Underwater or In Foreclosure? Obama’s Plan to Help

President Barack Obama wants to spend $75 billion to prevent 9-million Americans from losing their homes. He unveiled his plan at a Phoenix, Arizona high school today. It calls for helping homeowners who are underwater, whose homes are now worth less than their mortgages, and those in danger of foreclosure. We hear from David Leonhardt, economics columnist for “The New York Times;” Bruce Marks, CEO and founder of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America; and Marc Charney, a real estate agent from the Boston area.

Rocket Docket

We speak with Charlie Green, the clerk of circuit courts in Lee County, Florida, who has set up a “rocket docket” to hear nearly 1000 home foreclosure cases each day.

‘Unintelligent’ Design

Opponents to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection argue that humans are so complex that we must have been designed by an intelligent being. But biologists point out that the human body is chalk full of flaws and bad designs. Abby Hafer, professor of anatomy and physiology at Curry College, joins us to discuss some examples of “unintelligent design” in the human body.

Quiz: Find your blind spot

Digital Switch

As of midnight last night, four months ahead of the government-imposed deadline, over 400 TV stations nationwide have turned off their analog signals and are broadcasting in digital only. Is your TV working today? If not, why? Where can you get a a digital converter box? What about those government coupons? We speak to a civil rights organization committed to helping consumers stay tuned in.

FCC Hotline: 1-888-CALL-FCC

Flash of Genius

We revisit a conversation we had with Greg Kinnear, the star, and Mark Abraham, the director of the movie “Flash of Genius” which came out on DVD this week. The film tells the David and Goliath story of inventor Bob Kearns, who sued the Ford Motor company, saying that they stole his windshield wiper invention.

Janet Shahood

I find it appalling that you would interrup the President’s speach for a commercial and to tell us what’s coming in future shows. I listen to NPR to be informed. What happened? Seems like now that the election is over, things are less important.

Dissatisfied today with NPR!

jryan

Mea culpa!

Many of our stations are on “automatic break away” and it’s impossible to change that
on short notice.

We knew the length of the speech, and knew we wouldn’t have to cut away if he began
on time, but what President ever does!

Our bad, we should have planned on the President being late and planned to tell stations we’d blow out the breaks.

Deep apologies, we have the text here at the website, and we’ll have the speech for you at the website soon.

Best,
Robin

jryan

Robin again with a quick update: the show that you can now listen to online is the second show that we did today. When we have breaking news we re-feed programs for our listeners in different time zones. Again, our apologies to our earlier listeners for breaking into the President’s speech! And thanks so much for listening critically.

Best,

Robin

john mckelvey

Second that. What’s wrong with you people? Cover what’s important now, advertise later.
R. Danile Olivaw

How can I report my neighborhood “flippers” – they clearly shouldn’t be allowed to profit and I haven’t heard a number to report them
http://wbur.org robyn tarantino

I just listened to the Unintelligent design segment, and if you do a little research, you’ll see that you are perpetuating the greatest and surely most unfortunate misconception about Darwin and evolution. Darwin DID believe in a God who created our universe, and ALL branches of scientific investigation further illuminate the framework that God initiated. In short, God created evolution in the same way that She created the physical laws that govern how particles interact.
Anita Danker

What happened to the piece about “Folsom (sp?) Prison Blues?”
Tasha Oard

I was unconvinced by Abby Hafer’s logic. She maintains that because nature shows some dysfunction (or at least some design that does not match her standard for “the best”), it can be determined that there is not an intelligent creator. Actually, I think she is missing couple of other possibilities: first, there may be a designer who created things in a flawed manner purposefully, or second, there is much more to the story than only what she mentioned. I would argue that the latter is the case: history has shown that we have discovered more about nature the longer we humans live. It is probable that we do not fully grasp things such as why testicles are placed in a vulnerable position or why our appendix is the way it is. Not only that, but if we have a sovereign creator, might not He choose to place things for other reasons besides what we think most logical? In addition, if these “flaws” in nature are hiccups along evolutionary progress, why have we not seen improvement in these? We have thousands of years of written history, and there is no record of any of these evolving over time. Finally, it is possible, as many believe, that the world is not as it was meant to be, meaning that it was designed perfectly, but, as a result of mankind’s poor choices, has deteriorated.
hitesh

Hello all, hitesh here, one of the producers. Great to read your comments. Thank you. Just a quick response to Anita–the Folsom Prison Blues piece will air today. Apologies for the change–sometimes we have to re-arrange at the last minute for breaking news. hmh
George

The difference between religion and science is that in the former you can choose to “believe” whatever you want to believe, you can make “make up” any belief system you want and this can NEVER be challenged or disproved because that is one of the basic and “convenient” tenets of the belief system (i.e. disproof is not ALLOWED). Religion and, what we call, “mental delusions” share this in common (people suffering from delusions are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to treat because rational arguments and thinking cannot dislodge this type of thinking). Science could also be described as a belief system, but it is a belief system that can be subject to testing, proving and disproving. It is a belief system that can be challenged at any time. Science does NOT hold “sacred” any particular world view; if a new explanation for what we observe PROVES better, then it will replace an earlier view, no matter how popular or well-accepted that earlier view might have been.

If a theory of evolution better than that of Darwin ever comes along and it fits our data and knowledge better, then it will supersede Darwin; but Darwin, just like Einstein did a really fine job of probing and trying to explain the deepest aspects of “reality”. Religion, on the other hand, is the very definition of a “stagnant theory”; one that never grows, never changes, never allows for questioning or the acquisition of new knowledge.