President Obama waded into the issue of gun control during a speech on Wed. July 25th Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

"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

Should Olympians be able to tweet their thoughts without fear of getting kicked off the team? Credit: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

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)

Could carrying a gun protect women against assault? Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

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.

As a woman, do you think owning a gun would help you protect yourself?

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.

Will using your real name to make comments online curb abuse? Credit: Spencer E Holtaway/Flickr/Creative Commons

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

An analyst works in the Olympic anti-doping laboratory in January. The lab in Harlow, England will test 5,000 of the 10,490 athletes' samples from the London 2012 Games. Credit: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

All eyes are on London with the opening of the Olympics, but where there are high profile athletes, the conversation soon turns to performance enhancing drugs.

The World Anti-Doping Agency says the London games will be the most dope-tested in history, and has already spent roughly $30 million on drug testing and enforcement. Wealthier countries usually have a competitive advantage when it comes to athletics. More money to spend on sports means better training facilities and coaches, and more money for equipment like expensive aerodynamic swim suits.

But are wealthier countries better equipped to cheat, both within and outside of the rules, as well?

The Olympics and other athletic competitions strive for a level playing field between all competitors, and are spending up to roughly $30 million on tests and enforcement of anti-doping in the 2012 Olympic games to maintain balance ? but gray areas still remain. Several athletes train and sleep in hypoxic chambers that mimic high altitude, which boosts an athlete's red blood cell count, increasing endurance and recovery time. Such a chamber runs from $7,000 for a small tent, to $25,000 for a room, according to the Huffington Post. In 2008, medal winners in swimming were dominated by athletes who wore aerodynamic swimsuits that ran over $500, and needed to be replaced after five uses.

It may or may not be ethical, but as of now, it’s allowed. Those price tags are simply unaffordable for poorer countries.

Guests:

Daniel M. Rosen, author of Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sport from the Nineteenth Century to Today (Praeger)

Michele Verroken, Founding Director of Sporting Integrity and former Director of Ethics and Doping at UK Sport

Actor Ben Stiller arrives at the premiere of Twentieth Century Fox's 'The Watch' at Grauman's Chinese Theatre on July 23, 2012 in Hollywood, California. Credit: Jason Merritt/Getty Images

Our guest host David Lazarus is joined by KPCC film critics Andy Klein and Henry Sheehan to review this week’s new films, including The Watch, Dark Horse, Ruby Sparks and more.

Guests:

Andy Klein, film critic for KPCC and L.A. Times Community Newspapers

Henry Sheehan, film critic for KPCC and dearhenrysheehan.com

Actress Kathryn McCormick, actor Ryan Guzman and director Scott Speer attend the after party for the Los Angeles premiere of Summit Entertainment's "Step Up Revolution" at Grauman's Chinese Theatre on July 17, 2012 in Hollywood, California. Credit: Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

In the new film“Step Up Revolution,” a crew of street dancers is pitted against the world’s best hip-hop dancers. Ever since the days of Fred and Ginger and “West Side Story,” music and dancing have had audiences kicking up their heels. But although “Rock of Ages” and the recent version of “Footloose” stumbled at the box office, big screen adaptations of musicals continue to be popular.

The 2009 film “Mamma Mia!” surpassed Titanic as the U.K.’s highest grossing film of all time, an impressive feat. Closer to home, 2007’s “Hairspray” became the record-holder for biggest sales at opening weekend for a movie musical, only to be surpassed in 2009 by “Mamma Mia!” Meanwhile the newest adaptation, the upcoming “Les Miserables,” has garnered buzz from fans and critics for its star-studded cast.

The small screen latched onto the trend in 2006 with the TV movie “High School Musical,” which spurred an incredibly popular franchise that eventually made its way to movie theaters and paved the way for “Glee” and “Smash.”

What are your favorite movie musicals? Does “Singin’ in the Rain” have you dancing in the aisles? Do you think the trend will last, or do you think it’s on its way out? Are you tired of all the movie musicals and song-saturated TV shows? Or can you not get enough of them?

Guests:

Andy Klein, film critic for KPCC and L.A. Times Community Newspapers

Henry Sheehan, film critic for KPCC and dearhenrysheehan.com

U.S. President Barack Obama returns to the White House on July 18, 2012 in Washington, D.C. Credit: Pool/Getty Images

In 2008, when he was still a new face to many Americans, 12 % thought Barack Obama was a Muslim, according to the Pew Research Center. Today, a new Pew poll reveals that the number has jumped to 17%. – with over 30% of Republicans taking that view. Obama has talked about his Christian faith many times publicly, so why the lingering – even growing - confusion over our president’s religion? Hasn’t that question, along with doubts about his citizenship, been put to rest long ago?

The anti-Obama faction has been relentless in delivering the message that the president is somehow “un-American” – either by birth or ideology – and stirring the pot about his religious faith. And those who oppose him are only too willing to believe, it seems, despite the evidence to the contrary. As for Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Americans are much better informed: 60% say they know he’s a Mormon, with most of the rest saying they don’t know his faith.

The poll’s results indicated that both candidates are falling short in controlling their message in this area. How heavily will religion weigh in swaying voters this fall? Will conservative evangelicals rally behind Romney despite his Mormonism? Will Obama be able to overcome the misinformation about his Christianity? Do you take a candidate’s faith into account when you go to the polls?

Guest:

Alan Cooperman, Assistant Director of Research at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life

John Kenneth White, Professor of Politics, Catholic University, Washington D.C.

The Facebook website is displayed on a laptop computer. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Yesterday, the folks at Facebook released their first earnings report since going public nearly two months ago. The results were a mixed bag for the Menlo Park social media giant that’s still trying to find its way through Wall Street.

On the plus side, Facebook saw its revenue exceed many analysts’ expectations with a 45% increase year over year. Users also increased in that same time showing that the social platform still reigns supreme. Yes, we’re looking at you MySpace & Friendster.

But Facebook still hasn’t taken control of a few glaring problems and that’s why its stock price continues to fall. The company spent its highest amount ever on advertising this year, which cut down on profitability considerably. Investors are still unconvinced that the platform can successfully turn almost one billion users into one billion consumers. Add to the fact that new studies by Capstone Investments and an AP/ CNBC recently found that there has been a slight decline in major markets both in time spent on Facebook and new users. In the long run, this may be the biggest hurdle that the Facebook leaders will have to face by the time Q3 comes out.

If your biggest assets are your users, what do you do if you start to lose them? Have you cut down your time on Facebook? Do you use your mobile applications for Facebook the most? Do you see a new social media trend taking the place of Facebook in the next few years?

Guest:

Matt DeBord, KPCC economy blogger, DeBord Report

A public swimming pool. Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

The height of summer conjures images of long lazy days lying by the pool or ocean, dipping in and having fun when the heat gets too much. But the water can be one of the most dangerous places to be – if you don’t know how to swim.

According to a 2012 report from the Center for Disease Control, drowning is the fifth leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Ten people lose their lives to the water every day and one in five drownings are children aged 14 and under. When it comes to minorities, African American children aged 5-14 drown at three times the rate of whites, with a similar statistic for Latino youth.

Access to local pools, swimming lessons and a lack of interest and knowledge of water based sports all add to the rising drowning rates. Southern California isn’t immune to this problem; the recession, budget cuts and costs associated with maintaining aquatic facilities has led to reduced hours in some areas and the closure of swim teams and pools in others.

The City of Commerce has bucked the trend – investing millions in a state of the art aquatic center, which has produced Olympic athletes in water polo. Swimming lessons and access to aquatic sports are offered to local residents in the City of Commerce for no and low cost, to promote water safety, fitness and overall health. Other cities struggle to keep facilities open for more than a few weeks a year.

What access do you have to swimming facilities in your local area? As a parent are you concerned about your child’s ability to swim? Should local government officials make swimming safety and access to pools a priority?

Guests:

Lilia Leon, Mayor of the City of Commerce

Pamela Wasserman, Director of Recreation and Community Services, City of Bell Gardens

Jeff Wiltse, Author of Contested Waters and Assistant Professor of History, University of Montana

Phelps, who won a record eight gold medals at the 2008 Beijing Games, has a total of 15 gold, two silver and two bronze. He is competing in three other events in London and can take the record even further. Credit: Al Bello/Getty Images

Michael Phelps got the gold yesterday, winning the 800-meter freestyle relay along with teammates Ryan Lochte, Conor Dwyer and Ricky Berens. The medal is Phelps’ 15th gold; his two silver and two bronze make him the most-medaled Olympian ever.

Team USA scored gold in women’s gymnastics as well, winning handily over Russia by over five points. And host country Great Britain got its first gold in women’s rowing. But the real fun is in the flaps, isn’t it?

Four pairs of female Badminton doubles players - two from South Korea, one from China, and one from Indonesia — were disqualified for attempting to lose matches to manipulate their place in the tournament. In the round robin format of these Badminton matches, losing a match can actually lead to getting an easier opponent later. Crowds booed the players as they deliberately played beneath their skill.

Meanwhile, South Korean fencer Shin A-Lam argued that time was against her in her loss of the gold medal to Germany’s Britta Heidemann. Heidemann won on a final touch with one second remaining. Except it wasn’t really just one second.

The timing mechanism for the bout got stuck, giving Heidemann extra time to beat A-Lam. Though she lost the competition for the bronze medal as well, the International Fencing Federation is awarding A-Lam a “special medal” for her sportsmanship.

Guest:

David Wharton, staff writer, Los Angeles Times, covering the Olympics in London

Should the government be allowed to decide how much formula new mothers get from the hospital? Credit: Tim Boyle/Getty Images

As part of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s push to make New Yorkers healthier, city hospitals will restrict and monitor the distribution of baby formula to mothers starting in September.

The “Latch On NYC” initiative, aimed at promoting breast feeding, was launched in May by New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Farley. It asks city hospitals to voluntarily agree to limit promotion, restrict and track access to, and discontinue distribution of free formula.

While mothers won’t be completely denied access to the breast milk alternative, they will be required to listen to a counseling session with a nurse before they’re able to “check out” any formula.

Deborah Kaplan, with the New York City Health Department, said that the initiative is specifically for mothers who decide to breastfeed.

"If a mother comes in and says I want to formula feed my baby, that is her choice and that will be respected, and she will not in any way be denied formula," she explained. "If a mother comes in and decides she wants to breastfeed, which in New York City is about 90 percent of mothers, the conversation will be about: 'How can the nurse or the other hospital staff support her decision?'"

Kaplan added that with 90 percent of mothers in NYC choosing to breastfeed their newborns, it is imperative that hospital practices focus on supporting a mother's decision.

"Mothers, pregnant women these days are bombarded by marketing materials, by email, by mail, in magazines, by the infant formula industry. When a mother comes to a hospital, the last thing she needs is more marketing," she said.

New York Health and Hospitals Corporation already banned formula from promotions and gift bags in 2007, as did the state of Rhode Island in 2011, and Massachusetts just this July. While many health advocates have shown support for the initiative, some moms are miffed.

Reason Magazine Managing Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward opposes the campaign, though she doesn't completely disagree with their mission.

"When you talk about supporting a women's choice that implies somehow that both choices will be equal, and that's just not the case. The whole point of this initiative is to push women to breastfeed," she said. "That's fine. There's some pretty good scientific evidence that breastfeeding is good for babies. But to simultaneously pretend that somehow this isn't tax payer money going to push women to do something, to choose one thing over another, is false."

Mangu-Ward added that mothers are savvy enough to navigate the infant formula industry's propaganda.

"Women aren't confused about whether or not breastfeeding is better," she said. "People choose formula all the time for very good reasons."

Breast milk versus formula debate aside, should the government legislate such a thing, or should the choice to breastfeed be left to mothers alone?

What do you think of the "Latch on NYC" campaign?

Guests:

Deborah Kaplan, Assistant Commissioner for Maternal, Infant and Reproductive Health, New York City Health Department.

Katherine Mangu-Ward, Managing Editor, Reason Magazine

A new poll shows incumbent President Obama with a slight edge over candidate Romney Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

A new poll from Quinnipiac University reveals that Barack Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. In Pennsylvania, the lead is a substantial 11 percent, while Florida and Ohio both give Obama a 6 percent advantage.

While Obama won all three states in 2008, the real reason for his lead is probably due to the fact that voters feel like they know more about him than they do Romney. For instance, 15 percent of Ohio voters wanted to know more about Romney, while only 2 percent said the same for Obama. Both campaigns will have to capitalize on this information to get their candidates into the White House this November, and you can bet your bottom dollar on the fact that they’ll turn to the trusted and traditional approach politicians have taken for decades: negative ads. It looks like Obama’s team is coming out on top with its use of negative messaging, but that may be a matter of political physics. For instance, in a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, zero percent of voters said they didn’t know how they felt about Obama.

Obama has already been vetted as a candidate and president, so any attack ads Romney runs are unlikely to change anyone’s mind. However, that’s clearly not the case for anti-Romney ads, as a sizable amount of voters are still unsure about him. This explains why a study from Vanderbilt University shows that Obama’s ads calling out Romney’s record while at Bain Capital led to a 16 percent lead in independent voters, while Romney does not enjoy a similar bump with any of his ads.

What can Mitt Romney due to counteract this situation? Should he run more positive ads about himself, as several conservatives are publicly suggesting? Even if he should, will he do it? Do you feel like you know Mitt Romney at this point? And if voters repeatedly say they want to see more positive ads, why do negative ones work so much better?

Guests:

Jonathan Wilcox, Republican Strategist; former speech writer for Governor Pete Wilson

Matt Rodriguez, Democratic strategist; former senior Obama advisor in 2008, who now runs the Los Angeles office for the Dewey Square Group

Opponents of gay marriage petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse their ruling about the unconstitutionality of gay marriage bans. Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Proposition 8 may finally get its day in high court.

Yesterday, opponents of gay marriage petitioned the Supreme Court to look at the case. Attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), part of the legal team for ProtectMarriage.com, asked the Court to reverse the 9th Circuit ruling that called a same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

ADF general counsel, Andrew Pugno told KQED, "It's actually a relief to finally get to where we think we're going to have a fair hearing." The petition has been a long time coming. The voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage has been through California courts, federal court and federal appeals court.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case it will certainly impact California, but how it would affect other states is anyone’s guess. How would each side argue the case? Which states-rights cases would petitioners use? Which civil-rights cases would gay marriage proponents cite?

Guests:

John Eastman, Chairman of the Board, National Organization for Marriage; Former Dean and Professor, Chapman University School of Law; Founding Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence

Laura Brill, Partner with the law firm Kendall Brill Klieger; former Supreme Court law clerk for the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant is seen on April 6, 2012. Credit: Grant Slater/KPCC

Topic: Orange County journalists’ roundtable: Larry and our talented Orange County journalists riff on the latest news from the O.C.: feds enter the fray in the Anaheim police shooting investigation, e-mails sent by UC Irvine professor charged with arson point toward plans for a mass shooting, the repair bill for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station mounts up and more fallout from the Carlos Bustamante sex scandal.

Guests:

Ed Joyce, Orange County Reporter, KPCC

Norberto Santana, editor-in-chief of the Voice of OC, a non-profit investigative news agency that covers Orange County government and politics

Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks at "The Expendables 2 Real American Heroes" Panel during Comic-Con International 2012 at San Diego Convention Center on July 12, 2012 in San Diego, California. Credit: Kevin Winter/Getty Images

Arnold Schwarzenegger, former governor, action star and body builder, can now add another occupation to his resume. He has co-founded a new think tank at the University of Southern California, called the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy.

Schwarzenegger will also serve a dual role as the Governor Downey Professor of State and Global Policy and the chairman of the advisory board for the group.

The organization will be bipartisan in nature, and its objective includes a focus on education, energy and environment, fiscal and economic policy, health and human wellness and political reform. The former governor has personally committed $20 million to the think tank, and will surely be involved in future fundraising efforts as well.

The Global Director of this new think tank, Bonnie Reiss said she has faith in Schwarzenegger because of his work “across the aisle” during his time as governor, citing his work on environmental policies and California’s stem cell institute.

But more importantly, Reiss pointed to the political fatigue citizens are feeling as their representatives become more and more divided.

“What we’re seeing from all the different studies and polls...is that there are extremes on both sides in our state and in our nation, but the overwhelming majority of people, whether they’re registered Democrats or registered Republicans or registered Independents, really are in the center and really do seek common ground on dealing with issues that we care about,” she said.

The USC-Schwarzenegger partnership will benefit the public through symposiums, research in tandem with the university and students, as well as through fellowship programs which aim to bring in young, innovative minds to work on policy.

But as it stands now, the Board of Advisors for the Institute is made up of seasoned politicians and arguably lacks the “freshness” it’s touting.

Reiss assures, however, that the think tank is seeking people to join them -- young “outsiders” with new ideas -- but they are still in the early stages of development.

“The majority of people across Ca and across the nation, really do want their leaders no matter what their political philosophy to be willing to work together and find solutions. It does seem to most of us citizens...it seems most [politicians] are more interested in defeating the other party and getting their party in the next election,” she said.

Reiss continued, adding,”Some of it is pure politics and some of it is philosophical divides, but whatever the cause it doesn’t benefit the people they serve. That’s why we’re reaching out to find people that share this point of view to collaborate with all of them to advance ideas that influence public debate and public policy on these most challenging issues.”

Weigh In

Why exactly did Schwarzenegger take up this new role? Is it a smart move for him to get back into the political arena in this way? And what about the goal of bipartisanship? How realistic is that given the modern political climate? What sort of projects and ideas can we expect to see come from all this?

Guest:

Bonnie Reiss, Global Director, USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy

Customers wait in line at a Chick-fil-A restaurant on August 1, 2012 in Fort Worth, Texas. Credit: Tom Pennington/Getty Images

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy set off a firestorm when he publicly aired his anti-same-sex marriage views. The company has since attempted to distance itself from Cathy’s comments, issuing a statement saying they would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

But the damage has been done — or has it?

When gay rights supporters clamored for a proposed boycott, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee responded by declaring Wednesday, August 1st “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” He did the company a huge favor: customers swarmed the fast-food outlets throughout the country, making it a record day for sales for the chain.

But wait, there’s more. Mayors of several cities with large LGBT populations have spoken out against having Chick-fil-A in their cities; Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel said the company’s values “are not Chicago values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents.” Meanwhile, same-sex couples are encouraged by the LGBT community to swarm their local Chick-fil-A and commit a Public Display of Affection on Friday, designated "National Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A.”

Does the controversy help or hurt the chain? Should corporations stay out of public policy debate? Or are they right to air their values and count on the support of the portion of consumers who share them?

Guests:

Ira Kalb, Assistant professor of Clinical Marketing, USC Marshall School of Business; Expert in branding, image creation, marketing and corporation communications

Bill Peacock, Vice President of research & planning and the director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation

Larry Chavis, Assistant Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, University of North Carolina

Twitter is breaking into the Presidential game with a tool that measures the popularity of the candidates. Credit: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

Sports fans, social media addicts and television producers have been cursing Twitter during these Olympics. Spoilers rip across the globe and tweets overload networks to the point of jamming TV signals. That little birdy and its billions of 140-character posts are edging in on all major events. And now Twitter wants to capitalize on that data by getting in the polling game.

Yesterday, it launched a tool that tracks mentions of President Barack Obama & his opponent Mitt Romney. The “Twindex” churns out a daily approval rating of the presidential candidates based on positive or negative tweets. Mitt is at 26 (+ over yesterday). Barack is +10 over yesterday to 44.

So what, right? Not so fast. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says, "Ignore the 'Twindex' at your peril."

So how does it work exactly? How does it compare to old-fashioned polling? Is it accurate? If not, what are the consequences? Can it detect sarcasm? What would Twitter be without sarcasm?

Guests:

Adam Sharp, Head of Government, News & Social Innovation, Twitter

Chris Cillizza, writes The Fix for The Washington Post and author of "The Gospel According to the Fix: An Insider's Guide to a Less than Holy World of Politics"

Julia Clark, Pollster, Vice President, Public Sector Practice, Ipsos Public Affairs

Why do internet trolls exist? What drives them to do what they do? Credit: Michael Smith/Getty Images

Those who hide behind an anonymous online name are known as ‘trolls’ – waiting beneath a bridge with their laptops, ready to hurl vitriol disguised as opinion at any passing target.

Their insults, rants, threats and name-calling show up in the comments section of blogs, articles and Facebook walls, sometimes with lightning speed, on a daily or even hourly basis. Who are these virtual haters, and what drives them to such heights of spite?

It’s the combination of anonymity, access and audience that brings out the worst in people, writes Lisa Selin Davis in Salon. As for who they are, nobody knows. Anyone with an e-mail account can hit “send” and express their deepest, darkest biases for all to read, without fear of reprisal. It’s what psychologists call the “disinhibition effect,” and it can make for a very toxic online environment.

But should that be allowed? The internet promises personal privacy along with a platform for democratic discourse, but does that make online trolling fair game? Does the First Amendment protect online commentary to the point of threats, slander or worse? Would those who indulge in the practice be as free with their language if their names were public as well as their insults? Have you ever left an anonymous comment that you wouldn’t voice in person?

Guests:

Karen North holds a Ph.D. in psychology and is the Director of the Annenberg Program on Online Communities, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

Kevin Bankston, Senior Counsel and Director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a Washington, DC-based non-profit organization dedicated to promoting democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age

The declining teen pregnancy rate can be partly attributed to the use of birth control pills, but IUDs have proven to be even more effective. Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Though the popularity of shows like Teen Mom might suggest otherwise, teen pregnancy rates have dropped nationwide. In fact, they’re down by 40% since 1990. So what accounts for the three-decade low?

Better sex education can be ruled out. The drops were found across the country, even in states without comprehensive sex education programs, like Texas and New Mexico. Part of the reason could be that teens are waiting to have sex. The number of teenage girls who are virgins has risen markedly in the last ten years. However the bulk of the drop can be attributed to contraception use, but not the numbers - teen birth control use has remained at the same level for the last 20 years.

It’s the type of birth control that has changed. More and more teens are moving away from condoms and towards the pill. However, the pill still poses a problem - many teens and adult women forget to take it every day, increasing the risk of pregnancy. A recent study found an even more effective method: long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) like intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants. For the study, women were given their choice of free contraception.

Those who chose the pill had a much higher risk of contraceptive failure than those who picked IUDs. The problem is that IUDs aren’t readily available to most women. Though Medicaid covers them, it may not cover later checkups often needed for use of IUDs.

Vermont, the state with the lowest teen pregnancy rate, teamed up with Planned Parenthood to create federal payment schemes that makes IUDs, and subsequent checkups, easier to obtain. Should other states follow Vermont’s lead? Will wider access to LARCs really make that big of a difference?

Guests:

Bill Albert, Chief Program Officer, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

Gina Secura Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine; Project
Director