Today on AirTalk the LA Times' David Lazarus pinch-hits for Larry Mantle to discuss the gun control debate making it's way to the presidential election, the latest on the Sacramento water pipeline project, how YouTube wants its users to reveal their real name when commenting on videos, why a Greek Olympic athlete was dismissed from competition and the role of guns in women's self defense. Plus, the latest news
A national, rational debate about guns?
"AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals ... they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities." With that statement last night, President Barack Obama kicked off what he promised would be a national discussion about gun control.
It took six days after the theater massacre in Colorado for the president and his 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney, to make their clearest statements yet on gun policy. In an NBC News interview, Romney said, "We can sometimes hope that just changing a law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential to improve the lots of the American people."
It's a familiar volley swatted back-and-forth in this country. The gun debate is an age-old, hot-button issue, but does the tone of the conversation need to change? Is it too emotionally charged? How does it compare to other policy debates in American history? How do lobbying groups play on the feelings of the electorate?
Guests:
Don Frederick, Political Editor, Bloomberg News
Sacramento River pipeline proposal hopes to support population needs
Governor Jerry Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce a proposed plan today to build two massive tunnels that would carry water south from the Sacramento River.
The project would cost $14 billion and construction would start in 2017. It is scheduled to take nine years to complete.
Project proponents say the “peripheral tunnel” would provide the state with a more reliable supply of water and help restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Opponents say the state should focus on improving existing infrastructure and water conservation.
The project could impact already threatened and endangered species and ecosystems. Environmentalists could file lawsuits once a final environmental impact statement is released. Farmers say they need the water and can’t conserve any more than they already are.
Will this water delivery system be enough to support our growing population needs? Or does the state need to come up with different ways of dealing with an already strapped water situation?
Guests:
Steve Arakawa, Manager of Bay-Delta Initiatives, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Jim Metropulos, Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California and a water specialist
Would giving up online anonymity curb comment abuse?
It happens every day. You surf over to YouTube to check out an interview with a politician or a new music video and then you get sucked into the abyss that is the comments section.
Users battle it out using the tools of the infamous Internet “troll”: offensive language, Internet speak, a poor grasp of the English language and, most importantly, an anonymous pseudonym. Not to mention the fact that these discussions (if you can call them that) are nearly always way, way, way off-topic. M
any people just ignore these inflammatory remarks, but some are sincerely hurt by the often misogynistic, homophobic and racist speech they see. In an effort to curb this, YouTube is planning on removing anonymity from its comments section. Upon commenting, a prompt will ask you for a full name, and even automatically link to your Google+ profile if you have one.
YouTube isn’t alone in this effort, as the New York state Senate is considering a bill which would ban all kinds of anonymous commenting online. Critics of this push for accountability contend that anonymity is one of the core qualities of the Internet, and without it we could lose vital energy and innovation.
What do you think? Is this incendiary commenting out of hand? Is it something we just have to accept? Would you comment online if you had to put your full name? Have you ever been on the giving or receiving end of one of these comment battles? Let us know. Leave a comment.
Guests:
Parker Higgins, Spokesperson, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Andrew Rohm, Associate Professor of Marketing at Loyola Marymount University who teaches a specialist class in social media
Should an athlete be expelled from Olympics for offensive Twitter comments?
Greek triple jumper Voula Papachristou saw her Olympic dreams dashed yesterday after a flurry of controversy surrounding her Twitter feed.
On Sunday, responding to news that mosquitoes in Athens carried the West Nile virus, Papachristou tweeted as @papaxcristoutj, “With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting homemade food!!!”
In addition to this tweet she composed, she also retweeted several tweets from Ilias Kasidiaris, a spokesman for the extreme right party Golden Dawn. Kasidiaris himself has fallen under intense scrutiny recently, after striking a female member of Parliament in the face and throwing water at another.
At first, Papachristou stood by her tweet, but eventually recapitulated and apologized for her actions. After calls from the Democratic Left for Papachristou’s expulsion from the Games, the Hellenic Olympic Committee announced that the hopeful was being “placed outside the Olympic team for statements contrary to the values and ideas of the Olympic movement.”
Was the organization right to ban Papachristou from competing? Should a young athlete be able to speak their mind without fear of such reprisals? Is this something we should pay closer attention to in the United States? What about for professional athletes?
Guests:
Dave Zirin, sports editor for The Nation magazine and the host of Edge of Sports Radio
David Wallechinsky, president of the International Society of Olympic Historians and author of The Complete Book of the Olympics (Aurum Press)
Do women need guns to keep them safe?
In the aftermath of last week's shooting rampage in Colorado, gun violence has been on everyone's minds, front pages and newscasts.
Much of the talk has focused on the fight between gun control and gun rights. And while gun sales have spiked of late (for reasons other than you might think), there is also a spike in fear and disgust for gun culture. Could that do more harm than good?
As the Daily Beast reports, one self-defense expert argues that "handguns play an important role in society: they stop rape."
Paxton Quigley believes women should carry guns to protect themselves if it makes them feel safer. She cites sexual assault statistics (more than 207,000 assaults a year) and personal stories of rape victims who wish they'd been armed to stop their assaults.
"I'm not saying that everyone should be armed," she clarified. "I think that if you're a responsible citizen, and you do learn how to shoot, and you take the time, and you learn the safety rules, then I think it's appropriate for you to have a gun in the house."
Law enforcement training consultant Rob Valente said it's better for women to be without.
"I know it is a terrible feeling to think that there is the potential of you being a victim of any crime," she said. "However, we're talking about folks who do not have regular education and training in fire arms. I work very closely with law enforcement. These are people who carry guns every single day. They'll tell you it is a very, very difficult thing to do, to be that well trained, that capable."
Valente said she's concerned women may feel comfortable purchasing a firearm without getting proper training. She added that owning a gun introduces avoidable dangers into the home, citing a John Hopkins study that "found that in cases where there's intimate partner violence, the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of a homicide happening by six times," she explained.
Quigley said the tremendous responsibility that comes with having a gun should never be ignored, and shooting an intruder the last step a woman should take to ensure her safety.
"I always tell my students that they should make their bedrooms into a safe room. They should have a solid core door with a good lock, and before they go to bed they should close that door and lock it, so that if anyone should come into their house, other than their bedroom, they have some sort of protection so that they can call the police," she said. "I don’t' want people to have to use their gun. It's only in an emergency situation."
After mass shootings, do you lean to or against guns for protection? Should women get over their fear or distaste for guns? As a woman, do you think a gun could protect you? If you own a Lady Smith & Wesson already, are you confident using it? What training have you had? If you have first-hand experience, tell us what happened.
Guest:
Ms. Paxton Quigley, Self-Defense Trainer; Author, "Armed and Female: Taking Control"
Ms. Rob Valente, Training consultant for law enforcement and victim advocates on federal firearms laws.