Transcripts For KQED McLaughlin Group 20130707 : comparemela

To work towards ridding the world of nuclear bombs. I determined that we can ensure the security of america and our allies and maintain a strong and credible Strategic Deterrent while reducing deployed Strategic Nuclear weapons by up to 1 3. And i intend to seek negotiated cuts with russia to move beyond Cold War Nuclear postures. This emphasis is where the president has already had so success. In 2010 president obama signed the new start agreement with then russian president limiting the number of deployed warheads it 1550 by the year 2018. Three years later president obama chose berlin, the epicenter of the cold war standoff between east and west to propose further cuts, another 1 3. The russian reaction to mr. Obamas proposal was restrained we cannot negotiate with the United States indefinitely on the reduction and limitation of Nuclear Weapons bilaterally while a number of other countries continue to expand their nuclear and missile potential. The process of disarmament should become multilateral. So said Russias Deputy foreign minister. The principal other country that concerns russia is china. Russia and china share a lengthy and porous border. The two countries fought a border war with one another 52 years ago while the u. S. Believes china has as low as 250 Nuclear Warheads, the russians believe the Chinese Nuclear arsenal numbers 1800 warheads. Question should president obama have given his Nuclear Arms Reduction speech in beijing ins ead of berlin . Mort. It would have helped, i think, but its clearly weve had some good experience more in reducing r Nuclear Warheads and in their also going along with that reduction, putin has no inntion of doing that at this stage of the game cause he some level on both borders, a on the chinese side a b on the western side. Somehow ornother we have to get china involved in this dialogue if were going to be able to make any progress and reduce the weapons as he describes by another third. Thats jt going to be a sine qua non of any future progress. Are you saying putin is raid of chinese aggression . I dontknow that hes afraid of our aggression. There are political benefits that co. To him and other countries to have that nuclear capability. I think the president s initiative is aimed at the overkill capacity. There are more than 17,000 Nuclear Weapons in the world spread over nine countries. The u. S. Has over 7,000 of them. The president has the authority he can cut independently. Republican president s george h. W. Bush, george w. Bush both reduced the u. S. S ockpile. Its expensive to mainta. So this is really going at the loose kes in russia as well. And with Richard Lugar no longer in the senate its very difficult. A United States senator. Right. Its very difficult to get anything through the u. S. Senate. So the president is acting unilaterally here, and i think the russians with this jus a stalling tactic. o,the ssiansnt ke the fact were building sel. Th el tha sa reasonnot kis anwha shappening there, whats happing other parts of the world in north korea. You want to talk about recing Nuclear Weapons,i think the other cotries is a smart one. Not only is lugar gone but senator john kyle is also gone, and hes the one that pushed hes the republican that pushed the start treaty through last time. Arizona senator replaced by jeff flake. So that means he cant really go to congress with anything. Anything he can do is going to have to be done unilaterally by the president. And if he wants to do it like eleanor said there are plenty of things he can do. He can reduce hundreds to thousands of Nuclear Weapons. He can take tactical weapons out of europe. Do we really need three different ways to destroy the world. Maybe we could just go down to two. Right. Yeah. And he has the backing of the military and the establishment of both parties, former republican leaders. It doesnt make sense to have all of these weapons roaming around that are theyre very expensive to maintain, 60 or 70 million a year. God givepolitical cover. Theres no doubt if he did it wod be lot of politil tax on that. Both bushes did it. I dont remember y attacks th. Hes in a very different position than either president bush, so i think thats his motivation. Is there any possibility that the Nuclear Weapons could in terms oflikechemical warfarex things like that . No, they are obsolete. No, i dont mean obsolete in the sense that theyre dated. I mean that they lose their capacity to work. No, they are. The tactical Nuclear Weapons in europe, right now basically dont work. Why . Why . Theyre in shelves. Theyre technologically obsolete. Theyre decades old. They need to be if we wanted them to work, we would have to invest millions to refurbish them. Face sill material, if theyre not discharged they lose their fissile material and then what happens . They become useless. You just start guarding them and putting them on shelves and they become a political symbol. They have no power. Right. Its a legacy issue for the president as so many things are. When he was first elected to the senate, he went on a trip to russia and the former soviet Union Countries with richard lunar, lugar and he w how loosely guarded this stuff was and he came back feeling like something has to be done about it. You can laugh but he got his Nobel Peace Prize because he made that speech in prague in 2009. Yes, so now hes back in germany justifying the prize . The prize came within two weeks after he was elected president ; correct . Not elected but took office. Well, the spring of 09. I dont think it was two weeks. It was a couple of months. It was surprising. It was based on the expectations as what he could do as president. Hedge himself pretty ham strung with a senate hes not going to be able to cooperate with. Having received the Nobel Peace Prize prematurely. He cares about the issue john. Thats a more sincere way officing what you just sd. here are various options. Hes a politician. Hes a child of the 80s. Thats what the liberals cared about in the 80s. Thats a point well taken. Okay. The Obama Nuclear free world vision. We will work to build support in the United States to ratify the comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treat treaty tha ends producti ofissile fan, indi, isel, kis an, ruia, the u. S. And possibly but doubtfully north korea. The comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty, the ctbt would do exactly what its name states, ban nuclear tests. The u. S. Signed the Nuclear Test Ban treaty in 1996, 17 years ago, but the u. S. Congress has not yet ratified it, and beyond the ctbt the president also wants a worldwide treaty to end the production of fissile materials for Nuclear Weapons. If he could achieve any of these nuclear steps, president obama could possibly cement his legacy as the Nuclear Nonproliferation president. Question, if president obama can achieve a test ban and a treaty to end the production of fissile material, is itthe equivalent of Nuclear Disarmament i ask you susan. Everybody els like theyre losing ome hing. Kis an wants it tobeapplied to the cuent stockpile ich its going to feel like its left vulnerable. I just dont see its going happen. The treaty is still being negotiated. But the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was killed in the u. S. Senate when clinton was president. Weve ha moratorium anyway. We dont test. So basically were respecting that treaty, and republicans are not going to rati it, and theyre making a mistake because if a country cant test a weapon, they therefore cant have a weapon, and so its good policy. Are Nuclear Weapons are old and theyre losing or theyve lost their fissile capability, the Chinese Nuclear apons are what does that tell you . This is a little macabre to call it good news. Basement. Macabre, you mean sad . Or fearful . Both. You dont need a lot of Nuclear Weaponry to destroy the world. We have enough, whether its old or rusty or whether we need to knock the dust off it. What makes you so sure. Were the United States of america. Im confident in our ability to destroy the worl we have a lot of Nuclear Weapons in our arsenals, and they have a delivery immense damage. You call it destruction. Call it immense damage. Same if we got into that kind of a war. Thats what were all trying to avoid. How many Nuclear Weapons would it take to make the world, the whole planet an armageddon. I would say it would be a lot it would be a lot less than 1500 that we have. Thats the question. Im cutting you off. Exit question, should president obama reset his nuclear arms cut proposal from bilateral with the u. S. And russia acting alone to multilateral involving all of the declared Nuclear Powers including possibly improbably north korea. Do you followme . I follow you. I think youre not going very far so i can follow you for the next three steps john. Theres no way thats going to happen. Theres nopolitical way you can imagine this happening. However much this would be wonderful. Geany doesnt have it. No. Is it prohibited. I dont know whether its pro i object haded under german law. Their own constitution probably limits how militarily they can get involved. Whats the answer to my question, get everyone on board. Politics and diplomacy is the art of the possible, and the excess weapons that were talking about are in the u. S. And in the former soviet union, and if youre going to Start Talking about denying other countries, limiting other countries stockpiles thats a whole other conversation. I think it would be probably dismissed on the bass of the improbability of getting the exactitude of examination to verify they have in fact didnt we encounter this with russia . Theres no way this is going to happen at this stage of the game. Certainly not in the case of china for example. China is a power that just going to give itup. ats period. North kor it is. Evebody gets in the act together. We talked about russia and the ited s ates, d they canot even were not even gog to get the bilateral. Its too hard. Because everybodys feeling threatened so they need to keep their nuclear stockpiles. What would be wrong with wouldnt that be a contribution to his legacy. Lets all jump in the tank together. Id say so. But american president s hate to be left at the alter. It diminishes their power every time that theyve they feel like it diminishes their power. I dont think it would, but hes not going to propose something until he thinks hell get a yes. Does the un have any role to play . Theoretilly that would be the way to handle these sorts of problems. Hes getting enough pushback for what hes put on the table. Lets see if he can get that. I think its within reach. Its a great idea but impossible dream. Issue 2, obesity the disease. Well, we know as obesity researchers that obesity is a disease, but the fact that the American Medical Association has recognized it will have tremendous impact on legislation in washington with Insurance Companies. It carries a lot of weight. The medical community is relieved by the recent ruling of the influential and prestigious ama, the American Medical Association that declared obesity a disease. A. M. A. Represents more doctors than any other association. Heres their midjune language recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately one in three americans. Okay. Thats over 78 million fat adult americans. Who are these overweight people . Answer a person who has a body mass index b. M. I. Of 30 or higher compared to a normal b. M. I. Of 18. 5 to this. 9. Memorize these stats, bmi does not measure body fat directly but is a reliable method to determine body fatness calculated from the ratio of a persons height to a persons weigh . So using that measure, 35 of u. S. Adults, 1 3 are considered obese, and 17 of children are obese. Obesity has long been associated with health risks including heart disease, type 2 diabetic, 2 2 diabetes stroke and various cancers. The door is open to Insurance Companies enable them to more accurately reimburse for Health Problems associated with obesity, this disease designation for obesity by the way reaches into addictions that are now treated as diseases like alcoholism. The Obesity Action Coalition in tampa says that the a. M. A. Designation obesity is a disease puts obesity on the same path as treatments for addictions to alcohol or tobacco and mental Health Problems such as depression. So far so good, but not everyone is happy with calling obesity a disease or that 1 3 of the u. S. Population is diseased. The naaf as in frank, a, the National Association to advance fat acceptance spokeswoman peggy howell says this we dont see ourselves as diseased. To label a whole segment of society as diseased without any knowledge of their health is unacceptable. It directly fuels discrimination. Question, what are the social costs of severe obeity and what did you thk of that ladys argument . I think her argument is the least of e problemshere. If yre declaring i a increase the pre tag for americans. You know, itsgoing to inea Health Insurance cos s because were going tobe payi for lifestyle choices it also going to cost, u disality more easily ung thats going to really increase the cost of that absolutely exploding cost of that program which is already skyrocketing. Toead people get more treatment toreduceit. Whats that . Bariatric surgery where surgery to reduce your appetite d se weight. But its not for everybody. Thats becoming more of a thing to reduce obesity. If its going to make peop reduce their weit, th you can see some something positive about i . Way to really explode the cost of health care for really whats become a lifestyle choice. I mean people who smoke, are going tocall smokg a disease too . The costs are exploding already. Shes made an excellent point about bariatric surgery, but its expensive, and Insurance Companies have been reluctant, i believe, to undertake the cost of bariatric surgery. Should that be changed, and if so, does the government play a role in having it changed . Its a sease. Iom wondering if bariatric surgery is what theyre mi at. That probay lygog to include a fraction of the people. Ve f pple get that suery. On the whole when you consider 35 of the population is obese. The governor of new jersey apparently just had bariatric surgery; is that right . The governor has yes. And he needed it. Is that what its called whatever he got. Yes, whatever he got. A lap nd, whats a lap band . They band off part of your stomach so you get full quicker. I think its removed. First of all the a. M. A. Has no official power to make anybody do anything. I think it does put some pressure on Insurance Companies to recognize that overweight is not simply a product of lack of will power or a lifestyle choice. But its a lot more its a lot more complicated than we we know. Were just really learning about this. And i would you know, its a chicken and egg thin the Health Care Costs are exploding because of the Health Problems related with obesity, and so you want to treat them in order to reduce those weights. So im all for treating people seriously and taki this condition seriously. Whats the Nation Institute of health . Let me just say this,. Did i give you just a figure he, 12,000 to 35,000 for the kind of surgery were talking about. Right. And Insurance Companies have they do cover some. They do cover some of it, yes, they do. Fat obesity s exploded over the last several decades, changed. People eat more food, they eat they dont have as much exercise. They dont continue exercise. They dont walk to places. They get transported one way or another. Its a change of lifestyle. Its not a disease. A lot of people yield to it. Yield to what, the change . Right a lot of people do that. A lot people are eating the kind of fo that accumulate the calories in your body. Fat is the result of all of that. Im not satisfied with this because i think were talking about stigma here. And my exit question focuses on that. Does the designation of obesity as a disease stigmatize obesity or does it destigmatize fatness . I think itdestigmatizes it on some level because people its not my fault. Its not my lifestyle. This disease. Continue eating excessively and not exercising. Well pay for your problem now because its a disease. Its not your fault. We also created your problem in this sense. There is no fundamental difference between the will pour that exists among people today and people 50 years ago. Its the same human race. Its the same american people, but all of a sudden obesity s soared. Now whatsappened . Ingly disagree with you. I think will power. Increased portion sizes. It has increased. You have some physical appearance, the impression youre young. Have you ever heard of Strategic Deterrent<\/a> while reducing deployed Strategic Nuclear<\/a> weapons by up to 1 3. And i intend to seek negotiated cuts with russia to move beyond Cold War Nuclear<\/a> postures. This emphasis is where the president has already had so success. In 2010 president obama signed the new start agreement with then russian president limiting the number of deployed warheads it 1550 by the year 2018. Three years later president obama chose berlin, the epicenter of the cold war standoff between east and west to propose further cuts, another 1 3. The russian reaction to mr. Obamas proposal was restrained we cannot negotiate with the United States<\/a> indefinitely on the reduction and limitation of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> bilaterally while a number of other countries continue to expand their nuclear and missile potential. The process of disarmament should become multilateral. So said Russias Deputy<\/a> foreign minister. The principal other country that concerns russia is china. Russia and china share a lengthy and porous border. The two countries fought a border war with one another 52 years ago while the u. S. Believes china has as low as 250 Nuclear Warheads<\/a>, the russians believe the Chinese Nuclear<\/a> arsenal numbers 1800 warheads. Question should president obama have given his Nuclear Arms Reduction<\/a> speech in beijing ins ead of berlin . Mort. It would have helped, i think, but its clearly weve had some good experience more in reducing r Nuclear Warheads<\/a> and in their also going along with that reduction, putin has no inntion of doing that at this stage of the game cause he some level on both borders, a on the chinese side a b on the western side. Somehow ornother we have to get china involved in this dialogue if were going to be able to make any progress and reduce the weapons as he describes by another third. Thats jt going to be a sine qua non of any future progress. Are you saying putin is raid of chinese aggression . I dontknow that hes afraid of our aggression. There are political benefits that co. To him and other countries to have that nuclear capability. I think the president s initiative is aimed at the overkill capacity. There are more than 17,000 Nuclear Weapons<\/a> in the world spread over nine countries. The u. S. Has over 7,000 of them. The president has the authority he can cut independently. Republican president s george h. W. Bush, george w. Bush both reduced the u. S. S ockpile. Its expensive to mainta. So this is really going at the loose kes in russia as well. And with Richard Lugar<\/a> no longer in the senate its very difficult. A United States<\/a> senator. Right. Its very difficult to get anything through the u. S. Senate. So the president is acting unilaterally here, and i think the russians with this jus a stalling tactic. o,the ssiansnt ke the fact were building sel. Th el tha sa reasonnot kis anwha shappening there, whats happing other parts of the world in north korea. You want to talk about recing Nuclear Weapons<\/a>,i think the other cotries is a smart one. Not only is lugar gone but senator john kyle is also gone, and hes the one that pushed hes the republican that pushed the start treaty through last time. Arizona senator replaced by jeff flake. So that means he cant really go to congress with anything. Anything he can do is going to have to be done unilaterally by the president. And if he wants to do it like eleanor said there are plenty of things he can do. He can reduce hundreds to thousands of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. He can take tactical weapons out of europe. Do we really need three different ways to destroy the world. Maybe we could just go down to two. Right. Yeah. And he has the backing of the military and the establishment of both parties, former republican leaders. It doesnt make sense to have all of these weapons roaming around that are theyre very expensive to maintain, 60 or 70 million a year. God givepolitical cover. Theres no doubt if he did it wod be lot of politil tax on that. Both bushes did it. I dont remember y attacks th. Hes in a very different position than either president bush, so i think thats his motivation. Is there any possibility that the Nuclear Weapons<\/a> could in terms oflikechemical warfarex things like that . No, they are obsolete. No, i dont mean obsolete in the sense that theyre dated. I mean that they lose their capacity to work. No, they are. The tactical Nuclear Weapons<\/a> in europe, right now basically dont work. Why . Why . Theyre in shelves. Theyre technologically obsolete. Theyre decades old. They need to be if we wanted them to work, we would have to invest millions to refurbish them. Face sill material, if theyre not discharged they lose their fissile material and then what happens . They become useless. You just start guarding them and putting them on shelves and they become a political symbol. They have no power. Right. Its a legacy issue for the president as so many things are. When he was first elected to the senate, he went on a trip to russia and the former soviet Union Countries<\/a> with richard lunar, lugar and he w how loosely guarded this stuff was and he came back feeling like something has to be done about it. You can laugh but he got his Nobel Peace Prize<\/a> because he made that speech in prague in 2009. Yes, so now hes back in germany justifying the prize . The prize came within two weeks after he was elected president ; correct . Not elected but took office. Well, the spring of 09. I dont think it was two weeks. It was a couple of months. It was surprising. It was based on the expectations as what he could do as president. Hedge himself pretty ham strung with a senate hes not going to be able to cooperate with. Having received the Nobel Peace Prize<\/a> prematurely. He cares about the issue john. Thats a more sincere way officing what you just sd. here are various options. Hes a politician. Hes a child of the 80s. Thats what the liberals cared about in the 80s. Thats a point well taken. Okay. The Obama Nuclear<\/a> free world vision. We will work to build support in the United States<\/a> to ratify the comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban<\/a> treat treaty tha ends producti ofissile fan, indi, isel, kis an, ruia, the u. S. And possibly but doubtfully north korea. The comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban<\/a> treaty, the ctbt would do exactly what its name states, ban nuclear tests. The u. S. Signed the Nuclear Test Ban<\/a> treaty in 1996, 17 years ago, but the u. S. Congress has not yet ratified it, and beyond the ctbt the president also wants a worldwide treaty to end the production of fissile materials for Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. If he could achieve any of these nuclear steps, president obama could possibly cement his legacy as the Nuclear Nonproliferation<\/a> president. Question, if president obama can achieve a test ban and a treaty to end the production of fissile material, is itthe equivalent of Nuclear Disarmament<\/a> i ask you susan. Everybody els like theyre losing ome hing. Kis an wants it tobeapplied to the cuent stockpile ich its going to feel like its left vulnerable. I just dont see its going happen. The treaty is still being negotiated. But the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty<\/a> was killed in the u. S. Senate when clinton was president. Weve ha moratorium anyway. We dont test. So basically were respecting that treaty, and republicans are not going to rati it, and theyre making a mistake because if a country cant test a weapon, they therefore cant have a weapon, and so its good policy. Are Nuclear Weapons<\/a> are old and theyre losing or theyve lost their fissile capability, the Chinese Nuclear<\/a> apons are what does that tell you . This is a little macabre to call it good news. Basement. Macabre, you mean sad . Or fearful . Both. You dont need a lot of Nuclear Weaponry<\/a> to destroy the world. We have enough, whether its old or rusty or whether we need to knock the dust off it. What makes you so sure. Were the United States<\/a> of america. Im confident in our ability to destroy the worl we have a lot of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> in our arsenals, and they have a delivery immense damage. You call it destruction. Call it immense damage. Same if we got into that kind of a war. Thats what were all trying to avoid. How many Nuclear Weapons<\/a> would it take to make the world, the whole planet an armageddon. I would say it would be a lot it would be a lot less than 1500 that we have. Thats the question. Im cutting you off. Exit question, should president obama reset his nuclear arms cut proposal from bilateral with the u. S. And russia acting alone to multilateral involving all of the declared Nuclear Powers<\/a> including possibly improbably north korea. Do you followme . I follow you. I think youre not going very far so i can follow you for the next three steps john. Theres no way thats going to happen. Theres nopolitical way you can imagine this happening. However much this would be wonderful. Geany doesnt have it. No. Is it prohibited. I dont know whether its pro i object haded under german law. Their own constitution probably limits how militarily they can get involved. Whats the answer to my question, get everyone on board. Politics and diplomacy is the art of the possible, and the excess weapons that were talking about are in the u. S. And in the former soviet union, and if youre going to Start Talking<\/a> about denying other countries, limiting other countries stockpiles thats a whole other conversation. I think it would be probably dismissed on the bass of the improbability of getting the exactitude of examination to verify they have in fact didnt we encounter this with russia . Theres no way this is going to happen at this stage of the game. Certainly not in the case of china for example. China is a power that just going to give itup. ats period. North kor it is. Evebody gets in the act together. We talked about russia and the ited s ates, d they canot even were not even gog to get the bilateral. Its too hard. Because everybodys feeling threatened so they need to keep their nuclear stockpiles. What would be wrong with wouldnt that be a contribution to his legacy. Lets all jump in the tank together. Id say so. But american president s hate to be left at the alter. It diminishes their power every time that theyve they feel like it diminishes their power. I dont think it would, but hes not going to propose something until he thinks hell get a yes. Does the un have any role to play . Theoretilly that would be the way to handle these sorts of problems. Hes getting enough pushback for what hes put on the table. Lets see if he can get that. I think its within reach. Its a great idea but impossible dream. Issue 2, obesity the disease. Well, we know as obesity researchers that obesity is a disease, but the fact that the American Medical Association<\/a> has recognized it will have tremendous impact on legislation in washington with Insurance Companies<\/a>. It carries a lot of weight. The medical community is relieved by the recent ruling of the influential and prestigious ama, the American Medical Association<\/a> that declared obesity a disease. A. M. A. Represents more doctors than any other association. Heres their midjune language recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately one in three americans. Okay. Thats over 78 million fat adult americans. Who are these overweight people . Answer a person who has a body mass index b. M. I. Of 30 or higher compared to a normal b. M. I. Of 18. 5 to this. 9. Memorize these stats, bmi does not measure body fat directly but is a reliable method to determine body fatness calculated from the ratio of a persons height to a persons weigh . So using that measure, 35 of u. S. Adults, 1 3 are considered obese, and 17 of children are obese. Obesity has long been associated with health risks including heart disease, type 2 diabetic, 2 2 diabetes stroke and various cancers. The door is open to Insurance Companies<\/a> enable them to more accurately reimburse for Health Problems<\/a> associated with obesity, this disease designation for obesity by the way reaches into addictions that are now treated as diseases like alcoholism. The Obesity Action Coalition<\/a> in tampa says that the a. M. A. Designation obesity is a disease puts obesity on the same path as treatments for addictions to alcohol or tobacco and mental Health Problems<\/a> such as depression. So far so good, but not everyone is happy with calling obesity a disease or that 1 3 of the u. S. Population is diseased. The naaf as in frank, a, the National Association<\/a> to advance fat acceptance spokeswoman peggy howell says this we dont see ourselves as diseased. To label a whole segment of society as diseased without any knowledge of their health is unacceptable. It directly fuels discrimination. Question, what are the social costs of severe obeity and what did you thk of that ladys argument . I think her argument is the least of e problemshere. If yre declaring i a increase the pre tag for americans. You know, itsgoing to inea Health Insurance<\/a> cos s because were going tobe payi for lifestyle choices it also going to cost, u disality more easily ung thats going to really increase the cost of that absolutely exploding cost of that program which is already skyrocketing. Toead people get more treatment toreduceit. Whats that . Bariatric surgery where surgery to reduce your appetite d se weight. But its not for everybody. Thats becoming more of a thing to reduce obesity. If its going to make peop reduce their weit, th you can see some something positive about i . Way to really explode the cost of health care for really whats become a lifestyle choice. I mean people who smoke, are going tocall smokg a disease too . The costs are exploding already. Shes made an excellent point about bariatric surgery, but its expensive, and Insurance Companies<\/a> have been reluctant, i believe, to undertake the cost of bariatric surgery. Should that be changed, and if so, does the government play a role in having it changed . Its a sease. Iom wondering if bariatric surgery is what theyre mi at. That probay lygog to include a fraction of the people. Ve f pple get that suery. On the whole when you consider 35 of the population is obese. The governor of new jersey apparently just had bariatric surgery; is that right . The governor has yes. And he needed it. Is that what its called whatever he got. Yes, whatever he got. A lap nd, whats a lap band . They band off part of your stomach so you get full quicker. I think its removed. First of all the a. M. A. Has no official power to make anybody do anything. I think it does put some pressure on Insurance Companies<\/a> to recognize that overweight is not simply a product of lack of will power or a lifestyle choice. But its a lot more its a lot more complicated than we we know. Were just really learning about this. And i would you know, its a chicken and egg thin the Health Care Costs<\/a> are exploding because of the Health Problems<\/a> related with obesity, and so you want to treat them in order to reduce those weights. So im all for treating people seriously and taki this condition seriously. Whats the Nation Institute<\/a> of health . Let me just say this,. Did i give you just a figure he, 12,000 to 35,000 for the kind of surgery were talking about. Right. And Insurance Companies<\/a> have they do cover some. They do cover some of it, yes, they do. Fat obesity s exploded over the last several decades, changed. People eat more food, they eat they dont have as much exercise. They dont continue exercise. They dont walk to places. They get transported one way or another. Its a change of lifestyle. Its not a disease. A lot of people yield to it. Yield to what, the change . Right a lot of people do that. A lot people are eating the kind of fo that accumulate the calories in your body. Fat is the result of all of that. Im not satisfied with this because i think were talking about stigma here. And my exit question focuses on that. Does the designation of obesity as a disease stigmatize obesity or does it destigmatize fatness . I think itdestigmatizes it on some level because people its not my fault. Its not my lifestyle. This disease. Continue eating excessively and not exercising. Well pay for your problem now because its a disease. Its not your fault. We also created your problem in this sense. There is no fundamental difference between the will pour that exists among people today and people 50 years ago. Its the same human race. Its the same american people, but all of a sudden obesity s soared. Now whatsappened . Ingly disagree with you. I think will power. Increased portion sizes. It has increased. You have some physical appearance, the impression youre young. Have you ever heard of Weight Watchers<\/a> . Ive heard of Weight Watchers<\/a>. It works for some people. They teach you to count calories, and calories are ingredient to the overweight issue. And it works. For some people. Almost all. I would say almost all. Men and women . Right. But look at obesity among under 10yearolds. Are we saying that people 10 and under are so radically different than they were 30 years ago that these 9year olds dont have will power. Whats the point . The point is something has changed in society. Blame the food. Well, society is more sedentary. We watch a lot of tv. They ay computer all day. Issue 3, warrantless dna swabs. The 4th amendment protects u. S. Citizens from quote unquote unreasonable searches and seizures. This means that the fbi or the police cannot search someone for evidence of a crime without that person being suspected of the crime. Within the framework of quote unquote probable cause, but in an unusual five to four split the Supreme Court<\/a> ruled that police can take a sample of your dna if you have been arrested for a serious crime. And if the dna matches dna found in other crime scenes it could implicate you. The case of maryland versus king. It upholds the conviction of alonzo king junior. He was found guilty of a 2003 major assault on the Eastern Shore<\/a> of maryland. A dna sample was taken when he was arrested on another crime in 2009. An assault charge unrelated to the 2003 2003 rape crime. The dna matched. The Supreme Court<\/a> ruling treats cheek swabs of an arrestees dna like a standardbooking procedure, like fringing. Anthony kennedy was joined by john robert effort junior, clash thomas and samuel eely toe. Antonin scalia joined the three women on the court to disagree with the ruling. Scalia and justices ruth bader ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor<\/a> and Eleanor Kagan<\/a> ruled against the heres what scalia said about his descent the court has cast aside a bedrock rule of our 4 4th Amendment Law<\/a> that the government may not search its citizens for evidence of crime unless there is a reasonable cause to believe that such evidence will be found. Question. Will the Supreme Court<\/a> decision prompt a National Standard<\/a> for the collection of dna . Eventually it probably will, and hereswhat you need to know to see which direction the countrys going. In 2009 e Supreme Court<\/a> ruled thatsomebody con. Icted of a crime does not have the right to he access to their own dna even if it would prove them innocent. So we had a bill of rights set up to protect people. Instead peopledont have access to their own dna but the government does have the access whats dna . Well, its your internal fingprint in some way. What does it stand for . Dna. Oh, boy. Come on, struggle. I dont know. nucleicacid. I know that. Thats the best we can do here . Looks like it. Does it give your whole genetic material as does nothing else. It should not be compared to a fingerprint, which is relatively primitive as compared to the detail that exists in the dna that can be pro pro cured from the swabbing of a cheek. It can tell you all sorts of stuff. And your fathers and mothers stuff and their predecesso. It can tell you what diseases yre predisposed to. Thats a matter of permanent record if its taken. Please contue. I generally side with the liberal members of the court. On this one it was the conservative majority but joined by steven briar and i buy his thinking that this is the court catching up with the modern world, just as the fingerprints im sure some people thought that was invasive. This is how we identify people, and in the particular case in maryland, that i discovered that he was guilty of a rain rape that he had done several years before. So it had a good outcome. I dont think you can just argue the case to get to that good outcome. This is not invasive at all, and more than half the states already have this are already doing this. So to answer the question i think we will have a National Standard<\/a> at some point. Should any collection ofdna be first preded byvoluntary permission to do it . In other rds you understand . I understand ctactually. I dont think it has to be voluntary for it to be ableto be used. to be taken and used. Oh, really. Yes, absolutely. I dont support a warrant for every time youre going to collect dna. Im ying voluntary on the part of the rson from whom its taken, yes no. I think it shld be i dont likeit i. Also dont like blood and breathalyzer. Its very invasive. Go ahead. We three are correct. Out of time, happy 4th 4th weekend. Bye bye. We have, in washington today, a government that is absolutely incapable of resolving the problems that are confronting the nation. What has happened here is it really goes back to the money that has become the overriding and the driving factor in politics. The slush of money that have come in and the fact that you can now have unlimited amounts of dollars flow in to campaigns without any even disclosure. The Citizens United<\/a> Supreme Court<\/a> case, which basically took off all the Campaign Finance<\/a> restrictions. I got to hope and pray that the Supreme Court<\/a> realized they muffed on that one. It used to be that those of us in the middle who prided","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia601905.us.archive.org\/17\/items\/KQED_20130707_223000_McLaughlin_Group\/KQED_20130707_223000_McLaughlin_Group.thumbs\/KQED_20130707_223000_McLaughlin_Group_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240619T12:35:10+00:00"}