watch their content on the web within 8 days of its airdate to use the “subscriber authentification model”—in other words, to provide an ID and password to prove that they are Dish network customers. And Fox isn’t the only network, ABC may be following suit.  The new TV paywall, dubbed the “Great Free TV Web Pullback of 2011,” likely has its origins in company worries that people will stop paying their monthly cable bills if they can easily access the same content on the Internet. A similar strategy has been implemented by newspapers like the New York Times, which are struggling to stay afloat in today’s tough economy. But is executive logic about peoples’ willingness to stay with cable in order to keep up with the latest episode of Jersey Shore sound? Or will customers find a way around the restrictions?

 

Guests:

Nicholas Jackson, associate editor, The Atlantic and author of “The Age of Free Television on the Web Has Come to an End”

CALL HIM:

 

 

Jonathan Serviss
Senior Producer, Patt Morrison
Southern California Public Radio
NPR Affiliate for Los Angeles
89.3 KPCC-FM | 89.1 KUOR-FM | 90.3 KPCV-FM
626.583.5171, office
415.497.2131, mobile
jserviss@kpcc.org / jserviss@scpr.org
www.scpr.org

 

Patt Morrison for Friday, August 26, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Friday, August 26, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

 

 

1:06 – 1:39 OPEN

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Life in 9/12 America: does the quest for “absolutely safety” from terrorism undermine long-term security?

In our first part of a week-long series examining the decade since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 we look at the quest for “absolute safety” in the wake of the biggest attacks on American soil in the history of the country.  Understandably in the years since 9/11 the public and political leadership have demanded action and urgency in building up a robust defense against future terror attacks.  Government agencies were reorganized, huge amounts of money and resources were put into action, large security projects were moved quickly from conception to implementation in an effort to protect the country as quickly as possible.  As our guest, RAND scientist Brian Jackson writes, “Fear drove action, and political rhetoric frequently stoked rather than cooled the flames of urgency.”  But short term concerns and fears are usually not the best circumstances under which long-term, complicated decisions should be made—from the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, that brought together various disparate security arms of the government, to the screening strategies of the Transportation Security Administration (also a brand new agency formed after 9/11), there’s been a lot of waste and questionable policy decisions made in the name of absolute safety in the decade since 9/11.  We examine the responses to 9/11 and ask if another 10 years of distance might cool emotions enough to craft more thoughtful anti-terrorism policies in the future.

 

Guest:

Brian Jackson, senior physical scientist at RAND focusing on homeland security & terrorism preparedness

 

2:06 – 2:39

Ask the Chief as LAPD’s top cop Charlie Beck takes the microphone

Yesterday’s shooting of an officer while on duty in South L.A. is the latest in an increasing incidence of attacks on police, attacks which increased by more than 40% in the first six months of 2011. In contrast, serious crime in the city decreased by 10% for the same time period. And the surging price of gold has triggered robberies around the city, prompting warnings for jewelry owners and wearers to be careful and not flash their bling. And now social media becomes a concern as Twitter and Facebook increasingly function as platforms for organizing flash mobs that take over public events and threaten to go out of control. We check in with LAPD Chief Charlie Beck on these and other issues, including an update on the Giants fan beating case, President Obama’s push for law enforcement to participate in his Secure Communities initiative to catch and hold criminal illegal immigrants, the poor state of the California criminal data base and more.

Chief Beck – in studio – takes your questions and ours.

 

Guest:

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck

 

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30

Modern day superheroes: The Interrupters

The Interrupters is a feature documentary directed by Steve James (“Hoop Dreams” 1994) about a group of former gang members in Chicago who saw the errors of their ways, turned a new leaf and are working to stop the cycle of violence in their city.  The “Violence Interrupters,” as they are called, are part of an innovative organization appropriately named CeaseFire.  The groups’ philosophy about violence is to equate it with infectious disease: target and treat the most infected and stop the spread.  The Interrupters monitor gang activity and try to anticipate and prevent violent gang warfare. Former gang members, who now have “street cred,” literally put themselves in the line of fire in order to make a difference. One of the Interrupters, Eddie Bocanegra, committed murder when he was just seventeen years old and joined CeaseFire to repent.  Now, he teaches children how to use art to express their sorrow and pain.  Patt talks with the producer—whose story in the New York Times Magazine inspired the film and a Violent Interrupter. The film is critically acclaimed and opens in Los Angeles today [Friday].

 

Guest:

Alex Kotlowitz, producer, The Interrupters

• The Interrupters is inspired by a story in the New York Times Magazine written by Alex Kotlowitz, who spent time in Chicago and saw first hand the horrors of gang violence.

 

Eddie Bocanegra, a Violence Interrupter, who committed a murder when he was seventeen

 

 

 

 

 

Patt Morrison for Thursday, August 25, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Thursday, August 25, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

CALL-IN @ 866-893-5722, 866-893-KPCC; OR JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE ON THE PATT MORRISON BLOG AT KPCC-DOT-ORG

 

 

1:06 – 1:19

OPEN

 

 

 

1:21:30 – 1:39

Are highway emergency call boxes obsolete & should your tax $’s keep funding them?

They are ubiquitous on the highways around California, so reliable in their presence every couple of miles that they’re almost forgettable.  In the age of cell phones they have become almost forgettable, relics of an earlier era when pay phones were on every street corner and cheap cell phones weren’t in everyone’s pockets.  They are the emergency call boxes that line the state’s highway systems and even as they have arguably become obsolete you continue to fund them with your taxpayer dollars.  In 1990, 170,511 calls were made from those bright-yellow emergency call boxes that line San Diego County highways. By 2010, that number had dropped to 11,625. But during those same two decades, the special tax revenue that funds them has grown from $1.9 million to $2.6 million. So now, a Republican Assemblyman from San Diego wants to slash the service and cut the fees that fund call boxes, which are mostly taken from a $1 surcharge on your car registration.  As funds for the call boxes have grown they’ve been used for other services, like firefighting helicopters and quick response tow trucks, but not for their original intention, the call boxes. Do we still need to be funding the emergency call boxes on the side of every major highway in California? Is it worth keeping them around for the small percentage of motorists who don’t have cell phones?

 

Guests:

State Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher (R-San Diego), preparing legislation that could force reforms, including a possible phasing out of the program statewide

WILL CALL:

 

Los Angeles County is one of 29 of 58 California counties with a highway call box program. It has the largest system with more than 4,000 call boxes. All costs associated with the call box program are paid for by a $1 annual fee assessed on vehicles registered in the county. Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol and regional "SAFE" agencies (Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways) jointly operate the program.

 

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Yelp reviews: fake reviews vs. reviewer’s free speech vs. business’s right to protect against slander—where’s the line?
Business was steady for Dancing Deer Mountain, a mom and pop wedding venue in the small town of Junction City, Oregon—until one wedding went terribly wrong. Several rules of the venue contract were broken: outside alcohol was brought on the premises; combative behavior took place when owners warned of rules; a man exposed himself while urinating on the premises. Afterwards, five reviewers wrote scathing online reviews of Dancing Deer, including “These people are insane!,” “The owner… is absolutely crazy and in my opinion is in need professional help!,” and “DO NOT USE THIS VENUE!!!.” The aftermath: Dancing Deer Mountain’s business nearly halted, costing the venue a supposed $20,000 in lost revenue. The owners, Carol Neumann and Tim Benton, hired a company to write fake positive reviews to boost business, but that didn’t work as the disgruntled wedding party followed suit by adding more negative reviews. Against recommendations but with nothing else to do, the owners sued the reviewers; as expected, they lost under the Anti-SLAPP law, which protects the “little guy’s” free speech against a big corporation that can bankrupt him. The only problem, Carol Neumann says, is she’s not a big corporation; she’s a small business trying to protect its reputation—and livelihood.

 

These days, online reviews are widespread: restaurant and business reviews on Yelp and Citysearch; book, film, and product reviews on Amazon; doctor and lawyer reviews on Avvo; travel and hotel reviews on TripAdvisor; service reviews on Angie’s List. And businesses paying people to write fake positive reviews is on the rise—the going rate is $5 per fake positive review. Are you someone who reads reviews, someone who writes reviews, or a business owner or employee who’s concerned with the reviews? Are the sites still useful to you as a consumer looking for recommendations for businesses and services? Are the sites useful to you as a business—both in boosting reputation and in responding to negative feedback? Are consumer review sites important so that consumers can hold businesses accountable? Or, without a foolproof method of detecting fake reviews, defamation, or slander, are the sites inaccurate—or even deceptive and harmful?

 

Guests:
Vince Sollitto, vice president of corporate communications, Yelp, Inc.

CALL HIM:

 

Josh King, vice president of business development & general counsel, Avvo, Inc., a site with ratings and reviews on doctors and lawyers

CALL HIM:

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:30

Novel ideas to old public policy problems: New York City Mayor Bloomberg ponies up to help disadvantaged youth

With incarceration rates high and educational and job opportunities low, the mayor of New York has decided to use his own fortune to do something about it, with a little help from billionaire hedge fund manager George Soros.  Mayor Bloomberg and Soros will each pledge $30 million of their own money toward implementing some innovative ideas to combat unemployment, high recidivism rates and low high school graduation rates.  This fall, the Bloomberg administration wants to place job-recruitment centers in public housing complexes, retrain probation officers to tackle the issue of high recidivism rates, provide fatherhood classes and establish criteria for assessing schools based on the performance of black and Latino students. Creative ideas for sure, but will they work and can they be implemented in Los Angeles without financing from billionaires?

 

Guests:

Shawn Dove, the Manager of the Campaign for Black Male Achievement at the Open Society Foundations

CALL HIM @

·        Investor and philanthropist George Soros established the Open Society Foundations, starting in 1984, to help countries make the transition from communism. Our activities have grown to encompass the United States and more than 70 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Each foundation relies on the expertise of boards composed of eminent citizens who determine individual agendas based on local priorities.

·        The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political, legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, we build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of people in marginalized communities.

Robert Sainz, assistant general manager, Community Development Department for the City of Los Angeles

CALL HIM @  

 

Elijah Anderson, professor of sociology at Yale University

CALL HIM @

 

 

 

2:30 – 2:58:30

Co-workers can be dangerous to your health

A study done over 20 years by researchers at Tel Aviv University reinforces what we all secretly knew: your co-workers are responsible for your health and happiness in the workplace. But did you know they could be responsible for your early death, too? Although a small, longitudinal study – scientists followed 820 adults in several occupations over 20 years – the research faces us with the fact that our workplace has a huge impact on our health, revealing that employees who claim no “peer social support” were 2.4 times more likely to die during the course of the study, especially if they started employment between the ages of 38 and 43. Longer hours at your job or a mean boss didn’t affect longevity, however – just the quality of and relationship with co-workers. Other research has found that control matters as well; a study which analyzed 28,000 English civil service workers starting in 1967 revealed that men and women who had the most control over their workplace were the healthiest and happiest. Indeed, workers at the bottom of the hierarchy were four times more likely to die than the people at the top. The Israeli study, however, found that only men with control were healthiest and that women fared better who had little or no control over what they did in their jobs. So, take a look around you – like what you see? Is it time to smile at the person in the next cubicle instead of growling a hello in the morning?

 

Guests:

Jonah Lehrer, contributing editor at Wired; author of How We Decide and Proust Was a Neuroscientist; contributor to the New Yorker, the New York Times Magazine and WNYC’s Radiolab.

CALL HIM:

 

Jonathan Serviss
Senior Producer, Patt Morrison
Southern California Public Radio
NPR Affiliate for Los Angeles
89.3 KPCC-FM | 89.1 KUOR-FM | 90.3 KPCV-FM
626.583.5171, office
415.497.2131, mobile
jserviss@kpcc.org / jserviss@scpr.org
www.scpr.org