those are the headlines. see you back here 11 eastern, 8 passiffic. albuquerque's mayor wants more money to train police after allegations of excessive force. "consider this" is next. an explosive senate report blasts the cia with claims that the agency misled the public for years on enhanced interrogation. also, gm's huge recall shines a light on a completely legal practice that some call a serious conflict of interest that could affect all of us. plus, who holds the keys to the internet? we will meet a member of a very select secret group. how vulnerable is america's food supply to terrorism? i am antonio morrow. welcome to "consider this." here is more on what's ahead.

>> the obama administration is reportedly considering handing over a convicted spy. >> this is the peace talks that are on the verge of collapse. >> the president has not made a decision to release jonathan policyic. >> the cia is accused of misleading the country. >> about the effectivenets of using torture to get information. >> the senate intelligence reports concludes the enhanced interrogation program produc produced little to know intelligence. >> a company accused of overlooking a deadly glitch. >> driving this car was like playing a game of russian roulette. >> my sincere apologies to everyone affected by this recall. we begin with one of america's most notorious spies who seems to have become a key bargaining chip in the faultering peace talks between israelis and pal stanians, jonathan policy arrested began serving a life term in 1987 after his conviction on one count of

spying for israel. israeli officials invested more than a deck ailed he was part after rogue operation. then admitted he had been paid around $50,000 for tens of thousands of secret documents. now, u.s. brokered talks between israel and the palestinian authority appear to be falling apartments over israel foot dragging over a scheduled release of hundreds of palestinian prisoners. getting the u.s. to release pollard could sweet en the deal for israeli benjamin netanyahu. >> there is no agreement at this point in time regarding anyone or any specific steps. there are a lot of different possibilities in play. the question s. should an american convicted of spying for israel be released to a hero's welcome if that's what it takes to move the peace talks forward? for more, i am joined from washington, d.c. by ambassador thomas thomas pickering.

and by lawrence corbs, for the center of american progress, assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985. good to have you both back on the show. ambassador pickering, i will start with you. you served as u.s. ambassador to israel at a time when the pollard affair was at its height. i aid soo from whether he deserves clemancy or not after serving 27 years in prison. the question is: should jonathan pollard even be a part of this peace process? >> i think that, antonio, he should not be part of a peace process which is merely to reward the israelis for doing something they have already committed to do. the only circumstance that i could see him to be part of the peace process is when we get down to the final, final pieces. and we need something, and that would be very important. to persuade prime minister netanyahu or his successor that in fact they are going to get poli pollard out.

that's something they wanted. >> that's part of the reward. then, i would certainly not let policy arrested out until we had the deal in our hands, signed, sealed and delivered but to move it for what is e sancially a process piece very early in the stage of the bargaining would be a serious mistake. he will not be up for parole or for release according to the press reports until 11 november 2015. i'm sorry. and as a result, i think that those particular hearings should deal with the question of whether clemensy is due and if so, under what circumstances. >> in 2010, you published an opinion piece on pollard in the jerusalem post where you said pollard has already send far too long for the crime for which he was convicted and by now, whatever facts he might know would have little effect on national security. but i will ask you the same question i asked the ambassador: why should the u.s. release a spy as part of a negotiation among other parties, among

israeli and palestinians? >> i think he should be released apart from the negotiations. if it becomes part of it and it enables netanyahu to fulfill his part of the bargain that he made with secretary kerry and the head of the palestinian authority about releasing the prisoners and he keeps his government performing, i would think it's worth it. i agree with ambassador pickering, we shouldn't use him, to bribe things that the prime minister has already agreed to. but i think the real concern among the prime minister is he follows up what he agreed to, his government would collapse and then we will have to start all over again. in the context of the peace talks, when it comes to releasing pollard to boost them, aaron david miller who served as a mid east peace negotiator said on tuesday, i think it shows real desperation. in an era of leaks and surveillance and snowden, the idea the administration will changed jonathan pollard makes

absolutely no sense. on tuesday, the head of the palestinian authority, makmud abbas said he would press for statehood by move to go join 15 international agencies, something that the u.s. and israel both oppose. >> could end the talks outright. sectary kerry cancelled the trip to israel. ambassador, is the pollard discussing desperation that the peace talks may be going nowhere? >> i think it is. it's a process desperation. when we should be on substance, and if prime minister netanyahu wants to accept the responsibility for seeing the peace talks go down, that's his choice. he is in a position where having made a commitment, he isn't willing to carry it out one way or another. kwlo agree with larry that the preservation can can i don't in thei don't agree with larry tha the preservation can can i don't in the should be the first priority for peace talks. in the past, israelis have decided today change prime

ministers when the peace talks weren't going very, very well. it is clear that the president of palestine, the president of palestinian authority, is now very frustrated with the lack of any real progress. over the last couple of weeks, the stories were very clear that secretary kerry was trying to persuade prime minister netanyahu with some concessions which he pocketed and, in return, prime minister -- or president mahmoud abbas was supposed to get some concessions which never and. so this has become a very difficult problem. >> yeah. >> and a very serious one. i would in no way minimize the importance of getting an agreement in this area. but i think it is extremely important, as i said earlier, that if we have a very important card to play in the process, it ought to be played for a very important result. >> well, in that context, i want to mention what john mccain, senator john mccain said.

he supports pollard's release but he said it's outrageous mr. pollard should be judged on whether he should be released or not, not as a rationale for peace talks. it's disgusting. larry, pollard comes up in parole of next year to be crude about it, who would he lose his value as a bargaining chip if we don't use him now? >> we don't know what's going to happen in the parole hearing. he comes up. doesn't automatically mean he gets it. but i agree with senator mccain. basically is the sentence he got for what he did is disproportionate to other people who have done similar things. and the government broke their plea agreement with them. the government agreed with him that if he pleaded guilty to giving classified information to an allie he would not get a life sentence. this spared the government the embarrassment and the publicity of a trial and yet, the

government broke that agreement. judge steven williams who was in the d.c. court of appeals, a reagan appointee called this outrageous to be able to to do that. and i think you have to put that in to, you know, into the offall con where he got a sentence that was not agreed to and then is type of more than other people who have done similar things. jim woolsey a former director of the cia, by no means a closet peacenic or anything said that basically, if pollard was a greek american or korean american and did the same thing, he would not have gotten such a long sentence. >> i would like to beg to differ with larry who is an old friend and whose judgment i seek. i was ambassador in israel. at the time, i understood exactly what had been certain. i understood what the israelis returned and what they did not

return. i understood the extent of that. i understood the extent of the possibilities that this material could have already been used at the time pollard was discovered by trading room with other intelligence agencies, never been brought out. i understood secretary wine beggar felt strong black this issue to write a persuasive letter in connection with the government's plea bargain. my sense is that the sentence was not disproportionate, that it was an important and significant sentence that he is now got the rights of any prisoner under the law to have his sentence reviewed. there was a press report that he refused a parole hearing today. i don't know in what particular context that took place. but i think the process of justice should go ahead if, in fact, he is released, that's something that the government will have to live with. the fact that he is premature lee released, he is being given

to prime minister netanyahu seemingly for not following through on the commitment he made some months ago to release these people which is now seemingly precipitated palestinian re, to go back to the united states and all of that is a sad situation. >>r and one we shouldn't go into. >> i disagree with that ins terms of pollard because the cia in 2012 came out with a damage assessment in which they debunked a lot of the claims that even weinberger had made. before he died, kap said that it wasn't a big, big thing. there was a lot of stuff going on that it may have ended up and with the soph yes, it is and stuff, that turned out not to -- not to be true. and the presiding judge said the reason he overturned it wasn't the weinberger impact statement but because pollard had given up authorized interviews to the press including "60 minute."

it turned in they couldn't have gone into the prison without permission from the authorities. if you take a look at all of those things, i really believe the sentence was disproportionate and even jim woolsey, who did not want to let him out, you know, back notice '90s said he served long enough by the year 2000. and that's what we are talking about. he shouldn't have to wait the whole 30 years given the circumstances surrounding him going in and the miss appear preheksz that were made in making the decision. >> the fact they were talking about this, of course, raises all kind of questions about where these talks are going if anywhere at all. ambassador pickering, great to have you back on the show. thank you? >> thank you, antonio very. >> turning to the cia. did it intentionally million dollars mislead the public and government for years about enhanced interrogation programs? the senate intelligence committee claims that's exactly what the cia did. details are laid out in an exclusive washington post report

on the committee's investigation of the program. according to the post >> the committee report says the cia concealed details of some of the brutal methods and overstated plots revealed and those questioned and gave credit to enhanced interrogation for critical intelligence that had been revealed by detainees before they were expose today waterboarding and other harsh measures for more, i am joined by greg miller for the washington post who co-authored the exclusive. we have seen stories see xwufrninging the cia's enhanced interrogation program as being brutal and ineffective. >> this is by far the most comprehensive and detailed account of that program. yet. this was -- this is regarded by many as one of the darker and more controversial chapters in the cia history and the senate

committee has been examining this, pouring over millions of classified cia cables and other files for years now assembly bling this report. this is the first real glimpse of what's contained in this document. >> the agency did have permission to use 10 techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions and waterboarding on the al-qaeda prisoners. the report says they used some brutal methods that they withheld from con congress? >> right. there are details in the report about cases in afghanistan where prisoners were dunked and held under ice baths basically and the agency has maintained that it only waterboarded three prisoners, none of those in afghanistan. and the report indicates that that may not, the case or that there was comparable methods or similar seeming methods that were employed elsewhere. it's also, i think, the committee concluded that the

descriptions of these methods that the agency was using at the time were often depicted in clinical terms like a medical or it controlled environment. i believe the committee found that was often not the case, that these methods were being layerred one on top of the other to exclusive 80ing effect. >> the cia has claimed that information from har sher interrogatio interrogations, according to your story, millions of records made clear that enhanced interrogation did not have anything to do with that? >> right. i think one of the central conclusions of this study was that, you know, the agency has said all along that it obtained information that was otherwise unobtainable. in other words, it was important to use these measures, waterboarding and others because it was getting intelligence it couldn't have gotten otherwise. but this study by the committee really undercuts that.

it challenges that in a very fundamental way and concludes that the most valuable intelligence by far from some of the most critical detain easy came before they were subjected to any of these. what about cia veterans think the report is biased because there were no interviews much cia folks, that they focused on documents and the report reflects the f.b.i.'s thinking and the intra agency rivalry on enhanced interrogation and that f.b.i. agents were involved in drafting the report? >> right. one of the principal authors was a f.b.i. analyst. in addition to reviewing cia records, there were notes from f.b.i. agents. there is a suspension particularly among cia that there is an f.b.i. dbias to thi document. the committee would point out of these 6 million plus records that they examined and that served as the basis for this

study, 99 plus percentage of them came from the cia, itself. this report, they would argue, is built, you know, by and large on the cia's own internal records. now, there is a political dynamic here that's clear. when the committee votes this thursday on this report, it will be interesting to see whether this document produced by the democratic staff will get any meaningful support from republican members of the committee. we know some of them have filed dissenting views and disagree with some of these conclusions. >> they could vote on thursday to t to, to declassify some of they want. president obama made clear he is not looking at the justice department to prosecute anyone for involvement. why is the cia fighting so har to keep this secret? >> i think that two things. one, i think that this document will go a long way toward

shaping how this period will be regarded by history how this program that the agency conducted after 9-11 will be treated and considered for decades. so, it's sort of fighting for its own post-911 legacy a bit here i think that they have given up on the idea that they are going to be able to keep this completely secret. even the agency officials i talked to now say that, you know, they will work as quick as they can to get this executive summary declassified. but i think they are going to fight back and argue about some of the conclusions here the agency people i have talked to believe that there are inaccuracies in the report, that it suffers because the schmicome never spoke with cia officials for part of the study and some conclusions are misguided. >> there is the big question: why mess with the cia if they managed to keep us safe since 911? >> i think the answer to that

and the reason the intelligence committee launched this investigation years ago was because, you know, in the aftermath of the revelations about this interrogation program, there were a number of questions or debates. is it legal? is it moral? agency people and did he fenders often said, look. setting aside those questions, it worked. we needed this to keep the country safe, as you suggest there. senator feinstein, i think her principal reason for launching this investigation was to address that question. is it true that they worked? is there evidence? if you look at the c.i.a.'s own files, do they indicate that these methods were effective? because if not, that really -- then that really kind of ants the broader debate and i think for her from ever returning to these metdz. >> thank you for joining us? >> thank youhods. >> thank you for joining us? >> thank you. >> the gm crisis shines a new light on the dangers of having government regulators resign

only to take jobs with the companies they used to police. also, how prone is america's food supply to attack and how devastating would the consequences be? our social media producer, hermella is tracking the top stories. >> some members of the military are complaining that revised army grooming rules are racially biased. i've got the details just ahead. let us know what you think. join the conversation on twitter at ajconsiderthis and on our facebook and google+ pages.

fears about how terrorists could attack the u.s. in the future have rightfully obsessed homeland security officials since 9-11. among the many scenarios they worry about is a possible attack on our food supply. en without terrorism, the cdc estimates every year, 48 million people are sickened by food-borne illnesses and far more people have died from those than from terrorism. just how vulnerable is our food supply to a terrorist attack? for more, we are joined by peter chalk, a terrorist expert. good to have you with us. homeland security did a risk sesment on what a huge outbreak

of foot and mouth disease would mean if it hit ranchers in the great plains. they thought the damages could exceed $50,000,000,000. why does the threat from attacks on our food supply get virtually no attention? >> that's a very good question. when one is looking at potential terrorists contingencies in the country, the food system is one of those areas of critical infrastructure that has received virtually -- not no attention but very scant attention in relation to things like shopping malls or mass surface transportation. and i guess it's really because we haven't had a terrorist attack against the food -- the food supply system yet. and we have had attacks against aviation. we have had attacks against subways. we have had attacks in shopping malls, for instance, so i guess it's just because it hasn't occurred. therefore, it is not seen as a viable contingency. but as you suggest, and as the

f.b.i. suggested, a concerted outbreak of foot and mouth in this country would have devastating economic consequences. >> those are just the economic consequences. a different kind of attack could cost lives, too. how do you get people to pay attention? because even the people on the front lines of this, the farmers, themselves, the people in the food industry, they, i don't believe, consider themselves a target. >> no, they don't. certainly not on the high list of priorities. if you ask the average farmer or ranch, do you fear a terrorist attack against against your facilit facility? they would probably laugh at you. unfortunately, i think the only way you would get concerted attention is after an attack occurs or an incidents occurs. but the economic cost of recovering from an attack would far exceed the preventative measures that we could put in place at, at far cheaper cost. so unfortunately, the lack of

proactive action in the long run could really hurt us? >> what are your biggest fears? what is the biggest danger to american lives that you see? >> well, i think that the biggest vulnerability in terms of thing a griculture, it's mass economic destabilization. i think that the one that keeps certainly the f.b.i. and homeland security up at night is the introduction of foot and mouth. the concentrated nature of agricultural practices within this country combined with the increase disease susceptibility of cows and the virulent nature of foot and mouth would mean a single introduction of the diseased would spread incredibly quickly from that initial point of introduction. if you had two, three or even four initial introductions, it would completely overwhelm the

emergency response management system that we have in place at this point. and the economic costs in terms of decontamination, eradication of disease livestock, international em bargos against agricultural products would be in the billions. >> but there is a threat to human life, too, with e. coli, salmon he wiell salmonella? >> there is, when you are talking about the introduction of food-borne disease into the -- into the feed chanin. unfortunately, we have so many food processing facilities in the country that lack even rudimentary security surveillance. they employ transient seasonal work force that is rarely if ever stouningd a background check and site security at many places is not very concerted. the technical ease by which a

contaminant could be introduced into the food chain is not difficult. >> in fact >> it happened on a local level in organizeon where cult members ended up infecting sadly bars with salmonella. how do you secure the system? what are the most -- one of the most interesting things i read in preparing for this was that the ingredients at a taco in san francisco have collectsively traveled 64,000 miles because all of the different i nengredis come from different places. it's incredible the amount of intermediataries and people who are involved in our food industry did. >> it is. >> that's just in the food processing aspect. if you add to that the delivery of food from the point of origin on the farm to the time that it gets on to your dinner -- on to your dinner table, you are talking about thousands and thousands of miles plus intermediataries. i think in terms of securing food processing facilities, the

only answer that we really can look at is for these companies, themselves, to assume responsibility for ensuring basic standards at their respective farms. we have had fda regulations put in place. but if you look at the number of food processing facilities relative to the number of state and federal inspectors, actually, enforcing those rules is going to be highly problematic. so, it's really down to the individual food processing facilities, themselves, to ensure things like effective site security, thorough background dhekz of employeeschecks of employees and most importantly, i think that they have well documented and well rehearsed product recall plans in the event that a contamnant is introduced. many don't, which makes it very difficult to actually identify the point of origin of a

contaminant. >> it is good of you to join us to raise awareness about it. >> thank you very much. >> . to the general motor recall scandal. this week's congressional hearings on gm are raising larger questions about the cozy relationship between industries and the regulate orders who oversee them. general motors ceo mary barra faced questions tuesday over the company's handling of vehicle defects linked to 13 deaths. so, did the national highway traffic safety administration, the federal watchdog agency that should have noticed the defects. with a long history of former safety administration regulators finding employment in the automotive industry, the question is asked: do companies take advantage of regulators to hide the truth and protect synthesis from liability? joining us from washington, d.c. is alan tam who served as an attorney for the national traffic safety administration. he is currently an automotive safety consultant based in bethesda, maryland. there is currently no evidence

to show there was any kind of co lucien between gm and nitsa. nitsa concluded in 2007 and 2010 there was not enough evidence to launch investigations even though there had been a huge spike about the chevy air bags and key systems. from where you stand, shouldn't nitsa pursued investigations back then? >> in hindsight t would have been good if they did. i would say this, though, that the agency was looking at airbag non-employee at deployments. the agency wasn't looking at ignition switches, per se. and general motor was not forthcoming. general motor did not disclose to gm that it had a problem with the ignition switches even though general motor knew about that and should have conducted a recall 10 years ago. >> because those switches would move to an off position as the car drove and there would be no deployment of an airbag when there was a crash. one of reason that was given for the fact that nitsa did not

follow through with investigations is that its under-funded and under-staffed. congress is responsible for the funding and they gave the agency 10% less than it requested in this budget year. how much of the responsibility is shared with congress? >> the sides of the agent sigh, amount of appropriations, slots orb positions the agency has is decided by congress. right now, the agency's office of defects investigation has about 20 individuals who actually run defect investigations. to put that in context, that's for the nation's fleet of over 240 million registered motor vehicles and literally billions with a b, billions of items of motor vehicle equipment, things like tires, child seats, cash raters, things that are in the after marketcarbeurators, thingn the after market. th . >> there is a longnist many

industries, not just the automotive industry of federal regulators going to work for companies they used to oversee and nitsa employees regularly move on and work for the automotive industry. you told the "new york times" that those companies, by getting these nitsa employees are getting intimate knowledge of how the agency works, the policies and procedures and personalities of the agency. >> raises two types of conflict of interest to me: first, if someone is a regulator and a co-worker goes to work for a company the regulator overseas, wouldn't the regulator be inclined to be less tough on that company? >> well, there may be some human nature along those lines. i would like to think that the agency official, certainly the career officials, are dedicated, but they may be a certain level of trust and confidence in what a former colleague tells you as an agency official. >> right. >> and so, it could be that sometimes that human nature to trust people that you work with for years, can be exploited to

the detram of public safety. >> the other one that comes up in my mind is if regulators know they could get a big money job representing a company they oversee while they are oversee that company, might they be inclined to be less rigorous? >> you wonder about that. here, we are talking about the policy makers who were the political appointees, short-termers at the agency. they may serve two or three or four years. they don't have career civil service protection. they have to leave when administrations turn over. and so they see their predecessor is also political appointees, many got lucrative jobs with the industry, directly or indirectly being funded by the industry whether it be as an employee or a consult amouant o industry funding some organization that they head. so, it may be, you know, it may be that human nature would -- might lead that current official to think that maybe i shouldn't be so harsh on the industry because i want them to take care of me after my short-term at the agency is over. >> right. >> i would like to think that's not the case but you really

wonder sometimes. >> yeah. attempts to stop people from dumping -- jumping ship and going immediately over to those companies they oversee have so far failed. alan camry, appreciate you joining us to talk about this. thank you. ? >> thank you. >> time to see what's checking on the website. >> al jazeera "stream" reported on new army hair regulations that some are calling racially biased. on the list of styles not allowed in the army are multiple braids that aren't small and head bands that aren't plain and twists. twists and dreads are popular hair styles among african-american women who choose not to have their hair chemically straightened. sergeant jasmine jake okays started change.org position saying quotes these new changes are racially biased and the lack of regard for ethnic hair is apparent. army spokesman paul prince told the army times that twists and dreadlocks have been prohibited since 2005 but the regulation

is -- the regulations at the time did not clearly define specific hair styles. braids and corn rows are also popular natural hair styles among african-american women and a version of these styles are allowed. multiple braids are authorized as long as they are uniform in dimension, small in diameter, about a quarter inch, tight lee enter won't and they must encompass the whole head. an army veteran who goes by the name of tanya to conceal her identity told "the stream," there are times you may be in environmental where electricity may not be readily available. straightening your hair is a no-go. you can read more at the website america.aj.com and let us know what you think of these regulations. tweet us at ajconsider this. antonio, back to you. >> thanks, it sounds like something from a spy thriller. we will meet one of the small group of people who hold the keys to the internet. also, where is the most expensive place in america to get married?

the cheapest? our data dive explores the eye-popping prices of today's weddings. later, what leads people to laugh? are men and different when it comes to humor? we will break down the science of comedy.

who controls the internet? you could see in a secure ceremony in california in a scene reminiscent of a james bond film with armed security guards and hand and eye scans. security experts who hold the keys to the internet met to maintain internet security making sure all web domain names are authentic. they are also on standby should the web be knocked offline by a terrorist attack or other c catastrophic event. they are all part of a nonprofit called "ican that's been in operation since 1998.

how how does this all work? and who gave them the keys? >> as far as who put ican in charge of all of this, that's a really good question. it's the community. it's the people who put ican in charge. >> joining us is james ball, editor of "the guardian-us" given exclusive access to that key ceremony and andy linton, one of those select key holders, a lecturer at the school of engineering and computer science at victoria university and joins us from wellington, new zee lands. good to have you on the show. andy, i will start with you. explain the basics to me. you are one of 14 people in the world who hold these keys. seven of you meet on the west coast of the u.s. twice a year. scenario others on the east coast twice a year. then there are other seven backs up. how does this key system work and what kind of power do you have? >> well, i don't think we have power to control the whole internet but i think there is a piece of work we do to help

secure the system where we look to google.com or microsoft.com or al jazeera or whatever and get an ip address, which allows us to connect with web servers, other servers to various places around the net. so, if you could lie about that look-up, take the name, the domain name and give you the wrong number, then bad people would be in a position to take you to sites that you weren't supposed to go to. to help security that piece of the network, to make sure those look-ups happen correctly. >> if not, the internet would be a huge mess. now, one of the things that's brought up when they talk about you guys is: you have the power to switch the internet off? >> i don't think so. i think we might, if we were to go rogue, we might disrupt things for a while. but i think the internet engineering community is very

good at working around these problems. so any effort we would do in that respect would be short-lived. >> james, this does sound to somebody like me like it's completely something out of mission impossible. you see these hand scans and eye scans and all of this. and you are the first reporter who has ever been allowed to go into one of these things. when you describe it, you say that it's less like the matrix and more like the office, more mundane? >> yeah. real life, it's a little more every day than you would expect. it's a huge high security thing. they are trying to do the ceremony to make key, the key they generate in the ceremony i went to became live on the internet today. they built something with a couple of weeks' safety. but it's an interesting thing. they've got these keys around the world so that we trust this and it's not just a group of

americans because, of course, lately other countries don't always trust america with this stuff. this is not for profit trying to say we know the appeals court is important. we know you have to trust someone. so we are scattering key holders around the world so that you know it's not just us. it's not just the u.k. it's not just the u.s. everyone has a stake in this. >> people of different nationalities. >> brings up, andy, the danger of a cyber attack. how security is the system and if it were to somehow crash, are you the guys, the ones who can restart it? >> i think it's important to understand the piece of work we are doing hasn't actually completely secured the whole system. what we have actually done is begin the process of securing it. so what we are doing is making sure that the root of the tree, the top level droeshth system is

actually secureirectory system is actually secure and then there is a responsibility for the other -- the top level domains like .com and .ukan around the world to do the work for them and then there is a responsibility for organizations at the edge here so the banks and departments and commercial organizations to do the same level of signing so we can build al chain of trust down through that domain name system so that when you, as a user, go to your bank, you are happy and you are secure in the knowledge that that thing is working. >> you don't get paid. you don't -- you have to pay for your own travel. how were you chosen to do this and why would you want to do it under those circumstances? >> well, i think there has always been a strong sense of people who have been involved with the internet for a long time of us being in the community and, you know, cooperating and i think that sort of captured in our actual title that we do, which is

trusted community representative. so our job is to go there and be a witness or an auditor for the internet community and say we are happy that the process that's followed here is one that's robust and secure. they cover my do.

>> this is a little bit piece of that puzzle. there are other things we need to think about like viruss and

people having other security practic practices. this is one i don't lose sleep over. we do this work. i think it's a good, robust piece of work. it's part of the solution, but it's not -- it's not the solution. i think people should understand that. >> andy litton, it's good to have you with us. james ball, good to see you. coming up: what makes people laugh? we will explore the science behind humor. first, the mind-boggling costs of marriage. why you may want to choose city hall over a ceremony when you see the prices next in our data dive.

♪ today's data dive may want to e lope. the average cost of a wedding in the u.s. shot up to nearly $30,000. >> that's a record for the real wedding study conducted by the knot.com. they polled about 13,000 couples and found some eye-popping numbers and much like real estate, weddings are all about location, location, location. new york city nuptuals cost, on

average, nearly $87,000. financially, it makes a lot more sense to just go to city hall and pay 65 bucks. the sar knoceremony costs you 4 marriage license is 40. chats the cheapest place to tie the knot with a big event? idaho where reception and all, it averages about $16,000. >> may be a reason to become part of the 24% of those polled who plan a destination wedding and make the destination idaho. as for expenses, the average price of a wedding dress is $1,281. people are spending a little less on rehearsal dinners. the national average is $1,200. the morning after brunch runs about 4 president bucks. of course, your guest list will greatly affect your costs and we wouldings are getting bigger with an avenue of 138 people attending this past year. the average cost per head is $220. as for age, brides are now 29 years old on average and grooms are 31.

the highest percentage of couples get engaged in december. 16%. and most get married in either june or september. 15% each. so, if you are planning on throwing a big wedding, you or your father may want to start receiving now. coming up, comedy is a science. we will break down what actually makes someone laugh, how it all works. it might just make you funnier. ♪ real reporting that brings you the world.

>> this is a pretty dangerous trip. >> security in beirut is tight. >> more reporters. >> they don't have the resources to take the fight to al shabaab. >> more bureaus, more stories. >> this is where the typhoon came ashore. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. >> al jazeera, nairobi. >> on the turkey-syria border. >> venezuela. >> beijing. >> kabul. >> hong kong. >> ukraine. >> the artic. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america.

>> al jazeera america. there's more to it.

tuesday marks april fool's day, the funniest day on the calendar. why do people think something is funny? the new book, "ha!" breaks it down and shows us that humor is no joke. it's scientific. scott weems is the author of the book. he joins us from little rock, arkans arkansas. he has a ph.d. in cognitive neuroscience from ucla and is a research scientist. good to have you with us. dissecting a joke often kills it. dissecting a joke is like dissecting the a frog. the frog still dies. we will do it anyway. you say humor is, in part, psychological, coping mechanism. why? >> it is really. it all comes down to the fact that there is no formula or secret key for humor. really, it's a process versus a concrete thing.

so you much of life is hard to understand. >> that's why we laugh at a lot of things. it's how we deal with this complex world we live in. >> you write a lot of factors go into whether someone finds something funny, that it could be age, gender, iq, even by oncoming. >> what might be edgy for one person could be mundane or boring for another. we come into humor with a different perspective and different expectations. you can look at larger groups, too. women, it turns out laugh more than men. >> that's interesting. but still, women are less common

in professional comedy. about 12% of professional comedians are women. british people prefer addsurd humor where americans like it a little more aggressive. these say something about us. >> you say men joke more you point out women laugh less as they age. why do you think there are these difrpz among the genders? >> it's a little bitferences am? >> it's a little bit of conjecture. there is an evolutionary theory out there that women maybe are raised or maybe it's deeper than that that. you see this when you look at preferences for mates, who we look for in romantic partners. women almost always look for a sense of humor. >> that's number 1.

>> that's across the globe. whereas for men, it's usually closer to number 3, give or take. so part of the story behind that could be that menus human as a sign of being worthy. some aren't born with movie-star good looks. it's a sign of intelligence. >> you talk about how the brain recognizes jokes using all sorts of parts of the brain. one that recognizes conflict. so, if there is al somewhat uniform process as to how a joke makes its way through our brains, why do we have these unique senses of humor? >> there is one part of the brain, the an there are sigula, dartoons, verbal humor.

we are different in what moves us. what could be grossly offensive for one person could be kind of funny or who knows? it depends upon what makes us comfortable. those i had 0 sincratic differences are really why we all come into humor with different tastes because we all get pushed by different things. >> so what are the most important elements of a great joke? >> yeah, there are still some key ingredients for humor. i like to think with painting or consult tour, there are ingredients for those arts, too. humor has things you need. one is surprise. you need a joke to surprise you some. jokes also need to have destination. i am thinking about the old groucho marx. yesterday, i saw an elephant in my panel a.m. as.

how it got in my pajamas, i have no idea. grou groucho was great. an elephant wearing pajamas. it takes us someplace we are not comfortable growing. >> laughter is the best medicine. you found that is true? >> it has more psychological benefits like improving our immune system response. even some very strange things like it's been shown to help combat determinetitis and insulin rebound for diabetics. it comes down to stress is bad for us. the feelings of mirth and joy is good for us. we need that. humor, as long as it's kept positive, is really helpful for us and has some long-term benefits. >> the book has some incredible examples of how that works. the new book is "ha!" the science of when we laugh and

why. scott williams, thank you for joining us. >> the show may be over. the conversation continues on our website aljazeera.com/considerthis or on our facebook or google+ pages or on twitter at ajconsiderthis. we will see you next time. >> >> good evening, everyone. welcome to al jazeera america. i'm john seigenthaler in new york. breaking news - a massive earthquake 8.2 hits off the coast of chile, triggering tsunami warnings around the ring of fire. >> mary barra, c.e.o. general motors testifies about the ignition switch and 12 deaths, and the