Wednesday, November 16, 2011

RE: Patt Morrison for Thursday, November 17, 2011


Thursday, November 17, 2011

1-3 p.m.








1:06 –1:39 OPEN


1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Salmon Rushdie’s fight with Facebook and the question of online identity

Defining your online identity can be complicated. Take what happened to writer Salmon Rushdie for instance, he recently butted heads with Facebook over his name. At issue was his ability to go by his middle name, Salman, rather than his first, Ahmed. After calling out his frustration with Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-creator, on Twitter, he was permitted to use his chosen name. With the increasing use of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook ,  how one should represent themselves online is being called into question. Proponents of authentic identity, such as Facebook and Google+, argue that having real names promotes civic discussion online. On the flip side, consequences can be dire for those involved with political protests in repressive countries. What do you view as the future of online identity?  Real or fake?



Rebecca MacKinnon , visiting fellow at the New America Foundation, formerly with the Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University and author of Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom


2:06 – 2:30

Up in arms: a felon’s right to gun ownership

True or false: federal law dictates felons lose their right to bear arms. True.  True or false: felons can get those rights back, even those convicted of murder. True. In fact, in some states a judge can reinstate those rights without review.  In other states, gun rights are automatically restored after felons complete their sentence. The New York Times reports that “since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights” in Washington state alone, 13 percent of whom committed new crimes. The breakdown in the law occurs at the intersection of state and federal laws. Under federal law, a presidential pardon is the only way to restore ownership rights to felons. But in the 1980s, after a series of reforms by the National Rifle Association, Congress granted state laws jurisdiction to oversee reinstatement. Should convicted felons be granted the right to bear arms? Should a felon’s mental health condition be taken into consideration?




Reporter, New York Times

Rep from the NRA or the Buckeye Firearms Coalition

Rep from the Brady Campaign  

Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer  



2:30 – 2:58:30

Obama kills new smog rules because Republicans call the stricter ozone requirements a “regulatory jihad” on business

Just before Labor Day, President Obama had a sit down meeting in the Oval Office with Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and formally rejected her recommendations for improving the Clean Air Act.  He told Jackson that “she would have an opportunity to revisit the Clean Air Act Standard in 2013—if they were still in office.”  The EPA’s proposed changes to air quality rules would have lowered the ozone standard to 65 parts per billion. The current Bush-era standard is 75 parts per billion. Once the news was made public, it garnered mix reviews.  Republicans heralded the decision as a victory for business and job creation. Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters said, “This was the worst thing a Democratic president has ever done on our issues. Period.”  The New York Times reported that environmentalists and public health advocates were infuriated and called it a “bald surrender to business pressure, an act of political pandering and, most galling, a cold-blooded betrayal of a loyal constituency.” Obama felt imposing new restrictions on air quality would be an economic strain on business and create uncertainty for industry and local governments at a time when the economy is less than stellar. Republicans claimed the tighter air quality standards would cost $90 billion a year, enough to shut down many industries operating in the heartland. Will the decision help him or hurt him in 2012?




Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters

Nick Loris, policy analyst, Heritage Foundation





No comments: