we're not going to have his powerful voice anymore to call out the government on the next story and the story after that. "viewpoint" is next. >> john: the g-8 leaders wrap up their big meeting in ireland it may seem like the only thing they agreed on is trade and letting syria get worse but there may be hope for a reduction in global arms. we'll talk about the promising possibilities. marco rubio says he is fighting for immigration reform but ann coulter and the tea party say no mass and then deport themselves for not speak english. and a republican congressman from texas wants to curtail abortion rights because he says fetuses can masturbate in the womb. we'll discuss this with a panel of political comedians to see if they can find anything funny about this story. today's the birthday of the late roger ebert, the grace isabella

rossellini and paul mccartney is 71 today. we'll have a special commentary about him later in the show and why his haters are useless hipster scum. 30 years ago today sally ride became the first american woman in space. june 18th. this is "viewpoint." >> john: welcome to "viewpoint." i'm john fuglesang. thank you so much for joining us this evening. so g-8 leaders wrapped up the big summit in northern ireland pledging to fight terrorism and enhance transparency and stop the bloodshed in syria somehow. russia's strident support for syrian support about bashed talked support. russian president vladimir putin announced a renewed framework for an expired 1992 deal between the u.s. and former soviet union

to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons. >> obama: this is an example of the kind of constructive, cooperative relationship that putin, of the cold war mindset into the realm where by working together, we not only reach security and prosperity for the russians and american people but also help lead the world. >> john: please ignore their tense body language. one group watching the issue is global zero which has been working to eliminate or at least reduce nuclear stockpiles around the world. their video titled the world must stand together released in advance of the summit features the number of united center go down to zero. michael douglas spearheaded the project. ♪ >> obama: today, i state clearly and with conviction, america's commitment to seek the peace and security -- >> a world without nuclear

weapons. >> a world without nuclear weapons. >> this matters to people everywhere. >> some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped. cannot be checked. >> such fatalism is a deadly adversary. >> for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable -- >> then, in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. >> john: joining us now to discuss his effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons is matt brown, the cofounder of global zero. welcome to "viewpoint." great to you have here. >> thanks for having me. >> john: have a lot of admiration for your organization. valerie plame was here a few months ago. before we begin about the summit, can you tell us what global zero's mandate is. >> it is a movement of now half a million citizens, 300 political and military and civic leaders, students, worldwide. we've got 150 university chapters of global zero. what we're working for is very simple. not easy but very simple. that is the total elimination of

all nuclear weapons on earth. there are now 17,000 nuclear weapons on earth. countries are trying to get nuclear weapons. terrorists are trying to get nuclear weapons. in our view, the view of all of the people in our membership around the world unless we eliminate them, this risk of the nuclear threat will never go away. >> john: you were founded in 2008 so it is a young organization with a very noble cause. what have you managed to accomplish so far? >> well, first of all, we've brought an issue that really had fallen off of the public radar the media discussion, the political discussion at the end of the cold war back into the discussion. we've, as i said, have millions of people who have joined around the world an been involved, especially young people most importantly who were born after the cold war. we brought the debate, we played a role in bringing this debate back into the public consciousness and into the political discussion. and in president obama's first term he made two big steps toward the goal of world without

nuclear weapons. one was to make a commitment in a big speech in prague in 2009 calling for world without nuclear weapons. then he followed up on that with some reductions, albeit modest reductions to the u.s. and russian arsenals that he negotiated with president medvedev. >> john: the president does seem truly committed to this support and cause. can you explain for us what the new agreement on nuclear weapons we heard about today means for us. >> this agreement continues something called the nonlugar program. it was a long-standing agreement between the united states and russia to secure nuclear materials. it is a positive thing that that agreement has been struck to continue to program. in some ways, it is an improvement because it really emphasizes the u.s. russia work globally, not just focus primarily on securing russian nuclear materials. so it is a good step. this was part of the president's vision that he laid out in 2009. securing nuclear materials around the world. but the heart of that issue and what we're working for at global

zero are the reduction of nuclear arsenals leading to zero nuclear weapons around the world. >> john: and the greatest reductions, of course, would come from america and russia? >> yeah, the united states and russia still have over 95% of the nuclear weapons. we have thousands of them. >> john: 95%? >> of the nuclear weapons in the world belong to the united states and russia. what we're calling for is for president obama to make this vision he laid out four years ago real by doing two things. first, to get further reductions to the united states and russian arsenals and he needs to work obviously with president putin on that. secondly, most importantly to take the next big step which is an historic step which is to get other leading nuclear powers into negotiation, international negotiations for global nuclear arms reductions for the first time in history. >> john: that's the tricky part. i want to get to that in a second. but we just showed a clip of the new video. it is very well-made. very impressive. i was up for a role in it but i was sick so morgan freeman filled in.

he's good like that. we've seen celebrity support behind this. most prom meant toly, former celebrity ronald reagan, the first big republican to come out in favor of a world without nuclear weapons. do you find the republican party is fervent about this issue or is there room for growth? >> there is room for growth. the republican party ought today, often points to president reagan as a role model even an icon. there was nothing dear to president reagan's heart of all of the issues he worked on than the total elimination of nuclear weapons. >> john: that's true. >> he called for this boldly. he tried to achieve it at the reykjavik summit. they came close but came up short. the discussions began the process of drastic reductions to u.s. and russian nuclear arsenals. so this dream of president obama, this dream of global zeros is really a dream of president reagan. and we do have people from all

political parties involved with this. ambassador richard burke an arms control negotiator for reagan is a founding member as is chuck hagel a republican now, defense secretary. all founding members. so this is not a partisan effort. and we need room for growth. not just from republicans but from americans and from russians and from chinese for this cause. to make it happen. >> john: which brings me to everyone's favorite rogue state. senior nuclear negotiator from north korea is set to visit china this week on the heels of the north proposing senior level talks to ease tensions. do you see any reason for hope that we might see a reduction in north korea's nuclear arsenal? >> well, yeah, i do see room for hope. that hope, in my view, lies mostly in the new chinese leadership and the indications they have given so far about a renewed and redoubled commitment to denuclearizing north korea. this is going to take not just

the chinese but it has to be a global effort. this is a key point. even if we are fortunate enough to see the north korean program come to an end, as long as there are nuclear weapons and some countries have nuclear weapons others are going to try to get them. so ultimately, the only lasting and real solution to the spread of nuclear weapons nuclear threat is the phased, verified reductions of all nuclear weapons worldwide no exceptions. not the kind of whac-a-mole crisis management approach we have today. >> john: let's talk about some of the smaller nations that possess the weapons. of course, iran doesn't unless you watch fox news in which case they've got thousands waiting to launch at us. but the new president of course, hassan ra hani, he seems to really want to see the sanctions against his country lifted. that means cooperation on nuclear issues. do you see this election as a possible harbinger for change? >> i don't know if it is but it is an opportunity we shouldn't pass up and i don't think the

united states and the west will pass up. i think we should and will test this new leader and try discussions with him. ultimately, the only good solution to this problem in iran is a negotiated solution where iran opens up to the world and shows us what they've got in terms of the nuclear program. shuts down any parts of that that might be leading to a nuclear weapon. that's going to take on both sides, the united states and iran, i'm talking about both sides setting aside decades of mutual mistrust. that's not going to be -- that's the work we need to do. this new -- this election and this new leader in rohani is an opportunity and we ought to try as best we can. >> john: matt, i admire the mission and the vision. let's talk about how realistic it is to dream of a world without no nuclear weapons. all of the players to cooperate. is it feasible at all to you that this could ever happen in our lifetimes? >> it is feasible. it is feasible in our lifetimes. we're not going to get to zero

while president obama is in office. but in our view, he could set the course. he could put in motion the process to get to zero. >> john: what would have to happen for this to be possible? >> really, i think there are three stages. i outline two of them. the u.s. and russia have to get their arsenals down. then we've gotta get what i would think of as a critical mass of the leading nuclear powers. for example the permanent five members of the security council who have the original nuclear powers, the united states, russia china france and britain. get those leading nuclear powers to the table. start the process. start the negotiations. start setting up the verification system which is critical. then we can build from that. political pressure, international pressure, that makes it increasingly difficult for the outlying countries that haven't joined into the process. that have nuclear weapons to come to the table and start working our numbers down to zero. and part of this is setting up a universal, unrestricted, intrusive verification system which we don't have now. >> john: right.

how do you go about telling israel to give up their nuclear weapons? >> you can't do that now. this has to be everybody. this has to be multilateral. it has to be led by the united states and russia. you can't do that today. but can you do that when you have, as i said, the united states russia, china the europeans at the table. and you start building that pressure and it becomes -- it starts to become a taboo to not stand outside -- >> john: it is like a moral domino effect. >> it is like a reverse domino effect. we got into this problem that began with the united states, russia grew throughout the cold war and beyond the cold war. with very to reverse the process. it has to start at the top with the united states and russia in ond our view, the other leading nuclear powers. then we have to bring the rest in. ultimately, countries won't go to zero unless we get all of the players at the table. that's the hard diplomatic and political work that needs to be done. >> john: let's talk about loose united center. pakistan's arsenal is enormous. if they said they destroyed

their weapons, how do you verify? >> since the beginning the manhattan project when the united states started its nuclear weapons project no one has produced enough physical material to produce one nuclear bomb without that program being detected by foreign intelligence. ever. including our own program which the russians -- which the soviet spies discovered. that was before satellite technology. before environmental testing to figure out the activities that are going on in the nuclear arena. so we have a lot of success in the arena of verification to build on. no one has successfully cheated in building a bomb. they've broken the rules to build a bomb but we've always known. the international community has always discovered these illicit nuclear activities. so the notion that this can't be verified is a false notion. it can be verified. there's no technical barrier to it. the barrier is political. it is leadership to sit around

the table to establish a universal verification system to put it in place for all countries to open up their programs to a verification system. but there's no technical -- that will take political will. >> john: on the issue of crossing the red line with chemical weapons and syria which we're hearing about right now obviously this is a pressing concern to many people. is it not a more immediate concern than nukes? you don't really hear too much about nuclear arse arsenals in the media but does it make more sense to put more energy there sense the chemical weapons are being deployed? >> there are a lot of crises going on. i think particularly about president obama who has been -- really dealing with one crisis after another since he was first inaugurated. but nuclear -- the nuclear threat if one -- at any time, it would have such catastrophic effects on our society on our liberties, on our economy and

most importantly, would kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in an instant. so it really is a -- a weapon that is unique in its destructive power which is why global zero was formed because we see the weapons spreading. we see a new version of the nuclear arms race that is horizontal with more countries getting, with terrorists trying to get them. and it only takes one nuclear bomb. as president obama said in his prague speech, this matters to people everywhere. it if this bomb goes off in new york or london or in delhi it would catastrophic for the world. >> john: one last question. if the people lead, will the leaders follow? >> that is our hope. that's really the founding premise behind global zero. i think president obama wants to see a world without nuclear weapons. we know that. i think other leaders around the world want to see it. the public, the media leaders young people need to get behind

this. globalzero.org to join. we have a great group of some of the world's best artists who have backed the movement which certainly helps. we need to light a fire under the political leaders. >> john: matt brown, thank you for the work do you at global zero. >> thanks for having me. >> john: up next, we'll be talking about how voting, you're going to love this, is affected by hormones. let's hope the buttons aren't. we'll be back in a hot flash. thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

we have a big big hour and the iq will go way up. converstion started weekdays at 9am eastern. >> i'm a slutty bob hope. >> you are. >> the troops love me. (vo) tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block. >> you're welcome current tv audience for the visual candy. just be grateful current tv does not come in smellivision. the sweatshirt is nice and all but i could use a golden lasso. (vo) only on current tv.

(vo) current tv is the place for compelling true stories. (kaj) jack, how old are you? >> nine. (adam) this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. way inside. (christoff) we're patrolling the area looking for guns, drugs bodies ... (adam) we're going to places where few others are going. [lady] you have to get out now. >> lots of terrible things happen to people growing marijuana. >> this crop to me is my livelihood. >> i'm being violated by the health care system.

(christoff) we go and spend a considerable amount of time getting to know the people and the characters that are actually living these stories. (vo) from the underworld to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> occupy! >> we will have class warfare. (vo) true stories, current perspective. documentaries. on current tv. >> john: hormones. they're not just for teenagers anymore. scien terrific research suggests your genetics and hormone levels are a great predictor of how you'll vote or whether you'll vote at all. politics, one study reports is stressful and it causes some people to avoid the polls. it doesn't quite say the conservatives are from mars and

liberals are from venus but it does explain why some people end up on the different sides of an issue. job hibbing is one of the most recent recipients for the guggenheim fellowship and he joins us this evening live from lincoln, nebraska. welcome to "viewpoint," professor. >> how you doing john? >> john: i'm doing outstanding. great to have you. i'm thrilled to talk about this. i find the work fascinating. you've studied the impact of cortisol levels which is a great indicator of stress in the body. this is one of the several factors that might gauge a voter's behavior but what are some of your most interesting findings in terms of whether a voter will go to the polls? >> well we've always known that people go to the polls because of socialization kind of reasons or whether it is a close election the recent studies are interesting. they're looking at some of the biological components. as you mention, one of the key ones for us is cortisol levels. it is well-known as a stress

hormone. we all have it in different levels. it turns out that level of our hormones, level of cortisol does correlate nicely and inversely meaning the more cortisol you have, the less likely you are to vote. we think this is something that needs to be added to the general discussion of the contributors to whether or not people go to the polls. >> john: it seems opposite. more stress you have, the more you would want to be engaged to go to the polls. am i wrong? >> well, i think i think you might be. easy mistake to make in the sense that maybe people like you and i are kind of interested in politics and we're really into it. it is important to us. but i think we need to remember a lot of people aren't like that. for them you know, they have a fair amount of stress in their life otherwise and the notion of buying into something else, something as contentious and stressful as politics, they would rather do without it. it is kind of interesting though. there's room for doubt because if you ask people, did you not vote because you're stressed out, they say no. on the other hand, if you look

at the cortisol levels, kind of nonsubjective measure, you do see a pretty strong relationship. >> john: i think you're right. i lived in l.a. and i know the kind of people you're talking about. what are some of the more surprising things you found in your work concerning conservatives and liberals? >> yeah, for us, two main components of politics. one is whether or not you're involved in it at all regardless of whether you're on the left or right and the sexier topic is why some people do tend to gravitate toward the liberal side to use the american phrase and the conservative side. well again, some of this is socialization. some of it is environmental. but a lot of times the environment works through the biological factors as well. one of the things we've looked at is called the electoral activity or skin conductance. conservatives tend to respond more strongly to especially negative images. could be disgusting kinds of things or threatening images. if you just put them on the computer skin, measure skin conduct ant you see a bigger

jump for conservatives than liberals. we have to be careful with the findings because conservatives get nervous and say are you calling us scaredy-cats. that's not necessarily the case. being aware of negative things in the environment is probably not a bad way to be. in fact, from an evolutionary point of view, it makes a lot of sense. if you're not aware of threats in the environment, you're probably dead. >> john: absolutely. you mentioned in many cases we thought it was socialized, could be social reproduction. i vote the way my parents vote. it is fascinating to think it could be indicated or dictated by our hormones in our body. but my question is if voting habits are influenced by hormones such as cortisol, as your body chemistry changes corks that similarly impact the way you vote? we know people whose ideologies shift throughout their lifetime. is that due to biology? >> it could be. and maybe not. but you're right. there are some pretty dramatic changes in the body as one gets older. that could be part of the

explanation. as you mention before, we have to be careful to imply this isn't the only thing that's going on. you can control for something like age or gender or lots of other things statistically. even when you do that, you still see this fairly strong effect for cortisol. so it is not the factor but i think it is one of the factors we need to take into consideration. hopefully it can be used. if we're aware of the fact that some people might shy away from participating in politics because they have a low stress threshold. then maybe we can think of ways that might kind of soften the blow of politics for them. >> john: what do the study of oxytocin tell us about politics and voters? >> good question. i think oxytocin is a good example because it shows you how complicated things can be. i'm sure a lot of viewers know this came on the scene and was reputed to be the cuddly drug or the trust hormone. it is an affiliative kind of thing. some of the original studies by paul zack and others showed that

if you took oxytocin, your trust levels went up in other people but then subsequent studies showed that only worked for people who you perceive to be in your in group or close to you or like you. when you looked at interactions with people who are in the outgroup, somebody clearly from another country that doesn't look like you at all oxytocin actually drove down trust. so it seem to make people more ethnocentric. it might make sense from an evolutionary point of view. when times get tough, you're going to band together with your in group and be more suspicious of those in the out group. it has some complicated interactions with political attitudes. >> john: it is turning the way we view human ideology on its head. i hope i haven't raised your cortisol level too much during the interview. thank you for joining us. i hope you'll come back as your research progresses. >> i did. in fact, we're publishing a book in a couple of months and i hope you have me back to talk about it. the book is called predisposed

out in september. we have a web site, political physiology lab at the university of nebraska lincoln. >> john: thanks for joining us professor on "viewpoint." >> you too. >> john: don't go away. my panel of nonexperts will be joining me coming up next. honest. they know that i'm not bsing them for some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know i'm going to be the first one to call them out. cenk on air>> what's unacceptable is how washington continues to screw the middle class over. cenk off air i don't want the middle class taking the brunt of the spending cuts and all the different programs that wind up hurting the middle class. cenk on air you got to go to the local level, the state level and we have to fight hard to make sure they can't buy our politics anymore. cenk off air and they can question if i'm right about that. but i think the audience gets that, i actually mean it. cenk on air 3 trillion dollars in spending cuts!

narrator uniquely progressive and always topical the worlds largest online news show is on current tv. cenk off air and i think the audience gets, "this guys to best of his abilities is trying to look out for us." only on current tv! and you weren't covered. oh, and your car is a time machine. [ beeping ] ♪ ♪ would you go back to when you got that less than amazing policy and go with esurance instead? well, they do have tools like

coverage counselor to help you choose the coverage that fits you. it's like insurance from the future. actually, more like insurance for the modern world. thank you! esurance. now backed by allstate. click or call.

to me now? you know the kind of guys that do reverse mortgage commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? >> john: we just heard in the last segment from professor john hibbing and his research on hormones and influences on our political landscape. now to discuss their own hormones and other political issues, i'm joined by our esteem ed panel of nonexperts. host of absurdity today on "the young turks" network julianna forlano, welcome back. comedian and author of you'll be

swell, exceedingly swell jim david. and winner of the andy kaufman award and dubbed the hardest working man in comedy by "the new york daily news," that title belongs to andy dick's bail bondsman. harrison greenbaum welcome back to the show, all y'all. you just heard professor hibbings speak. which begs the question, do you think your hormones play a role in any election? >> my particular hormone? >> john: no, someone else's inside you. >> i don't know. i think that there is this idea that my hormones make me act a certain way. i know as a woman, on the woman -- as the woman on the panel, there is a hormone cycle. i might act different. joan might it make you a republican? >> no. not going to happen. i don't care how much cortisol. >> john: what did you make of the theories? >> i think it is fascinating because it is like he was talking about how conservatives

react more -- they react stronger to certain images. they get all bent out of shape. i remember years ago, i read this thing that said that conservatives like more violent movies. and it is something -- i think it probably has something to do with hormones. i know that i carry the hormone that makes you hate beets. i'm convinced. because there is no way you're going to get me to eat beets. i have to have been born with this. it has to be in my chemistry. it is beyond. >> john: harrison, when you were young did you view politics exactly as your parents did? >> my mom is democratic and my dad is basically a republican so i was always trying to figure out what side to go with. >> john: they say people take note of a pretty face in elections. take the hand jon jack kennedy versus the sweaty nixon. kennedy's win was based solely on oxytocin levels? >> i think it really -- in that

thing, looks make a huge difference. it has been proven that people respond more to attractive people. you know? i think that -- like sarah palin and obama carry the same type of star quality for their group you know, which is beyond their -- >> john: mitt romney, very attractive man. no one liked him. >> he was stiff. his personality was like the wall. it didn't work. that well. >> john: as long as we're talking about deeply attractive men, i would like to move on to the rising star of the conservative movement or is he? marco rubio and his bold bill for immigration reform. let's ask senator rubio you designed this bill. you built it with a gang of eight. it is your baby. do you support your own bill? >> well, obviously i think it is an excellent starting point. 95%, 96% of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go but there are elements that need to be improved. >> john: it is his bill and now he's calling it a good

starting point. julianna, is this the triumph of the tea party? >> definitely. you've got it nailed down. it is completely laughable when cnn becomes like a comedy network now all of a sudden. you can just watch the news. everything is absurd and crazy. >> john: that was on stephanopoulos. he seems to have been cowed into submission. this was his baby and not only getting himself into the white house but you can't get into the white house without 70% of the latino vote. some republicans don't vote. >> illegal immigration is built into the economy of america. it is built in. i mean who's going to pick strawberries for $5 a day? are you going to do it? the minute you have to pay $1 for every strawberry, you'll be smuggling mexicans in the back of your suv. in the back, okay! >> john: harrison? >> it is perfect. he's been straddling the fence. take the fence and use it to make the border. it is perfect. >> i hate to say this but i don't really think that

republicans have been, you know, relying on a fair voting process in order to win elections. >> john: how so do you mean? >> well, you know, the whole thing with the supreme court and gore winning. >> john: it has nothing to do with stealing elections. it seems like a long had been term prudent strategy by a latino republican to draw an entire culture into the party. >> i don't think he realized how, you know, how much the tea party -- they don't like immigrants. they don't. i don't think. you know. i'm not saying they're bigoted. they don't like immigrants. they think that those votes are going to go to the democrats anyway. >> michele bachmann said like if this passes, the republicans we're never going to have a conservative in in office again. you know what i mean? >> they keep reminding everybody that this is their strategy to get latino voters. don't tell them that's why you're voting for it.

the whole point is you're supposed to be like ooh i guess i should vote for them. they voted for that thing. don't say our voting strategy to get latino voters is to pass this bill. >> john: i'm still reeling from the theory that republicans don't like immigrants. i'm shocked. military leaders are ready to begin tearing down the walls that has prevented females from holding jobs near the front lines. women could start training for the army rangers by mid 2015 and as navy seals a year later. so since you are the one woman on the panel are there roles julianna, physical roles that women just can't fulfill? say hand-to-hand combat? >> i don't know. i watched a really strong episode of laverne and shirley the other day and they were wrestling in the living room. i don't mean to be making light of that but i think if a woman can pass whatever the physical test is in order to make it into those positions then she would be able to handle hand-to-hand combat. >> john: is this equality for the right for women to fight and

die and possibly -- in possibly illegal, immoral wars? >> yeah. they can do anything except parallel park. >> john: oh! he went there! >> my genitals do not preclude me from -- >> they shoot people out of their body. regardless of combat. let them fight. >> what's scarier? >> john: will this affect recruitment if women can join the navy seals? >> i heard enlistment is down. i don't think it will affect recruitment. i think women know better maybe than to want to get involved. people know the wars are for things like oil. they're not necessarily -- you know imperialism and they're not the kind of wars women are going to want to get behind. >> i think they should. >> john: too bad girls you don't get to die in iran and syria.

panelists sticking around. we'll be talking about masturbating fetuses a sentence i never thought i would say.

>> john: tonight on wtf utah, we pay tribute to utah senator mike lee. as a republican in very good standing, this man is heavily involved with deporting as many undocumented immigrants as possible from this nation of immigrants but for all of this guy's xenophobia, senator lee would like to amend everify

the federal government's program that enables employers to check the legal status of an employee. senator lee proposes now that maids, cooks and janitors be exempt from scrutiny because the only thing that trumps senator lee's disdain of illegal immigrants is his love of cheap exploitable labor. let's face it. anybody who can afford to hire a maid or a butler simply cannot afford to pay them a livable wage with benefits. the domestic workers want nothing more than to become citizens of our country but if they become americans we have to pay them an american living wage so we can't let them be americans but we do need them to stay here and serve the americans who are too cheap to let them be an american and pursue the american dream. that's the american way. you see people like senator mike lee need to be in a beautiful house cleaned by an undocumented maid, eat a nice home cooked meal prepared by an undocumented cook in a pristine, clean environment. we want a path to citizenship could be gardened and maintained by a poorly paid domestic with

no path to citizenship. wtf, utah! don't think the crazy hypocrisy like this won't come back to haunt your senators. there just might come a time when mike lee will want to emigrate from utah and move to america. (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >> i know this stuff, and i love it. (vo) followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. bill press and stephanie miller. >> what a way to start the day.

>> john: welcome back. let's do this. congressman michael burgess republican of texas has made the argument that terminating a

pregnancy -- rather after 15 weeks is immoral because fetuses are already masturbating in the womb. before 15 weeks, i should say. i've always felt self-pleasure begins at conception. that explains why babies are crying when they come out of the womb because they want to get back in there. i've heard female babies in the womb don't masturbate but they have the ability to say "what are you thinkin' about"? i know the topic of ma masturbating fetuses lends itself to comedy. let's turn it over to julianna for forlano jim david and harrison greenbaum. >> i'm glad you're here. the day that the hashtag masturbating fetuses is trending is a sign of the apocalypse. >> john: our republican friends have had ridiculous things about reproduction but

this really takes the placenta. in fairness, i want to explain what the congressman meant because i do think he could have made a good point were it not so hilarious. he's a doctor. >> where did he get his doctorate from? the school of gynecology? >> john: he said he's seen male fetuses putting their hands between their legs and that proves that at 15 weeks they experience pleasure which means they experience pain. he started off trying to make a legitimate argument about what abortion does and what a fetus can feel. but then it got hilarious. >> good sonogram porn. >> john: harrison, what can a baby in utero be fantasizing about to be so erotic amidst the amniotic fluid. >> i guess he hears his mom and dad doing it. that's horrifying. once you notice, shouldn't you turn off the sonogram machine? >> john: give him a little privacy. get a womb, man, get a womb. >> masturbating in there i kind of know, what else they're

doing. are they throwing crap? >> john: leaving aside the fact the single scene is rather bleak and it is a tough place to meet girls someone should start a dating site called okay, fetus. what kind of moral landscape is the congressman imagining? did you ever think we would see a congressman using masturbation as a reason against roe v. wade? >> it is someone being against masturbation in the g.o.p. this is so rich. if women are sitting in a circle in lamaze class, are the fetuses having a circle jerk? that's the question. >> john: thank you for that imagery. al jazeera is going to cancel us. a republican abortion opponent are saying feet fetuses are sinning. is this preoriginal sin? >> preoriginal. >> if the wages of sin is death then -- >> abortion works out great. >> it should be mandatory. >> eight through ten.

put him to death. >> john: that story you're quoting is the story from the book of genesis. his brother was killed by god. god said go impregnate your brother's widow. he started do iting it. he stopped and. he was dis's baying a direct -- he was disobeying an order from the commander in chief. now, you've got a republican, a conservative christian republican saying no. that's not what makes the angels cry. will he have retraction? >> i hope not. the whole issue is where the mother? all of this? where is the woman? if they skew the discussion so it is whether or not the fetus feels pain and when the fetus feels pain the mother is completely removed from that and the woman's right to choose is not even part of that conversation. so they're sort of -- you know, taking little like they're just

reductionistically look at one piece. >> john: i want to thank you for making one dignified point. social media today, it is very true because you never talked about the mother's feelings whatsoever. the majority of americans do support abortion rights so i asked if you thought the g.o.p. could still win by remaining anti-roe 77 americans support some or all abortion rights. brent collins wrote i think both sides would be better off adopting a "how can we prevent abortion" stance because no one really wants there to be more abortions. that's great advice. don't expect it to ever, ever happen. i put it to you guys. wouldn't that be the right tactic to take? to say that abortion is not a problem. it is a symptom of a problem. unwanted pregnancy is the problem. or are we just so locked into this pro-choice, pro-life puppet show because it raises lots of funds for both parties? >> you know what? this is one of the reasons why

i've never had an opinion on abortion because i don't have a vagina. i think men should be taken out of the equation. i think -- personally, i just think the only man that should have an opinion about abortion is the father of the kid. he should have a say so. >> john: harrison? >> i think women have a right to their body and i have a right to my opinion. but yeah, preventing abortion is good. we should award the masturbating fetus for getting a head start. >> john: preventing unwanted pregnancy. >> what will they do if they don't have this wedge issue? >> don't you think they did this strictly because they're playing to their base of christian conservatives. they knew it wasn't going to go through. it is like michele bachmann, the latest useless bill that she championed. they knew it wasn't going to go -- they know it won't pass the senate. we tried. and where is their laser-like focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. they go right for the fetus.

>> they were supposed to bring the pregnant worker's fairness act which was going to give maternity rights and that's what they planted with it. they saw a pregnant lady. we should just do abortion instead. >> continue to do bills that aren't going to get anywhere. they're doing a kind of masturbation themselves. they could be using their time. >> john: i appreciate it but this bill is going somewhere. it is not going to the president's desk. it is going straight into fund-raising e-mails and all of the guys will send back and that's how abortion will -- >> so depressing because it has become this theatre. it is like do the freakin' job! it is all of these grandstanding and it is like a big girly show. >> campaign show. >> john: we're a few blocks away from times square, unlike the g.o.p., creates jobs. i want to thank this panel. you've all been very good sports julianna forlano and jim david and harrison greenbaum. up next, paul mccartney's

71st birthday. you don't want to miss it. stick around. commercials? those types are coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? (vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more

documentaries that are real, gripping, current.

ç]

>> john: finally, it's time for tonight's f bomb. normally on this show, we talk about economics war political malfeasance and fundamentalist religious hypocrisy. tonight, i want to get really political about something important. paul mccartney turns 71 years old today which means the professional mccartney haters goat slam him with their wings old cliches. you know they say john was the edgy rocker. paul the sappy balladeer. he writes love songs but doesn't rock the vote. madonna calls his live performing style boring because he plays instruments and does not lip-synch. last year a pack of underaged believers started a who is paul mccartney twitter hashtag trend. that's fine if your greater thing is being a believe. hate is going to hate and

hipster will spend too much money on pabst blue ribbon on their way to the factory in williamsburg. paul mccartney at age 71 is a walkin', talkin' bass electric guitar billionaire ad for a vegetarian diet who is cooler than you and can kick your hipster ass. i saw paul play in brooklyn last week week. he did a three hour, 28-song set and trying out songs the beatles never attempted to play live. i know 35 years-year-olds who couldn't play a three hour show. wings was banned twice. once for give ireland back to the irish which could be the most political song any of the beatles ever wrote and once for another song i'll reveal in a second. john wrote all of the edgy beatles songs? damn hipster, don't bad you never heard side two of abbey road. not every paul album is great but every paul album has one or two great songs. john and george couldn't claim the same you hipster fedora wearing scum and yes paul's made mistakes.

he takes risks. the fraud chorus isn't exactly eleanor rigby. three of his last four records have been bona fide great. he played almost all of the instruments for radiohead. released the arguments as the fireman. last year he had an album of jazz standards with diana krall and her band. the only problem was the two new songs were better than the classics he was covering. the guys raised tons of money for animal rights cases tons of money to ban land mines. the one voice movement for israeli palestinian peace and he just wrote a letter to russia asking them to free riot. as far as being an outlaw, he did nine days in a japanese jail when he was caught with weed. they said paul took the fall for his wife, linda. they sang "yesterday" in broken english. that's not as structured as hipster jeans but in addition, he's working on a new album with mark who produced amy winehouse.

did he an hour on the colbert show. and he pulled it off live and on this tour, he's playing the other song that was banned by the bbc high, high, high. he played it colbert d is the most obnoxiously gratuitous pro drug song that wasn't written by the wu-tang clan. happy birthday, sir paul mccartney. stay healthy and keep on touring into your 80s. i have a baby and i want him to see you live some day. as healthy as you are, i once had a girlfriend become vegetarian during a mccartney show. one final vote, i have worked with paul in the past. both here and in london. i do admit a bias but that's okay because somewhere out there, paul mccartney is sitting around showing off his pictures of me. thank you. and before we go, i do want to do something rather -- at the last minute. here at "viewpoint," we would like to take a moment to mention michael hastings, a great fearless journalist for "rolling

stone" magazine and "buzzfeed" who died tragically in a car accident this morning in los angeles. he was a good friend of the show. a regular here and on many other shows on current. a great journalist is the one thing we can't afford to lose right now and the loss of michael is devastating. when i think of all of the corrupt people he won't be around it makes me sad. our hearts go out to his family and friends and his readers. in his short time on earth, he warrior made a difference. he wrote the piece that actually let to general stanley mcchrystal losing his job as commander of the u.s. forces in afghanistan so we thank michael for joining us. we thank michael for being born and for being a regular on the show. and we thank him for the goodness he brought into this world which will still continue. his influence will be like the big bang. it is just going to keep on expanding. thank you again, michael. this is "viewpoint." we're still here. good night. good night mom.

>> tonight, it's already been three days and kim and kanye still haven't named their new baby. i have a suggestion. i snow it doesn't start with a k but how about spin-off. for seven years alison arngrim starred as nellie oleson, a manty lappive spoiled brat. plus i'll receive a royal visit from the cast of bravo's newest reality services, princesses long island. all of that and more next on "say anything." >> hi, i'm ross matthews from the e! network