Patt Morrison for Tuesday, October 4th

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Tuesday, October 4, 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 – 1:30: OPEN

 

1:30 – 1:58:30

California pursues independent case against banks

California Attorney General Kamala Harris is rejecting a proposed nationwide settlement that would allow banks accused of wrongdoing in the foreclosure crisis to free themselves from further liability with a one-time payment to the states. On Friday, Harris called the proposed settlement “inadequate.” Instead, she’s independently pursuing an investigation on behalf of California, the state with the second-highest foreclosure rate in August. All 50 attorneys general have been negotiating a settlement over the past year with major banks accused of wrongful foreclosures and robo-signing, the practice of lenders signing mortgage documents without sufficient review of borrowers’ credit or ability to pay back the loans. Several AGs have already spoken out against the proposed deal, backed by president Obama, and on Friday Harris joined the ranks of those AGs rejecting the deal. Opponents of continuing an investigation would like to see a settlement, arguing it will stabilize the housing market and free up credit for more lending. On the other side, President Obama is being criticized from the left for not aggressively going after these banks. What’s best for the country, the economy, and will this make a difference to Californians hoping to stay in their homes?

 

Guests:

Kamala Harris (CALM-a-la), Attorney General, California

 

Ken Kelly, homeowner in Antioch, CA

 

NOT CONFIRMED:

TBA, Financial Services Roundtable

 

2:06 – 2:30

Big Brother GPS tracking: your privacy vs. your city and country’s safety?

Yesterday was the first day of the Supreme Court 2011-2012 term, and one of the most hotly contested cases it will take up asks if the police and FBI can secretly attach a GPS tracking device to anyone’s car for anyone reason, without a warrant. The case, United States v. Jones, is that of Antoine Jones, the owner of a Washington nightclub, who was sentenced to life in prison for selling cocaine. The sentencing was based on evidence gathered from a GPS device that was placed on his car unbeknownst to him. Opponents of the police and FBI using tracking devices argue that the 18^th-century prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures” needs to be updated to include modern technology so that police need a warrant before tracking an individual. Opponents like the ACLU argue that, without a warrant mandated and with GPS as cheap as it is now, the government could technically put a device on everyone’s car—or track individuals through their phones. Proponents of government-use of the devices point out that police surveillance and tailing a car is already allowed and say GPS just brings it into the digital age. In the Jones case, the government argued in a brief that losing the warrantless right would “seriously impede the government’s ability to investigate leads on drug trafficking, terrorism and other crimes.”

 

In the age of technology like GPS, OnStar and Facebook, is privacy a thing of the past for those wanting to stay plugged in; are privacy concerns a generational issue? Is warrantless GPS tracking a dangerous civil rights precedent to set? Or, is greater national safety worth the loss of privacy?

 

Guests:

IN FAVOR OF TRACKING:

Bill Bratton, former LAPD Chief; chairman of Kroll, a risk consulting company of Altegrity, Inc.

 

AGAINST TRACKING:

Frederick Lane, author of American Privacy: The 400-Year History of Our Most Contested Right

 

 

2:30 – 2:39: OPEN

 

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30

Hollywood Left and Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics

Separation of church and state is a concept many Americans agree should be applied in politics, but what about a separation between Hollywood and state? Ronald Reagan, Jane Fonda, Charlton Heston, Warren Beatty, Arnold Schwarzenegger – the list goes on of movie actors known not only for their show biz careers, but for their involvement in politics. In his new book, “Hollywood Left and Right,” film historian Steven J. Ross explores the influence celebrities and icons have had on politics in America through a case study of influential stars, current and from the past, conservative and liberal. Which side takes the cake for political influence? Ross’ assertion may surprise you.

 

Guests:

Steven J. Ross, film historian and author of “Hollywood Left and Right”

IN STUDIO

 

 

 

Lauren Osen

Southern California Public Radio - 89.3 KPCC

626-583-5173 / 626-483-5278

losen@scpr.org