ex"-america tonight" tomorrow. the news of the day plus so much more. answers to the questions no one else will ask. >> it seems like they can't agree to anything in washington no matter what. bi-partisan\forces secretary of state john kerry to back off afteritionis risks becoming an apartheid state. can the nba take a team away from the longest standing owner after alleged racist comments? >> how after tsteroids could ca greater threat than we have been

led to believe. here is more on what's ahead. >> the u.s. took new action against russia for its role in the crisis in ukraine. >> did these sanctions freeze the assets of 17 companies including seven banks and energy companies? >> we have not seen comparable efforts. >> our goal is not to hurt the russian people. it's to get them to change their policy. >> iraq study group s at risk of becoming an apartheid state according to secretary of state john kerry. >> anybody who understands what apartheid s wouldn't make such a comment. >> secretary kerry has proven himself unsuitable to the position he holds. >> the sports world and beyond reacting to racist comments by the owner of the la clippers: . >> we begin with a diplomatic firestorm in the middle east.

the starter, secretary of state john kerry who told the try l rtrlitra -- try lat tral t that unless they moved to a two-state solution, with peace talks scheduled to end tuesday, kerry said a 2-state collusion will be clearly underscored as the only reel alternative because a unitary state winds up being an apartheid state with second-class citizens or a state that destroys the capacity for israel to be a jewish state. condemnation of kerry's use of "apartheid" was bi-partisan. democratic senator barbara boxer says iraq study group is the only democracy and any linkage s non-sensical and ridiculous. eric cantor called on kerry to apologize to israel while senator ted cruz called on kerry to resign.

>> secretary kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds before any harm s done and to our critical alliance with the nation of israel that john kerry should offer president obama his resignation. and the president should accept it. >> for more, i am joined from washington by ambassador phillip wilcox, a former chief of mission and us consul general until jerusalem, the president for middle east peace. ambassador, good of you to join us. i should say secretary kerry backtracked by saying if i could rewind the tape, i would have chosen a different word. it is a word best left out of the debate here at home. he is frustrated with in the but it was a mistake to use such an emotionally loaded word? >> it's a word that has been used repeatedly in israeli

political circles, two i israeli primer foreign ministers said the same thing, it's the continued process of settlement building and occupation continues, israel will become an apartheid state. there is nothing new here one could look at kerry's statement as a moment of clarity by a senior u.s. official because it describes a potential reality if there isn't a sharp change, a serious return to negotiations to create two states. >> when you are talking about the settlements, you are talking about what's been going on the west bank, but abab israeli have the right to vote. there are none of the things normally you would associate with apartheid. >> you are quite right. israel s a democratic state.

perhaps the most democratic state in the region. but if israel continues it's quasi annexation of over two and a half million palestinians, it becomes a different kind of entity where it is ruling over another society without according them any rights and maintaining its rule through military force. >> that's a very different from the situation within israel, itself. >> that's what kerry was talking about when he referred to a unitary state? >> yes, it was. >> back in 2008, when he was an anyhow center running for president, barack obama, he told the "atlantic" israel and the palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side-by-side but injecting a term like "apartheid" does not advance that goal. wouldn't secretary of state kerry have been better off stick to go what president obama said back then? >> he probably would.

but it's important that u.s. leaders speak more candidly about the realities of this conflict. it is a tragedy that s heading for a train wreck unless the parties decide to take seriously the reality of the situation and reverse it through an israel withdrawal from its occupation and settlement of the west bank and east jerusalem. otherwise, there is a looming disaster and it's time for american officials to speak candid candidly about that. >> isn't it time to say enough is enough and for the united states to walk away and say if you can't get it together, to hold your own peace talks and figure this out, just, you know, saz 20 years ago, james baker gave them the white house telephone number and said call us when you are ready to discuss this seriously. >> and not too long thereafter,

the israeli people changed their government through their democratic voting process because feared that the government was damaging the vital u.s. israeli relationship. there are signs that that might be happening again. walking away is really not an option. this is a matter nots just in the interest of the israelis and the palestinians. it's ang-israeli strategic interest. we are stuck with this as a nation. we can't walk away from it. we need to speak more honestly about it instead of begging the parties to negotiate by themselves. there has to be another solution. >> on the palestinian side, on sunday, palestinian mac mam abbas called the holocaust the most heinous crime to have occurred in the modern era. that is a bit of a backtrack

from him from things that he had said decades ago. do you think he was trying to send a signal to the israeli did because statement, he was in the process of reconciliation with hamas which contains the other area, gaza and the government said because they are terrorists they will not negotiate with hamas. >> well, i think it would be wise for the israeli leadership to accept the abbas statement at face value rather than calling it an underhanded publicity stunt. it's an extraordinarily statement for a palestinian leader to make and represents a step forward. the question of palestinian unity is a different one. historians recall that when the state of israel was actually to

be born, there was a deep split among the moderates and the extreme rightist terrorist elements in israel. those were jewish groups. and theisitsis ligamentous to -- israelis managed to recognize those and develop political unity. that's what the palestinians are trying to do. and until they become a unified community, they will not be able to speak with one voice in a legitimate way. i have got to say, it strikes me, and i realize that you are correct in saying so, but that at this point in time, that it is still extraordinary for a palestinian leader to be able to say that the holocaust was the most heinous crime in modernhit is still shocking to hear. phillip wilcox, thank you for joining us tonight to discuss this important topic. >> you are welcome. >> turning now to the crisis

with russia, the u.s. has imposed a third round of sanctions targeting russia's defense industry. seven dishonesty officials linked to vladimir peatutin circumstancet one, igor sechen, who is also referred to as darth vader for ruthless tactics as a form ter kgb officer. the rye vens in eastern ukraine continues unabated. they beat protesters with baseball bats in donetsk while others have held international observers captive in slovyansk for four days. a mayor was shot and wounded. speaking in the philippines, president obama said the sanctions were not meant to hit putin personally but a cal greatt brated effort to get russia to change its behavior. >> we don't know yet whether it's going to work. >> that's why the next phase if, in fact, we saw further russian

aggression towards ukraine could be sectoral sanctions, less narrowly targeted, addressing sectors like banking or the defense industry. >> russia's foreign ministry called the new sanctions disgusting and meaningless, vowing a response from moscow would be felt painfully in washington, d.c. for more, we are joined from philadelphia by greg satel who serves as a forbes contributor. he lived nearly fourteen years as ceo of kcp publishing which overseas publishing in ukraine and published "here is howb obaa administration's sanctions will destroy putin." when you put this round of safrpdz together with the rest, you have only touched a few dozens friends of putin, and at a time european sanctions are weaker. a bi-partisan group of snairtsdz is saying enough of the wrist

slapping. you disagree? you think this is more thanenat is saying enough of the wrist slapping. you disagree? you think this is more than wrist slapping. >> i do. i think there is a tendency to look at the first order of facts which are, in fact, the asset freezes and the visa bans and say this is just a couple of dozen people. it's not that big of a deal and the russians, themselves, say, you know, it doesn't really -- doesn't touch us. for instance, one of electricitied mirror putin's closest confident's -- vladimir putin's closest confidant's, he says i don't travel overseas. it doesn't touch me. so threw things, i think, first that's doubtful. you are taufring talking about a region where the first thing you do when you start a business is set up your structure. he also, both of his children

live in the west. one in switzerland and one in london. second much all, it's not the first order of effects that are so important. it's the second order. the sanctions are more than sanctions. they are designations which is a form of financial lep rose or a scarlet letter, some people call it. if, for instance, mr. yakunin wanted to buy vacation property in dubai and ostensibly, it wouldn't touch the u.s. at all but at some point, he would have to transfer money and he would have to use a bank and there are very few banks in the world that don't have some sort of correspondent relationship with a u.s. bank or deal with u.s. dollars and if they violate those designations, the price can be quite high. we saw hsbc got hit with a $1.8 billion fine, standard

charter bank got hit with, i think it was, 3 or $400 million fine and if they want to court doing business in the u.s., they will pay those fines. >> similar to what happens to drug dealers ones you get the scar let letter? >> yeah. >> you get in serious trouble if these banks end up doing business with them but yakunin told the financial times, i did not intend to travel to the u.s. i have no assets there. it does not bother me at all. >> aren't we just talking about at this point, just a few russian oligarchs and the ukrainian government says the sanctions aren't enough? >> well, the then you have the third order of facts meaning anybody who looks like him or seems like he might be yakunin or might be sanctioned sometime in the future can't borrow money, can't enter business deals we see the effects. vladimir putin thought his

economy would be growing at 3 or 4%. right now, russia is effectively in a recession. so, i think while if you look at the people who are discredcriticizing the sanctions, they affirmative really criticizing the approach. they think it can be faster. it can be more aggressive but i think everybody agrees it has been he can't effective. >> capital is flowing out, the stock mark is slowing down. the economy is in recession or will be in recession. the ruble is down but when they saw they weren't any more than what they are, it bounced back? >> it is lower than it was a month ago. the crisis spread young. it hasn't hit the russian people. in 2008, putin, meddev and the approval ratings were quite height for about three months.

this is going to take awhile the there is no easy answer to this. but i think the continuing ratcheting up of the sanctions real the effects are going to multiply over time. >> you think that will hurt his popularity rating? because you did write that you don't think he is acting rationally when it comes tom the economy. do you think it may not matter to him that he may simply not care about the economy, that et cetera just intent on this greater rush on expanding russian territory? >> i didn't say that he wasn't acting rationally in terms of that he's insane. what i said was that he is not acting rationally in terms of he is very ideologically driven. i don't think it's greater russia he is after so much is this eurasian ideal where he wants to make russia an island

unto itself which doesn't participate in the international order. i don't think the sanctions are going to deter him. he's quite driven with what he wants, and he doesn't have a whole lot of good options anyway. but they will undermine his ability to act and an authoritarian regime is expensive to run. there is no point in corruption if there is no money in it. >> right. obviously could get extremely expensive if he decides to expand beyond his borders and moved in to eastern ukraine. a lot of thought-provoking stuff. greg satel, good to have you with us. thank you? >> thanks for having me. >> the world inside and outside the nba is appalled by the alleged racist remarks by one of its owners. what should happen to him now? also, could the battle with the element did turn into a battle

between nations? a climate change discussion you have not hurd. f hermella is tracking the top stories on the web. >> what seemed like good news for u.s. education is being met with secretcism. i will tell you more later in the show. join our conversation by tweeting to us at ajconsiderthis or leave a comment on our facebook and google+ pages.

racist remarks allegedly from the owner of the los

angeles clippers' basketball team have triggered a new and heated round in our national conversation on race. an audio post to the website tmz has the voice of what appears to be clippers' owner donald sterling telling a woman said to be his former girlfriend not to post a picture showing her with basketball great magic johnson and not to bring black people to clippers' games: for more, i am joined from san francisco by mark spears who covers the nba for yahoo sports and here is edward williams with "the root" and an al jazeera america political contributor mark, i will start with you. you cover the nba. sterling is a guy who had a terrible reputation in general, especially on racial issues.

why is this guy still the owner of an nba team? >> you know, that's a great question. this is something that should have been a bigger topic years ago. this isn't the first time. this isn't the second time. this isn't the third time. there is a long history here of racist acts and it's very sad that it's got tone this point, but i think the thing is, when you have audio, when you actually can hear it and it's not just hearsay or a report, i think it hits harder at home than when it's just text. so this audio is certainly stunning and is bothering people all over the world. >> stunning is almost an understatement edward, donald sterling was quote in a legal deposition in a lawsuit that was filed by his formal general manag manager, elton baylor baylor said sterling said, personally, i would like to have a white southern caucchioliing poor black players. i mean you read

this stuff. it's difficult to believe but again, when there is this kind of smoke, there has to be some fire. what should the nba do? >> i think that it speaks to a plantation mentality across american sports, but specifically in the nfl and the nba. i think what's sad about this is as stark as these comments were and as disturbing as they are, it speaks to a culture within the sports. and one of the things i thought was really striking was that in this entire debate, people forgot to mention the fact that the head of the ncaa a couple of weeks ago, when talking about whether or not players actually had enough to eat said something about well, if they want breakfast in bed, i will give them that. these sports and these arenas are places where the bodies and talents of black boys are exploited and i think that this is a part of the culture that we have all become to accept. and so to frame this man, this coach in particular as the enemy, i think that we need to

take -- we need to look at our part in all of this. >> i think you may be over stating it. i don't know anybody has come to accept that. >> i am not sure that they have. i think they actually have. i think we need to consider that. >> mark, what are nba commissioner adam silver's options in handling this if this is confirmed to be sterling, what everybody beliefs, including his estranged wife? >> he is not a coach. it's an owner. the one thing they have, if all of the owners agree to it, if they get three quarter of the involved, they could push him out. i think the nba can take control of the team and sell the team. that's probably the most they could do. >> that's a lot. they push that hard. let's see tomorrow morning. this is a big, big day. he is new on the job. this is his first big deal. this might be the biggest thing he ever has to deal with his entire tenure as an nba xhurl

commissioner. he has to make a big statement. the players are watching. the clippers have talked about doing something about at home in game 5. they are waiting to see what adam silver does first before they go a step further. keep in mind this is rodney king an vee anniversary tomorrow. this could blow up into something real bad. i don't want to see that. to be swift and hard with his decision. >> we will have to see what he does on tuesday. president obama has now weighed in on these disturbing comments. he is in malaids i can't. he caulked the remarks incredibly offensive and racist added this. >> when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything. >> that's what happened here. >> what else would you like to hear from the president? >> i think the president spoke eloquently and succinctly on this topic. i think what he said was important. he acknowledged and the

president has bigger issues to deal with. i think this is an issue to be dealt with, with the nba. the players are making their statement with their silent protests. i think it will be interested to see what the nba does tomorrow. the other thing that i think is really interesting is despite the fact that what might happen is that there is some sort of suspension or that he is forced out, and this is in light of an article i read on "the daily beast" about what he might get out of this being forced to sell. he might reap close to a billion dollars selling his portion of the team. that just goes to show that this is a win-win in a weird way for him. and i think that that's -- >> look. he's got money. it's not new. i mean but what is he going to do with the rest of his life? he has been ostracized, pushed out. the rest of his life is going to be miserable. what he did, it's finally, caught up to him. all of the stuff he did has caught up to him.

now, any money in the world, it can't fix what he has done. it's going to pay for it the rest of his miserable life. >> good point. i want to talk about the issue of race in general. we heard those remarks praisetion slavery and denigrating black americans from they hanevada ranch clivean bun let's listen to that. >> come to las vegas for something better, but wouldn't they have been happier at home with their gardens and their chickens and their children playing around them? and their family having work to do? >> you were pleased with what the president said, edward but the president also implied that these things were abberations that this is maybe just older people who are stuck in the past in different ways but the reality is, there is a lot of racism out there among younger people, skinheads and neo nazis. ? >> it is an issue but i am not one of those people who believe

in the post-racial america that a lot of, i would say mostly liberals were purporting in light of president obama's election in 2008. i think we have seen in our politics as well as in society in general. >> that's not just the case. as much as we want to believe, there has been a utopia created. >> that's simply not the case. but that said, i think that the fact that this man is 80 years old, that clyde bundy is from the midwest also closer to that age shows that these are generational issues and the truth is s america has moved beyond a lot of the problems of the past. but then, also, we have a browning america. we have an increasingly minority majority. i think there are positive signs as well. we have often at times tend to focus on the negative. >> mark, a quick final word from you? we saw the miami heat tonight. they had their silent protest? >> racism is not dead, man: i

don't agree with the last guy. i know things have gotten better, but there is the -- the difference is a lot of stuff is swept under the rug now. it was different than ali's day but the racism has not died. it's not slowed down. >> i don't think it's all swept under the rug, though, because we have these debates in our politics, a republican party that uses race baiting in order to attack the african-american president. my point wasn't that racism is over but that we oftentimes focus on the most negative aspects instead of focusing on the progress. >> but by focusing on this, maybe we could change how people think. >> that's a good thing about this. doc rivers said this, there is some dialogue and people are talking about this and the foolishness to think that racism is dying as a lot of americans do think. hopefully this will wake people up and see the truth.

we have a long way to go. >> thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> to climate change. could it lead to more international conflicts and even war? poll did show only a third of americans worry about climate change a great deal despite reports of record sea levels, cash bo dioxide concentrations and powerful storms that some attribute to our changing climate. but a blistering united nations report goes further saying increasing global temperatures to hot global tempers and the pentagon says climate change is destabilizing nations and war. we are you former top military commander who was once a hard-score skeptic on global warning has a direr view of what's in store if we remain ambivale ambivalent. we are joined by david titelly, the founding director for solutions to weather and climate

risk at penn state university. how did you go from a self-professed, hardcore skeptic about climate change to labeling it with the pre-eminent challenges of our isn't tree? >> thanks very much for having me. this is an important issue. and really what i did was i looked at the evidence about five to 10 years ago, looking at the evidence. when you are driving a navy shi ship, you look at a lot of evidence to figure out where you were, global positioning system. when you take a look at the rising air temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea level, decrease in the arctic ice, how the animal did, how the ecosystems were moving, there is far too much evidence to be able to conclude anything but that the climate is changing. >> when did the military start to think about this as something that the military needed to prfor and getting concerned about climate change in the context of growing international

conflicts? >> about seven years ago, the center for analysis, a board composed of very distinguished three and four star admirals and generals released a report that for the first time identified climate change as a threat multiplier and an acseller ant to instability that could impact national security. after that, there were a number of very important reports from both inside and outside the pentagon and, in fact, the center for naval analysis is going to reissue the report in about three weeks updating -- updating their seminal 2007 study. >> a recent opinion piece, you said the pair legs between the decisions regarding climate change we have made and the decisions that led europe to world war i are striking and sobering. how so? >> i think so. if you look at the very, very complex causes of world war i,

at one of the root did, you almost see this denial, denial by governments after they had been denied of what the con sequences, could be, the risks that governments collectively ignored them and we walked into this tragedy in 1914 that ultimately killed 8.6 million soldiers. this ability to not confront the facts can, in fact, be very serious. the pairllels struck me. >> that's why i wrote that piece with a colleague. >> talking about history, has not on the need or desire for resources been a big factor in triggering conflicts? why is this any different? >> well, the difference here is that we are changing in military terms what i would say is we are changing the whole physical battle space. the difference is that the way the climate changes is going to

affect our food, our energy, our water. food, energy and water that aver single person. not just the developed world but every single person in the world has a need and i would argue a right to, how are those distributions going to happen? the water is going to fundamentally change. as water changes, that changes our ability to both grow and produce food as well as produce energy. >> and, you know, as we mentioned, the american public is not taking this as seriously as i know you believe they should. a march gallup poll said only a third of americans say they care a great deal about it. >> that's about the same as they cared in 1989. is part of the problem that some of the predictions in the past have been overstated and people are turning a deaf ear? >> i think climate almost by definition is diffuse, abstract, something that most people think about in the future. i tell people we plan for arrest future climate but we live in weather today. so you start looking at the

weather we have living in today. increasing hotter summers, increasing droughts, when it rains t rains harder. we tend to get floods and we get -- we get more of them or more intense rainfall. we see the seas coming up, saw what kind of storm surge we got from super storm sandy and a bunch of that was, in fact, because it's an elevated sea level rise. >> what do you think that will mean in the context it could go one or two ways. it could be every person for themselves and it could be that accelerant or that catalyst for instability or we could possibly see the change in climate t would actually be something that we could possibly agree upon to fight as a collective world. that would be an optimistic view. i am not sure we can get there, but it doesn't have to just be an awful story here.

>> i know you address all sorts of geo political issues that are already arising david titelly, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. >> time to see what's trending on the website. let's check back in with hermella. >> this looks like good news on the surface for u.s. education but a lot of people are skeptical. according to a federal report released monday, the public high school graduation rigate is at all-time high fo-81%, partly big gains among african-american and hispanics students whose graduation rates went up 9 and 15% respectively between 2006 and 2012. they are still lagging behind in 2012, only 68% of african americans and 76% of hispanics graduated compared to 81% of white students. it attributes the overall gains to students putting a greater emphasis on individualized attention, hiring dropout

specialists and closing or sp t splitting dropout fact odors where fewer than 60% of students graduate. a lot of people on social media are wondering if the rate is up because schools have brought down the bar. there is evidence that some states are doing just that. for example, florida students no longer need chemistry, if i diddics oralja j or algebra 2. texas got rid of the requirement this year and when nevada high school students were having trouble passing the math exam, the they have nevada board lowered it from 300 to 242 out of 500. read more at the website, america.aj.com and let us know what you think. >> thanks. straight ahead, a completely different way of looking at media bias. also, why does boarding an airplane take so long? and why don't the airlines want

to speed it up? later, this may sound like a hollywood but asteroids may be a bigger danger than we thought.

>> al jazeera america is a straight-forward news channel.

>> its the most exciting thing to happen to american journalism in decades. >> we believe in digging deep. >> its unbiased, fact-based, in-depth journalism. >> you give them the facts, dispense with the fluff and get straight to the point. >> i'm on the ground every day finding stories that matter to you. >> in new orleans... >> seattle bureau... >> washington... >> detroit... >> chicago... >> nashville... >> los angeles... >> san francisco... >> al jazeera america, take a new look at news. >> every saturday, al jazeera america brings you conversations you won't find anywhere else... >> your'e listening because you wanna see what happen... >> get your damn education... >> talk to al jazeera only on al jazeera america >> oh my... if you wanted to learn about whether the media is biased or if television hurts or helps kids, would you turn to an economist? the answers to those questions

that our next guest came up with just won him the john bates clark medal, awarded to the top american economists under 40 and considered second only to the nobel prize. he studies vast amount did of data to address key issues. >> work gives important insight into the impact of media on all aspects of society. we arebleeds to be joined by matthew jensko at the booth school of business. great to have you with us. you are in pretty good company. many of america's greatest economists won this award before going on to win the you don't believe prize. i know your cleebznobel prize. i know your cleebz. t colleagues, wrote freakonomics. what special insight did can you economists give us about, you know, our daily life?

>> it's an quitting time to be an economist and you are allowed to study a range of topics and call them economics. i have been doing that with regard to media. i think in a lot of those con texts you mentions, economics brings tools for using data and trying to get more traction on what's really going on and problems that we might have had to speculate before. that's been true in lots of areas. i tried to apply some of that looking at media. >> leads arts some of the areas you have looked at. in one study, you looked at television and saw television as having positives and negatives. one positive that challenges conventional wisdom is that television does not hurt kids' test scores and, in some cases, it can actually help them? >> yeah. so this was a study that i did a while back. i actually started working on when i was a graduate substitute event looking in particular at the period of time in the '40s and '50s when television was first introduced to the u.s. and so i did, and the work you

mentioned, with my colleague jessie shapiro at the university of chicago, we looked at how children who grew up with t.v. differed from kids who didn't in test scores later on. we found two things. there is no evidence at all that television harmed kids. if you look specifically at families where the children might have been more disadvantaged coming from lower-income families or especially families where the parents didn't speak english as a first language, you actually started to see evidence of positive effects that children were actually learning from t.v. in particular with things like language and reading type skills. >> talking about something else that challenges conventional wisdom, you would think television would get more people out to vote and elections and you found the opposite. >> yeah. it looked like when television was introduced, in that period, voter turnout fell. the share of people participating in politics fell, especially for local e elections. there is actually a kind of

common theme in both of those studies, if you want to think about the effect of television, it really depends upon what it's replacing. what is the other thing that somebody would be doing, were they not watching t.v. so when you look at kids, children from a family where the parents don't speak english aren't getting a lot of input in terms of english at home and so t.v. might provide them something new. when you look at voting, what happened, i think, what the evidence seemed to suggest is when television came in, people stopped reading newspapers to the same degree, stopped listening to the radio to the same degree. those were both media that had especially at that time a lot more political content, a lot more coverage of politics an especially for local politicians, so people stopped looking at those things, start watching t.v. instead. there was relatively little news and politics and so i think the result was interest in politics, engagement with politics wayned as people switched to t.v. >> what did you finds when it

came to media bias and how that has changed over the last couple of decades? >> well, i have done a variety of work looking at media bias, one recent, one study i did with again my colleague jessie shapiro, looking at nurewspaper in this country, about 5 or 6 years ago that we were looking at the data and trying to measure their political content, their slant, which newspapers were relatively more to the right or to the left and try to understand the drivers of that. what are the factors that explain why different news outlets make different choices about their political content or the political slant, whatever news is going on. >> you also found interestingly, again, something that goes against the conventional wisdom. you sort of think what we are seeing out there is an echo chamber, people who are conservative only go to fox, people who are liberal only go to msnbc or conservatives to the

drudge, liberals to huffington post. you found that's not necessarily the case. >> that's right. so, this is one of the things that people have worried a lot about with the advent of the internet and as everything moves online. the entinternet gives you more choices and makes it easier if somebody did want to just find a source that kind of repeats exactly what their particular point of view is. it makes it easier to do that. a lot of people have worried that the result may be, as you say, everybody is in their own ort of echo chamber and polarization and in washington could increase. the study was simple trying to use some data to ask to what extent is that happening right now? we looked at data on exactly which website did different people were visiting, and what we found is that the differences in what conservatives are seeing and liberals are seeing in this country or people with different political per swaingsz are remarkable smalluasions are

remarkable small. they are looking at the same content. both in absolutely terms and if you compare the internet to other media, it doesn't look that different from television or newspapers or magazines in terms of how different the content people see is depending upon their political views. >> some interesting findings across the board. we'll see how economics with address our world in many ways. matthew genskow, congratulations on the award. thank you for joining us. coming up, life on mars isn't just a long shot. could it be the key to survival of the human human race? but first, the real reason it seems to take forever to board a plane and why airlines probably won't change. economics has diagnose to do with that, too. our data dive is up next.

today's data dive gets on board with an idea most airlines don't want you to know about. do you ever wonder why it takes so long to board a plane? it was much nafast ner 1970. boeing found by 1998, boarding had gotten 50% slower. bloomberg business week looked at the issue. most u.s. air lines board back to front, which according to most research, is only slower than front to back. random boarding with unassigned ceased fares better. the window seats followed by middles and i'll did fares well. >> an astro physicist wrote a paper on the topic in 2008. he found passenger boarding takes longer than refueling the plane or restocking it with supplies and food. using computer models, he came up with a complex but much faster system involving alternating rows. in byrone real world test, it ga

full plane boarded in just about four minutes. unfortunately, airlines probably won't employ his method because slow boarding is making them money. for example, southwest passengers pay up to $40 to be among the first 15 people to board. other airlines have similar policies. it's a vicious circle for passengers. airlines cause stress because of slow boarding and then people pay to avoid that stress. not bad for the airlines though. they also make money using early boarding privileges as an incentive to get people to sign up for their credit cards. another money-making scheme by the airlines is part of the problem: once they started charging for checked bags, passengers tried to avoid paying by packing more on to their carry carry-ons. >> slows boarding and leads people to pay to get on the plane early. united now says it will crack down on over-sized carry-ons. >> will force customers back to

the counter to pay the $25 fee. u.s. carriers are already making more than $3,000,000,000 a year in checked bag fees. by the way, in the time you have watched this, you would barely have moved in the line on the plane. coming up: the earth getting hit by dangerous after tsteroid lot more common that you would think.

people have been looking up in the night sky at a bright red dot since the origins of man but could it be the key to the future of humanity? according to charles bolden, that's exactly what mars is. >> if the species is to survive indefinitely, we need to become a multi-planet speis. mars is a stepping stone to other galaxies. >> what will it take to get to mars and how soon could we see that it is a bigger leap of mankind. >> derrick pitts at the franklin institute science museum. it seems like a day doesn't go by of hearing of some new plan to get to mars. why the fascination with our nearest planetary neighbor? >> the thing that makes mars stand out is the possibility

that there might have been life on that planet at some time and the possibility that there still is life on that planet, perhaps underground. the other thing that makes it really intriguing is that if you look at all of the planets of our sol area system, there really are only two that we could possibly even visit. that would be our moon and mars. all of the other planets are not really possible landing target did at all. so, if we are going to do any stepping stone into the solar system, it's got to be mars. >> nasa is talking about three phases. some of what we are doing on the space station. the proofing ground phase which involves landing on an asteroid, further out than the moon. is that the main point to travel longer in space in that phase? >> long-term deep space missions. going to the moon and back. that was three days to get there. three days to get back.

six months at the at least to get out there. if you want to spend any time t turns your trip into at least a year and a half. so we really need to build up our skills with long duration space flight. remember, we have only been doing at most on international space stations so far, six months at a time. we need to get astronauts in spacecraft and send them to a location, let them get someplace and turn around and do that successfully before we can consider the rea llity of getti to mars. >> that would be the mars-ready phase and that's when the missions would take place. as you heard, nasa said humanity's survival depends upon getting to mars and we need to be a multi-planet species. why? >> i like bolden's language in this. it's evocative, imagine native and exciting. at some point, our solar system

is going to change around a little bitative and exciting. at some point, our solar system is going to change around a little bit. it's not so imperative that we become a multi-planet or multi-solar system species just yet, but if we expect to get off of this planet, what we need to do is start making plans to build an infrastructure that will allow us to do that we should as soon as we can. >> how soon? what do you think the realistic time frame is for nasa to get to mars? >> what they need to do is build up an infrastructure and test it. they love to make sure everything is working well. it will take a decade or on so to get that together. when they peg 2030s as a time, that's a good optimistic time to make sure everything is done right and safely. i wish it could be sooner u but we need the drive and dedication and commitment of funding to make it happen much faster. >> let's talk asteroids.

with the v 6-12 foundation which aims to protect earth thatt found there have been 26 atomic bomb scale. they described it as being a shooting gallery and it's blind luck that we have not had major catastrophes over major population centers? >> it's surprising there have been additional instances that we didn't know about. we need to clarify, antonio, that those weren't impact did. most of those 26 that were counted between 2000 and 2013 were asteroids that came into the earth's atmosphere and exploded or dissipated or i should say broke up before they reached the surface. nonetheless, it indicates that there is a lot more coming in of size at ththan we originally th was coming in. we need to do some work to try to get this situation cleaned up. otherwise, it is just luck that we vint actually been hit by

something bigger. >> right because we have seen some that will have hit land. we had one early in the 20th century in russia that was major, and last year, we saw a mea mea meteor. if they can be such a big threat, why is nasa wasting time talking about mars instead of focusing on this more immediate issue? >> i think the realization has come about to everybody in scientific circumstances and science circles, that the seriousness of a chance of us being hit by something is much greater than any of us really thought of before and the idea of re-directing funds means we have to take funding from some other part of the space program to put it to this so it's a question of: what are our priorities? we have to remember that less than one-half of every penny of your tax dollar goes to the work that nasa does. let's than one-half after penny

of every tax dollar. >> that's not a lot of money. so what has to happen is that someone has to decide: what is the most appropriate thing we have to deal with? >> this is an important one of the derek pitts t it's great to have you on the show. >> that's it for us. we will see you next time. good evening, everyone. i am jon seigenthaler in new york. apartheid state, audio of secretary john kerry's stark warning about israel and a call for senator ted cruz for him to resign. pressure point, the riding tensions over ukraine and the new sanctions against russia. how will putin respond? sterling speaks. as sponsors flee and players protest, the nba own ter accused of racism talks. drivers not wanted. here