The redesigned California driver's licenses for immigrants living illegally in the state are facing criticism. Should these driver’s licenses be redesigned to make them more distinguishable? Should the World Health Organization destroy smallpox samples, or continue research? Later, Is smart gun technology an intelligent answer to gun violence?
Feds reject design of Calif. driver's licenses for immigrants living illegally in the state
Last October, Governor Brown signed AB 60, allowing undocumented Californians to legally apply for driver’s licenses in the state by 2015. But the proposed design of these driver’s licenses has come under fire.
In a letter obtained by the Associated Press, officials at the Department of Homeland Security told the California Department of Motor Vehicles that the design it has come up with isn’t distinguishable enough from regular driver’s licenses and violate requirements set forth under the REAL ID Act.
In CA DMV’s proposed design, the “DL” on the front of the driver’s licenses is replaced with a “DP,” which stands for “Driving Privilege.” They also carry a notice on the back stating that the card can’t be used as federal identification.
Some immigration rights groups worry that making the licenses stand out more could lead to their holders being treated differently.
"Covering the fronts of licenses with this information that Homeland Security is demanding would subject the holders to unnecessary discrimination and possible harassment," state Sen. Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles) told the Los Angeles Times.
Should these driver’s licenses be redesigned to make them more distinguishable?
Guests:
Angelica Salas, Executive Director, CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles); CHIRLA consulted on the new license design
Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration Studies, an independent, non-profit research organization based in D.C.
Should the World Health Organization destroy smallpox samples, or continue research?
The deadly infectious disease smallpox was eradicated over 30 years ago by the World Health Organization, but the virus isn’t quite dead -- samples of variations of pathogens that cause smallpox are still held under high security at the CDC in the U.S. and in Russia.
The WHO is currently revisiting a topic that has divided scientists and epidemiologists for decades -- should the remaining samples be destroyed? The immunology and biosecurity communities are split on the issue.
Those who think the virus should be destroyed argue that in the wrong hands, smallpox poses an immense threat as a weapon of bioterror. Since smallpox was eradicated in 1980, vaccinations for the disease have stopped, leaving large populations vulnerable. Those who want the samples preserved argue that more research could help develop increasingly effective treatments and vaccines, and could aid in eradicating any future strains of smallpox that may emerge.
Should the smallpox virus be preserved for research, or is it too dangerous? How should the WHO decide the best course of action?
Guest:
Dr. D.A. Henderson, Distinguished Scholar at the Center for Health Security of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, former Director of the Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness, professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Philip Alcabes, Ph.D, professor of public health at Adelphi University; author of "Dread: How Fear and Fantasy have fueled Epidemics from the Black Death to Avian Flu"
Is smart gun technology an intelligent answer to gun violence?
The Armatix iP1 is a new .22-caliber smart pistol that requires users to wear a watch in order to fire it. It's the first smart gun available in the country, but manufacturers and gun shop owners across the nation are finding out just how difficult it is to bring the new technology to the market, as first reported by The Washington Post.
Case in point: the Oak Tree Gun Club, a gun shop in Newhall, Calif., which decided to sell the gun. The backlash was so swift that owner James Mitchell took the item off its shelves within weeks.
There's also the experience of Belinda Padilla, who heads the Los Angeles division of Armatix, the manufacturer behind the iP1. Her personal cellphone number and address was posted online by a pro-gun activist.
Opposition of new smart gun technology comes mainly from the gun rights activists and gun owners, who fear that the innovation would lead to stricter regulation. A decade-old New Jersey law requires that once smart gun technology is available in the country, any guns sold in the state would have to be "smart" within three years. A similar bill has been proposed in California. On the other hand, some gun owners feel that the technology would make people on the fence more comfortable with gun ownership.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, smart gun technology has been touted as a viable way to reduce gun violence. Silicon Valley angel investor Ron Conway has launched a $1 million contest for smart-gun technology.
Guest:
Mike Rosenwald, The Washington Post reporter who has been following the story
The method and rationale of a more humane death penalty
Today, the Constitution Project, a bipartisan group consisting of criminal justice system experts, has released a report recommending 39 policy changes regarding the administration of capital punishment in the United States.
One significant recommendation suggests using a large dose of a single drug instead of a three-drug cocktail for executions. It was a three drug cocktail used to execute Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma last week. His death is said to have taken over forty minutes, with Clayton writhing in pain. Some say this kind of dying violates the U.S. Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Is there a humane way to execute criminals? What is the definition of “humane”?
Guests:
Madeline Cohen, Assistant Federal Public Defender; Cohen is the long-time attorney for Charles Warner - who was supposed to be executed by the state of Oklahoma last week for his crime of sexual assault and murder of an infant
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation - a public interest foundation supporting the rights of crime victims
“A More Beautiful Question” - How ambitious questions lead to innovation:
Instead of following your company's mission statement, what if you had to answer to a mission question?
Innovation expert Warren Berger argues the most exceptional businesses of our time - Google, Netflix, IDEO and Airbnb - have inquiry baked into their organizations’ DNA. But the process of inquiry should not be reserved for technology-innovation companies.
In 1965, a University of Florida assistant coach wanted to knew why his players were being affected by heat and heat-related illnesses. The answer led to the creation of Gatorade and the entire sports-drink industry.
How can organizations encourage and inspire inquiry? How do you craft the key questions? And what is the process that follows?
Guest:
Warren Berger, Author, “A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas” (Bloomsbury, 2014); Previous book was “Glimmer: How Design Can Transform Business and Your Life (Penguin; 2009); Berger also writes for Fast Company, Harvard Business Review, and was a longtime contributing editor at Wired magazine.