craft store chain may have this accounts hacked. michael's is encouraging customers to check their statements. >> those are the headlines on this saturday. "consider this" is up next. >> an american sailor among dozens suing because of affects of the fukushima meltdown. why can't the american military win wars outright. could hunting a rhino preserve the endangered species. i'm antonio mora, with "consider this." here is more of what is ahead. >> i don't understand a ship the size of a carrier in a plume and expect there to be no harm to the human life.

>> income and equality is an economic theme of our time. >> it's not morally wrong, it's bad economics. >> after saving the day for seattle richard sherwin is getting all the attention. >> that was immature. i regret doing that. >> he'll shoot an ageing non-breeding rhino. absolutely heartbreaking. >> nearly three years after a deadly tsunami in japan caused the worst nuclear disaster. 71 u.s. sailors took part in relief efforts. the house and senate lawmakers want to find out. as al jazeera's reporter explains, the exposure during the service led to freightening

illnesses. >> what i went through is 100% changed my life. 70,000 u.s. personal were located in the area where the power plant leaked radiation. this man was assigned to check radiati radiation levels in the air. >> that in the airways 300 times higher than a normal day of the sun. >> sea born and his team say it was exposed to his level. he feels whether or not he thinks are radiation exposure. >> my right arm was an inch smaller than the left. i have 50-60% of power i used to have out of the right side of the body. >> sim jonls among others say they tranning contaminated

without sea water. they cooked with it, cleaned with it. he says the effects are debilitating. my lymph nodes swelt, i dealt with night sweats and the list kept going. >> simmonds is forced to use a wheelchair as he loses power in his also and arm. signals are failing. so he uses a catheter every four hours. >> our oldest, for the longest time, she - the only thing she could think about was, "dad's going to die." >> navy personnel have banded together in a lawsuit against the tokyo electric power company or tepco which separates the plant. tepco lied. i don't understand how you can place a ship the size of a character into a clear plume for over five hours, suck up

contaminants into the water system of the ship and expect there to be no harm whatsoever to the human life. >> regarding the possible effects of exposure a defense spokesperson wrote: >> at no point am i ever casting blame or pointing blame at beauty in the u.s. government because i believe if they had accurate information things would have been done differently. >> sea born says the lawsuit is not about the money. what i'm looking for is money for a medical fund. some place for 70,000 people, making sure that we are taken care of down the road when we need it. >> joining us from san diego is

michael sea born, navy sailor, and dealt with aircraft personnel that flew into the area after the tsunami. it's good to have you with us. first, as we heard in the story, you have been through a lot. >> physically i have my issues, but i'm okay, day by day, i'm doing good, thank you. >> the lawsuit was dismissed last year, but the suit is being refiled. the number of sailors who are suing is growing. they say the company that owns the fukushima plant knew there were dangerous radiation levels, but said nothing and let navy ships and planes go into the area. >> that's correct. you know, it's almost - we take operational risk measurements when we decide what to do.

the level of assistance that we can give to the japanese people, of course, our first reaction was to help. we are not going put ourselves in undue harm's way if - to be able to go assist. so we took what they said, what tepco was saying and the high-ups in the military came up with a plan on how close we could get. the effort and relief efforts that we could provide, based on what we were being told, and it turns out what we were told was false. >> you were going your work at an american air base, a distance from fukushima. you were checking airplanes as they came back, and helicopter as they came back from the area and you found high numbers of as you did that. >> that's correct. we started off, our base had completely evacuated all of the aircraft had gone to gaum, family members were evacuated. we were told we may never come back to the base again we were

told to put our names and contact information into our window of our houses and the dashboards of our cars because it may be too dangerous to come back to. we went up and did relief efforts out of mosawa. it gets cold up there. because of the snow and the mountains, we couldn't get over to continue the effort. we went back to continue relief efforts out of there on a 24 hour notice that if anything got worse, we would be evacuating out of there. >> as you went through the ai planes, you said you went through without suits on, and you found levels four times higher than the level where you would be required to wear a suit. >> that's correct. after the operation had started

to die down, we had aircraft that was radiated. we would decontaminate and measure the outside skip of the aircraft, which is what we were taught and instructed to do by the written instructions coming down from the higher ups. we had aircraft that had stopped performing missions. the levels were down. we thought they were safe. because of preventive maintenance, it's time to pull a radiators out of the engine. everything that comes out of the aircraft has to be scanned. it was reading over 20,000 ccpn, like what you said was four times higher an the level we should wear, not only a double suit and gloves and respirator, and this thing has been growing and seething inside the aircraft because we were not instructed or know to take out engine components when trying to

measure radiation. we were doing the outside airframe. many of the people suing were on the uss ronald reagan. part of the issue was they went into a radiation plume and they desalinated the water. that's what they use to drink, to bathe in to brush their teeth and that this obviously made them terribly sick. why not sue the navy. why just sue the tokyo company. well, first off there's a lot of guys on the suit that are in the military. you can't sue the navy. you can't do that. we sign paperwork and contracts when we upped the service that you can't do that. at the same time, i think the navy did the best they good. the skipper of an aircraft

carrier with 8800 aircraft is not going to steam into a plume of radiation. if he knows what is safe and what is not, and he has the correct information, we were there to help. like i said in the beginning, we can make our calculated risk and figure out how safe we can get and not putting our guys in danger. if the dangers are higher than we are told, i think the navy did the best they could with what information that we had. it's just the information was correct. >> i hate to be a devil's advocate. let me ask if thousands of people were on the regan. why are so few coming forward and suing. the world health organization says residents that get

evacuated, health impacts are likely to be below detectible levels. it souped ridiculous to me. those individuals haven't gone back home. there's a reason for that. if these levels are safe 100%, why did tepco agree to pay individuals and 50,000 yen to compensate them for me for that. as opposed to the members - in the military you are understood and expected to do your job. a lot of the guys in the navy, they don't want to come forward because they fear backlash. there's a lot of guys that if you are not having medical issues at the moment, then i am sure they think nothing is wrong. you have 20, 30, 40 people on the u ss regan in their 20s and

early 30s coming down with a form of cancer. one or two is a coincidence. 20, 30, 40 in their 20s. >> but the navy has not changing their position saying: >> what do you think of that? are you spat that the navy is -- upset that the navy is not taking your side. >> i was there. i'm measuring the background radiation. if the normal background radiation is between nine to 15 cpm and i'm measuring that in the air, with the navy not taking our side, i will say i understand it. it's a very political issue. the navy and the japanese need

each other. we need them to be analysed with us. i was in japan for 17 years, there for a lopping time. i saw the the crimes that happened against the japanese people. the murders, the rapes, the assaults. at a certain point we were on lock down where we couldn't be outside the base because there was a curfew in place because of crimes committed pi service member. in okayan awa the prime minister questioned whether the navy should operate out of there. for us to help them and a few of us to sue the electric power company pore what happened, i completely understand the u.s. navy taking the political side to keep on the good spirits of the joint enterprise niece government. i don't blame them. that's the stance they have to take. it's understood with me. >> michael, i hope you get well

and for all the other sailos, and we'll have to see what comes of this mandated investigation. thank you very much for joining us. >> trust.

>> but that it struggles to finish the job. let's look at it historically. does this start with vietnam, is the problem with the military or civilian overseers from both parties? >> i think that the problem has many aspects, but i think the most important and probably the most difficult for americans to reckon with is that military power it an inappropriate

instrument to deal with the conditions that exist in places like afghanistan and iraq. we came out of the cold war. the united states came out of the cold war convincing itself that military power was an all-purpose tool. in many reports operation desert storm in 1991 seemed to affirm that conclusion. all of our experience since, whether you are talking somalia, or the post 9/11 wars tells a different story. we are using the wrong tool to solve the problem. >> let's run down the examples. should we have not gone in after-9/11. >> no, i think we needed to, in the sense that if you recall, the george w bush demanded after 9/11 that the taliban cough up

osama bin laden, dismantle al qaeda training camps, the taliban governing afghanistan, refused do so. i do think it was necessary for us to demonstrate that any nation harbouring, providing sanction to terrorists intent on attacking us needed to be taught a lesson, need to make clear to the world that that was unacceptable. what doesn't follow is that we needed to stay in afghanistan for now well over a decade, trying to create a stable political order. that has turned out to be a task that we can't handle. >> president obama spoke out about the war in afghanistan a week ago. i'd like to play part of what he said and get your reaction. >> i think it's important for americans to recognise that we have young men and women in arm's way, along with coalition

partners. we need to see this job all the way through. >> the question is what would seeing the job through mean there in afghanistan. what would winning that war mean in afghanistan, and there are reports that they will draw down the troops at the end of the president's term. >> the president is understandably vague about what finishing the job is. there has been many definitions over time. my sense is that at this point the obama administration would be satisfied with being able to extricate all or most of u.s. forces and not have the hamid karzai regime collapse, at least not until obama has left office. that may be the most practical definition of success.

we need to remind ourselves of the definitions touted in the wake of 9/11. the evasion of afghanistan was touted was named operation enduring freedom. there was an expectation that somehow we were going to bestow freedom on the people of afghanistan. that was an absurd expectation and, of course, it hasn't come to fruition. >> you don't have an issue with the fact that we went in to get al qaeda, but we went too far in defining what we thought winning the war would be. >> absolutely. we went too far, and then articulating a global war on terrorism. it's that formulation, that framing of engaging in a cloeble war on terrorism that leads - creates a rational from going from afghanistan to iraq. there was nos justification for

that. another ms managed war from which we are trying to recover. >> there was the intervention in the former yugoslavia, and kosovo and bosnia. that seemed to work. >> that is the closest case you can get to post cold war interventions that seemed to produce unbalanced positive political outcome, albeit there the occupation of kosovo, for example, by u.s. and allied forces ended up taking a longer time. >> let me emphasise, my argument is not that there are never cases where military power has utility, there are cases. the problem with policy makers in the united states in the last couple of decades is they tended

to think you will problems could have a military solution. >> we went into libya and overthrew muammar gaddafi. it's a mess. in yemen we went after al qaeda. a question that comes to mind is is the problem intervening in countries where there are substantial parts of the population, mostly muslim countries. >> i don't think i'd phrase it that way, but that there was a problem with expecting that u.s. foreign intervention in societies that are in the process of an ippensly complicated transition, a transition to modernity, reconciling traditions with the

21st century, to imagine that a bunch of american sold yours can facilitate this transition in a relatively short period of time is a delusion. my own sense is that the people themselves, when they were talking about - whether talking about libyans, iraqis, afghans, egyptians, the people will have to figure out how to make the transition and outsiders for the most part will find themselves irrelevant to the process. >> a lot of thought-provoking information in your piece. appreciate you joining us. >> america's decline has been a big political talking point for years. political mackay zone looks at the issue. >> charles kenny wrote the piece and joins us from washington d.c. he's a senior fellow at the center for global development and the author of a book bilted:

entitled: >> there's data saying that america is not the dominant economic force that it once was. the u.k. based center says that china will overtake us by 2028. that's not a sign we are going down. it's that the rest of the world is coming up. just last year, for example, china became the largest training nation in the world. that's the first of many firsts to come, if you will. that's not bad news for the united states. it's not because the united states has not seen growing exports, it's that china has done better. india has been growing faster, brazil, and the rest of the world is getting richer. there are fewer poor people, educated people and they are

producing goods we want to buy and produce, and producing goods for things we want to sell. >> people like charles and other analysts say there are benefits to being dominant economically. it's not a question of the rest of the world catching up to us, but we are contracting and doing things that are making us not move forward as quickly and stay as strong. >> i'm sitting here in washington d.c. i can hardly argue that congress and the president can't be doing a better job. i accept that there are some that could be engaging more proactively, pushing trade and invest. and migration more. that would strengthen the us economy. most is a story of other places

not doing things right. that's not a good way to grow. now it's doing things better. not great, but better. we are seeing huge reforms. the story of the growing rest is the bigger part of a story, rather than us doing things wrong. >> it's returning to the default position in human history, that countries with larger population are more dominant economically. the critics of the position that you take say, "well, it is a choice. we have chosen not to go after all our natural resources, going offshore drilling, drilling in the arctic. we are letting other countries catch up. we are losing primacy and space. >> the last 100 years or so, on average it's growing around 2%.

china in india are growing at 7-8%. the united states never grows that fast. it's a rich country at the edge of technology. it doesn't have the opportunities for catch-up growth. using the technologies and institutions that we developed to grow faster. it's not primarily a story of what is happening here, but a story of what is going on in the rest of the world. >> you think there is a silver lining, there'll be positives and the title talks about 2014 being the best year yet. >> absolutely. a richer, healthier world, a huge opportunity for the united states, not least over the recent past. a bright spot in the u.s. economy. three fifth of the exports go to the world and they are getting

ripper. a richer china and india develop new stuff. we get the benefit from the new technologies. a richer india, china and africa produces more innovators. a big part of silicon valley success has been attracting migrants to start-up companies, working as ceos and chief technology officers driving the innovative potential of silicon valley. there are huge upsides from the rest of the world getting better off. >> we have a social media question. >> if america declines in a world that shows a level playing field, enough of the cold war thinking. he agrees, but given the article challenges conventional wisdom, do you find that you are largely alone in your view. >> it's not a popular view in washington. it reflect the washington atmosphere that if one side is up, one must be down.

if the republicans take over the white house, the democrats have lost, it's a dumb way to think about international relations, if i may say. international relations is about positive sums and partnership meaning both sides are better off. it's true if they come to peace agreements. if we can work together like russia or china, that's better than sitting in our own camps, buying more and more weapons. >> do you see any danger if the united states pulls back and is not the dominant force, the superpower in the world. we have been a benign super-power in world history. if we pull back, that someone else will fill the vacuum. i don't want america to pull back. i want it to engage more, what is sad is how few americans get out and go somewhere to study or

live or retire or get health care. if more americans travelled and wept overseas, and if we traded that would be a great thing. the role for the u.s. will continue for a while. it's an important role that plays an important role in peacekeeping efforts. the u.s. military provides 0.0 or 3% of troops involved. most troops come from developing countries, there's a hum role for partnership. >> to them.

>> and then have that money go to help the conservation efforts of all rhinos in that area? >> well, i imagine that most of the dallas safari club members are older and post reproductive. i hope the logic is not applied to them. the notion that this is a dangerous or problem animal is false. there's no post reproductive rhino. this is a contrivance because people don't want to nit the reality, which is they want to bring it back to bring the head and trophy back at a time when the united states is demanding all over the world that people stop killing rhinos for their horns and elephants for their tasks. it's okay to kill them for trophies, but not trinkets. what muddled moral message are we sending because rich guys from dallas want to shoot them.

>> i understand your point. there is literature out there saying that some of the older males can be aggressive. rhinos have the highest mortal combat situation within a species of the mammals. there are aggressive rhinos. >> for sure. >> and there has been some success. if you look at south africa, they had success rehabilitating the southern white rhino. they were down to 50 animals, more than 20,000. that has been funded since the 1960s, by the sail of hunting permits. >> i think that south africa is a bad xax for the safari club to invoke. more than 1,000 rhinos have been poached. that consrves program driven by the mentality of paying to kill wildlife is not working. kenya generates billions of

dollars and forbids trophy hunting and sport hunning. and i must say what is the motivation of a person that wants to shoot a black rhino a several tonne anma'am. it's the equivalent of shooting a bus. >> i'm with you on that point. i don't understand it. i do want to get the discussion away from the motivation of a big-game hunter. >> look at the situation. the government of namibia is doing better, from what i have said in funding the conservation effort. >> they only have 2.5 million people. >> if we look at the numbers more than 40% of the nation's land is under some sort of conservan si and that costs money. they have been successful with the mountain. >> the elephant population

doubled since 1995. they have the only growing population of free-growing animals in the world. where else should be get the money then? >> the human society of the united states is doing conservation work by trying to urge people not to consume rhino products. credit to nam ibia is should we be selling permits for the world's most endangered annals. >> what happens when the safari club comes back and says "some guys want to shoot a mountain", if we go down the road, if these folks at the club are so interested in contributing to the program, they don't need to link it to the notion of killing

an animal. that's what son servationists do every day. >> i want to get you a quick quesesesestion. where do you stan on elements and their tusks. you talked about the value of rhinoceros horns and trying to fight that demand. how about elephant tusks, the u.s. and chinese governments seize. the counter arguments only serves to drive up the costs. i have only 30 seconds, do you think the tactic works. >> the vast majority of conservation supports the stockpiles. having a robust trade will be the denies of scarce animals in a world with millions of people and a small number who want the products for display or a potion or some other purpose. these animals are all rare.

we need to save the individual animals. >> i'ving the spectacular animals. we are all on that page. joinining us tonight.h for >> "consider this" will be right back."

>> when president obama gives a

state of the union speech next tuesday he's expected to highlight an issue he's focused on for month, income inequality. >> the growing inequality is not just morally wrong, but bad economics. a good education, a home to call your own, affordable health care when you get sick, a secure retirement even when you are not rich. reducing poverty and inequality. that's what we need. >> it sounds great. can the president's solutions really put those goals within reach. my next guest believes president obama's solutions are, "holy naive", for more i'm joined by peter marisi at the ronald f school of business at the university of maryland. let's talk about the inequality

numbers. they do seem stark and the gap has been growing for decades. according to estimates from the irs the top 1% enjoyed 22% of income, while everybody in the bottom 90% saw the total share of the income fall below 90%. a quarter of a century ago the numbers were different the the 1% income share was 15.4%. the bottom 90% of 60% of the income. is this a problem that the government needs to address? >> it's a problem that needs to be addressed. globalisation has a lot to do with this. an opera singer can send their voice around the world and the computer file of their voice. so their income goes up astronomically. at the same time they put local performers out of business. people listening to the digital

voice of a man in new york. similarly american workers are subject to wage ash training and namely that is ordinary folks, a large number, have to compete with workers in china. they face lower wages because of that. the answer doesn't lie in redistributing income, but creating opportunities for the people at the bottom, making the academy grow faster. we need to look at what is going on at the top. there's a lot of concentration of economic power. it looks like a standard oil trust of the tern. maybe it's time to bust up the big banks. the bankers can't pay thms lavishly. >> paul argued that it's not really the top 1% that is the interested.

one-tenth of 1%. that's where the huge disparity has been created. i don't agree. it's more like the top 5% including people like yourself. if you look at mr obama's policies. obamacare redistributes income. that's not the target audience. folks like jpmorgan don't have to pay regular income tax. they get stock options and the inteterest provisions that mitt romney used. now, we don't see what chuck schumer and brock go after the guys. they talk about them. they harvest big campaign contributions. it has to do with sacred cows that neither party to pay.

>> one of the big discussions now is whether there should be an increase to the minimum wage. the president called for an increase and tying it to inflation. iowa senator put forward a bill raising that. it's the smart substantive position, the smart economic and humanitarian position, and the smart political position. i don't think there's much doubt among the dememememocrats focusn income and equality, but what about the minimum wage and the fact that it'sell below in inflation-adjusted dollars. well blow. >> you asked a lot of questions at the same time. one thing, when anybody on the right or the left uses the word smart five times to make an argument, they make an abdominoanal art, asserting that it's good for you and you should do it. the real problem is why are

workers making little. why won't the market provide them with money. >> the answer has something to do with immigration policies. the administration is giving a free pass to people who have not committed a crime. it pushes down wages. the structure of the agreement with china permits them to do all manner of things which steals jobs from americans. they are excused from cashon loading restrictions, they can pollute as much as they want. they makes labour cheap are. depriving us of factory jobs. the administration hasn't addressed those things, if they did, there would be better jobs paying better money without legislation. >> what is your solution. >> it's a tough-minded trade policy, breaking up the large

banks. developing oil and gas, but would create a lot of jobs in supporting industries and so forth, which we have done. if we developed strengths in america, and did the things we do well, we'd have blenty of the jobs, and it would look like the "50s and '60s. in that era america had more manufacturing jobs. american workers are put in a situation where they have to compete with children and pollution. >> a lot to think about. >> nice to be with you. >> we'll be back with more of "consider this".

>> the super bowl match up is set, but the big game has been overshadowed by the outcry over this. >> i am the best one in the game. when you try me, that's the result you're going to get. don't you open your mouth about the best. are you understandable real quick. >> those comments from seattle sea hawk richard sherwin after winning the nsc championship game set off a fire storm in social media circles and the media. outraged viewers called him a thug. others rallied to see him. why were so many upset by what sherwin had to say. we are joined from silver spring maryland, by dave zyron sport editor for "the nation." great to have you on the show. sherwin admitted it was immature and wasn't a classy interview. he had just made a huge play to

send his team to the super bowl and said he was disrespected by the receive are. why a big fuss. is it all about the way he said it. >> first and foremost it's more about the form of what he said than the content. he didn't say anything that inflammatory or political or third rail. it's not like he was giving his opinions on the israeli palestine conflict. he got up there and did things we don't see. he did not put us to sleep. i was watching the game with a die-hard plan. they had left my house. there's usually nothing to see after the game. what he did was he looked into the camera, spoke like he was in a wwe promo. then, of course, when the trolls got online, it transformed it. >> let's talk about that. there was a huge wave of the treats directed at sherwin after

the rant. they called hum every name in the book. here is what he had to say about the worst of the responses. >> we are talking about football and a lot of people tubing it further than football. some people showed, you know, how far we have really come. in this day and age. >> much of the outright racism wasn't anonymous over a 15 second rant. did that surprise you? >> it did not surprise me. a lot of the racism has been highly coded as well. one study showed that the day after -- >> a lot was not coded. >> you could look at it in two categories, high racism and low racism. it is all of the n words and racial enny that thes that poured out. richard sherwin, a player, intelligence, had the 39 g.p.a., writes a column for "sports

illustrated", and he can only be seen as "a thug." in one study the word thug was used in sports media the day after the game more than any other time in the last three years, directed at richard sherwin. you have to ask the question did this happen because of the colour of his skin, his attitude and the tact that he was standing next to aaron andrews. he is, of course, the very blond telegenic sideline reporter for fox sports. she handled herself very well on the sideline, yet immediately when it went to the fox news anchor team one said "wow, erin looks scird." we are looking at her now. she didn't look scared and she felt it was a good interview. he gave an interview with cnn when he said he regretted the way he did it and said. >> you catch me in a moment on

the field when i'm in the zone, when i'm as competitive as i can be and it's not going to come out as art ik u laut and smart because on the field i'm not those things, i'm everything to be, to be a winner. >> he hedged his apology. did he need to apologise. richard sherman is a team player, a fifth round draft pick, he's going to be the defensive player. at the end of that interview he yelled out "lob." a lot didn't know what it means, it means legends of boom. the nickname for the secondary of seattle. he wants the focus off him, and to the seattle sea hawks organization to celebrate their accomplishments. >> he referenced mohammed ali and other athletes.

>> i studied the mo am add ali, the dion sanders, the michael irvince, the old-school game more than i studied the new school game. it rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and given a true speech after a game, a true passionate speech is old school football. it's interesting that he mentioned dion sanders, a commentator, he didn't think sherman should have said things the way he did. >> i would never put mum and dion sanders in the same sentence. deanne sanders should send richard sherman a check. do you know who is a lot like ali and sherwin? peyton manning. he played a psychological game. what do people think peyton manning is doing when he says, "omaha, omaha", it's done in a

different packaging, but the same psychological gamesmanship is happening on both sides. >> is this not the best thing that could happen. >> in a league full of players going through media training and saying nothing ever - they are never passionate, never say anything passionate or controversial, now this guy's name is everything. jamie fritz said: >> no such thing as bad publicity. >> i guarantee you all this will be used against him. hopefully he can keep it up between the lines. >> he'll be on the bicker stage, we'll see what he duds. great to have you on the show. the show may be offer, but the conversation continues. aljazeera.com. or on our facebook for google+

payments. you can find us on stwiter. >> this is al jazeera america live from new york. i'm jonathan betz. >> pushing back new violence in ukraine. protestors attack a building with police inside as the president makes a bold offer to calm the anger. >> this is a large crime scene. >> searching for answers after a gunman kills two at a shopping mall in maryland. >> it feels like you in limbo a little bit. >>