texas judge ordered the hospital to remove life support. >> taking a live look in you at a fiery wreck in fall river, massachusetts where a tanker truck has crashed and overturned. those are the headlines. "consider this" is up next. >> an american sailor among dozens suing because of terrifying effects they blame on the fukushima meltdown. why can't u.s. military win wars outright? >> an endangered species. here's more on what's ahead: >> >> i don't understand, a ship inside of a carrier into a nuclear plume and expect there to be oh no harm to human life.

>> it's not just morally wrong, it's bad economics. >> richard sherman's getting all the attention. >> i regret doing that. >> he cares about preserving black rhinos. >> absolutely heartbreaking. >> nearly three ears after a deadly tsunami in japan caused the worst nuclear disaster since chernobyl, soldiers are suing the power plant. house and senate how makers want to find out exactly how much radiation u.s. service man were exposed to. the sailors say exposure to radiation led to frightening illnesses, including hemorrhaging and cancer.

>> what i went through has 100% changed my life. >> military personnel were located where the plant leaked radiation. the may man was assigned to check ratations. >> background radiation in the air was 300 times higher than a normal day of sun. >> he and his team say they were exposed to these levels and three he years later, easy feeling what he thinks are the effects of radiation exposure. >> my body's falling apart. my right arm is an inch and a half smaller than my left. i have 50% to 60% have the power i used to have out of the right side of my body. >> a u.s. army officer said his life will never be the same. simmons drank contaminated sea

water without warning. according to some sailors, they cooked with it, bathed in it. he said the effects are now debilitating. >> i ended up dropping between 20-25 pounds completely unexpectedly. my left arm started swelling, i'm dealing with severe night sweats. >> he is forced to use a wheelchair as he loses power in his legs and arms. signals between his brain and bladder are paying, so he uses a cath at her. his kids are afraid of what's happening. >> our oldest for the longest time, she, the only thing she can think about is dad's going to die. >> they have banded together in a lawsuit against the power company which operates the fukushima power plant. >> they lied. i don't understand how you can place a ship aside of a carrier into a nuclear plume for only

five hours, suck up contaminants into the water system of the ship and expect there to be no harm whatsoever to human life. >> rewarding the possible effects of exposure, a defense democratic spokesperson wrote: >> at no point am i ever pointing became at d.o.d. or the u.s. government. i honestly believe that if they had accurate information in a timely manner, things would have been done differently. >> he said the lawsuit isn't about the money. >> what i'm looking for in the suit is a medical fund, money put aside for a medical fund someplace for all 70,000 people, to make sure we're taken care of down the road when we really need it. >> aljazeera. >> joining us now from san diego, california is michael

seaborn, former u.s. sailor who was a designated ratation decontamination officer and had flown into the area. first, as we just heard in the story, you've been through a lot. how are you doing? >> well, physically, i have my issues, but i'm ok. i'm ok, day by day, i'm doing good, thank you. >> the lawsuit initially was dismissed late last year, but the suit refiled. the number of sailors who are suing is growing, more than 70 now. they say that the company that owns the fukushima power plant, tepco knew there were dangerous radiation levels in the area and said nothing and let means and ships go into that area. >> that's correct. it's almost -- we take -- we take operational risk measurements when we're deciding what we're going to do, the

level of assistance that we can give to the japanese people, of course, our first reaction was to go help, but we're not going to put ourselves in undue harm's way to be able to go assist, so we took what they said, what tepco was saying and high-ups in the military came up with a man on how close we could get, the kind of every and relief efforts that we could based on what we were being told, and it turns out what we were being told was false. >> you were doing your work in an american air base that was quite a distance from fukushima. what was happening was you were then dealing, checking air means as they came back and helicopters as they came back from the area and you found some incredibly high numbers as you were doing that. >> that's correct. we started off our base had completely evacuated all of the aircraft had gone to guam, the family members evacuated. we were told that we may never come back to that base again.

we were told to put our names and contact information into our windows of our houses and dashboards of our cars, because it may be too dangerous to ever come back to. we did relief efforts out of another safer square, but after -- it gets very cold up this and because of the snow, because of the mountains, we couldn't continue the relief efforts. we actually went back to continue relief efforts elsewhere under a notice that if things got worse, we would evacuate and never return. >> as you were going to these airplanes, you say you were going through them without suits on and at some point found levels four times higher than the level where you would be require arid to wear a suit. >> that's correct. we actually after the operation had started to die down, we

still had aircraft that were radiated, but we would decontaminate and measure the outside skin of the aircraft, which is what we were taught and that's what we were instructed to do by the written instructions that came down. we had aircraft that had blown back, they had stopped performing missions. the levels were down, we thought they were safe and all of a sudden because of preventive maintenance, it's time for us to paul radiator out of the engine compartment. we pulled it out and everything has to be scanned for ratation exposure and i sentenced that and it's reading four times higher than the level we should be wearing not only suit and gloves but a respirator, as well, and this thing has been growing and just seething itself inside the aircraft, because we never were instructed and didn't know to take out internal components of the aircraft when measuring radiation.

we were just doing the outside air frame. that was a scary moment right there. >> many people suing were on the uss ronald reagan, sent to the area to help. part of the issue there claims that the problem was they went right into a ratation plume and the water, they desal nail the water on the airplane, take the water out of the sea to drink and bathe in, to brush their teeth, and that this obviously made them terrible hi sick. so, why not sue the navy no why just sue the tokyo company? >> well, first off, there's guys on the suit that are still in the military and you can't sue the navy. you can't do that. we signed paperwork and contracts when we up for service that you can't do that.

i think the navy did the best they could. they are not going to steam right into a plume of radiation. if he knows what did he say safe and what's not and has the correct information, then they wouldn't have been as close as they were. >> right. >> so, we were there to help. like i said in the beginning, we can make our calculated risk decisions and figure out how safe we can get, how close we can get while not putting our guys in danger. if the the dangers are higher than we're told, then, you know, i think the navy did the best they could with what information that we had. it's just the information we had wasn't 100% correct. >> i hate to be a devil's advocate, but let me ask if there were thousands of people on the reagan, why so few people coming forward now and suing? why didn't more get sick. in fact, the world health organization said that residents who were evacuated were exposed to so little radiation that

health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels. what do you say to that? >> well, honestly, that sounds ridiculous to me. those individuals that were evacuated haven't even gone back home, so there's a reason for that. if these levels are completely safe 100%, why did tepco to pay each individual that lived in that area 50,000yen to compensate for that. as far as the ronald reagan, why so little, in the military, understood you are expected to do your job. a lot of these guys that are still in the navy don't want to come forward. they fear backlash. there's a lot of guys if you're not having medical issues at the moment, then i'm sure they think nothing's wrong. now you've got 20, 30, 40 people on the uss reagan that are in their 20's and early 30's that

have come down with some form of cancer. one or two a coincidence, but 20, 30, 40 in their 20's. >> but the navy hasn't changed its position on this. they don't believe the claims. a spokesman says: what do you think of that? are you upset that the navy isn't taking your side? >> well, honestly won to that point, i was there, so i'm measuring the background radiation. if the normal background radiation is norm hi between nine to 15ccpm and i'm measuring 300 to 500 in the air, then some of these numbers are skewed. 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 bal his with us. i was in japan for 17 years, i was there for a long time. i saw the cames that happened against the japanese people, the murders, the rapes, the assaults. at a certain point, we were that completely on lockdown where we couldn't be outside the base past 8:00 p.m. because there was a curfew in place because of crimes committed by service members. in okinawa, the prime minister questioned whether or not the navy should be able to operate out of there. for us to go help them, and then for a few of us to sue the electric power company for what happened, i completely understand the u.s. navy taking this political side to be able to keep on the good spirits of the japanese government. i don't blame them whatsoever. that's the stance they have to take. it's understood with me. >> i hope you get well, and also

hope that for all the other sailors and we'll have to see what comes of this congressly mandated investigation. thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> "consider this" will be right back. the economy an national security. we're talking with those affected most. understanding where we are, taking a critical look where we're going. >> there is much progress to report. >> immediately after stay with us as we get your reactions live from around the country and across the globe. don't miss special state of the union coverage as only al jazeera america can deliver. right here on al jazeera america. real reporting that brings you the world. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america.

gadhafi two years ago and they finished a dialog

>> the united states is unthat doubtedly the greatest military power in the world, but has it forgotten how to win wars? according to a new article in the l.a. times: for more, i'm

joined by professor of international relations and history at boston university, the best selling author of many books. great to have you with us. in the article, you say that the u.s. military is second to none when it comes to skills and gadgets, but drugles to finish the job. let's look at it historically. did this start with vietnam and is the problem with the military or with the civilian overseers from both parties? >> well, 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 is an inappropriate instrument to deal with the conditions that exist in places like afghanistan and iraq.

we came out of the cold war, united states came out of the cold war having convinced itself that military power was sort of an all purpose tool. i think in many respects, operation desert storm back in 1991 seemed to affirm that conclusion. all of our experience since, whether you're talking somalia in 1993 or the post 9/11 wars tells a different story. we're using the wrong tool to solve the problem. >> let's talk about afghanistan. should we have not gone in after 9/11? >> i think we needed to in the accepts that if you recall, the george w. bush administration demanded after 9/11 that the taliban cough up osama bin laden, dismantle al-qaeda training camps, the taliban then governing afghanistan refused to

do so. i do think it was necessary for us to demonstrate that any nation harboring, providing sanctuary to terrorists who are in tent on attacking us needed to be taught a lesson. we need to make clear to the world that that was unacceptable. what doesn't nothing is that we needed to stay in having a 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 hike to get your reaction. >> i do think it's important for americans to recognize that we still have young men and women in harm's way along with co his partners who are continue to go sacrifice and we need to see some. >> be all the way through. >> the question is what would seeing the job through mean there in having a? what would winning that war mean

in afghanistan? there are reports this week that the u.s. does plan to draw down close to zero troops in afghanistan by the end of the president's term. >> of course, the president is, i think in a sense understandably vague about what finishing the job is. there have 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 karzai regime collapse, at least not until obama has left office. >> if we had to go in and frankly that may be the most practical definition of success. we need to remind ourselves the distance between that definition of success and those touted in the immediate wake of 9/11. you recall that the in reaction of afghanistan was touted, was named operation enduring

freedom. it was this expectation that somehow, we were going to behe stow 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 that we went in to get al-qaeda, it's that we went too far in defining what we thought winning the war would be. >> absolutely, and we he went too far, and then articulating a global war on terrorism. it's that formulation, that framing of engaging in a global war on terrorism that then leads, creates some kind of a rationale going from afghanistan to iraq, another mismanaged war from which we're still trying to recover. >> we're seeing how things are falling apart there. there was the intervention in

both kosovo and boss noah. that seemed to work. >> i think that's probably the closest case you can get to post cold war interventions that did seem to produce unbalanced positive mythical outcome although it ended up taking a much longer time. my argument is not that there are never cases where military power has utility. there are cases. i think that the problem with policy makers in the united states over the past couple of decades is that they have tended to think that all problems can have a political solution -- excuse me, a military solution. >> we went into libya and helped

overthrow gaddafi. that's ban disaster. it's still a mess there. in yemen, we've gone after al-qaeda in a limited way without straight intervention. the question that comes to mind, is the problem intervening in countries where there are very substantial parts of the population, mostly muslim countries that hate the united states. >> i think i'd phrase it that there's a problem expecting that u.s. intervention, foreign intervention in societies that are in the process of an immensely complicated transition, a transition to modernity, trying to reconcile religious traditions with the 21st century, to imagine that a bunch of american soldiers can facilitate that transition in a relatively short period of time

is a delusion. my own sense is that the people themselves, whether we're talking about -- weather we're talking about libyanors iraqis or afghannors egyptians, that the people themselves are going to have to figure out how to make that transition, and outsiders for the most part are going to find themselves irrelevant to the process. >> a lot of information in your piece, appreciate you joining us today. >> america's decline has been a talking point for years. that political magazine looks at the issue in a new arlen titled "americans, stop worrying and learn to love the climb, why 2014 will be our best year yet." charles kinney is a senior fellow at the center for global development and author of a book. good to have you with us. there's real data saying america

is not the dominant economic force the way it once was, researchers saying china will overtake us by 2028 you. say that's not a sign that we're going down, the rest of the world is coming up. >> absolutely. that china became the largest trading nation in the world, overtaking the united states. that's the first of many firsts to come. that's not bad news for the united states. it's no the because the united states hasn't seen growing exports in recent years. in fact, it's done quite well on that measure. china's done even better, growing very, very fast, seven, eight, 9% over the last 20 years or so. india's been growing faster, brazil's been growing faster. the rest of the word is growing richer, living longer lives and they're producing goods that we want to buy and producing demands for goods we want to sell. >> other analysts say this there are benefits to being dominant

economically and politically and it's not a question of the rest of the world catching up to us but that we are voluntarily contracting, actually 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 couldn't be doing a bit of a better job. i accept there are some roles for the united states doing things wrong in this area. i think it could be engaging more proactively globally, pushing trade and investment and migration more strengthening the u.s. economy. most of the story really is a atory of other maces not doing things wrong and starting to do things right. take china, only a few decades ago, it was killing off millions of its own pop haitian. that's not the a good way to grow in addition to being a disgusting how many rights

event. now it is doing things better. not great, but better. same in india, their situation a little bit better. the story of the growing rest is the bigger part of a story rather than us doing things wrong. >> it's also returning to the default position in home history, countries with larger populations end up more dominant economically. the critics of the position that you take say well that it is a choice, we've chosen not to go after all our natural resources, going offshore drilling, drilling in the arctic, that we've pulled back and let other countries catch up to us and we're losing our primacy in space. >> the united states just never gross that fast, it's a rich country at the edge of

technology. it doesn't have the opportunities for the growth, using technologies and institutions that we've developed to grow faster like brazil, it's not primarily a story of what's happening here, it's the rest of the world. >> you think that there is a silver lining, there will be positives and in fact, the title talks about 2014 being the best year yet. >> absolutely. a richer, healthier, more secure world is a huge opportunity for the united states, not least over the recent past, one of the few bright spots in the u.s. economy has been growing exports, now 3/5 go to the developing world and can afford the exports because it's getting richer. a richer china, india in vent new stuff. they make money from patents and royalties, but we benefit from those new technology.

india, richer africa produce more innovators. a big part of silicon valley's success is attracting migrant to say start up companies, work as c.e.o.'s and chief technology officers, driving the university potential of silicon valley. there are huge upsides from the rest of the world getting better off. >> we have a social media question for you. >> tony b. wrote to us saying if america declines in the world it shows a more level playing field if that enough of the cold war thinking. he basically agrees with you, but given your article, do you find your largely lon in your view? >> it's not a hugely popular view in washington, reflecting attitude that if one side is up, the other must be down. if democrats have won control in congress, republicans must have lost. if republicans take over the white house, that means the democrats have lost. that's a really dumb way to think about international relations. international relations is

largely about positive sums, partnership meaning both sides are better off. that's true in trade, in investment, migration, it's certainly true if we can come to peace agreements globally. syria, if we can work together with russia and china to create peace, that's much better than sitting in our armed camps buying more and more weapons. >> do you see any danger if the united states pulls back and is not the dominant force, the super power in the world? we have been a benign super power, undoubtedly the most in world history. if we pull back that someone else will fill the vacuum? >> i don't want america to oh pull back. i want it to engage more. one of the sad things about america is how few americans actually get out and go somewhere else to study or to live for a while or invest or trade or to retire or get health care. i think if more americans traveled more and went overseas more, that would be a great thing and if we traded more, that would be a great thing. i do think the role for the u.s.

as the global military leader, you're going to continue for a while and is an important role that maze an important role in peace keeping efforts worldwide. the u.s. military provides 0.03% of the troops involved in peace keeping around the world. there's a huge role there for partnership. >> thanks for being on the show. >> thanks for having me. >> we'll be back with more of "consider this." of america to be heard. >> our shows explore the issues that shape our lives. >> new questions are raised about the american intervention. >> from unexpected viewpoints to live changing innovations,

dollars and cents to powerful storytelling. >> we are at a tipping point in america's history! >> al jazeera america. there's more to it.

>> 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 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 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 effort.

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 question. 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. animals. >> i'ving the spectacular animals. we are all on that page. >> thank you very much for joining us tonight.

>> start with one issue ad guests on all sides of the debate. and a host willing to ask the tough questions and you'll get...

the inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5pm et / 2pm pt only on al jazeera america visit aljazeera.com. follow @ajam on twitter. and like aljazeera america on facebook for more stories, more access, more conversations. so you don't just stay on top of the news, go deeper and get more perspectives on every issue. al jazeera america. >> 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 interest 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 democrats focussing on income and equality, but what about the minimum wage and the fact that it's well 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 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 pollution. >> a lot to think about. >> nice to be with you. al jazeera america. we understand that every news story begins and ends with people. >> the efforts are focused on rescuing stranded residents. >> we pursue that story beyond the headline, pass the spokesperson, to the streets. >> thousands of riot police deployed across the capital. >> we put all of our global resources behind every story. >> it is a scene of utter

devastation. >> and follow it no matter where it leads - all the way to you. al jazeera america, take a new look at news.

>> the super bowl match up is set, but the big game has been 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. 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. 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: 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

>> and now a techknow minute... >> it's the ultimate race againt time. doctors preforming heart transplant surgery in just 6 hours before a donor organ is damaged by ice, used to keep it cold during transit. but this device could .change all that. it's called the organ care system, or... heart in a box. it works by hooking up the heart to this machine. it pumps it full of warm blood, and a formula containing a proprietary mix of nutrients. >> it's warm, >> it's warm, it's beating... it's functioning, it's just functioning as if it's in your body. >> doctors are also seeing promising results, using the organ care system on other organs, such as lungs. >> for more information on this, and other techknow stories. visit our website at aljazeera.com/techknow don't miss techknow, sundays 7:30et / 4:30pt on al jazeera america

check check > hello, welcome to the newshour from doha with the top stories. >> more pressure from syria. despite women and children leaving homs - delegates say it's not enough. >> tunisia introduces a new constitution three years after its revolution. >> and all the news from europe