Patt Morrison for Monday, August 10, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

 

1:06 – 1:19 OPEN

 

1:21 – 1:40

What explains the flash-mobs of 2011 and is LA prepared for the next?

Flash-mobs—they used to be harmless groups of people spontaneously breaking into hula dancing on an airplane 38,000 feet in the air but quite noticeably this summer, the word has been appropriated by scary, sometimes violent and racially charged mobs of mostly teenagers, often rapidly drawn together by social media tools like Facebook and Twitter. They’ve made headlines most recently on the streets of London, but also earlier this summer in Venice beach, on Hollywood Blvd., in Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Chicago. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter this week imposed street patrols and is enforcing a 9 p.m. weekend curfew for 13- to 18-year-olds. What’s sparked these flash-mobs, is there any common mentality behind them and how is Los Angeles prepared to deal with one? Howard Rheingold is a theorist, who predicted this behavior long before Twitter was a household name. He joins Patt to chart the flash-mob summer of 2011.

 

Guests:

Howard Rheingold, technology theorist and lecturer in Stanford University's Department of Communication and U.C. Berkeley's School of Information; he’s the author of the book “Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution,” which explores the potential for technology to augment collective intelligence

 

TBD, representative from the Los Angeles Police Department

 

 

1:41 – 2:00

Should corporate sponsorship buy a lesson plan? How much commercialism is too much in our schools?

Should the American Egg Board be allowed to sponsor a lesson plan that promotes the health benefits of consuming eggs without addressing the risks?  What about the coal industry educating kids about the benefits of burning coal, but neglecting to include the environmental impacts such as greenhouse gases or toxic waste? Scholastic’s InSchool publication got some unwanted attention recently for allowing the position of its corporate sponsors to seep into the curriculum distributed to school teachers. A group of educators and children’s health experts sent Scholastic a letter urging the company to stop creating teaching materials sponsored by corporations pushing an agenda. Richard Robinson, Scholastic’s president and chief executive, concedes that they need to improve their standards and notes that “once in a while there is a slip-up in editorial judgment.” Scholastic, the world’s largest publisher of children’s books, has agreed to pay closer attention to its editorial standards and will appoint a Partner Review Board to check for bias in corporate sponsored educational programs. Is this an innocent “editorial slip-up” or something more insidious? More and more schools faced with massive budget cuts are opening the door to corporate sponsorship--is it only a matter of time before kids are leaning that an apple isn’t just something you give the teacher and that GE can bring us a brighter day?  

 

Guest:

Representative, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood

 

UNCONFIRMED

Representative, Scholastic

 

 

2:06 – 2:19 OPEN

 

2:20 – 2:40

“Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance”

When you spill red wine, you could be left with a stain on your jeans. Likewise, when you drink too much red wine, you could be left with a stain on your other genes…a stain called alcoholism. Epigenetics, meaning “on the gene,” is an emergent branch of genetics. A primary tenant of the field explores the effects of environment upon genetic code. The field has uncovered new information about the implications of personal habits and the “scarring” effects that could result. On the show today is the author of Epigentics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance, Richard C. Francis, who argues that a person’s bad habits, including more than just the usual suspects of over-eating, smoking, and unabated stress, could go on to affect their progeny for several generations. Exactly which damaged genes could be passed on? And is there any way to reverse the damage?

 

Guests:

Richard Francis, author of “Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance”

 

 

2:41 – 3:00

It just doesn't $&%!* work! Why new tech products are increasingly unsatisfying

Harry McCracken has been reviewing technology products for 20 years and he’s seen it all—from products like the PalmPilot that blew him away, to ones that were downright hazardous, like a mouse that caught on fire. He says there's never been a time when so much of the new stuff he’s reviewing is so very far from being ready for mass consumption. “Sometimes it's a tad quirky; sometimes I can't get it to work at all. And when I call the manufacturers for help, they're often well aware of the problems I encountered.” What's going on here? McCracken chalks it up to three main culprits: 1.) Our beta, works-in-progress culture that demands prereleases and means no product has to be complete. 2.) Easy updates that let companies off the hook if they can trouble shoot bugs later with software upgrades. 3.) An unprecedented rush to beat the other guys that pushes products on the market before they’re ready, just to compete with their rivals. How did we get to this point and what does it say about the state of the tech industry that it comes as a refreshing surprise when technology does work?

 

Guests:

Harry McCracken, tech columnist for TIME.com; he also blogs about personal technology at Technologizer.com, which he founded in 2008

 

 

 

 

Patt Morrison for Monday, August 9, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

1-3 p.m.

 

 

1:06 –1:39 OPEN

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

New E-verify bill digs up old questions: Should farmers be required to only hire documented workers?

In an effort to crack down on undocumented immigrants, Congress is debating the Legal Workforce Act, a bill that would require farm workers to use the federal E-Verify database to confirm an employee's legal status. The bill, introduced this summer by Rep. Lamar Smith, (R-Texas), has gained support from conservatives who say illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans. Not so, says the American Farm Bureau. Even with one of the highest unemployment rates in our history, they contend that farmers can't find enough documented workers willing to pick crops. They point to Georgia, which sent convicted criminals to work the fields after an anti-illegal immigrant law emptied the fields and orchards of its workers. The convicts refused to come back because the job was too hard and now the state’s farming is in jeopardy. Opponents of the law argue that using E-Verify would make it difficult, if not impossible, to farm and they want the bill to let them bring foreign guest workers into the U.S. Such a program would require employers to advertise the available jobs to legal residents and prove that no one here will take them. Employers also must pay the guest workers a government-regulated wage and provide free housing and transportation. Is that a fair compromise? And is it a myth that California’s agriculture can’t stay in business without illegal workers?

 

SUPPORTS THE LAW:

Rep. Dan Lungren, (R-Gold River), member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-sponsor of the Legal Workforce Act; he is drafting an amendment to the bill that would allow farmers to hire foreign guest workers

 

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies

 

OPPOSES THE LAW:

Paul Schlegel, legal analyst with the Farm Bureau

 

 

2:06 – 2:30

Dude, where’s my car? Unpaid parking tickets gets your car towed in L.A., but how do you get it back with no cash?  

Parking tickets--just thinking about them can make almost anyone’s head (and wallet) hurt. Gone are the good old days when a quarter bought you an hour and if you didn’t make it back in time, the total amount of your fine had a two in front of it—as in 20 bucks, give or take.  Now a quarter gets you about 15 minutes and the fine can amount to half a weeks worth of groceries (for some), give or take a few bucks. Wouldn’t it be great if we were penalized based on how many minutes late we were getting back to the meter (2 minutes costs you 2 percent of the total fine)? But alas, no such luck for the tardy.  So most people shell out the bucks and try to be more cautious in the future.  However, some drivers simply can’t afford to pay and for one reason or another they get ticket #2 and then ticket #3 and when they get ticket #5, the city loses patience.  Enter tow trucks and impound lots. Yep, gone are the days of the orange “boot” that a driver with five or more unpaid parking tickets might find on his wheel.  Now the entire car is gone with a hefty towing fee, a daily storage fee and a $115 fee from the city thrown in for good measure.  Some of these folks are scofflaws who ignored their tickets and have to pay the price, but others are unemployed or poor and simply can’t afford to pay.  Ultimately, if the tickets aren’t paid, the car is sold at auction.  So how many cars are being towed each month (and was yours one of them?) and how much money is the city making from this policy? How do you get your car back if you’ve got no cash? What do you think, is this a legitimate way for the city to make money or does it go too far?

 

Guest:

Ari Bloomekatz, reporter, Los Angeles Times

Ginger Rutland, associate editor at the Sacramento Bee; author of the Feb. 25^th Bee editorial, “How can state justify traffic fine shakedown?”

 

UNCONFIRMED

DOT representative

 

2:30 – 2:39 OPEN

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30

Therapy dogs in courtrooms: Rosie the golden retriever scratches the surface of debate

Rosie, the golden retriever therapy dog named after civil rights heroine Rosa Parks, has an uncanny ability to comfort children in distress. For this reason, she was chosen to accompany a 15-year-old girl who needed to testify in court that her father had raped and impregnated her. While the girl was in the witness box, the dog sat at her feet and nudged her when she stumbled or came to a particularly difficult part in her testimony. The jury’s verdict: 25 years to life for the girl’s father. What has since followed is a fight over whether the dog—and animals in future cases—should be allowed into the courtroom. The father’s public defenders have raised several objections, arguing that the cuteness of a dog could sway jurors to sympathize with the witness and that the dogs are trained to comfort people under stress—but that the stress could be coming from telling a true, traumatic account or from lying under oath, or  just from the trial altogether. Prosecuting lawyers counter the argument by saying that without the support of a dog, traumatized children might not be able to take to the stand at all. Does the presence of a comforting dog help a witness tell the truth or simply make the process less scary? Is a dog-free courtroom unfair to a child who’s been through so much or is having a dog present unfair to a defendant facing a sentence that could mean the end of his or her life?

 

Guest:

PRO-DOGS IN COURT:

Ellen O’Neill-Stephens, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney and the founder of Courthouse Dogs,

 

ANTI-DOGS IN COURT – NOT CONFIRMED:

David Martin or Steven Levine, public defenders, Dutchess County, New York

 

OR

 

James Cohen, professor of criminal law at Fordham University School of Law

 

 

 

 

Patt Morrison for Monday, August 8, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Monday, August 8, 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

When ‘Yes, we can’ becomes ‘No, we didn’t’: Obama’s tough road to re-election

How does President Barrack Obama win a re-election campaign given the state of the economy? The Republicans are sure to attack him on jobs and the economy and his friends on the left may not be as supportive of him because he refused to play hard-ball with Republicans on the budget deal, climate change and financial regulatory reform. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign claims that our commander and chief prevented the U.S. from sinking into a depression, but Republicans counter that his policies only made things worse.  There’s plenty of blame to go around on an economy that started to fall apart under a Republican president (George W. Bush) but the man at the top usually bears ultimate responsibility for when times are good and bad—it worked against George H.W. Bush in 1992 and for Bill Clinton in 1996.  While the Obama reelection theme has already started to take shape, portraying the president as a steady and reasonable leader, in the short term his campaign is happy to portray his potential Republican opponents as hapless.  Mitt Romney, in particular, has been an early target of Obama’s surrogates.

 

So how can Obama win a re-election campaign? Will the American people be in the mood for rhetoric about hope and affirmations like ‘yes, we can!’ with so many out of work?  If you voted for him in the last election, will you vote for him again, or is the honeymoon over?

 

Guests:

TBD

 

 

 

1:30 - 1:58:30

Academic cheating in the age of the Internet – impossible to stop?

Obsolete are the sitcom and movie standards of academic dishonesty. A forearm cheat sheet discretely covered with a flannel sleeve, test answers scrawled on the inner side of a water bottle, a system of coughs and subtle body language correlating to the options of a multiple choice answer – antiquated relics of a bygone time. In the age of iPhones, Androids and other pocket bound super-computers cheating has entered the digital era and professors are struggling to adapt countermeasures. There are some tools available to catch the cheater, like Turnitin.com. When students submit their papers, this automated service will canvass the internet, searching key phrases as well as maintaining a backup of submissions on the chance the submission itself could become plagiarized. But some who have embraced technology as a means to fight fire with fire found themselves unhappy with the results. For example, New York University professor Panagiotis Ipeirotis vowed never to use technology again to aggressively police students because it poisoned the atmosphere in the classroom and consumed too many hours of his time, time which detracted from teaching. But what is the answer? With the Internet putting almost unlimited information at our fingertips, the temptation to click and copy can be irresistible to the busy student. In response, some advocate a new model for education - one where students give class presentations that are graded by peers, shifting judgment into the hands of a community rather than a single professor. But would this really solve the problem of cheating? Aren’t we just talking about the mechanics and ignoring the ethical violation of stealing someone else’s work and presenting it as our own? 

 

Guests:

Donald McCabe, professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School

CALL HIM:

 

Gregory Washington, president of the Cal State Student Association (CSSA), which represents the CSU’s 412,000 students to the legislature, federal government and CSU Trustees; student at CSU Fullerton.

CALL HIM:

 

Claudia Magna (mah-GAHN-yah), president of the University of California Students Association

CALL HER:

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:19

Arctic oil drilling is back: domestic oil exploration after Deepwater Horizon

The push and pull of the debate over drilling for oil in the United States, especially since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year, has created complicated choices.  Oil and gas prices are high, to the point of crippling economic growth but the same environmental concerns over oil exploration remain.  Oil companies are chomping at the bit to get back to drilling at locations throughout the U.S., and industry workers are happy to have the jobs, but criticisms over the safety of drilling platforms remain.  Caught in the middle is the Obama administration, desperate for new jobs, desperate to bring down gas prices, desperate to maintain its credibility with environmentalists.  Under this cloud last week, the Department of Interior granted Royal Dutch Shell conditional approval of its plan to begin drilling exploratory wells in the Arctic Ocean next year.  New permits for exploration in the Gulf of Mexico are also being approved, all against the opposition of many environmental activists who warn that the lessons of Deepwater Horizon have not been learned.  The Obama administration says that these permits are just preliminary and there are still a number of secondary permits that must be awarded before holes are to be drilled, and looming over all of this is the threat of lawsuits by interests as varied as ecologists to Alaskan fishermen.  Balancing the need to bring down energy prices and develop new jobs with the clear environmental risks of oil drilling, which direction is best for the country?

 

Guest:

Brendan Cummings, senior counsel, Center for Biological Diversity, they are suing to stop drilling in the Chukchi Sea west of Alaska

CALL HIM @

 

 

 

2:21:30 – 2:39

OPEN

 

 

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30
The Triple Agent: The al-Qaeda Mole who Infiltrated the CIA
From the author of the book behind the acclaimed film Syriana comes another thriller about what’s been called the CIA’s biggest disaster since 9/11. Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Joby Warrick tells the “harrowing and heartbreaking, fascinating and frightening” story of the al-Qaeda mole who infiltrated the CIA a year and a half before Osama bin Laden was killed. It all exploded (literally) in December 2009, when CIA’s top agents gathered at a secret base in Khost, Afghanistan, to greet the Jordanian man who they believed who would lead them to bin Laden: Humam Khalil al-Balawi. Al-Balawi was a double spy who had infiltrated the highest ranks of al-Qaeda and had been reporting shocking accounts of the inside to the CIA for months. To the shock of all, when al-Balawi stepped out of the plane, he had a thirty-pound bomb strapped to his chest, which detonated instantly, killing seven CIA agents on the spot. How did dozens of the highest CIA operatives all not see through al-Balawi’s facade? How did this ambush connect to the finding of bin Laden a year and a half later?

 

Guest:

Joby Warrick, author of The Triple Agent; covers national security for the Washington Post; winner of the Pulitzer Prize

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 5, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Friday, August 5, 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

Behave yourself: behavioral screening at airports given a test run by the TSA

Are you shifty-eyed in airports?  Are you sweating on a cold day?  Are you fidgeting with your clothes while waiting in a security line?  These are just a few of the subtle indications that you might be up to no good at an airport and watching for these behaviors is a type of security screening that, up until now, had only been employed at airports outside of the United States.  Israel, in particular, has used behavioral screening for decades, monitoring suspicious behavior that would direct passengers into an additional layer of searches and questioning.  That technique is about to be brought to the U.S. as the Transportation Security Administration tries out behavioral screening at Boston’s Logan Airport.  Passengers will experience a “casual conversation” with a TSA behavior detection officer looking for anything suspicious, from facial expressions to baggy clothing and, if warranted, that person will be sent for closer inspection.  Initial criticism of this new behavior screening approach shows the difficult position of the TSA—already being roundly criticized for searching grandmothers and infants at the airport, the ACLU calls this new idea “security theater.”  Given the choice between a conversation with a TSA behavior detection officer and walking through a full body scanner, which one would you choose?

 

Guest:

Rafi Ron, CEO, New Age Security Systems and former security director at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv

CALL HIM:

 

Michael German, legislative policy counsel at the ACLU Washington Legislative Office

CALL HIM @

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:19

OPEN

 

 

 

2:21:30 – 2:39

Are playgrounds too safe? Could a little danger & risk on the jungle gym be good for your kid?

For a variety of reasons, from public safety campaigns to liability issues, your neighborhood playground is becoming a risk-averse place.  The monkey bars are moving lower to the ground, or disappearing altogether; slides are a little shorter; shorter equipment with platforms and rubber mats for softer landings have become ubiquitous.  This is the modern urban playground, a safer and gentler play space for kids in an era of parental concern and hair-trigger lawsuits, and while they do tend to reduce injuries are they best for the psychological development of your children?  Turns out, according to a new paper published in the journal of Evolutionary Psychology, that safer might not be better.  Risky play by children is an inherent behavior that helps them to overcome phobias and anxiety.  In other words, thrill-seeking is part of the development process and jumping off of that high slide helps kids to conquer their earliest fears.  By making playgrounds increasingly safe we could be unwittingly retarding the growth and confidence of children.  Admittedly it’s a bit of a stretch, but we could be raising a generation of children that is less likely to take the kinds of small risks that are necessary in everyday life.  Could safer not always be better when it comes to playgrounds?

 

Guests:

Ellen Sanseter, a professor of psychology at Queen Maud University in Norway

CALL HER @

 

Dorian Traube, assistant professor, social work, University of Southern California (USC)

CALL HER @

 

 

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30

Fringe-ology: How I Tried to Explain Away the Unexplainable-And Couldn't 

Are some things really unexplainable? Over 70% of Americans believe in paranormal activity, but most have the sense not to admit their beliefs. Even fewer, save for certain groups on the internet, take the time to write about them. Enter Steve Volk, an investigative reporter and lifelong skeptic, who took it upon himself to enter the world of the unexplained and returned a changed man. Within his new book Fringe-ology, Volk writes about the world of mystics, psychics, UFOs and the rest of which would be ordinarily be placed in the realm of science fiction. Ultimately, Volk returns from the world of the unknown having more questions than answers. In the age of reason, can certain experiences remain truly alien? What surprises could Volk be willing to share?

 

Guest:

Steve Volk, frequent contributor to Philadelphia and long time journalist – he now operates a blog entitled “The Generalist”

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 Thursday, August 4, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Thursday, August 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 – 1:39

OPEN

 

 

 

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?

 

Guest:

UNCONFIRMED

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?  

 

Guests:

Christopher Calabrese, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union

CALL HIM @

 

UNCONFIRMED

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.”

FBI

Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection

 

 

2:30 – 2:39

OPEN

 

 

 

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?

 

Guest:

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

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 Wednesday, August 3, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Wednesday, August 3, 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

Ben Stein says tax me: why he’s not happy with Obama, the Tea Party or Bush

In the film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” Ben Stein plays an economics teacher, lecturing a bored-looking class about supply side economics, as championed by President Ronald Reagan during the 1980’s.  In real life, it turns out Stein isn’t much of a fan of that economic theory—blaming “the folly of supply side economics,” identifying the tax cuts of President George W. Bush, the ramped up spending of President Barack Obama and the “inflexible belief” of some Republicans that “low taxes were an American birthright,” Stein leveled criticism at just about everyone involved with the protracted debt ceiling fight.  Stein blasted all of the key players during a commentary aired on CBS “Sunday Morning” this weekend but it’s not the first time he’s been critical of the resistance to tax increases, arguing that the richest Americans can afford to pay a little more in taxes.  Plus, said the economist Stein on CBS, “That large cuts would yield higher government revenue…there never was any convincing data to back that up.”  We hear directly from the self-identified conservative economist about why taxes should be increased, spending should be decreased and how the country’s political leadership missed a golden opportunity to make some tough but necessary decisions.  Perhaps Uncle Sam can even win some of Ben Stein’s money if, as he has argued, we let those Bush tax cuts expire.

 

Guests:

Ben Stein, actor, economist, lawyer, political commentator

CALL HIM:

 

 

 

1:21:30 – 1:39

OPEN

 

 

 

1:41:30 – 1:58:30

Makeup producers up the ante on perfection once again

Companies like L’Oreal, Maybelline and Lancôme have long been operating under the premise that the visage of an actual person—even a famous person—isn’t enough to appeal to the modern consumer. They long dropped the mere child’s play of makeup for the big guns: digital air brushing that’s taken off and out of the realm of attainability. Now the British consumer watchdog Advertising Standards Agency is trying to put an end to this. They’re suing companies like Lancôme, charging that “excessive airbrushing and digital manipulation techniques have become the norm,” and we better “get back to reality.” Lancôme retorts that the pictures are only “aspirational.” And do they have a point? Should consumers—men, women, children, around the world—be given credit to know the difference and appreciate it anyway? Can we both be drawn in by the lure of such ads but still separate the illusion from reality? The preoccupation with physical beauty is as old as time, but has the influence that corporations have on our perceptions of ourselves and the way they manipulate people's insecurities about their bodies for profit changed in recent years? Or have love-your-body campaigns like the ones promoted by Dove altered the advertising landscape?

 

Guests:

NOT CONFIRMED – DO NOT PROMOTE THIS GUEST

Jo Swinson, Liberal Member of Parliament from East Dunbartonshire

 

NOT CONFIRMED – DO NOT PROMOTE THIS GUEST

Sasha Strauss, founder of Innovation Protocol, a management consulting firm focused on brand marketing; he also teaches and lectures on brand marketing at USC, UCLA and UCI

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:39

OPEN

 

 

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30

Social x-ray glasses: curing social awkwardness and exposing your private emotions

Have you ever had the frustrating experience of wishing the person you were talking to would pick up on the subtle body language you’re trying to convey? Or, conversely, wishing that you could more accurately read the emotions of those around you? Turns out you’re not alone: the average person only accurately reads facial expressions 54% of the time. Luckily, researchers Rana el Kaliouby and Rosalind Picard have a cure for our social awkwardness: social x-ray specs. It started with el Kaliouby’s desire to create a device to help people with Asperber’s syndrome or on the autism spectrum, with whom reading social cues is a daily struggle. First, el Kaliouby had predominant facial expressions identified: thinking, agreeing, concentrating, interested, confused, and disagreeing. Next, she and Picard developed glasses that read and interpret the expressions through a tiny camera and computer and convey them to the glasses-wearer with visual cues, including varying colors, and a summary through an earphone.

 

The prototype proved popular with autistic people and the glasses, as well as similar technologies, are on the market now. El Kaliouby’s company, Affectiva, currently sells the technology to companies wanting to read, for example, how an audience responds to an advertisement or movie. Another technology, the jerk-o-meter, a badge worn around the neck, monitors how aggressive an individual is being based on his pitch and volume—the results of which can be sent wirelessly to, for example, a smartphone. Vertex Data Science uses similar technology on customer service representatives and claims to increase sales by as much as 20%. There’s even a jerk-o-meter, or sociometric badge, that measures speaking frequency, time, physical proximity, and person spoken to that has shown that: “Simply being able to see their role in a group made people behave differently, and caused the group dynamics to become more even. The entire group’s emotional intelligence had increased” (Physica A). Then there’s Picard’s Q Sensor hand glove, which allows the monitoring of emotions you may be hiding but that appear through temperature and skin conductance. Picard’s even developed a webcam that can do this, in principle without your consent, by reading your heart rate, blood pressure, and skin temperature largely through color changes in your face. Are social x-ray specs something you think could benefit you or someone you know? Or do you think emotions are best kept private unless expressed or detected by someone’s who’s emotionally adept?

 

Guest:

Rana el Kaliouby, research scientist, MIT Media Lab

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 Tuesday, August 2, 2011

PATT MORRISON SCHEDULE

Tuesday, August 2, 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

Birth control, a mammogram and a colonoscopy won’t cost you a thing under new rules for preventive health care – next patient, please

In a move sure to feed the controversy over the federal health care reform bill, yesterday the Obama administration announced new standards requiring private health care insurers to cover all government-approved contraceptives and a comprehensive list of preventive measures for women without co-payments or other fees. Supporters say this will remove long-time barriers to birth control and increase the use of preventive services that will now be available without cost sharing requirements, including colonoscopies, mammograms, immunizations, HIV screening and counseling, gestational diabetes screening, well-woman visits, breastfeeding support and counseling, and domestic violence screening. Opponents say the new standards, which follow recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, should not include coverage for contraception, and indeed there is a clause in the regulations that allows certain religious employers to be exempt. In a recent interview with CBS, Stephanie Cutter, a deputy senior advisor to President Obama, said "This isn't about abstinence. This is not about preventing unwanted pregnancies. This is about women's health.” The rules, which take effect for most insurance policies on August 1, 2012, set the stage for increased participation in comprehensive preventive health care, which if successful, could translate to better health outcomes and significant financial savings. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, chronic disease, which is often preventable, is accountable for 75% of the nation’s health spending. Will these new rules convince you to check in with your doctor and save the country a dollar or two in the future? 

 

Guests:

Stephanie Cutter, deputy assistant to President Obama for special projects

WILL CALL:

 

Guests:

Judy Waxman, vice pres of health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center

CALL HER:

 

 

 

1:30 - 1:58:30

OPEN

 

 

 

2:06 – 2:19

OPEN

 

 

2:21:30 – 2:39

The murky politics of petitions: how signature gathering & threats of identity theft play into initiative reform

 

Guests:

UNCONFIRMED

State Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-10^th District; Senate Majority Leader; author of SB 168 that would have prohibited paying signature collectors by the name

 

John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute at USC

 

 

 

 

2:41:30 – 2:58:30

Senators urge FDA to halt consideration of genetically engineered “frankenfish” as a food

Eight senators call them “frankenfish” and are asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to halt its approval process for the genetically engineered salmon—an approval the could land the first GE animal on a dinner plate near you. The fish, produced by AquaBounty Technologies, come from embryos that have been sterilized in Canada before being shipped to a land-based facility in Panama, where the males are exposed to estrogen, sex-reversed and sterilized to prevent further breeding. The senators’ opposition is far-reaching: concerns about public health for consumers; GE salmon escaping and mating with or out-competing other fish in the sea; a lack of transparency in the review process; and a hit to local economies in those Senators’ home states, where fish are a vital component. There is no timeline for the FDA to complete its environmental impact assessment on the salmon, which it started last September, even though AquaBounty brought its product before the organization 15 years ago. Are these genetically modified fish an answer to humans’ unsustainable appetite for seafood or a serious threat to a delicate ecosystem? And would approval of GE salmon open the floodgates to other GE animals for human consumption?

 

Guests:

Senator Mike Begich (D-Alaska), one of eight senators who sent a letter to the FDA asking it to "immediately cease" consideration of GE salmon, a product brought before the agency by AquaBounty Technologies 15 years ago

HE CALLS US @

 

Alison Van Eenennaam, animal science researcher at UC Davis; she served on the FDA committee that reviewed AquaBounty salmon (The veterinary medicine advisory committee) and deemed it as safe for consumption as regular salmon

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