Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Patt Morrison for Thursday, August 4, 2011


Thursday, August 4, 2011

1-3 p.m.





1:06 – 1:39





1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Famine in Somalia: how does starvation still happen and how much does the U.S. want to do about it?

Two weeks ago, the United Nations declared an official famine for the first time since 1984—a famine in two regions of Somalia. Yesterday, it declared famine in three more regions, with more than 12 million people at risk of death by starvation and tens of thousands already dead. In an effort to survive, thousands are refugees are making long journeys by foot, hoping to find nourishment in Kenyan and Ethiopian refugee camps. At the Dabaab refugee camp in Kenya alone, more than 1,000 Somalis arrive a day, roughly half of which are starving children; the camp is already four times its capacity, and there is a backlog of 17,000 people waiting to register in the camp. The latest reported challenge is that malnourished young girls and women making the journey and in the camps are being preyed upon, kidnapped and gang-rapped, sometimes for days and in front of their children, by armed militia and bandit—an occurrence that become common enough that many women are having their boys keep watch when they sleep.


In a globalized world, with Green Revolution technologies and international aid and nonprofits, why is this famine occurring? Some point to the fact that the Horn of Africa region is experiencing its worst drought since the 1950s—although sub-Saharan Africa is used to drought and erratic rainfall. Others point to the switch that Somalia made from nomadic herding and subsistence farming to large, sedentary cash crops for export—vulnerable to bad weather and international food prices (highest record in 23 years in February). Meanwhile, al-Qaeda-linked al-Shabab, an Islamist terrorist group currently targeted by U.S. drone strikes, controls much of southern Somalia and has been restricting access. In response, although it puts the U.S. in a tricky position because experts believe that some of the money will be partially siphoned off to al-Shabab, the Obama administration has agreed to loosen regulations on paying “taxes” or tolls to the terrorist group for the sake of getting aid to where it’s most needed. Is this famine man-made or mother nature-made? What can we learn from this famine in an effort to prevent future famines? And, in the aftermath of months of debating our debt at home, how much should the U.S. assist and intervene to save lives abroad?




Clare Lockhart, co-founder and director, Institute for State Effectiveness; former adviser to the UN, NATO and Afghanistan government




2:06 – 2:30

Should we let Big Brother monitor us if it helps catch child pornographers?

Rep. Lamar Smith introduced The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 to help law enforcement track and arrest child pornographers. The title sounds good--we all want to protect children, but some critics have called the bill “un-American” and others have labeled it “the biggest threat to civil liberties now under consideration in the United States.” Why the strong reaction to the bill?  Well because rather than target suspected offenders or those with a previous record of sexual abuse, the bill would give Internet providers the right to monitor the accounts of anyone using the Internet.  Yes, anyone.  The companies would be required to track your Internet activity, store private information about you including your name, your address, your bank account and credit card numbers and your IP address for 18 months. Rep. Smith says that if the bill doesn’t pass it “would keep our law enforcement officials in the dark ages.” The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill by a 19 – 10 vote.  Does this bill go too far and violate our right to privacy, or is it a necessary tool to catch some of the worst among us?  How much privacy would you, or should, you be willing to give up to catch a child pornographer?  



Christopher Calabrese, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union




Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).  She’s is cosponsor on the bill.

Rep. James Sensebrenner (R-Wisconsin).  He thinks the bill is flawed and isn’t convinced it “will contribute to protecting children.”


Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection



2:30 – 2:39





2:41:30 – 2:58:30

The Case for the Only Child: Your Essential Guide

In economics “diminished returns” is a phrase referring to a decrease in marginal output following an increase in production. This is a fine term to keep in mind when producing goods, but maybe also for (re)producing babies? In The Case for the Only Child - Susan P. Newman argues just that, taking a position that a one child family can optimize the happiness and well-being of, not only the child, but the parents too. Additionally, Susan addresses the myths and stigma associated with the lifestyle and argues against the traits pop-culture has attributed as being typical of an “only.” She’s on the show today to talk about just why only one child may rule supreme. Is having just one kid the way to go? Or do you feel otherwise?



Susan P. Newman, Social psychologist and best-selling author of “The Case for the Only Child”



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 /


No comments: