-- are you committed? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you for taking the question. just to follow up -- because you do not know the condition of the cement inside, is it that the well cannot be left as it is now? is there another process now required? >> arkansas refer to the previous question. the relief well will be finished. that is the end result. how it gets finished will be determined. a way forward is being discussed now. we will kill the well. thank you.

>> and cynthia kellie, founder and president of the heritage foundation marks the 65th anniversary of the end of world war two and the dropping of the first atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. also, archival footage it shot by u.s. armed forces command of the aftermath. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

now, we take a look at some of the key midterm election campaigns. this is 35 minutes. this is 35 minutes. >> joining us to take your calls and look ahead to the fall elections, aaron blake of "the washington post." thanks for being with us. we are going to open our phone lines. the numbers are on the screens for republicans. make sure you meet your set. there were key primaries in colorado and elsewhere. the colorado race -- we showed a rally with democrats yesterday. the headline by "the wall street

journal" says the democrats see hopeful signs. why is that? >> this is one of the many situations this year where there is real trouble. we saw robert bennett lose in utah earlier this year. he became interior secretary. does not have much of a political track record. he was running against a proven politician, at least at the state legislative level. this became a difficult race for the white house because they had been supporting -- this was supposed to be a close race. >> i am curious about your read on the influence of the two- party on this week's primaries, and particularly -- in particular less than three

months from the fall election. >> we have seen the tea party breakthrough in nevada, for instance, and in kentucky, where sharon ankle and rand paul became republican nominees. we have seen it falter because the tea party candidates are not able to raise a lot of money in some ces. it is a major impact, no doubt. i think sometimes it can be a little bit exaggerated. >> we have a couple of calls late -- a couple of calls waiting. there was a posting earlier this week about one of the races in the week -- the linda mcmahon race in connecticut. the headline was what she could learn from al franken. what did you write about? >> this was an interesting storyline this election years. lynn that is the former ceo of

world wrestling entertainment, the big professional wrestling business in the company right now. she has put a lot of personal money in this, $22 million. that got the attention of the national republican party. she eventually became the nominee. she won the primary on tuesday. questions about her background and what has happened in the rustling agency -- i think we can expect similar to what we saw so far probably a lot of coverage and attention paid to her senate campaign. >> we would get back to that issue of personal funding at this campaign. other has been a lot of that this year. standing by, the republican call. caller: i would just like to say that the tea party philosophy is much like republicans that are

nservative. more power to them if they can get people excited to vote. this country is pretty lax on voting the way it is. any conrvative candidate, whether democrat or republican, is much help and much needed. host: any thoughts to the comment about the tea party? guest: i think that what we are seeing here is the republican party is somewhat divided, but we are also seeing the tea party kind of reinvigorating the republicans a little bit. the republican party at large really is not very well liked at this point. the tea party is polling better than the republican party. we are seeing of voters who are feeling disenfranchised by both political parties.

host: what town in illinois are you calling from? caller: i am calling from joliet. what is the race card played so much in politics? host: the race card -- are you seeing it a lot in the election so far? guest: you know, i think it is played to some degree, but i think candidates are mostly pretty reticent to get into racial issues. it is a pretty divisive way to campaign and is not something candidates want to get involved in. i do not think we have seen it a whole lot this year. we are talking about the charlie rangel and maxine waters situation, but candidates having accepted money from that members of congress -- you have n seen a lot of race in other races this year. host: address the rental

charges and maxine waters charges. she came out in a news conference and said she has done nothing wrong and detailed her side of the story. does it help democrats to have this issue waiting out there before the election? guest:t certainly does not help. the question is whether it hurts. ihink if you ask most people in this country now they know who charlie rangel is or maxine waters, with the coverage in recent days most of people would still say they do not. i do not know that people look at the fate of a congressman from harlem and a black congresswoman from california and would ascribe those charges to the democratic party. the republicans have had their own scandals in recent years. there is an easy way for democrats to fight back on any attacks on that stuff. host: minneapolis on our

independent line. caller: i would like to ask a estion about everybody trying to put everything othe democrats. e republican is facing charges in the senate. i thi the republicans are not going to win the house because in the inner city everybody thinks that everybody doesn't know anything in the inner city. but we areetng rdy to vote. everybody is going to get everybody out to vote. i would like to know where you guys get your polls from. you do not get your polls from the inner city. the democrats are good this year. republicans say no to everything. it is just like the confederate flag. host: minneapolis had their primary this last week. est: this is a key question. a lot of members of congress who

were voted in the last two years are asking emselves whether african americans will continue to turn out. they obviously turned out well in the south for barack obama in 2008. the midterm election year, turnout is lower. african america are a population that tends to drop off more than other populations. this going to be something we are going to talk about a lot as we head into the election, and definitely afterward. this is a key demographic for democrats. host: stay on the bottom for a minute and look at the senate race between t majority leader and sharon angle. guest: that is an interesting state. rry reid is very unpopular in the state. democrats think they might have had an opening when republicans nominated an ultra-conservative former state assemblywoman.

the question is can democrats change the subject from harry reid to sharon angle. so far, they have been doing a good job. whether or not that continues to be true, i think this is a race that is going to be close over the next few months. we just saw a poll from the las vegas review journal. it continues to be a very competitive race. host: let us hear from jeff in west virginia. caller: i would like to make two comments and get your opinion on them. first, i am hearing a rumor that the president is going to try to clear the bad debt of fannie mae and freddie mac. that is number one. i do not know if he can do it without tanking what is left of our country. the second is i look -- as a republican, i am clearly ashamed of my party. i feel it has been taken over by

some kind of banker virus. that is with both parties. d.c. any hope of our country ever taking back one or both of these parties to be of the people, by the people, and for the people? this is when tlead into the e word i hate to say, but civil unrest or civil war. guest: i think we have a long way to go before that. tea party voters feel they are left out of the political establishment. they are forming their own movement. it is not very well organized. it is bottom up as opposed to top down. his complaints are characteristic of what we are seeing around the country. that is the reason people like

randall paul -- like rand paul e winning. host: aaron blake is joining us to take your calls on the 2010 election, looking at the primaries coming up next week. the couple primary's in wyoming and washingt. what should we be looking for in those states? guest: i do not think we will see too much, next week. in washington, we have senator marie facing a challenge from dino rossi, who people might remember from his gubernatorial campaigns in 2004 and 2008. he is well founded. the republicans have a lot of hope for being able to take that seat. in washington, the top two out all candidates make the general election. dino is expected to be in that. the drama will have to wait

until the general election. host: we have a caller standing by on a republican line. caller: i lived in washington all my life. when we were having the health care debates and all of that, the senators are very disconnected from the people. on the health-care debate and all that stuff, before they even voted -- there were not interested in listening to people. unfortunately, a lot of the republicans need to go to the 00. i think the tea party movement needs to get stronger. host: in that senate race, who are you for? caller: i am for the tea party candidate, who we do not know much about. host: that iwilliam in spokane. guest: i would be interested to

hear if william would support dino rossi if he was a general ection nominee. that is the key question. he is running against two republicans who are taking the boat in the primary. if he can ke sure he gets their support in november he could have a league right now according to most polls. i think whether republicans can unite in that race is a key factor. frankly, dino rossi has been [unintelligible] host: the baseball terminology between jim demint and sarah palin -- who has the better average for candidates to have picked a guest:? i think they are on par. palin has endorsed the right

candidates in the major races, with the exception of the georgia governor's race this week, where she backed the losing candidate. jim has been backing ken buck. he has winners and losers, just like sarah palin. host: let us go to chicago. caller: why are republicans always being labeled racist? host: you are calling on our democrats line. is it your view as a democrat the republicans are labeled as racist? caller: why does theedia portray that? democrats and some people in the media tried to say republicans are racist. host: any thoughts? guest: this is interesting. the caller before asked whether we were talking about race this year. it has cropped up in the nevada senate race. harry reid made a commentver the weekend in which he sd he

did not know why hispanics could be repubcan. i think when we are talking about these groups republicans have been trying to reach o to black voters and hispanics with pretty limited effectiveness. they really think the expanding of the majority is going to have to come through these voters. hispanics are obviously a big one. black voters have been very strong for democrats in the past. host: tennessee on our independent line. caller: i think all the elections are fixed. i think the media is trying to jam it down our throats that the republicans are going to be taking the house and the senate. i do not think regular voters want to do that. i think thimedia attention to the tea party is a problem. how come we never hear about the green party? guest: i think that the question

of whether or not republicans can retake the house and senate is very unsettled. if you ask most pundits and election analysts in washington, they wi say republicans are not going to take back the senate at this point. peop are evenly split on the house. it is going to be a competitive election. republicans are going to win a few seats unless something really changes. the question is whether they can make unusual gains that would make them rethink the majority. host: a republican caller. caller: hello. i am elderly and i am very concerned about one major thing. that is moral decay. i think moral decay -- our president is a believer of abortion above and beyond anything i have seen in my life. no. 2, i had never heard of

trillions of dollars until we have had the n leader of our country putting forth trillions of dollars of debt as a solution to our difficulties. i lay these situations that i just mentioned on the floor -- on the lord, the greatest power in the universe. i pray the lord can do a miracle with our president. i look at paul in the new testament, who was a christian terrorist. host: thanks for your comments. we have not heard much about social issues, whether it be abortion or whatever. guest: when the economy is such an overriding factor, it really calls for either side to start talking about those issues. at the same time, it is starting to creep up on u we wrote about this a couple of

weeks ago, when the california judge overturned the ban on same-sex marriage passed by the voters. i think in isolated cases republicans will use these issues in some socially conservative districts that are held by democrats that say that our social its conservatives. on the whole, there is not a lot of appetite for this. the economy is the number-one ise on the front of the mind for most people. host: texas on our democrats line. caller: let me ask you this. are you a republican? that is the first question. the last caller shows what the republican party thinks.

where and who do you pull? host: there is a question about polls. i think to talk about that earlier. guest: polls come from private sources. polling firms are based far outside d.c. who are pulling these races. it is not necessarily coming from firms in washington. a lot of states have a few pollsters. we can kind of compare what the washington pollsters have said. there are similar themes on those polls. voters do not like other party much, are right now they seem to be favoring republicans in me of these significant races we are watching. host: we have just been withim blake of the washington coast -- aaron glick of the washington post talking about it tuesday

that will have a lot of primaries. we have arizona, florida, alaska, and vermont on tuesday the 24th. i want to show you the floor debate in that state. most of us do not have a chance to see many of these debates in the preseason, but i wanted to see your thoughts on the tenor of what this says about that race in florida. this is from tuesday night. we are going to show this in its entirety later. here is some of that debate. >> dennis stackhouse is one example. he was a developer who is now facing criminal charges. his mother got a car and a $90,000 salary. his chief of staff got $13,000 in cash. look what happened. >> sir, your life is a question mark. every day, we learn about your business dealings, how you treat your employees, and versions of

why you went to cuba. you have more versions of why yowent to cuba and baskin- robbins ice cream. i think it is very important for those in florida to know you are pointing a finger but have three fingers pointing back at you. i have more integrity in my pinkie then you have in your whole body. host: to me, that sounded like a general election debate. guest: this race has been something else. when you throw in a millionaire businessman like jeff green, who has a very eccentric past -- mike tyson was the best m at his wedding. he at one point lived in the same house with heidi fleiss. an interesting campaign. the second thing we are watching the governor, charlie crist, who switched from republican to independent

earlier this year. he has done all kinds of our reach to democrats. he is expecting a lot of democratic votes in the general election. right now, the democrats are looking for some traction in the florida senate race. it is not looking good. host: this is a russ recent poll, the latest data. charlie crist is at 38% -- 33%. 38% former pro rubio. the democrac candidate is unlikely, if he were to be the democratic candidate. he is pulling at 21%. jason from tennessee on our democrats line. caller: i have a question for mr. blake. i have three different races i would like to get his opinion on. the first is blanche lincoln in arkansas. i have not seen any poll numbers. they say she is the most

vulnerable, supposedly. the second is jeff conway in kentucky. do we have a chance to take that seat? how is that going? how vulnerable is louisiana? guest: lots of good races in the south. you bring up really good ones. blanche lincoln unexpectedly survived the priry with the lieutenant governor a couple months ago. we're talking about bnett's surviving. lincoln was similar in that she exceeded expectations in a runoff. she has a rlly tough race in the general election against john boseman. she is down by more than 20 points but has a strong financial edge. in kentucky, jack conway is a top democrat to win in a red state. rand paul has vulnerabilities.

conley is the state attorney general and has run a pretty successful campaign in the primary. we are talking about louisiana more and more. the congressman just went up with an ad mentioning a prostitution scandal and keeping an employee who had been arrested for domestic abuse. that race is getting dirty now. that is what we expect from louisiana politics. host: do you have a recent poll data from louisiana? guest: vitter is looking decent. he has a 50% approval rating. democrats think his support is pretty shallow. they do not think they are going to go for him. will keep an eye on them on. host: we talked to an editor of

the blog in louisiana yesterday. he said the number one political issue there is this oil drilling moratorium. guest: charlie gained a lot notice when this was going on. he was on tv. we have not seen him close in the polls. this is obviously a very red state. david vitter -- say what you want about his personal life, but he has a conservative record. he has positioned himself as one of barack obama's top critics in the senate. it is tough but worth watching. host: i want to touch back on self funding. we talked about linda mcmahon and her campaign. what is for a parliament on what she will spend to win the senate race >> the first we heard was $30 million total. she will have to exceed that if she wants to keep up the pace.

right now, the thoug she will spend about $50 million. she is in the top for all time as far as self funders go. this is a significant amount of personal money in a race. she is goi to be all over the airwaves. host: meg whitman is funding her campaign. guest: she is the biggest. she is at $91 million already. she is the republican nominee against the former governor jerry brown. it seems feasible she could stretch well beyond $100 million. the general election is not getting any easier. could we be talking about a $200 million campaign? i do not think that is out of the question in a state as big as california. host: new jersey on our democrats line.

what people should vote republican and not democrat. why we would vote republican and not democrats. we have [unintelligible] i am a senior citizen and i am on a fixed income. my taxes went up. i used to pay my fire insurance. host: thank you for your call. guest: she asked why should people vote for republicans. i think that is a question republicans are confronting. their approval rating, as far as people like democrats -- republicans are worse right now.

the fact that we are seeing republicans set to make gains is a little puzzling. there is also the question of whether republicans have offered an effective alternative rather than just setting know. democrats say all they do is sit in the back and say no to everything. republicans insist they have ideas. i am not sure they need to have ideas. i think th can do pretty well by not being the party in power at this point. host: your newspaper column today talks about a fund-raiser in new jersey senator is a joy to have with lady dhaka. -- lady gaga. host: frank is in new york, independent line. caller: my question mainly has to do with the two-party and how it wants to hold candidates

accountable. it is no secret that the status quo in washington is pretty despicable with all these backdoor deals and special interests, and all these crises with the banks going on, the ceos running away with american dollars straight out of our pock. it seems like a pretty hopeful grass-roots movement. why are they picking a party? in my opinion as a citizen, i always thought i really did not have a place in politics for my opinion. host: we appreciate you weighing in. guest: the reason i think the

two-party appeals to people is it is pretty amorphous. there is not really 80 party leadership. -- a tea party leadership. people say this is a grassroots thing, not a political party with leaders telling us what to do. i think that apals to a lot of people. i think we will keep watching as this turns into whatever it turns into. host: in illinois, what is your town? caller: my question is i was a poll born democrat at one time, then switched to republican. now i am independent. the reason is both parties do the same thing. if one gets elected, they do exactly what the opposite is. if the opposite gets elected, they do exactly what the other side. the only way to stop this power

is to replace everybody. the other thing i have concern about is why the newspapers do not support both parties. why do they support one party all the time? i am getting sick and tired. i dropped all my newspapers. i used to carry "the sun times," "the tribune," and "the daily herald." guest: he talks about how we should just throw all the elected officials out. that is a pretty widely held sentiment now. we are not seeing an independent renaissance or a third-party renaissance right now. the tea party impact has been relegated to republican candidates. independent candidates do not have the fund-raising structure. if you are doing pretty well, but both have been a member of

major parties in the past. i think there is lot to people saying -- it is difficult when you do not have money. host: i read yesterday about the role of the youth vote in the midterm election. the obama campaign did a pretty good job of turning that broke out in 2008. what is it likely -- how likely are the youth to have an effect in a 2010 election? guest: people look at the youth vote in the same way they look at the african american vote. it is split more between parties, but it was a big help for barack obama last cycle because young voterwent to the democrats in droves. at the same time, this is a group of voters that can shift quite a bit from one party to another. they also can drop off quite a bit if they do not feel like showing up. often, young people need some kind of incentive to go out and vote.

we are going to keep an eye on how excited these people are about voting and whether or not they go to the polls. host: one more call, on our independent line in michigan. caller: i wonder if he would ask your guest what impact you think the unemployed voters will have on the election. i have voted republican in the past but will not do so this time. there are a lot of unemployed people out there. i am wondering, particularly in regard to the republicans blocking the unemployment insurae extension, what effect that might have. guest: this is a very interesting question. this is unfortunately growing demographic of our society right now. at around 10% of the country, they are going to have a significant impact on the election. at the same time, it is not an easy call whether they go for republicans or democra. there is not a direct

connection. a lot maybe do not feel like the democrats have had the intended effect. you could see them voting for democrats because they believe the administrationas tried to rectify the situation. it cou go either way. host: our guest has been aaron glick, who covers politics for "the washington post." direct folks were they can go online to find your blog postings and get your e-mail updates. guest: go to postpolitics.com, or blog.washingtonpost/thefix. >> the two leading canada send these southern florida democratic race participated in their second of televised debates. the event was hosted by the

florida association through the candidates were questioned by local journalists about the economy and their ethical behavior. the winner of the democratic primary on august 24 will face the likely republican nominee, former florida house leader markhor rubio uncovered >> charlie crist . this is 55 minutes. with major, underwriting by the florida insurance agency. the florida league of mayors, the trusted voice of our

communities, aarp florida, the power to make it better. dedicated to the preservation of american democracy. forbob graham's center public policy. decision 2010 before you vote presents jeff green and kendrick meet. now, your moderator. this will be seen in every major market in florida. we have with us the two front runners. it is kendrick meat and judge greene. here are our panelists.

the editorial page editor at the posh and columnist bill owen's. thank you for joining us. let's get right to it. you'll both be answering this first question. because of the coin toss, mr. meek, you want. we have heard a lot of angry words. but what the voters have not heard is a lot of detail. if you were going to draft legislation tomorrow, legislation that would stimulate job growth, what with that of gestation look like? >> it would -- i want to think all the organizations that helped put this together. it would look something like this. we will talk about infrastructure in making sure

that we will bring jobs to the state of florida. it will also bring opportunity to local communities. it will connect local communities. this follows through on that commitment to connect employees -- employers with employees. at the same time, we will expand the tax cuts. and we will make sure that we follow through on cleaning up the oil that is on our coast in northwest florida. it is important that we carry out action and not just vague principles. this is paramount. >> a follow-up question, you talked about connecting employers to employees. how would you actually do that?

what would your plan be? >> we would incentivize businesses that are already here in the state of florida. in the health care legislation, they proceed to provide better health care for their employees. the transportation part comes in because many employers need to have employees. this would be no matter where you live in florida. it is important that we have high speed rail that is good for our environment. it would move the workers were they need to be moved to help all economies, big and small. >> you said that he might actually approved of rescinding the bush tax cuts. how do you feel about that? what i am all about repealing the bush tax cuts.

but looking at the effect it will have on small businesses, looking at that, i am all for repealing those tax cuts and making sure that we repeal those tax cuts.

mr. green, your question. if you had legislation you were born to crack tomorrow, please feel free to address the camera. you will be looking directly at the door. >> thank you again for having me to host this debate. we have in the state of florida a jobs crisis. there are millions out of work. the frustration is that we only created -- we did not create jobs. what we have is a failure of the elected officials in washington to get anything done. mr meek ones to get rid of the bush tax cut. i think we need to keep the tax cuts in place for the middle class. specifically, how are we going to get jobs to florida? the stimulus was not strong enough. and we need an incubator to rebuild our infrastructure. we are in the global economy in which -- it is an economic world war. the only way we are going to be able to compete in that is if we have the best educated kids and an infrastructure on which we compete. as far as getting people back to work, i think it has to be targeted toward rebuilding and revitalize an infrastructure. i am going to show at the end there is no better way to get a multiplier effect than jobs. jobs in infrastructure. i would fight for a national infrastructure act. that bill would provide for

infrastructure revitalization all across florida. >> what about people who are not builders? >> first of all, and infrastructure will affect not just people in construction. we are not a state that has unemployed autoworkers. we have unemployed construction workers. we'll get them back to work. the multiplier effect to the economy -- people will get jobs. we need tax cuts for small businesses. we need a payroll tax holiday. many tax credits. if a homeowner want to insulate his home, a lot of that is targeted from tax savings from the government. a bold move is a i am the only job creator in this race. my whole life, and have been creating jobs. i understand how this works. i am the right guy to get the job done. >> mr. puttnam, your first question. >> in your latest tv ad, you call mr. meeks corrupt, desperate, and the worst of all

politics. you have said mr. green is a meltdown mogul. you told me the other day he is a bad man. why has this race deteriorated into name-calling and character assassination? >> i was brought up as a kid to say if you have nothing good to say about someone do not say anything. i called him the day i got into this race. he did not return it. i sent him a letter saying i wanted to keep it positive. he is a career politician. look where we are today. the rising unemployment rate. the housing crisis that is not getting better. >> does that make him corrupt? >> look, i called him to say i wanted to keep it on the up and up. he lobbied vicious personal attacks against me. i had to respond. why is it correct? dennis stackhouse is a developer facing criminal charges. i am not attacking his mother,

but she did get a car and $90,000 salary. his chief of staff gets $13,000 in cash. what happened? and we lost $1 million of taxpayer money. after all that money changed hands, he has $44 million earmarked. to me, that is corrupt. i think that we should have an ethics investigation in the house of representatives. i am not calling him corrupt. anything in my commercials are just quoting things out of the newspaper. >> you do not use responsibility for taking -- for using these words. >> i approve the ads because everything in the commercials is asking the questions of the press is asking treat i am not trying to say anything about him.

i have had it with this go along to get along attitude. this was written up today in the miami herald. his wife was employed and his mother was a lobbyist. meanwhile, he was voting on bills that ripped off the county. i think this is something the people of florida want to know about. >> i know that mr. wants to respond. why have you allow the tone of this campaign to get so personal questi? this is a perfect example of why mr. green is a bad man did the fact that he would even talk

about the fact that i work for that corporation, and there was a bill that came before the senate and i voted against the privatization. it is unfortunate. i do not need to explain who went negative because it is on television and in this in mailboxes across florida. it is important to know that i am a conservative and i am shocked that he would even mention the st. petersburg times because they said that voters should not vote for him because every time an issue of fraud is brought up, he brings up someone else. he's -- he says he signs the front and back of a paycheck. there was a reporter this past sunday in the newspapers. he is on the march of trying to discredit me as a public servant, someone who has served

honorably and someone who has received a number of endorsements the route florida. i think that it is important. the personal attacks are uncalled for. mr. green decided to invest in credit defaults swaps. warren buffett said that his firm would not invest in credit defaults swaps because -- don >> i am going to go ahead and ask if you would like a follow-up. >> i think that mr. green deserves an opportunity to respond. you spoke about your will in this california real estate deal. >> this is a guy i have never met.

this was a licensed real-estate broker. they found this guy that i had never met with, spoke with were ever seen him. i had nothing to do with this guy. it is different when you sell a building to someone and they turn into a creek after you sell it to them. this was done with my attorneys. i did not do anything crooked. he has a responsibility because he is an elected official. he got $4 million of taxpayer money while his family members are getting money and cars and it is not a program. it is very different. >> you can now respond. >> i am looking to get to the productive part of this debate and i am glad you got this question out front. you are from south florida.

you know that this is an undeveloped piece of land. no one has to do this to try to help an area. i think it is important to note that mr. green has a problem with the facts. the bottom line is that the st. petersburg times said today that mr. green should not have voters vote for him and the fbi should dive into his involvement in these unsigned that documents that enabled fraud. i did not do it, mr. green did it. i think it is important that we give back to the issues. it is something that i want to talk about and i hope we are able to do this in this debate, but i will not allow mr. green to attack, attack, attack on television and not respond. the topicsve on to that you look so eager to debate.

in this first segment, there are no bottles. we will allow each canada to answer your question and we will follow-up as time permits. >> this is when to call for restraint. for both of you, in the area of health care, there is dissatisfaction across the nation. members will not even vote to cross the party lines. in florida, we are going to court and i think it is a state rights issue. my question is for both of you. what prepares you to remain honest and productive in the area of health care if you're in the united states senate where do we go from here in health care >> politics as trumped

public policy. it is important that we give back to public policy. when i became a united states senator, i can pull together and democrats. the goal is better health care. 1.2 trillion dollars will be saved over the next 10 years. hopefully, that will bring democrats and republicans together and those that live in states that have big problems. we must put a stop to this. we must make sure we have preventive care and we must provide health care to our seniors and to those that are most vulnerable. >> i will not repeat the entire privilege of that, but where do we go from here? what would you do once in the senate? >> i am delighted that the president said that he would get health care and that he would

get approved. many people in florida now have health care for each. they tell me that we have to make a decision about medicine and keep food on the table. i am glad that the pre-existing condition issue was passed. we have to get cost reduced. it costs twice as much in canada. it does not make sense. as a businessman that is in the habit of holding people accountable and fighting and standing up for what is right, i will fight to get the health care costs down so every american has health care. when it comes to medicare, there is a lot of fraud and abuse.

kendrick meeke did it before and he ran for the senate. he fought against having competitive building -- competitive bidding. 35% -- i will fight for the people of florida, not for the special interests. >> mr. meekes, no rebuttal. your next. >> gentlemen, welcome. this question is about the social security trustees annual report. to keep the program solvent, there will have to be some changes made. i am wondering what specific strategy you would have in mind

to make social security sound in the long haul. >> the good news is that there is a deficit connection. it is a bipartisan panel that will be coming out in december with recommendations and i hope there will be some good ones that we can get our arms around. i can tell you this. social security is an insurance policy. they pay the money hadn't -- pay the money in and they deserve to get the money out when they retire. we have to grow our economy again. we have an unemployment rate that is between 11% and 12% here in florida. that is why we are having problems in our country because we are not growing our economy. that will partly put us in a position to fix social security.

i will not allow, when i am in the senate, i will stand up and not allow money to be borrowed from social security trust fund for spending that has gone too long in congress. >> i can tell you that i have a track record on this issue. a track record of fighting against privatization of social security. i fought hard against the bush administration in making sure that it does not happen. marco reveal and charlie crist are both for the privatization of social security. that is what will make me stronger canada in the general election. it will also make me a stronger voice in the u.s. senate when it comes to how we're going to get security beyond the 2037 date when it will stop paying out full benefits to floridians. it is important to note that 40%

of floridians will go into poverty without social security. the social security commission must be called to task to work out these issues so that we can be able to keep social security solvent. a bipartisan approach would be helpful. i think we need a presidential commission with other groups at the table and policy makers. i agree with mr. green as it relates. i think it is important to protect disability and to have a track record in fighting for the social security. >> if you are against privatizing social security. would you be for means testing benefits? >> there would have to be a

discussion with the commission. i look forward to getting stakeholders' together. anyone that says that they have the silver bullet for social security needs to be reviewed. i think that sitting down in meeting with floridians and having town hall meetings throughout the state will be very important. i have gone to food banks throughout the state of florida. the reason that i go is to find out what is really going on. we have 30% to 40% shortage in food. these are teachers, public workers, private sector workers, and they're making the same money they were making the eight years ago and they are not able to make ends meet. it is important that they have a say in this. that is my job is a u.s. senator to make sure that their voices at the table. >> -- their voice is at the table. >> would support means tested

benefit for security? >> everything has to be on the table. i can say that -- everyone knows that we are not bringing in as much revenue. obviously, we do not want to pay out less, so we will have to get more revenue from summer. . .

paddles and books. for the full listing, go to booktv.org. "washington journal" continues. host: all week long we have been looking at energy issues. monday we look at energy saving home and buildings. tuesday we looked at electric car technology. wednesday was the natural gas industry. today we will be looking at solar power. we are joined by thomas rooney, ceo and president of spg solar,

a solar installation company. describe your company to us. as a: we aren described solar integrator. we developed projects for people through the designs and fairly sophisticated systems. and economic modeling and procuring tax rebates and so on and so forth. and frankly, we even maintained almost all our systems for a decade or more through the maintenance and operations. host: how old is your company? guest: we have been around since 2001, one of the oldest solar integrators in the country. we are in california, north of the golden gate bridge. host: how much manufacturing do you do in the state of your product? guest: in the states we do all of these subassemblies, the raw materials from china, and we bring them to sacramento and

reassemble. host: i want go back to the last 40 years, because jimmy carter was talking about solar energy. how has the technology for solar energy changed and developed over the years? guest: remarkably so. if you go back to the jimmy carter here, you see that solar is really the realm of satellites. the way to generate electricity in space is to draw it from the sun. solar has evolved dramatically. when our company was founded, solar was predominately put on home sprs. there was a burst of solar in 1983 and 1984, and laid dormant. the very fast acceleration of the computer industry has actually spawned a great deal of

the technology advancements in solar, believe it or not. at the same silicon wafer for technology that drives a computer in some ways drives solar. technology has advanced remarkably in the last 20 years, so much so that the costs and the last two or three years have come down almost 60%. the costs have come down and technology advances. it has been a remarkable decade for solar. host: you have been in business for 10 years. are you making money? guest: we are one of the very few companies that actually do make money in this industry. we make a fair amount. we are privately held, so we do not disclose financials. the vast majority of the solar industry has been like what we thought about with computers and dot-coms in the 1990's, which is to grow, grow, grow, and we will worry about profits later.

i remember amazon.com, great business model, you'll be huge, but all you talk about is your burn rate, at much cash you consume. that would be the story for the solar industry. there are few companies that manage to be profitable and we are fortunate to be one of them. host: how much government money does a solar company get? guest: we don't get any, actually. host: no stimulus funds? guest: not for our projects. the project to develop for other people -- when we developed a system for a timid a producer --, for a tomato producer in california, tax incentives would incorporate some of their costs -- host: so indirectly you are getting money. guest: absolutely.

the entire energy sector is heavily subsidized. it is interesting that you bring that up, because a couple of studies have come out and the last year said that asked the question of how much -- that have come out in the last year or so that ask the question of how much goes into energy production. the g-20 did a study based on 2008 data on, globally, how much government subsidy goes into all energy production. it turns out it is one of the largest subsidize industries on the planet. i'm not talking about solar. i'm talking about fossil fuels all the way through solar. there was a study two months ago that said that roughly 2% of the world's gdp goes to energy subsidies, $550 billion. that study was commissioned by opec and others. 11 times as much subsidy goes to fossil fuels as to renewables. when people are waking up to is that the energy sector in -- is

heavily what people are starting to pick up to is -- what people are starting to wake up to is that the energy sector is heavily subsidized. the specific subsidy in the united states is the 30% tax credit that currently the federal government grants. if tomorrow at c-span was to b put solar plates on your roof, 30% of the capital cost would be returned to you by the federal government. host: thomas rooney is the president of spg solar. as we've done all week, we are talking about energy, and we're talking about solar energy. as to rooney, is solar energy ready to stand alone -- mr. rooney, is solar energy ready to

stand alone as a capitalist enterprise, much like a car manufacturer? i know we can get to subsidies and held for all industries. but consol energy stand on its own? -- but can solar energy stand on its own? guest: it can trade one of the challenges the industry has -- it can. one of the challenges the industry has is that it is compared to a much more highly subsidized industry. as the subsidies are coming out -- i brought a book with me that the congress commissioned in 2005. the republican congress and the bush administration commission at the national academy of sciences to produce this. it is called "the hidden costs of energy." fossil fuels have massive energy costs that have been hit dden. the cost of solar is plummeting extremely fast, such as that

even against the disproportionate subsidies, solar will be less expensive than fossil fuels by the year 2015. but if congress was to take action based on their own report and actually begin to roll back the subsidies -- subsidies would be things like unfunded in transfer nuclear power plants borne by the federal government. -- unfunded insurance for a nuclear power plants borne by the federal government. even against the toll-one subsidy disadvantage, solar will be -- a 12-1 at subsidy disadvantage, solar will still be more viable than gas by 2015. host: why do you get raw material from china? guest: the simple answer to that is that the two primary drivers that the government uses to stimulate this particular industry would be to create an

need to-market, and that would be germany. they have the -- an end-market, and that would be germany. they have a solar market that is 10 times the size of the u.s. solar market. they have roughly the same solar content as the u.s.-canadian border. in texas and arizona, the sunshine would be tremendously stronger. what we see and germany is a tremendous manufacturing base to support that. that is one government position on how to grab next generation jobs. the other is the government of china. china is throwing tens of billions of dollars of stimulus in to manufacturing for the solar industry. they decided not necessarily to be an end market, but that they would like to be a manufacturing base. the vast majority of the world's solar goods are coming out of china because of the economic stimulus and support out of

china is unprecedented in anything the world has ever seen before. also all the high-tech products and steel assemblies and what not that go into the soul is street are coming -- that go into the solar industry are coming out because china has bought at a manufacturing base. host: st. louis, democrat, your first up. caller: i was listening to him talking about subsidies he is getting, but i was upset -- i was asking the same question you are asking, why is he getting it from china? even though they do have estimates money in china, i think we have money in the united states trade with the economy so bad, i want to ask your guest is it possible in the future that we can supply those needs that china is supporting for us getting the panels?

why are they getting subsidies if they are not getting materials here? guest: i think your question is a fantastic one. what i would suggest is that we need to choose which of the methodologies the united states once so that we can lead again in the world in this area. solar and all forms of oral energy or where the job creation is going to -- all forms of renewable energy are where the job creation is going to come from in the next 20 years. unfortunately, the united states is stuck in neutral. the united states has fallen to fourth place and will be in fifth place. germany, followed by italy, japan, and the united states, and frankly, at the czech republic may soon pass the united states. the hottest seller market is ontario, canada. -- the hottest solar market is

ontario, canada. we have to earn at the right to have a high manufacturing base in the united states, and we do that by being the dominating and market. -- end market. the vast majority of the world market for computers is here. the other way to do it is through brute force. the chinese government has said that we may not be the end market, but will put tens of billions of dollars into subsidizing manufacturing. i would love to see the united states to pick one or the other out for them, but we are stuck behind and falling quickly -- to pick one or the other algorithm, but we are stuck behind and falling quickly. to be honest, i don't think we have the kind of cash it is going to take to go head-to-head with china. until the united states gets out of neutral and being stuck between those worlds --

unfortunately, the technology leadership is coming from germany and the manufacturing leadership is from china. the best thing that companies like mine to do is find the best technologies, the most innovative technologies, and ways to source the material and drive costs down. job creation is going on, to the point, but- caller's the government needs to have stronger policies for jobs in the united states. it is the jobs today said that we can have people employed today, but it is also the jobs that will take place within the next 10 or 15 to 20 years. there is a window of opportunity now and if the united states does not take technology i leadership or manufacturing leadership, this window will close. we cannot win these fights if we

do not take advantage of them when they're taking place. united states is the dominant player in the computer sector because we were there early and consistently. if the window closes quickly, be caller's question will the sat or reality -- sad reality. host: does it help your company that several states have to have renewable energy as part of their portfolio? guest: yes and no. you have to ask what the penalty is if they do not have it. x energy has to come from renewable sources by the year 2020 or what have you. those held at are some necessary. what you do is look at all of the -- those held and are

somewhat necessary. when you do is look at the states and the penalties. we had the act that said that certain agencies cannot dump a certain amount of pollution into the water, but there was no teeth to that. a lot of agencies just keep paying the fines and continue dumping. there is not a penalty, if there is not a cost for not providing that, then, interestingly enough, it a lot of utilities have looked and said, wait a second, it is easier for us to just pay the fine or no fun and just voluntarily miss. -- no fine and then just voluntarily miss. host: pennsylvania, a.j., republican. caller: i graduated from one of two community colleges and a pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania.

one was harrisburg community college. there was a former engineer from the 1970's, and one thing that was of concern was that currently we are using one wavelength for the production of the systems -- nasa technology will use three wavelengths. another thing is chinese manufacturing. chinese manufacturing -- i am from lehigh, pennsylvania, so would have been allentown, the producer of semiconductor technology. they have certified manufacturing facilities that could be used for manufacturing silicon products. host: any comment to what he had to say? guest: he made some great point spread the first is multiple

with links that can be used -- he made some great points. the first is multiple wavelengths that can be used. grabbing additional wavelengths instead of the first wave length is absolutely the sort of thing that is driving our industry forward. of'd be surprised, the kinds jobs that are being created are astounding. molecular.d.'s in sciences from princeton running laboratories all over the world. the advance but in solar is dramatic, and it is exactly at -- the advancement and seller is dramatic, and it is exactly like your caller put it. slowly, very slowly, the united states market is becoming interesting to manufacturers around the world, and a lot of them are moving manufacturing facilities into the united states. a lot of the chinese panel

manufacturers are doing sub assembly in the united states. discipline in they come at a lot of the manufacturing jobs they -- disappointingly, a lot of the manufacturing jobs they are bringing to the united states are low-tech. as strange as it sounds, ph.d.- level jobs remain in beijing and shanghai, and they bring the caulking and sub assembly into the united states. to the degree that we become an interesting and more stable market around the world, you will see investment money clamoring to build and manufacture and the united states. these panels are large and are not cheap to ship across the atlantic ocean. how did you get -- host: you get interested and involved

in this industry? guest: i have been in the clean sector for years. anything that is involved with the next generation technologies that enable clean production of water and energy and everything else that we need. i speak all over the world on water issues and energy issues. i kept being approached by people who said -- specifically, one of the most fascinating concept out there is the water energy nexus, the idea that there are thousands of incredibly intelligent people trying to fix our energy crisis, and there are, equally, thousands of people trying to fix our water crisis around the world. what people are is slowly starting to figure out is that a lot of the solutions to the energy crisis occurred the water crisis -- hurt the water crisis. desalinization is an example. it is a beautiful way to create fresh drinking water.

sydney, australia, has launched a massive desalination to fix their drugs. the problem is that it consumes an enormous amount of energy. a lot of people are looking at the nexus, what a lot of smart people are working on technologies -- what if a lot of smart people are working on technologies that simultaneously solve the water shortage and energy shortage? host: indiana, please go ahead with your question on solar energy. caller: i have heard of a large solar farm in -- i think it is new mexico. how much energy does a large solar farm like that produce? what sort of maintenance or care to do it solar farms like that require? how many solar farms like that do we have in the u.s.?

guest: that is a great question. the question is to large-scale solar technology. you first have to ask the question, which technology is being used? this is the technology were by photons, down from the sun -- sun andown from the immediately produces energy by the rays hitting the solar panel. with thermal, the water creates steam and it runs a turbine that creates energy. a lot of the systems were solar- thermal. those tend to the high maintenance and they consume a lot of water -- they tend to be high maintenance and more critically they consume a lot of water. if you go into the mojave desert

in mexico, yous have something with a lot of water, and you go back to the water-energy nexus. the new technology is using technology or the sunlight comes down -- where the sunlight comes down and there is no water. very low maintenance. that is the next generation that is being developed. you would be stunned as to how many installations exist in the united states. size is also an interesting phenomenon. 10 years ago, a 10-kilowatt system -- it may be enough for a large home -- that was a different project. today, 10 mw, it would fit roughly on 10 acres -- excuse

me, 50 acres. we have systems now being planned that are 500-acre applications. what people are really looking for -- i make the analogy to the computer industry. if you go back to the 1950's, the computer sector was not all that interesting to ibm and others, because we were going to have something like four mainframes being built at all the rest would be working off of those mainframes. we have phones in our pockets that are more powerful than the mainframe's conceived them. we get away from the single large computing sectors to a much more highly decentralized. will we have today is thousands of small energy production centers be -- what we have today is thousands of small energy production centers being built. you fly over something that is 500 acres -- instead, in your

house and my house will have a small solar installations, every business will have small solar institutions. -- solar installations. it will be a very decentralized system controlled by a smart grid. host: shreveport, louisiana, william, republican line. caller: i just have a lot of concerns about solar. one is the fact that when you put them on residential applications -- in louisiana there is an incentive, 30% that the state of louisiana gives, but long term, i see the maintenance problems -- $2,500 to 35 fighter dollar parts, and every time -- $2500 to $3500 parts, and every time you have to replace that.

the other thing i find interesting is that a school of engineering did a study and they said that the amount of power generated from a solar panel system over the lifetime does not equal the amount of power it took to manufacture the product. there are hidden costs that i am afraid we -- and i am afraid we are throwing money -- there is an application for solar, but $20,000 for an application could be used more towards improving efficiencies in the home and air-conditioning to lower electric bills and things like be long-here it would term savings for the consumer and electricity -- host: all right, william, we got the point. mr. rooney. guest: he brings up a great

point. first, it is not either/or. the industry expression is megawatts. take away the 1 digit usage. we should all start with energy -- take away the wattage usage. we should all start with energy conservation. another point that he made was that the energy required to manufacture solar panels is such that you never get it back by putting it out in the sunshine. that was true tend to 15 years ago. manufacturing efficiencies are such that the three to four k 40 years attoo thre for the system to pay back the man -- a fact it -- it took 4 years to pay back the manufacturing system. solar systems allow 30-years- plus, so they pay back their

debt and 18 months -- in 18 months after that you have a free energy. the cost of energy, the cost of solar, has plummeted, because of manufacturing efficiencies and technology gains. thousands of people have put solar other groups and they have paid off their entire -- assist -- thousands of people have put solar on at their roofs and they have paid off their entire system. the other thing i would point out is when we talk policy and everything else, one of the things i have written a number of times about is that one of the most potent drivers for all industry right now is wal-mart. wal-mart has taken up the notion of renewable energy and solar in a way that has never been seen before.

wal-mart has decided to become the world's new environmental know if-- i don't that is the case. the economics of the solar are very viable. i do not do business with them, but i have to tell you, they are the most potent force in the united states right now. they are effectively demanding that they looked renewable energy. wal-mart, a would contend, is the world's most true business enterprise and in terms of driving down costs. they are driving tens of dozens of people to look at solar and -- tens of thousands of people to look at solar and what not, i think the verdict is in that it is a way to drive down costs. mr. and mrs. smith on elm

power for 25hrefree years and realize that this is cost effective and where we need to be. host: would solar be where it is today without government incentives? guest: no, it is true. regulated monopolies have been around for years. we would not have nuclear without the federal government. we would not have solar but for the federal government. government's obligation is to get new technologies and new jobs into the marketplace. when new technologies come along -- absolutely, positively, we would not solar or wind or geothermal or nuclear if not for the federal government. host: massachusetts, democrats' line, go ahead.

caller: i have a question about the development of solar energy. for instance, the speed and in which the solar panel converts to energy, has that increased dramatically in the last 10 years? is there a foreseeable limit to how fast it can convert energy? guest: how fast? we are down to nanosecond's at this point. question the caller's was how fast could we create jobs. if we put the solar panel on the roof now, how quickly could we get that done? the question was how quickly the energies produced -- the answer is literally the speed of light. we're talking about instant conversion. i am not sure if i understood

the question -- host: i think that is where he was going. what about storch? -- storage. guest: the vast majority of electric consumption happens when the air-conditioning is required and at some time and so on and so forth. -- at summertime and so on and so forth. but for these forms of energy to go as far as they can come up battery technology and -- as far as they can come up battery technology -- as far as they can, battery technology. the advancement of batteries for cars is really going to be a huge impetus. we see the chevy fuld and -- chevy volt and tesla and prius

coming out. as the battery technology becomes much more advanced, we are seeing huge advancements there. we will be able to run our a.m. byator at 3 a:00 virtue of having it read to the battery. solar is getting a pretty backed right off investments in cars and of the the -- else a p -- a piggyback ride off investments in cars and everything else. host: next call. caller: i'm excited that you are here, because i have called my senator and the white house. there are things that bothered me about this. we are giving the chinese, giving spain, all this money to come in. there is no manufacturing jobs coming with this. we are abusing a lot of our water, which i am worried about -- are using a lot of our water,

which i'm worried about, to do this. c-span has done a tremendous job on this energy, but i like what harrison ford said -- when al gore and pelosi and the president park their planes once in awhile, it may be america will wake up. host: all right, what from that statement would you like to comment on? guest: the concern that we are creating incentives for foreign enterprises to come in and build solar systems in the united states. i am concerned about that as well. the reason that takes place is that you're not the dominant end market in the world --. not the dominant end market in the world. the top two solar markets on the planet are in europe. the united states needs to be a

more advanced end market. for that we need job creation. i would tell the caller that because of some of the shrewd moves made on behalf of the united states, there are chinese panel manufacturers that are moving jobs to the united states. suntech, the largest panel manufacturer on the planet, is opening up in phoenix. as i mentioned earlier, they are moving some of the low-tech subassemblies, but it is job creation in arizona and phoenix. the more the united states becomes an end market, the more you will see that. what i hope we will see is the growth of u.s.-based manufacturing with the highest tech started in the united states and not for us to become an afterthought behind china and europe. host: next call for thomas

rooney, virginia, pamela. caller: i will try to contain my enthusiasm for this topic. this is great. thank you so much, c-span. i am an industrial engineer who transitioned into environmental engineering. i would like to start of renewable company. i have been a contractor for doe. i have a couple of questions, but how do you find and train your workers? do you have your own training program, or do you work with community colleges? for a startup, what is the biggest and barrier in financial and technology, and how would you mitigate it? guest: we do hiring all around the united states. we are a national enterprise, so we hire locally and trained

locally. there is not sufficient employment base in the solar industry. most of those we hire we have to train, and that is a good thing. we are creating new jobs and training people. and yes, we do work with local community colleges and so on and so forth. the caller also asked about the barriers to getting in as an entrepreneur. there is an incredible proliferation of new technologies in solar -- how the electricity goes from dc to ac. our houses are ac and there is a tremendous amount of technology like the inside of a computer, a computer the size of a park, that converts electricity from a -- battery--- computer the size

of car, that converts electricity from dc to ac. it is more about, if you or entrepreneur, getting into the industry and understanding how to put together various technologies and the most elegant fashion to create the economic solution. solar is much more about economics and then trying to save the planet -- than trying to save the planet. the smartest people are taking basic technologies and putting them together in the most elegant way and creating an economic solution so that somebody has 25 years of free power grid you could be an economist, technology experts -- 25 years of free power. you could be an economist, a technology expert, and efficiency expert. you asked earlier if we are profitable or not. the reason we are profitable is

that you're going into the next generation business techniques. whether it is hiring incredibly intelligent engineers, intelligent economic modelers, there is a place in this industry for smart minds. you do not have to own a technology. you have to be ready to compete, and it is rough and tumble. you have to compete against the germans and the europeans and chinese. host: grand rapids, michigan. rebecca, go ahead. caller: i am 51 years old and i have been for green ever since i heard about it. i think it is the most exciting thing that has ever happened. i want to tell you about -- i called to ask -- when the president gave out the first time that everybody is screaming about -- i called the county

asked what they were spending this money before, and they said not much, because the only thing they get is the fair grounds. out of all of this money, we get a dumb fairground. what about the green technology -- we were supposed to get solar and wind and all of that on government buildings. host: let's go back to stimulus funds. has your company received any of that money or the tax credit? guest: not directly paid one of the first and largest commitment -- but the -- not directly. one of the first and largest commitments was that a manufacturer in the bay area.

as part of the american recovery and reinvestment act, the lender is supplied with a huge loan guarantee. as a result of that, huge facilities are being built in northern california, interesting technology, so on and so forth. companies getting direct support from the federal government, but our company? no. is there money from the stimulus to support it? yes, absolutely. if you call your local agency and ask them what they are going to do about it, and you get a lot of head scratching. we do not have a lot of people in the -- it is not that we don't have intelligent people in those commissions -- what we lack is national policy. the reason that china and italy

and france and the czech republic are lengthening their strike against united states is that they have distinct and clear vision as to what they want to accomplish, and that trickles down. in the united states, we have been as fragmented as one can be. we have to model against thousands of rate structures to figure out where solar is the most viable. it is viable in almost every place, but we need thousands. it is not surprising that your caller called a local utility commission and got a head scratching. there is no real guidance out there. that is one area of policy on capitol hill that could be very powerful, to bring leadership in that area. host: thomas rooney is the president of spg solar. we are talking about solar energy on our week-long series

on energy. ray, you with us? we're going to move on. california, hi. caller: i was into solar what i was in my 20s, but now that i am 50, i worry about the unintended consequences. i wonder if there is a grand plan in the fact that solar means we absorb more energy than we ever have before, and whether this could lead to an overload of energy? guest: the earth receives the same amount of energy every day. you know, if you did a mass energy balance, when thesu sun shines on the solar panel, it is

converted directly. it is interesting, but i do not know of we have long-range energy consequences from that -- if we have long-range energy consequences from that. interesting question, though. host: maryland, jane, hi. caller: if you ready for my question? host: yes, we are on the air. caller: i would like to know if someone is interested in job in solar, how we get trained for it with his company, if the person has a degree but it is not in engineering or solar. guest: to my knowledge, very few people have solar degrees. i am an engineer.

engineering is always a great background. we have people from all degrees of education. if you are interested in our company, it is spgsolar.com. beyond that, there are tremendously interesting companies in maryland. there is a great company that specializes in the with

campus progress. with that, i want to introduce my colleague to come up and talk a little bit more about what we do and why we like working with you. thank you so much. [applause] >> but after then. -- good afternoon. i am and the manager of the campus progress public advocacy it department. thank you so much for being here. i believe that in the progressive movement, there are a lot of important roles to be played. as an advocate, i can say that the work of journalism advocate is both very independent and very strong and mutually respected.

advocates rely very heavily on the work that journalism does, to investigate and shed light on the abuses and trams that happen in various faraway places. -- and try amps that happen in various faraway places. -- triumphs that happen in various far away places. there are very few things that are more satisfying to an advocate than to have their name quoted in an article or blog, or to have an editorial written about an issue that they have been advocating for for the past six months. we discovered the benefit of journalists and advocates working together earlier this year when campus progress coordinated efforts and were able to get a number of editorial pieces featured calling on u.s. senators to support student loan reform that would end the wasteful federal

education loan program that was patting the pockets of bankers, and to reroute that money toward affordable loan prepayment programs. we saw an associate of campus progress right an investigative piece to expose the unscrupulous practice of state -- of the bankers at sallie mae you were using -- you were using fear tactics to fight that loan reform. as the impact of the blogosphere grows, the need for independent and progress of journalism and voices is going to be amplified. your role in the progressive movement is necessary now more than ever, as well as the relationship between advocates and journalists. you have a unique opportunity

and a platform to help with the and told stories of our generation, and to create shock waves that will resonate and the hearts and minds of the american people moving forward. with that, i will introduce one of your colleagues. [applause] >> hello. the importance of independent journalism and a functioning democracy cannot be overstated. public access to information, all available information, is paramount in order for a democracy to be accountable and honest. espite the efforts of 24 ouhour news entertainment that has turned journalism into a

spectator sport, journalism is still alive and well. public speaker is a fellow and a supporter of democracy now, as well as a contributor to nation magazine. he has written a best-selling novel about blackwater. he has received awards for his journalism, and he offers a perspective on why we need to continue the tradition of truly independent journalism. i am pleased to present our keynote speaker. [applause] >> thank you for that. as you know, c-span is broadcasting this. the waitress to them "-- the way we tricked them into that is because i am announcing my

candidacy for first man of alaska. i am talking to you levite. . [laughter] thank you for hosting this conference and for making scholarships available too many young people who come here to study journalism. these are difficult times for the media industry. we see newspapers going under. but it is not just a crisis of economics, it is also a crisis when it comes to quality reporting. fo-tainment nd in society where people pose as media figures that would have once been cconsidered journalists. is it is on fox. we are addicted to reality tv culture. we have become so dumb down as a

society that what happens to the kids from the jersey shore or the house lives becomes reality. what is happening in a war sound is somehow relegated to the back -- and a war zone is somehow relegated to the back pages of the newspaper. journalists are now lager just imbedded with troops, they are now also increasingly embedded with the ideologically powerful. i spoke to a journalist who was going to go on vacation with president obama. there was a discussion about whether he would wear a speedo. it is a friday. things may be slow. but the reality is, if you look at how much time is spent, i am talking about news channels, spent discussing totally irrelevant issues about the

personal lives of politicians, talking about swim wear, and posting pictures of joe biden having a super soakers with rahm emanuel, how are you expected to report critically on those people? there is an incredible coziness between journalists and the powerful in this country. what we need desperately right now, and this is what i consider the main thing that i want you to take away from this conference, we need a new generation of hungry journalists. we need a new generation of journalists -- i do not mean it literally. i want you to eat. [laughter] i mean hungry for the truth. we need journalists who are willing to be embedded. there is no objectivity and

journalism. that is a fiction we need to get over. "the new york times" is not objective. they were a conveyor belt for the allies of the powerful and the propaganda of the rich. here in the united states, but also around the world, journalists must be willing to get away from their computers, willing to get away from telephones, and actually go to a war zone and examine the people who live on the other side of the gun that is u.s. foreign policy. i do not care how distasteful is to see the days of war with your morning coffee. until journalists show the american people that, these wars are going to continue on and on. we have a responsibility in a democratic society, as journalists, to have a conscience. we do not need he said-she said

journalism. there needs to be part and a to full commission. holding people accountable, and giving voice to the voiceless. i found a really fascinating that the white house this spokesperson lashed out against people the called the "professional left" for comparing some of president obama's policies to those of the bush administration. it was the president himself who said, "if i win, i wanted to hold me accountable -- i want you to hold me accountable." there are many ways in which this white house policies are as bad as the bush administration's or worse. it should be the position of journalists to a point that out and hold this president accountable, and to not be

mocked by one of the most powerful officials in washington toward doing so. i believe that journalists have an ethical and moral responsibility to be as critical of people they like you are in power as they are of people who they dislike when they're in power. our courage, our bravery, our ethics are defined when we criticize those we actually like you are in power. -- who are in power. the reality is that this administration has kept guantanamo open, has denied habeus corpus to prisoners around the world. the prison in afghanistan has become like guantanamo. this president has gone further than president bush in defending the right of the government to

spy on its citizens. indeed been lawsuits brought during the bush era -- it intervened in lawsuits brought during the bush era to stock of wiretapping of citizens. -- stop wiretapping of citizens. under the patriot act, there is no law that can dismantle the state secrets act that the president keeps invoking. this is devastating to the issue of privacy and civil rights in this country. the obama administration, in the form of a speech the president gave last year, has but for the right of the government of the united states to detain people around the world indefinitely, without charge, and without any hope of a trial. this administration also has asserted the right to spy on the united states citizens. anwar al-awlaki is a

terrible man. but he is a u.s. citizen and he has rights to due process. he should have due process before he is assassinated in a covert operation carried out by the cia or the joint special operations command. the treasury department said you cannot do that. they blocked lawyers from representing him for free, because they said they would be violating treasury department regulations, even if they did it for free. they had to studio, administration, and finally they were allowed to represent this man -- they had to sue the obama administration, and finally they were allowed to represent this man, a u.s. citizen.

i started calling progressive democrats, people who, if bush was doing this, would have spoken out. no one would return a call. no one would do anything about it. dennis kucinich, if you read the bill that he introduced, saying that the united states should not be targeting people for assassination, is simply saying that he wants the country to respect the constitution. out of the hundreds of democrats that served in congress, do you know how many co-sponsored that legislation? 5. that shows the utter lack of character in the government right now, when you cannot even get democrats to stand up against the prosecution of a citizen without due process. we have dramatically escalated the conflict in afghanistan.

each month is clear than the last. -- is bloodier danville last. -- than the last. in pakistan there is more than just a problem with flooding. you have a covert u.s. war where special forces are engaged in black operations. in pakistan, every week, they're using predator drones and reaper drones. some of this is done by the military through the joint operations command, some of the cia. many people believed this administration would take on the issue of a radicalized private owar. very little in u.s. military policy has changed. blackwater got a new contract

last month. this firm is so closely linked to the bush administration that they probably share a straw with dick cheney in other milkshake. milkshake.ere milkshain their this is a country that has been involved in our right killing -- a company that has been involved in outright killing. five people directly under the owner of a that the company are being investigated by practically everybody of the yet thisovernment', and administration continues to give blackwater these contracts. secretary of state hillary clinton, when she was running for president, became the second

sponsor in the senate of legislation to ban these companies. when she was running, she said she would ben blackwater. now, as secretary of state, she is asking for a doubling of the blackwater work force in iraq. if you read the communications coming out of the state department and looked at the request from the state department to the pentagon, you will see that the secretary of state is asking for a pair of militarization of u.s. diplomatic activity in iraq, with a monstrous u.s. embassy in baghdad. it will be the size of vatican city. that necessitates a massive para-military force. the secretary of state has asserted that the united states

intends to have an enduring presence around iraq. we're seeing a back door continuation of the iraqi occupation by using a private contractor. there are currently 250 cows and private contractors -- 250,000 private contractors operating alongside a lower number of troops. right now, the united states has more private sector individuals on its payroll putting these wars than it does u.s. soldiers. 70% of the combined budgets of the intelligence agencies is used to purchase services or goods from private contractors. 69% of all the people employed by the empire department of defense -- the entire department of defense are private contractors. we have heard a lot lately about wikileaks.

the person suspected of releasing 90,000 documents from the afghan war to wikileaks is a 22-year-old former are the intelligence analyst. i reviewed his online chat that he had with a hacker in government employment. what is clear from the chap that those individuals had -- chat that those individuals had, was that what he believed he was doing by releasing these documents, including some task force papers related to military presence in guantanamo, what he cites as his motivation is a belief that people need to see what is in those documents. he said he could have gone broke end sold them to china or and sold gone rogue

them to china or russia, but you believe that information should be free. what he does not say is that he leaked the document. he has already been convicted before he has gone to trial. the person released to the pentagon papers during the vietnam war has called him a hero. congressman mike rogers of michigan called for him to be executed. the former speechwriter for president bush said he wants to have the founder of wikileaks rendered by special forces and brought to trial. this is one man that had access to secret documents. they were not top-secret. there were secret. they were of a lower classification than what many

private contractors have access to. there are over 800,000 employees of private companies that have access to top-secret documents. these individuals are not in the united states army. they're not in the military, and they're not employees of the government. their private contractors. these individuals, on a regular basis, have access to some of the most sensitive intelligence gathered and produced in this country. they simultaneously work for the u.s. government, for foreign governments, and for multinational corporations. what is to say that there wasn't a security breach from one of those individuals? of the real question we have now in terms of national security is not about bradley manning. it is about the radical outsourcing of our national security policy to for-profit corporations to answer to their bottom line and profits more than they do to their flag and their country. and yet almost no one talked

about that on capitol hill. it is a non issue. why? because of the campaign finance issue in this country. war is business and business is good. democrats and republicans alike take huge contributions from the war industry. it is the responsibility of journalists to reveal information. this is not about partisanship. it is about the consistency of our profession. we are the people responsible, journalists, for providing intimation to citizens -- providing information to citizens in this country and around the world that will empower them to make their own decisions. my advice to you would be to be the new generation of an indebted journalists. blogging is great. reading is fun. it is cool to think of working in a news room somewhere. whenever you're interested in doing -- whatever your

interested in doing, whatever we need right now is courageous young journalists you're willing to go out into the field and gather the stories that no one else is gathering. be the voice of the people that otherwise would not have a voice. the unpopular journalist, the one that asks a complicated question at a press conference when everyone else wants to go home. the one who says i do not want to cavort with the powerful. i do not care about barbeques and i do not need to be near rahm emanuel with a super soakers. i want to be the one who asked the tough questions. one of the best journalists in this country is someone you've probably never heard of. he is an independent journalist at a production house called big noise film. spent the better part of the past decade going in and out of the rock -- of a iraq, not embedded. he tells the story of people

killed in night raids, of people left without gas or to come out of windows. people all around the world in combat zones. part of the reason you have never heard of him is because his work is almost never shown in this country. reports largely for international media outlets. most of the rest of the world sees a very different war than we see in this country. the troops are an important part of this story and i want to know where david petraeus is saying. but just as important, what are afghan citizens saying that that is the reality show i want to see. that is the reality tv show that could change the way things are. corporations will not by the ads for it. people will flip the channel. but we, young journalists, we need to challenge that system.

we need to break the chain of this reality tv, info-tainment society. that is the challenge for all of you. thank you for being here. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> i am from the boston college gavel. i was wondering how you thought the notion of media has been influenced by the proliferation of media? on a 24-hour network, how much news today actually have? >> if you watch cable news, you'll see much more of that then you will watching a network

newscast at night. unfortunately, what could have been a good thing, in terms of proliferation of the 24 hour news cycle and the rise of cable news, has turned into a disaster. i think it has helped to a number of people and i think it has really dumb down the news -- i think it has helped to numb people and i think it has a really dumbed down the news. an unfortunate reality is that one of the stalwarts of news, pbs, is now brought to by sponsors. the rise in power of right-wing media outlets has caused a fox

newsization. msnbc has become talking points for liberals or talking points from the white house versus being a truly independent outlets at once to hold power accountable. i think a big part of the problem is the coziness of the press corps with a powerful. i think we're seeing it in a much more pronounced way under this administration, because quite frankly, i think journalists like this president more. they like to hang out with white house officials. they are their friends. that is why you're seeing a reflection of their inside the beltway echocoziness on television. the flip side is, i think there is a great deal of independent media being produced. democracy now is easily the biggest independent media product into the country. it is on television and radio

every day in this country. many journalists are doing great work. the challenge is, how do you get it out to a wider audience? that is one of the point of this conference, and while i am so happy to see so many of you here. -- why i am so happy to see so many of you here. >> earlier you talked about entertainment as news. as journalists, how do we write things that are important but also appealing? for example, if i want to write about something of importance, how do i write it so the people enjoy reading it but are also informed? that is a problem most of the time. it is important, people would rather hear about the jersey shore. >> i think that is a big challenge right now. you're raising an issue that is

one that i think all of us that are already working media aspire to a regular basis. a lot of stories are written for a certain group of people in this country. that is an unfortunate reality. i do not think there is a lot of serious journalism being in that young people, for instance. there is an utter lack of cultural understanding of the way things are on the part of the established media outlets. one thing this generation could really do, this generation of journalists, is to combine some of the exciting new >> is a dying breed. i think we need more narrative, non-fiction in our journalism, where you are telling stories of real people. real people are exciting. that is why this voyeuristic culture has become so addictive. you rarely see their real lives

of people whose stories indicate something broader about what is happening in the country. i think we need to also be very mindful in the culture of new media not to step away from what was essential in journalism -- fact checking, peer review added in. part of it is finding stories that speak to the experiences of the people you're trying to reach. that is one of the great things that people -- is one of the challenges. i think it would be a great thing is more young journalists started writing from a heart, telling the story of great people. you can almost call what some of the tools of that voyeuristic culture, and make it real, so to speak. >> haley cohen -- how you

balance the more powerful journalist? >> you do not. i will tell you a true story. i have been to every democratic and republican convention since 1996. i always feel like a kid at a candy shop with a press credential because all of these people that refuse to return my calls, there are all stuck in a confined space. i am known as a super-nerd. i have of the faces of congress and recognized. we're literally casing these people from the hallways. every four years, it is my party. if you look to the work we did

on the democracy now have both of those conventions, that was one of the things we were doing in 2008. we're asking the democrats about the democratic platform, and some overlapping similarities with the bush administration policies, particularly foreign policy. there is very little difference on foreign policy. at the republican convention -- the same thing -- going after the politicians for his policies that have endorsed, the things they said, votes that they've passed, money that they have taken from corporate donors -- you have to pick which side you will cast your live with. powerful people do not like being asked uncomfortable questions. i think that as part of the reasons why there is a pay-to- play climate in washington, where there is a line that will never be crossed, and must the person is so battered in public

that it is safe to cross them. if you look at what has happened with charlie rangel, there was a lot of reluctance to go after him. once he became a punching bag, the gates were open. i think that as a lot of what happens in washington. one person does, and it opens the gate. i think it is more important to keep your accuracy than it is to go with the powerful. >> and gerald johnson -- i want to know how the proposed global-verizon proposed net neutrality effect young journalists'ability to do proper news? >> i think this is one of the premier issues facing journalism and young people in this

country. young people will inherit a far less democratic internet that -- that currently exists. if these corporations are allowed to make access to certain sites much easier, or promote those sites in a way that really on levels the playing field of the internet, i think it will be disastrous. that is one of the reasons why you have seen so much -- so many independent organizations joined in loss of -- lawsuits about that. that is why the electronic frontier foundation and others have tried to litigate the wiretap stock as well. all of this is ultimately under the umbrella of the decrease in our civil liberties. part of our civil liberties includes having a vibrant, a democratic media. i think every young journalist should be very have been very

active in opposing the. it would be disastrous. these corporations are getting more and more powerful by the moment. there is an incredible -- there is a book being written that started off as a history by media started and owned by people of kant the people of color in this country. what it has turned into is a history of the media consolidation. the two have been intertwined. the destruction of black newspapers, the targeting of mexican media outlets is also a story of the consolidation. i would encourage people to look out for that. it is a serious issue. thank you for raising that. >> i am francis from ucla. i was wondering, what is some

good domestic in general the -- domestic journalism that we can be reading. >> matt mclaughlin, from ", mother jones -- "mother jones" has been the best reporter by far on the oil spill. the reason that her journalism has been so powerful is that because she is telling the stories of people whose lives are effected by at in a way that is so much more detailed and real than what you see, even in visual media, and also holding a corporation and the government accountable. i think if you look at the reporting that is being done by on economic issues in this country, i think the magazine is getting better and better every year.

if you are talking about bill prison industrial complex in this country, or racial issues in this country, "color lines is an amazing group of people. "left turned" which was built up by a number of people in the gulf, you will see stories that are not often covered by corporate media outlets. that is part of what i was getting to before, when the man was asking about journalism that translates into the culture and what people are interested in. it depends what culture you are a part of. lars accommodate, corporate media outlets are directing news coverage -- largely, big, corporate media outlets are directing news coverage that well-off white people. that is a big problem with journalism today. >> hi.

many people in this room, most of the people in this room are in college. we are listening to you speak about this type of journalism that we are pretty excited about engaging in. how would we as young journalists really break in? >> that is a very good question. the only way i think i could answer it -- i could tell you how i ended up accidently in the position of being a journalist -- i did not have a journalism degree. in fact, when i applied for an internship at a local the nation" -- "the nation, called i was the night. i do not even have a college degree. i decided that i wanted to do media. i stopped amy goodman for about

a year. i offered to walk her dog, feed her cat, wash her windows. i think she was debating getting a restraining order or given the chance. eventually, she told me i could volunteer, but was not sure that it would work out. i went in that day, and stayed for 14 hours. i never left. the first job i had in journalism, amy was paying me $40 a day to write the news headlines in the morning. i used to go again, and by all of these newspapers. -- i used to go in, and by all of these newspapers. i used to cut out newspapers from corporate media outlets before we had the internet. i would cross out the bad politics of "in the new york " and i basically buy my

way into a newsroom. i learned the technical side of radio. i learned how do edit tape. i learned journalism as a trade, rather than as a profession or academic study. literally, what i started doing, who was going to countries around the world, by begging for money from rich people, basically, and asking if they could pitch in $200 or $300 to go to iraq. i was not getting paid at all. the most i made was $14,000 in the 1990's one year. i was writing for free. i would e-mail dispatches to those places, tried to introduce myself. part of it was that i was not thinking about living, in terms

of my financial situation, but i did not care. i wanted to be a journalist i felt that if i could not get a job somewhere, i would go try and do it. that does not work for to one. i was very fortunate and lucky. he speaks to something deeper -- the idea of journalism as a trade, rather than a to reader. it has to be burning in your heart in some way or another. part of it is about what internships you can get, but part of it is about initiative, saying i'm going to try to raise $5,000 to go to lebanon for three or four months and see what happens, if that is the kind of journalism you want to do. a large part is not being willing to give up. the best journalists i know are people that ended up taking that road. i do not know many people that went the route of internships, assistance, bureau chief -- i do not know many people like that.

most the people i know it is a way of life, not a career. i do not know if that is helpful. i need a lot of people that have that same path that they have taken in one form or another. >> it seems to me that insurgent media is getting a lot of power. things like wikileaks. in the next five or 10 years, i would say we see more chaos in our americans than we do now, and you agree with it, and do you think it is a good thing? >> first of all, wikileaks is not a media outlet. in a way, it does not matter to the point you are raising. i think what andrew brightbart

did it was apprehensible, and what james o'keefe did to acorn was reprehensible and racist. i think it was also shameful that the powerful democrat in both cases refused in real time up and denounce what it was. having said that, i think you are right that you are going to see a lot more guerrilla tactics like we have seen with wikileaks. i would put that in a different category. that is more disingenuous, dishonest ambushing of people, and the targeting of people who in the case of air corps, i think those narratives were utterly force -- a corn, i think those there as work utterly false. look at the headlines caused by wikileaks.

what is amazing is how the conversation has degenerated into a discussion almost exclusively about the names of afghans being lift -- listed in those documents. if i was releasing them, i would not have put the names out there. that is something only wikileaks can answer. the idea that because they were released in the way they were, or because they did that, that they should not be subject -- subjected to a congressional investigation, or examined for what they say about the war and you take that and juxtaposed with the recent "time magazine cover were the young woman who had her nose and ears chopped off as a judgment of the taliban. the magazine does not ask the question but declares what happens if we leave afghanistan. -- they added six, four years

dealt with the taliban. they helped create it. they funded the people that were responsible for september all lend during the 1980's and 1990's. the discussion is about the brutality of the taliban, and what happens if we leave afghanistan. what the wikileaks documents should show is that there is an ongoing humanitarian crisis caused by our ongoing presence there. what happens if we stay? i think you'll see a clash of media civilizations, where you have the established, "time magazine" narrative, and then the insurgent guerrilla tactics of dumping doctors on the world, and doing it brilliantly, coordinating with the powerful media outlets. something that can be studied in journalism classes for years to come.

>> enjoy, from campus progress. -- andrew, from campus progress. he talked about how journalists are too close to senators. i wonder how that applies to college campuses, where students try to get close to administrators. burning a bridge for us and means that is the end of it. we will not get access if you step on toes. that is the end. no one is getting more access after that. >> part of the problem, and i suspect it is part of what you are saying -- many media outlets on campus are controlled in one form or another by the school. i think that is a very serious problem. there should be warm -- should

be more moves to negotiate total autonomy for media outlets that are ultimately student-run. i could see in some cases weather needs to be faculty involvement for continuity, leadership, but, i do not think that should be the moral challenge when you are talking about it. should be a logistical challenge. i think there would be nothing more noble than losing your job as a student journalist by legitimately taking down a corrupt official. that is real journalism. real journalists sometimes lose their job because of the risk that they have taken, and the stories that they have done. i think we need those kinds of courageous journalists that are willing to take those chances. it comes with consequences, but

we could also systemically look at trying to negotiate greater autonomy for student-run media outlets. i remember at the university of wisconsin there were two big publications. one was controlled by the university and the other was independently funded, and actually started by william f. buckley. it became an independent newspaper. i think it has substantially more independence than the more liberal-leaning paper on that campus did. in a way, it is a microcosm -- a microcosm of a media ownership in this country. for ank we have time fo couple more. >> i am from the "f word."

is a way to force the truth on people, or is there another way on -- we can go about that. >> s stephen colbert said, "truth has a liberal bias." [laughter] i think we can provide stories that have heart, and a narrative that might encourage them to be more active. i think there needs to be a barrier that is broken down, in a way, that separates people from many truths in this country. a large part of it is by providing them with information that empowers them. oftentimes, we are full of garbage on television. it is just nonsense and gibberish, instead of information people could use to change things. i keep coming back to the war because i think it is the clearest example we have.

if we saw on a daily basis the consequences of the wars, i believe in a genuine goodness of people in this country. i think people would be furious and sad about what the war actually looks like. >> i am julia fisher. i was wondering why it is that issues like blackwater are more important, or real journalism then something like snooki who shapes and reflects the commonly shared culture of the american people, and i say similar note, how is that smaller publications can address the information as a whole without reaching the entire population. >> at think a lot of people

would disagree that snooki reflects our culture. [laughter] she is not running around telling innocent civilians, and is not been funded with no-bid contracts by democrats and republicans alike. i think there is something to be said by the reality tv culture, and you might see that angle, into the story. if you look at corporate media coverage of the war over the past 10 years, you will see that most of the information is there, but it is left for you to connect the dots. "the new york times" and all of these media outlets have the

reported on some of the things i'm talking about. it is all there. they're few and far between. there is no drum beat coverage to say to people this is actually something really important. we saw the impact of a drum beat coverage in the lead up to the iraq war where you had a coordinated campaign between the administration and their allies in corporate media. they actually changed public perception and helped to leave the country into war. if we had the moral equivalent to that taken place on a daily basis, where people were really being presented with a message of urgency about these policies, i think we would see that it would not just the smaller, independent publications. i think we have moved away from that culture of journalists as protectors, in a way, of not only freedom of speech, but of access to information from the powerful. in terms of relevance, i think

it is what has been drilled into people's had. reality has altered -- altered the culture. even despite its name, reality tv, the lives of others, all called the housewives" -- "the housewives," whatever, it has contributed i think we will need to wrap up and about four minutes or so. >> i am with the michigan and the pennant. i was wondering if you could share your thoughts on lobbying in the world of journalism. i've noticed a tension bloggers can't be a journalist, etc. >> i think they can be.

out and give some concrete examples. one of the people robert krebs was breached -- was expressing hit -- robert gibbs was expressing his objection to was one of the best blockers we have. i do not know if he would identify himself that way, but he does to interviews with people, and a heckuva lot of people read him. he is funny, smart, and as a cultural understanding of what is happening across the board in this country, and around the world. i think it helps that he does not live here. he blogs from brazil, and covers the united states. i think that helps, because he does not get sucked into the that the washington culture. the other great unsung hero of on-line journalism is a young woman named martha c. wheeler.

her body is a must-read. she regularly scoops -- herbs blog is a must read. she regularly scoops "the new york times." she has beaten them to a story. if you look at the role that " talking points memo" has played, i think they have really changed the game when it comes to on- line journalism, by having serious reporters that are doing a combination of old-school journalism, muckraking, and blogging. i think it is one of the most exciting parts of being a young journalist, if you are tech savvy, because it is an open frontier. the best are the ones that are most serious about keeping intact what was good about old- school journalism. you need to have your facts

straight. you have to check things. i don't think there should be a debate. it all has to do with the tool they are using. just because you're not getting printed on it print press does not mean you're not a journalist. >> how can we, as student journalists, increase our credibility? are we are a muslim publication put a lot of our students are in iran, afghanistan, or whatever. let's say an event this takes place, and a student actually their reports something else. >> i think one of the big mistakes that powerful u.s. media outlets made when the united states was gearing up to invade iraq, and was already on

the ground in afghanistan, was not building greater partnerships with media outlets in those countries, or those regions. the war on alger's era has been unbelievable. -- al jazzera has been unbelievable. anyone who calls the network a terrorist organization, is an outrageously idiotic person, who has clearly not watched. it is the only media outlet that i am aware of that was killed -- kicked out of both bush's in rock, and obama's iraq. they could of informed public opinion is in a way that would be far more democratic than what we actually had by a willingness to team up on likely partners. the same thing can be done by his student journalists. i think it would be great if the

publications that more outreach to student journalists, prickly those that are from abroad, or texas -- particularly those abroad, or have access. you can reach out and offer those partnerships to bigger media outlets. i think it would be great. like i was saying, you need to be hungry. you have to keep trying. eventually, i think it will land. you have to be willing to hear "no" for someone says yes. i think we are wrapping up. thank you for coming and enduring this on such a nice washington, d.c. day of smog, fog, and sweat [laughter] .

>> i wanted to end by issuing new a challenge in the form of reading is something that was done by the obama administration last year in the case that was brought by the center for constitutional rights on behalf of two prisoners that died at guantanamo. this speaks to responsibility and the ethics of journalists. the assistant attorney general intervened in the case were to be will individuals have died -- had died and their families filed lawsuits against bobrun's fault and the share of the joint chiefs of staff under bush and other military officials. the obama administration intervened to exonerate donald -- donald trump steele and others -- rumsefield. what obama's assistant attorney general said in this case where there were allegedly cases of

terrorist -- of torture, says the type of activities were foreseeable, and were an output of their responsibility to gain intelligence. it goes on to say that genocide, torture, and cruel, in human, degrading treatment by individuals was in the scope of their employment. it was in the scope of those individuals. when robert gibbs attacks people for having the audacity to question some of the policies of the president, it is ultimately an attack on free media. the challenge is to always be consistent. be the same journalist you are when someone you like is in power, as when someone you do not like is in power.

thank you for coming today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you, very much, jeremy, that was a terrific speech. which ticket five-minute break. to free to grab some what -- we are going to take a five-minute break. still free to grab some water. we will be right back.

ben >> but next, and drug laws. and after that, but border security with janet napolitano. on "washington journal" they will look at the reaction to secretary gates reaction on cuts in the defense budget. and they will respond to criticism on for-profit politics and the impact of further regulation. and cindy kelly will talk about the anniversary of the end of the second world war and dropping the atomic bombs. our segment will feature rarely seen archival footage shot from cameramen on the aftermath. this begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

>> this weekend, columbia university provost claude steele. afterwards,peter beinart, and on sunday, a former cia agent talks on how to deal with iran. we also have the 2010 fall book review. for a list of programs, visit booktv.org. >> now any event with a retired california judge who is an advocate for the legalization of marijuana. before serving as a trial george in orange county, calif., he also served as a federal prosecutor and ran as a libertarian for the u.s. senate in 2004. this event is just under one

hour. we are part of the professional left that was mentioned. this is the point i want to raise today. we are a progressive institution. today we have somebody from the other side of the aisle to talk to us about a drug policy. judge james gray is from orange county, california. he is a conservative, republican. i want to give you some background on him. he received his undergraduate degree from ucla and his law

degree from usc. he also served in the peace corps from 1966 until 1968. he was stabbed as a general and criminal defense attorney for the u.s. navy after that. he has been a prosecutor and a judge in california. he was elevated to the orange county superior court in 1989. he retired after 25 years on the bench in january 2009. he is the author a book. he ran for congress as a republican and forced senate.

if you want more information on him, please go to his website. to start this off, what is a conservative man like you doing in a liberal hotbed like this? >> i want to correct that. we did something very unusual as a sitting judge. we had a press conference say based on my experiences, but we are doing, it is not working. we are turning low-level drug offenders through the system. does that mean that heroin and cocaine and marijuana are no longer available in the city? it means someone else sees it as an employment opportunity. i have gone around the country talking about this issue, trying to tell people it is ok to

discuss drug policy. we need better way of doing this. to counter what he said, i have received a standing ovation to the aclu and the the republicans in orange county on the other. >> this makes the subject so interesting. people across the spectrum working together. >> i do not mean to exaggerate, but this is the most critical issue facing our country today. drug policy. it sounds like an exaggeration, but the more you read into it, the more you see that the drug policy has failed. it may be the biggest film policy in the history of america. it has its tentacles in pretty much everything that is going on.

foreign policy, look at mexico, afghanistan, look at our children. we are putting our children in harm's way, because of drug prohibition for seven important reasons. anyone under the age of 21, ask them what is easier for you to get. marijuana or alcohol. they will say marijuana. why? the alcohol is regulated and controlled by the government. the illegal drugs are controlled by drug dealers who do not ask friday. if i am an adult drug dealer, ask yourself how much risk- taking would buy for $50 in cash from a 17 year-old. the answer is, quite a bit. i've recruit all the young

people i want to use them in a drug distribution. they are a cheap source of labor. as soon as their reliability is established, they will sell small amounts of drugs in their communities. it is more money for them and for me. ask yourself this question, if you have a 60 year old selling drugs, who is he going to sell to? they will sell to their peers, thus recruiting more cheap label to the same lifestyle of drug use and abuse that we are trying to get them away from. it is caused by drug prohibition. we cannot do it worse if we try. the drugs are here to stay. they are harmful, but they are here to stay. stop moralizing about this issue and start managing it.

if you do nothing there not here to stay, you know charles manson. he was moved from state prison, because he was selling illegal drugs from his prison cell and he was in solitary confinement. if we cannot keep drugs out of prison, how can we keep them off the streets? we cannot. people will always take risks for selling small amounts of drugs for a large amounts of money. it is going to happen. regulate them, control them, make them less available to children. tax them, it is not a reason to do all of this, but it is a nice by product. that is where we should go. most people recognize drug

policy is not working. ask anyone in this room. 85% of people at a shopping mall will say what we are doing is not working. we do not have many options. that is our fault. we need to let people know there are better ways of doing this. portugal looked at what happened in this country. they decriminalized of drugs. they found they had the largest drug problem than any other country in western europe. they commissioned and a political group to look into this and give the recommendations. they said, we have a couple of a phenomenons. we have people who are drug-

addicted but are afraid of their own government. they take them underground. they found the government is spending so much money trying to investigate, prosecute, >> problem drug usage went down by the%. why? the fallen now -- the phenomenon that they had. anybody who has a problem with drug usage knows it. now, says the government is working with them, they will not punish them, they have taken their drug problem with the --

to the government for assistance. then you have peart -- you have fewer people selling drugs. most people are selling to support their own habits. now that the usage is under control, they have fewer people selling the drugs. the other thing that they found, take note, children beginning to use these drugs have been decreasing. why? because the glamour is out of it. why should i take these drugs and go see a doctor? that is not very glamorous. children are not beginning this drug usage. these are things we should take hope from, we should understand, and we should adopt. we should go to those programs. >> i am curious, as a judge, when did you start questioning the war on drugs? was there a particular dipping point? >> there actually was. i was on the bench around 1984,

1985 and i was implementing a another judge's sentence. i was overseeing a lower-level court. he had worked out some sort of sentence agreement. i was telling the defendant, who was a young man, he was being tried as an adult. he would rape prostitutes, brought them, and beat them up. he did that on several occasions. this is a bad guy. this sentence allowed him to be released from confinement after two weeks. once we went through all of this, i gave him his constitutional rights. we went through all of this. he let out a yell because he thought he had won. you know something? he had. the thought was granted -- the thought was planted in my mind, we are spending all of this

money on low level drug offenses, we do not have the money to go after the legitimate thugs, the people who are involved in a robbery, rape, and murder. seven years later i came out with my press conference. i found while doing my research for my first book, i found that in 1980 we were only half as successful in our country in prosecuting homicides asks -- excuse me -- we were only half as effective in 1990 as we were in 1980 because the reagan administration ratcheted up the road -- ratcheted up the war on drugs. we do not have the money to prosecute homicides. i determined that the topper you get with regard to drug crimes, the softer you get with prosecution to everything else. we only have so many resources. let's spend them in an effort to prosecute the people who are causing harm in our society.

there is one to short leap from there. it is a truism that we should recognize in our country. let's hold people accountable for their actions, not what they put into their bodies. in that regard, we all know robert downey jr.. he is a very talented actor. he will always be a hero when addicted person. he has a problem. it makes as much sense to me to put robert downey jr. in jail for his hair when problem as it would to put someone in jail for an alcohol problem. it is the same thing. it is a medical problem. bring them close to medical professionals. it is not a police problem. but if robert downey jr., the board, or i drive a motor vehicle -- bring them to me as a judge. that is a crime and it should be.

why? what is the difference? because of their actions, they are putting our safety at risk. that is a legitimate criminal justice problem. with regard to try to put -- to try to control what they are putting into their bodies, we cannot do it and we should not. the government has as much right to put into my body what i put into my mind. it is none other business. the answer is to follow what we finally did win repealed alcohol prohibition. we took the federal government out that it. the federal government did not say, "you will now make alcohol available." they did not say that at all. they simply said that each state could decide how best to serve and protect their people. the federal government's role would be to support each state. if we do the same thing here,

maybe the states will do the same. that is great. we will see this same problem with regard to california in the upcoming election. they are really smart in their proposition. they will leave it to each city to decide. that is wonderful. in this example, maybe allen boyd will come up with something that works well. indiana will come up with something they think is a good idea. one way or another it may not pan out. what happens then in illinois? indiana will say, "it is a pretty good idea at the time, but it is not working." what illinois is doing is working pretty well. let's try that. maybe in oklahoma it will work differently than in new york. terrific. let them do it. it is an important thing. the founding fathers would have ratified it. how do i know that?

but it the night and 10th amendments of the constitution. i think we can all agree that we can hold hands and say that the federal government does not have all of the answers. let's let each state decide. >> you have been looking at this issue for a long time. in the course of my lifetime, we have squandered more than $1 trillion on the war on drugs. people take it for granted that it has always been with us and they think it will always be with us. it is very difficult to pull yourself out of the moment and put things in perspective. in my previous career, i was a historian. if i were writing a book 100 years ago about the end of empires, i would say that empires or the way of the world. they will always be will -- there will always be with us. if i was writing a book about women's suffrage, i would say that will never happen. people were saying we would

never have civil rights in this country, yet it happened. we can go on and on and on. as a historian, the only certainty is change itself. very often it is even for the better. in the case of the war on drugs, we are about to approach a tipping point in california with proposition 19. can you give us a little background on proposition 19 and what you think about its passage and what it means politically? >> proposition 19 would basically treat marijuana like alcohol or adults. it is a pivotal election. i am going to my mind and thinking of different anecdotes. i was sitting in the offices of two individual members is -- members of congress. they bought up the issue with regard to my issue on drug policy. they said, "pretty much everyone

in washington understands that arbor drug -- that our war on drugs is not winnable, this is eminently pliable. people in washington are addicted to finding." if you look at any agency we have in the federal government, if you look at their budget, each one has money to promote the war on drugs. they do not want to give up that money. what about proposition 19 -- treat marijuana like alcohol or adults? everybody in this room knows somebody who votes in california. people on c-span knows somebody who votes in california. take it personally. take it upon yourself to tell them to give serious thought to supporting proposition 19 in california this november. what will it do? if this were to pass and adults could treat marijuana like

alcohol, what would happen? first, recognizing that any of us over 21 can go home tonight and during 10 martinis. it is not a smart thing to do. it is not a healthy thing to do. it is not a violation of the law. they can do the same thing with marijuana if they wanted to. but let's look at it. let's go down this road for a moment. if this were to pass, and we were to treat marijuana like alcohol in the state of california, six things would happen. five of them are demonstrably beneficial. in california alone, we would save as taxpayers $1 billion every year that we are spending in a futile effort to eradicate marijuana and to prosecute offenders. by the way, does anybody know what the largest cash crop is in

the state of matter what -- in the state of california? marijuana. the second is grapes. when you see miles and miles of vineyards, understand that marijuana is a larger cash crop than grapes. we could save hundreds of millions of dollars. number two, we could tax the silly stuff. it is not a reason for doing it, but it is a nice benefit. the chair of the state board of equalization in california, which is the tax form of the state government, has estimated that we would generate about $1.3 billion in tax revenue in the state of california alone. that would change our budget deficit by about $2 million in the state of california. last time we look, we do have a budget deficit. this would help. number three, this is the reason to really look to do it, it

would make marijuana less available to children than it is today. we have already discussed that. marijuana dealers today, unless you are a involved with medical marijuana, do not ask for identification. number four, this is huge. it is really important. we could reach legitimatize the entire health industry. what this help? help is the stock of the marijuana plant. it has no mind-altering properties. the seeds can be fixed so they have no mind-altering properties. the word cannabis in ancient greece was literally the same word as the work for canvas. it is interchangeable. if you go back to the old ships, the uss constitution sales were made out of help. it is a viable product.

we have time limits, or i could talk about the valuable help industry. we would shake our heads in amazement. you can get four times the amount of paper pulp from an acre of help and you can from an acre of trees. it takes a season from a eight- nine months to grow help and 20 years to grow trees. i have been told that diesel engines were created to run on help oil. i was on a talk show in iowa recently. a farmer said he was going to speak again his own -- against his own economic self interest, but help works better than ethanol. speaking get more ethanol per acre of help been the canfor acre of corn. we can revitalize that industry. we used a whole bunch of help in california and elsewhere in our

country, but we important brothers radical countries like canada and england. they appreciate us having our help illegally -- having our help illegal. number five, the medical marijuana issue could be a lot more regulated and have a lot fewer problems. that would be a good thing. number six, let's talk about this one. what is going to happen to you economics majors? if you do not understand supply and demand, you cannot be an educated person in society today. you have to understand simple economics. what is going to happen? if you have the demand for marijuana at all of a sudden the prices lowered by 50% and it is no longer illegal, what will that do to demand? the answer is, demand will go up. marijuana use is for adults will go up. i understand that.

that is pretty logical and straightforward. but of all things are not equal. maybe after a few months, we will start experiencing what i call the holland phenomenon. holland decriminalize marijuana in the 1970's. according to the minister of health of holland, he said that they only have half of the marijuana consumption for adults and teenagers as we do in the united states. half of the marijuana consumption in our country as yours, but for adults and teenagers, and he would explain why. you know what he said? we succeeded in making pot boring. there is a message there. we glamorize it by making it illegal. if you glamorize it just like

the portugal experience, we will probably eventually reduce the drug usage down to where it is now, or maybe not. you know, if you had a loved one and you only had two choices. one is to have that loved one abuse alcohol or to have that loved one abuse cannabis, which would you prefer? which is less harmful? yes, cannabis can be dangerous. it is less dangerous than alcohol. today, by our laws, we are forcing people up the drug ladder. what do i mean by that? if you have reason to believe that you are going to be drug tested, this is a friday night and you are going to a party. you are on the basketball team, or an airline pilot, you are on parole -- you have a reason to believe you're going to be drug

tested, but not until monday. message -- used cocaine, use methamphetamine, do not use marijuana. people realize that those drugs will not be testable. they cannot be detected after 72 hours. you will be pretty well off by doing these drugs instead of marijuana because of that will stay detectable i in your system for about 30 days. that is a really stupid policy. it just comes down to it and your only choice is to use methamphetamine or to use marijuana, everyone believes that marijuana is less dangerous. if we were to change this by passing this initiative, i have full confidence that a lot of people who struggle choice is a marijuana, would come down the ladder and use marijuana again instead of taking these other drugs. that would be a net gain. all of these things are very important. this is one of the most critical elections of our lifetime.

i appeal to you, get consideration for supporting proposition 19 in california to treat marijuana like alcohol in california. >> one of the things i think has kept our drug war in place is the poverty of our political discourse. i am reminded of our former ambassador to colombia who said that we are simple people and we like simple answers. unfortunately that seems to be true. if you look at the eskimos. they have two dozen workers to describes know. yet we only have to worse to talk about democracy -- democrat or republican. if you cannot but libertarian or green party, you are viewed as not a realist.

but if you look at the course of human history, every society has found a different way to organize politics from fascism to one end and anarchism on the other end. that carries over into the way that we talk about drug policy. either you are or zero tolerance and prohibition in the drug war, or you are accused of wanting to sell heroin in candy machines to children. there is a lot we're not allowed to talk about. would like to think in simple terms. we like to take about who the good guys are. we are not allowed to talk about all of the shades of gray or the rainbow of the spectrum of possibilities. we talked a little bit about marijuana regulation and proposition 19. how would you talk about the

harder drugs? what model should we have for that? >> again, the thing to do is to allow each state to decide how to service people. what do i know? i have my own opinions. i hope everyone starts to generate their own opinions. we have as a necessary ingredient a mandatory ingredient of our policy of drug prohibition. it is a prohibition of discussion. i have been involved in debates where i have been legalized -- where i have been labeled a legalize her. i do not care if you're 12-year- old daughter buys cocaine in a vending machine. that is flat out not true. as soon as they label you a drug legalized, their brains freeze over and they will not talk about it 80 more. it is ok to discuss drug policy. when i signed my book, that is easily the entry that i put.

it is ok to discuss drug policy. what are our options? the first half of my book should upset people. it discusses many of the self- inflicted wounds that we have caused ourself because of our policy of drug prohibition. the second half of the book will give you vote. it talks about the various options that we have. one option, a very important, it began in liverpool. in the late 1990's, the swiss government realized that they had a problem that, regretfully, most countries do not have. economically they are well off. they do not have any down and out areas, but they do have a heroin addicts. in switzerland, it is a lot harder to hide them. the cannot sweep them out of sight. they decided to take on a program. the copied this program from a

doctor in liverpool. they started a pilot program in seven cities in switzerland in the late 1990's to put in a clinic in the air when using areas. it was staffed by three people -- a registered nurse, a registered doctor, and a social worker. people -- they try to find era when abusing people and bring them into the clinic. if they try to help them with drug treatment. most people that are addicted to heroin either think they can not get off the drug, or they do not want to. if you can satisfy three criteria, we have a program for you. the criteria are number one -- you are 22 years of age and have failed drug treatment at least twice. number two, you are addicted to heroin. number three, in the future you will be crime-free and he will

give up your driver's license. if they do that, they will be in the program. what does that mean? it means that you get a prescription for her when. you can take it to your local pharmacy and get it built at pharmaceutical prices. let's stop a minute. i want to talk about to caveat. this is not a so-called orgy of parallel usage. remember, there is a medical doctor on this team. he will give you a blood test and find out what your normal usage of pearland is and the prescription will be at that level. it is not enough to give you that euphoria or feeling of happiness, but it is too much to have you go through which all. as a result, it maintains you at your current level. that is why they call it a hare went maintenance program. number two, none of these drugs are expensive. they do not call marijuana a

wheat board nothing. it will grow anywhere. it is really cheap. even the poppy that goes into the formation of heroin will grow anywhere. the national park service was growing best poppy at monticello for years until the dea found out about it and made them take it out. i assure you, if it grows in virginia, it will grow anywhere. these drugs are cheap. the only reason they are expensive is because they are illegal. in switzerland, the heaviest using person for a maximum of $10 per day can support their habit. by the way, if they cannot support their habit, it is subsidized. it is such a small amount of money it does not work discussion. what happened in this program? remember, it is a three-year pilot program. less than a year later, the minister of health held in a

press conference and said they were going to expand the program to every city in the country. but get what we have seen happen? what had he seen? number one and he had seen that crime in the neighborhoods around the clinics plummeted. wait a minute. what is the connection here. understand. what do people do to support their habit? not hard to figure out. bert ely, prostitution, hit you over the head at the bank. the neighborhoods surrounding the clinics experienced a decrease in shoplifting. why? if you are arrested you are all the program. if you are of the program, you have to go back to the hustle. i have set numbers -- i have set a number of burglars -- i will have to burglarized $2,000 per

day of your property to get to%. i have to look for my connection. who knows that that person will have drugs or not. who knows what the quality is? crime going down is a good thing. number two, they found that the sales and usage of drugs in these neighborhoods also plummeted. what is the connection there? well, what do people that are drug-addicted due to support their habits? certainly prostitution and burglary, but invariably they will get extra amounts of their drugs and they will sell them to you, your neighbors, and your children to support their habit. right? remember that if they are arrested, they are all of the program. fewer people are selling drugs in the communities. fewer people are buying drugs in the communities. drug usage has gone down. i do not care what people think

philosophically or otherwise. everybody can agree that crime and drug use is going down are good things. number three, they found that employment of people on the program had gone up. they are taking care of themselves, they are taking care of their families, they are paying their taxes. they are starting to lead pretty much normal lives with that one variants. number four, they found that the help of these people on the program is increasing. it is getting better. why? because they had a regular relationship with the medical community. that is a good thing. not only are they injecting the drug in a less harmful action, but they are using it -- but they are now having these medical teams addressing their medical problems. they are not as much of a drain on society. their health is getting better. number five, now that people are

requesting a drug treatment in large numbers. why? now they have this relationship with their doctors. in switzerland, they have made this program permanent until the year 2014 in every city in the country. i will ask you, can you think of any reason whatsoever why should we should not have similar programs in every city in our country that has a problem? i cannot. can any of you? there is one reason people will give. they think it is the knockout blow. first of all, they will say we are standing at the wrong message to our children. what is the right message? today, we are looking at people and say, "go ahead and die. we can help you. we know what the problems are. but we are not going to do it because you failed our drug morality test." that is not the right message. i say, let's not hide programs

like this from our children. let's take them there. let's let them speak to these drug-addicted people. what are they going to tell them? "be what to look like me? the worst mistake i ever made was going down this road." whatever the reasons will be, they will tell our children. that is honest education. that is where we should go. this is something that we should do. no one can tell me that swiss parent's love their children in the last that we do, but they see this. they are not any more drug tolerance and we are. they see a program that is working. these things work. you are an authority in regard to the problems with drug prohibition brought on by drug prohio