so to all members of congress, of both parties, i ask you to take this vote for our national security. i am looking forward to the debate. in doing so, i ask you, members of congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or politics of the moment. ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time. it is about who we are as a country. i believe that the peoples are presented as must be invested in what america does abroad. now with the time to show the world that america keeps our commitments. we do what we say. we lead with the belief that right makes might. not the other way around. we all know there are no easy options. i was not elected to avoid hard decisions, and neither were the members of the house and the senate. i've told you what i believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away

from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. and our democracy is stronger when the president and the peoples represented as stand together.i am ready to act in the face. i am asking the senate to send a message to the world. thank you very much. >> we strike of congress disapproves? -- will you strike if congress disapproves? in reaction to the president's remarks, house republicans leaders released the following statement --

that joint statement coming from john boehner, house majority leader eric cantor, a conference chair. you can see the house debate live on c-span and senate coverage on c-span two. created by cable companies in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. with waltversation mossberg continues on "the communicators." how did you get this gig? >> reviewing tech products? i was a washington reporter for

about 20 years and i'm still based in washington but i do not cover washington anymore. in those years, before i did tech i covered national security, the state department, economicsce agencies, , organized labor, environment, deputy bureau chief of "wall street journal." i picked up technology, computers as a hobby. 1980 -- 1981 and in 1991, at my request, i decided that the paper allowed me to switch what i was doing. even though i physically remained here in washington, i began an entirely different gig

reviewing these tech products, not just hardware but software, , anything consumer that was digital. and i've been doing that for 23 years. >> if you give something a bad review, it doesn't affect sales of that product? does, but i do not think it always does. it has been written not by me but by others that if i give a good review of it will boost sales of the product. the best comparison is to a movie reviewer. the best movie reviewers will give sterling reviews to some movies that have a very small , that are take watched by relatively few people

. and sometimes they trash the big things that the, big box office winners. their jobs to tell you whether they think it's a good movie or not at my job is to say if this a good product or not. or since most things are in the thet area, what are strengths and weaknesses without regard to trying to figure out is it going to sell well. some the things i have given a bad reviews to have sold well despite our review. some things i've given good reviews to have not sold well. there are a lot of other factors. product quality which is what i care about and ease of use, those are the things i care about. a company may have a great product and not be very well organized and marketing and selling. it may not have enough financial backing to carry it through to its full potential. the company may have an inferior

product and be great at marketing. or the public might disagree with me and it is a free country and it is a great ink. important is the venture capital world to technology? >> it is very important and one of the reasons that innovation in technology is an area in which this country leaves -- leads because it is easier to get funding for a product here than almost any other country. venture capital for those who do not know is where people invest in a fund that is managed by a venture capital firm and then the venture capitalist startupse that fund to or in some cases established companies looking for new money. stock risest, the

or the company get sold any premium. the fund makes money and the investors make money. the point is you can make a a vc firm andirm, they will take a risk in a way that a bank will not. if you have to depend on lifted from conservative bankers, traditional bankers, a lot of these companies -- all of these american tech companies even the had vcs like apple funding at the beginning. facebook intrue in nearly all of them. >> board used to the future of social media? -- where do you see the future of social media? >> and those in two directions.

facebook is trying to do both of these. social network which has over one billion accounts and is hugely successful. there are other social networks. public, let its all hang out, opened twitter feed that you can read whoever you choose to follow. they do not have to follow you back. there is no idea of a friendship having been established. up, youything you put cannot put a private tweet up. you can send a direct message which is like a chat or in e- mail. of everything you put up on twitter is public. lot that is public on facebook as well stop i think -- facebook. i think it will continue for certain kinds of posts.

there's another big direction which is much more private or having where you really a social network with a small group of people. that are either your close friends or family or perhaps, share an interest with you. and that as the bond, everybody a interested in quilting or certain kind of car or something and give a social network about that. ofill give you an example they call it a social network. ipad, iphone, and the there is photo stream. if you turn it on, every photo you take on your iphone immediately goes to all of your

other apple devices. it will immediately go to your mac, your ipad. you can even create a shared photo stream is like a little social network. i just took a vacation in europe and i set up -- rather than e- mailing pictures or posting on some site. pictures, justof my close friends and family and maybe half a dozen people, i invited to a shared photo stream and it is private. only they can see the pictures and in every picture i took, i could put into that shared photo stream. i called it vacation pictures or something. people can look at it or not look at it. just like on facebook, you can

like it or make a comment. people could jump in and make comments. there oreat day it was that place is really going downhill or whenever. as a little private social network devoted to a particular thing. both of those direction are happening. of ourfirst half conversation we talked about apple and apple products. a freelance technology reporter asked this question, is it just a matter time before the internet becomes the primary platform for tv delivery and what about cable? >> i do think it is a matter time before the internet comes a primary platform but i do not think it only has to do with apple. we talked a little more about google in that discussion. microsoft is a big player

through the xbox which is largely thought of as a game machine but by some accounts has more usage for watching things like netflix will stop -- netflix. the companies that do internet- based tv and that includes the , theywork of themselves are now producing their own shows. -- set hereow say in washington on netflix called "house of cards," taken from a british tv show about an unscrupulous senator in the power game in washington. you cannot get that through your cable company. you can only get it through the internet. if can get it on your tv set the tv set itself or some device you have can connect with the tv

set has netflix on it. it does not come through your cable. netflix calls a dollars a month -- costs $8 a month. a lot in their catalog is old. if you want to watch every havede of star trek, they it on there. they have the new shows they produce and you watch those. your monthly fee does not change. that is a lot less than a cable bill. andcan get to netflix another similar product hulu plus which ironically is owned by some of the networks. alsois only -- that is eight dollars a month. you have a lot of television. and youtube is free and there's clips fromdeo and

television on there. the networks put something on there for promotional purposes. i think this is eventually going to happen. the problem is now is the economics for people who produce isevision shows and movies overwhelmingly in favor of the current system. lot able companies pay a for these programs. in the netflix subscription does not give them another money to pay as much. that is why a lot of the programming on netflix's old. are happyia companies to have their older programs of netflix. want last night's

bad," they"breaking would not do that. netflix could not afford it. you can't get that on itunes which is a download service. you are going to pay for the show whenever this, two dollars or whenever. amazon has a similar service. however it is sorted out, it is obvious to anyone that internet delivery is the future it is beginning to take over. >> there has been a constant watch among journalists and industry people on something called cord cutters. they are people who counsel their subscription -- cancel

their cable subscriptions because they will get out of their shows over the internet or a combination over the internet or a rooftop antenna. a lot of people do not realize you get all the big broadcasters for free digitally even with the antenna. >> the number of cord cutters has not been much if anything. but the bigger problem is what is called cable nevers. those are younger people who have formed households and maybe married or maybe not, they have formed households and they are 21 -- and they are not 21, they are 31 and they have never had a cable subscription. and they probably never will. they are using all of these internet services and all of these devices. -- roku can be both

for about $50 -- bought for about $50. dollars --the five $35. apple tv is $99. none of them carry a fee. some of the service providers carry a fee. that actual ability to use a apple tv, there is no fee other than of course, if you are paying to get the internet into your house. which ironically is mostly controlled by the cable companies. companyrunning a cable and i think this is a true, a lot of them see their future as more popping the internet into your house then tv.

unhappy, the are large amounts of money they have to pay. aereore does area fit -- fit? >> they are a company that takes tv, free tv that you get over antenna andugh an it does it for you, you do not have to put on your roof. they have figured out a way to make antennas which are about this big and put them in a building and one is assigned to you if your subscriber. and imprison the local programs of your market -- and it brings the local programs of your market. through the internet, it sends to your ipad or android tablet and from that, you can then stream to the tv if you wish.

casesare a lot of court with traditional television is unhappy about this. charge -- the broadcast networks which aereo receives, it does not get cable. they make a lot of money charging the cable companies what are called retransmission fees and i do not want to get too much into that. it is a lot of money. aereo is taking the broadcaster off of the air which you or i could do by putting an antenna up. they are taking their broadcast signal off the air and putting it through their antenna. they are pumping it through the internet. the broadcast networks and stations are saying that is illegal because you are retransmitting our stuff and in

doing so only you are changed in some way. aereo said it is not illegal because under federal law anybody has a right to receive the signal for free. the courts have been ruling on the side of aereo but there will be many more court cases. it will probably end up with the supreme court. >> walt mossberg does quite a bit of tv. you are involved in digital. a -- we have always done, not always but in the last nine or 10 years, we have done an increasing amount of video. even though we are a print newspaper or print website, we do a lot of video. case, every one of my columns is accompanied by video. and sometimes several.

shows nota number of put out over cable but over the internet that "wall street journal" has every day about the stock market and economic news and tech and other topics. we have kind of bungled that live which is an apt getcan get -- app you can which is a apple tv and on roku as well. aboutn watch -- not only the economy, but fashion, lifestyle and what ever else our reporters have covered. they talk about the trend or the news that is going on in that area. these are short clips typically.

there has been some experimentation with longer ones. i comanagee that with another journalist and which is owned by the same company that owns "wall street journal," we run big conferences so we have interviews with all the leaders of the tech and media industry. those are available on our site .nd him -- and on wsj live you can not only watch don't stream and in some cases on was immediately after they happen but you can go back and watch from four years ago. if you want to see steve jobs' last interview, you can see that. we are heavily involved in this. ive, which is the brand

name that collects all of this apt on all of these devices. >> what kind of viewership? >> i have no idea. i think it is good because they have continued and they sell advertisements just like most television does. see one of myo videos talking about a product i reviewed, you'd probably have to sit through a 15 second commercial. >> you do. >> the new york stock exchange are whoever the sponsor its. -- is. it is not interrupted by commercials after that. that is very common. they are selling ads and i assume that means they are getting good viewership because they are getting revenue.

i do not run that business. aboutouple of questions wearable technology and the recent advances in wearable technology mean will soon be living in a post-smartphone world? i think wearable technology is a really big deal. most people associate that with google glass. it is not even a released product. are all kinds of potential for wearable technology for health and communication, photography, navigation. there are things you are going to be wearing like google glass over your eyes as some on your wrist. the reason i do not think of it at facebook -- post-smartphone

world is to make these light enough at least with current enoughogy, and powerful to do all of the amazing things they are going to be doing, what they are really doing is connecting to a smart phone. smartphone may be out of sight or in your pocket. i personally believe apple is working on this and not just apple but other people working on it. which will be something you wear on your wrist which does a lot more than tell the time. it would give you -- some have already brought them out but they are pretty crude. if you have something sophisticated that could deal with your e-mail and text and would've come a long way with voice recognition, it can let

you do a lot of stuff without looking at your smart phone. i would not call it a post- smartphone world because it will be getting all of that connectivity from the internet and all of that rich stuff messaging and maps and navigation and whatever else it might do on your wrist, it will be getting all of that from your phone. it still needs your phone. it might be in eight or 10 years, technology you may not need the phone. it will be a post-smartphone world. not now. is there such a thing as too much technology? are you worried about any of the transit you are seeing? >> i think you have to be unplugged. it is good to be analog sometimes. it is very hard. one of the unintended

consequences of texting and instant messaging and social networking and e-mail is that it is very hard to be off of the grid, out of touch. sometimes that means it is hard to find a big enough chunk of time to think or just relax. although they are important for your help and also the quality of your work. it is up to people to try to figure out a way to unplug or mostly unplugged at least for periods of time. are othernk there specific cases. my wife is in early childhood education and she is quite trend towardut a putting computers in the classroom and preschools.

they really ought to be spending their time learning social skills, learning how to actually touch and feel real things whether dirt or toys or whatever. learning how to take turns, share and not staring at computers may. >> we are out of time with walt mossberg, columnist with "wall street journal." this is "the communicators." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> brought to you as a public service. >> of the next washington journal, we will talk with editor-in-chief of the libertarian viewpoint on a variety of issues including

house u.s. intervention in syria and the nsa data collection program. we'll hear from gordon adams at american university. about the latest developments in syria and the likelihood of u.s. military intervention. then a look at chemical and biological warfare including when and how they have been used with amy smithson. all that plus your calls and e- ,"ils on "washington journal here on c-span. several types of bullying that the left love to engage in. .ne is racial bullying their philosophy is based almost solely and completely at this point on the idea that they stand up or victimize groups. everything they do is to stand up on behalf of some minority -- blacks only gays, women, jews.

what that means is we oppose the policies, by necessity the logic is we hate black, gays, women, jews. but the editor at large been shaken -- ben shapiro is our >> biographer kitty kelley on december 3. on january 5, mark litan. but tv's book club returns in september with our cleat of 'sich -- mark leibovitz "this town." >> we picture june cleaver with a vacuum cleaner, frying bacon for breakfast.