the concept. let me bring in professional help. an economist from stanford university. why not worry about sending work to other countries? >> because the fundamental thing about trade tmakes everybody better off t. benefits both countries that are able to engage in disprad both parties that are able to engage in trade. but those uniforms could have been made by american workers? >> nota at a cost that makes sense. we are so much better at so many things, that making garments is no longer what we have a comparative advantage. >> i wouldn't call that a problem, that's an advantage because those job, being a steam stress or working at a loom are factory jobs that are not so pleasant. now, even though those clothes are not made in america, they are designed, marketed and sold here. they are shipped in trucks made in america. they are built on machines made by americans. and although chinese workers

made those garment, the chinese olympic team will fly to london on american-designed and made planes and wearing u.s.-designed footwear and this makes us all richer. >> it absolutely does. >> people don't get that. >> no, they don't. one could argue that the american uniforms were not manufactured in china, they were grown in a soy bean field in iowa. something we export to china is soy beans because we are incredibly productive in the soy bean market, we get more uniforms at lower prices. the chinese get more soy beans and they get higher wage, we get lower prices. everybody wins. >> if we insisted that everything be made in america, we would be poor? >> absolutely. >> a couple of other methods. over population, i was told that's why asia's poor and africa's poor. it's a big problem. >> yeah, the problem is not that there are too many people. the problem is that they don't

have free markets itch they have bad governments that take their resources. one thing that opened my brain about it was to look at some of the population data. i heard that nigeria's poor because of over population, pakistan's poor because of over population. and look, nigeria, pakistan, they have 174 people per square mile, 225 people per square miasm but that's half what the netherlands has and holland is reach. it's 1/10th what hong kong and singapore have. >> the ultimate resource is the mind. >> more people, more brains. >> more people close together in urban areas means more conversations. >> over population is not a problem? >> absolutely not. >> related to that, i am told we are running out of fuel. i have been told that for years. jimmy cartener 1977 said, we are now running out of gas and oil. what happens in the next decade -- that's more than 30

years ago. >> right. but if we are running out of oil that, implies that prices should be rising. but the federal most part -- for the most part, oil has been getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. and even as it does start to get more expensive, people start to search for substitutes. they look for more oil and natural gas. >> these brains keep inventing new ways to suck more oil out of the same wells, find more well, dig deeper. >> right. >> we have stores of much more oil and gas now than we did when president carter was saying we are running out, years ago. we have talked about the national methods. more about your personal choices. there is a popular blog that gives contrarian personal advice, like unschool the kids, threatened by an internet entrepreneur who made millions

making a web site. what do you mean unschool your kids? >> that means our kids are taught to go to the bathroom, walk, move, eat, pay attention, all by a bell in a school. and what do they remember from school? i will educate my kids better than the government, at this point. so my kids -- >> most people don't want to home school their kids or form their own school. we trust the experts. >> the experts are getting funding on the lowest common denominator. so they teach them to do well on fill in the circle tests. that's it. you are chained to a desk, listening to the most boring teachers. what did you learn in school? what do you remember? i can't ask anyone who can tell me when charlemagne was born. >> pull them out of school and get together with the neighbors and invent something? >> no. you give them opportunities to learn. have books and drawing materials available. have them play sports.

no one wants to listen to someone lecture 6 hours. but i am willing to pay my kids a page per book. i am willing to pay my kids to write reviews of books. i will set up social play dates with my kids with other kids who are being home schooled or unschooled. >> have you to go to college, especially to get a job. >> sure. which is a total method. we know this is a scam perpetuated by the banks with the government to get -- student and the colleges! yes. tuitions have gone up 1,000% and inflation's gone up 300%. so why have tuitions gone up that much? is it that valuable? >> i am told it is. >> if you have a five-year head start and no debts and you have the same ambition and aggressiveness of someone who went to school, i am sure you would do better 20 years later. >> you need to vote. >> we live in new york state.

so what good is our vote here? >> most of you live in a state where this is true. >> four or five battleground states where your votes have a sway, not only on the governor and the president level and so on -- >> if you live in colorado, florida, horks -- ohio, michigan, a swing state, your vote could be a one-vote election. so think about that. finally, you both say, don't be so scared. what do you mean? >> well, look at the news. every day, the news worries about europe, worries about greece. the reality is, things are going pretty well in america. the economy is growing. you would think w are in a horrible recession based on the headlines. but it's not. but woo have a biological need to be scared. the people we evolved from ran away from the elephants, they didn't get trampled by the elephants. we are always looking for predators. but it's okay for things to be good.

but the headlines would suggest things are bad. >> i'm a consumer reporter, swine flu, avian flu mad cow disease. >> what happened with the avian flu? where are the birds? it might have killed us. you might have gotten brain cancer from your cell phone. maybe we are in hell right now. >> you say it could happen is one of the most dangerous phrases in the english language. >> it is. people tend to systematically overestimate very, very, very small risks. most of the things that people freak out about -- the threat of terrorism, the idea that your child might be abduct in the front yard -- >> that's what people worry about. >> it is what people worry about. but if you are genuinely worried about that, you would never get in a car again. the risk of driving is so, so, so much greater than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack or something like that. >> the risk of being killed by a deer because you drive into a deer? >> or dying of a peanut allergy or something like that --

>> but terrorism is a bigger deal tkilled 3,000 people in new york? >> absolutely. >> and it cost $10 trillion in wars and made the world hate us and increased the odds in some cases of terrorism or other unbalance happening in the middle-east. >> on that note, food for thought, take it or leave it. but thank you, art, and james. what we think we know often is not so. i agree with most what have they say. to make a point about this, i will stick my hand in a flame. but next, how the epa, which is supposed to protect us, actually ♪ why not make lunch more than just lunch? with two times the points on dining in restaurants, you may find yourself asking

why not, a lot. chase sapphire preferred. there's more to enjoy.

>> thank goodness for government! not something i say often. but there are some things i want my government to do, including one thing not listed in here, in the constitution, something the founders never thought about --

pollution control. my beloved free market is not so great at handling that one. one factory's smoke goes to other people's lungs. what does the factory come? some libertarians argue we could see the polluters, but our legal system's so gummed up, that wouldn't work and would take forever, cost a fortune, mostly enrich the lawyers. so that's why i say, thank goodness for the epa-- the environmental protection agency. they made the air cleaner than it used to be. when i was a kid in this town, you couldn't open windows because soot would come in. now we can. thank goodness for water pollution rules. the river just outside the studio was once disgusting. but now, it's different. each here, within sight of the empire state building, within a short disabs of millions of people flushing, i am willing to do this. [splash].

>> i lived to tell about it. the hudson is totally swimmable now. it's great that government has cleaned up the air and the water. but now that they have accomplished that, okay, we have done most of the good we can do and did they shrink? no. the government never does that. they always want to do more. and that upsets one medical doctor. he says the epa now kills people. this doctor happens to be a u.s. senator from wyoming. what do you mean killing people? >> they have come out with a report, the environmental and public works committee of the united states senate. the report is red tape is making americans sick. it's the result of the high unemployment rate. when people lose their jobs and are out of work for long periods of time wover 8% unemployment, those folk who is are out of work but want to go to work -- of illness, hospitalizations and premature death because of the incredible number of rules and

regulations that are costly to our economy and add very little benefit to the environment. >> after years of consumer reporting, i came around to the same conclusion. but i assume when you say this to most people, they say, what are you talking any? the epa makes the world cleaner, makes america cleaner and that has to be good for our health. the tangential relation to unemployment. what? >> if you look, the air's cleaner, the water's cleaner -- >> much. >> absolutely. we are now at a point to get a very small improvement is very expensive in terms of dollars and production of energy as well as in the health of people who are out of work. we see a higher risk of high blood pressure, you see stroke, heart disease, as well as depression and anxiety, amazingly, a high are incidence

of cancer in these people and higher rate of suicide. >> the epa rule means that the factory may not open. it means that every business takes longer to open. it means that money that might have gone to create new things now goes to pollution control. which we want. but it doesn't create jobs that a free economy does. >> it closes down coal fire power plants, over 50 across the country that have closed or announced they have closed. the impact of that on a community and all of those lost jobs, good-paying jobs with benefits, is devastating to that community. this administration has now issued over 1300 -- finalized over 1300 regulations that are called economically significant, meaning they cost -- >> even the administration, the epa admits that -- >> admits that the cost is over $100 million per regulation. the epa says, oh, but the

benefits are so great. and the benefits they claim are a reduction in future health care costs to people. but there is no way to prove that. the costs are real. the benefits are unknown. but yet, the people are out of work, we have this long period of unemployment in this country. and we know that people are being made sick by the regulations because they can't get back to work. >> the epa has a press release, they issued on this. the benefits of avoiding early death, preventing heart attacks and asthma, far exceeds the costs of implementing clean-air rules. >> that's made-up numbers of people at computer screens, who are fixated on small, incremental improvements. we found they are cooking the books. fundamentally, we see people out of work for an extended period of time have chronic, long-term unemployment, higher risks of premature death, heart disease,

higher risk of strokes. you can run the list of high blood pressure, anxiety, depression, police chiefs now are reporting higher incidence of spousal abuse in a number of cities. they say it absolutely has to do with the economy and the unemployment. >> what reaction do you get from fellow senator when is you say this? >> colleagues on my side of the aisle and people who practice medicine, like vifor 25 years and have taken care of individual patients who have been out of work for extended periods of time know the added stress that puts on a familiarly. they understand that. people who are fixated with the epa, they are following a different drummer and really are buying into so many of the beliefs of the extreme environmentalists. >> now this show's title -- what you think you know may not be so. people think they know that the epa is saving us every day. here's the reaction to your argument from a big-deal california senator.

>> senator barrasso's comments lead me to believe he lives in an alternate universe. >> an alternate universe. that's what my neighbors in new york say when i say this stuff. >> barbara is the chair of the environment public works committee, which is why i am working so hard to have the republicans take over the senate i. she's not -- >> she will not -- >> she's above you. >> she will not be the chairman. and the democrat and it is environmental agenda won't be in charge and calling the shots on this. i worry about this unemployment rate which continues to be so high. so many americans out of work. i want to get a healthy economy and a healthy environment. i think we can do absolutely both of them. but when we follow this extreme environmental agenda, which is very, very costly. and the benefits are really unknown, i don't think we are helping our country. >> thank you, senator. coming up, more examples of how what you think you know may not be so. for example, do you steal?

ever? you say, no. but my cameras caught people in the act. ps

>> we all have biases. but i grew up believing that scientists -- they're special, smart, of course. but also unusually unbiased, careful, trustworthy. that's how people describe them -- >> they are very accurate, down-to-earth people. >> nerdy. >> dry. i'm sorry. i know a lot of research scientists people who are very dry. >> well, some scientists are dry. my older brother's a scientist. he can be very dry. but wait a second. he's also weird and angry sometimes and that volatility is

common in scientists, as the author of free radicals, the secret anarchy of science. anarchy says michael brooks, is what has given us scientific breakthroughs. >> yes. anarchy -- fighting fraud and lying, cheating, sometimes drug taking, all kinds of things go on to get the job done. >> let's break this down. drug taking. you say one-fifth of scientists worldwide, i think it would be higher in the united states, one-fifth take drugs. >> that was voluntary self disclosure. and they said they would be happy to do this occasionally in order to concentrate more or in order to be more creative and to have thoughts that nobody else has had. there are well documented cases of people who have done extraordinary things while having taken these kind of

substances. >> the scientist who won a nobel prize for discovering dna was high on lds. >> he said he couldn't have done it without taking lsd. he, in fact, said if he hadn't taken lsd, he doesn't think he would have had a nobel prize. it helped him to find a way to copy dna. >> they also break the rules. barry marshall, who cured ulcers for lots of people around the world, by discovering it was a backteria and not stress. he had to break what rules? >> the ethical rules about how you go about doing an experiment. you get preapproval, you don't involve colleagues in things that might be dangerous. but in order to make his breakthrough, he drank a cup full of back tear to prove it would cause a stomach ulcer and his colleague his to go along with it. it was like a don't ask/don't tell thing. >> they took samples from him

and -- shhh... keep it quiet. >> he didn't tell his wife. he said it was easier to get forgiveness than permission. >> but thank goodness. the people drinking milk for ulcers and they are gone because there is an anti-back tear yai. he rewrote the book on ulcers. >> fighting fraud, lies, deceit -- >> fist fights break out in university sem narc every now and then and there is a lot of deceit and fraud. one-third of scientists admit to committing some kind of research fraud in the last 3 years. again, another survey that was done. so disclosing it for themselves. this is what they say have you to do to get the job done. the data doesn't always behave. and the experiments don't replicate and your colleagues are out to get you. so you have to get the results that you want. >> my brother is upset about all of these new financial

disclosure rules because people think, oh, if there is money to be made, that will buy us the science. he says competition -- we want to kill each other. my cleg colleagues would run over their grandmanagers to get some advancement. >> absolutely. there is no prize for second place. you don't come across very many rich scientists. not a way of making money -- >> fame. >> fame. you are placed in history for making a discovery. it's an intensely competitive thing. >> why don't people know about in? >> it is interesting. science is like a brand. it has wanted to make itself look good t. goes all the way back to the second world war, people hateed scientisted -- they produced the atomic bomb and nerve disbas experiments on prisoners of war. in the name of science, effectively. so people who were very distrustful of scientists. and the scientists knew this and

then they made sure that they department do anything that the public would be scared of and so they portrayed themselves as trustworthy and reliable. we are not going to blow up the world. we're going to make it a better place. >> you said that albert einstein -- i was taught came up and proved the theory of relativity. >> "e" equals mcsquared. >> brilliant. >> "e" equals mcsquared. >> not einstein's. he owned it in his lifetime. the problem that was he tried to prove it about 8 times. and every time he had something wrong with the proof. he fudged it. he wrote that in a footnote to a paper. he said, of course, this isn't rigorous, but let's go on. his colleagues knew this and pointed tout him that he was having none of t. but by the end of his life -- >> auto biography. >> he covered every other thing

he had done. but he left "e" equals mc squared out. >> you argue that science should admit this stuff. >> absolutely. i think it makes scientists human. >> people will be scared of them again? >> i don't think we will. we are scared of people who are like robots. but actually, we like human beings and we will forgive them their flaws because it just makes them more like us. >> thank you, michael brooks. coming up, what you don't know about cheating.

>> do you cheat? ever? never?! come on. you lie to be polite to people, right you? say, you look thin. or maybe you take pens home from work. of course, you probably don't take petty cash home from work. so why? where's the line? intuition tells us what stops people from cheating or stealing is when the risk of being caught or the severity of the punishment exceeds the benefit of getting something for nothing. but the author of "the honest truth about dishonesty, how we lie to everyone, especially ourselves -- says that's not the reason. it is not about getting away with it?

>> no. getting away with it is a small part of it. the biggest effect is from the fact that we have two motivations. on the one hand, we want to view ourselves as honest, wonderful, caring people. on the other hand, we want to benefit from dishonesty. so we try to balance the two forces. how could you do both? you are honest or you cheat? >> right. >> as long as you cheat just a little bit, we can think of ourselves as honest. taking pencils from beijing workers' gymnasiums quite well. taking petty cash doesn't work because you can't justify it to the same degree. >> the fact that it's money feels like stealing. >> even in golf, there are easy ways to cheat and harder ways. if you take a ball and you move it 4 inches deliberately -- this is a no-no, but kicking it or hitting it slightly and moving it just a little bit as if you didn't intend to is okay. >> what's the psychological

rationale? >> it wasn't really me. everybody else is doing this. this is really what they intended and so on. >> the everybody else is doing it idea -- you say cheating is contagious. like an infection. >> in cheating, we teach kids how it cheat. we tell them to be polite. so somebody with an injury, when kids point at me and ask what happened to this guy? parents say, don't point. >> you had an injury, your face was burned in an explosion. >> and most of my body. in shorts, it is much more clear. when kids point at that, parents say, don't do that. it is impolite. >> how is it cheating to say, don't embarrass him, don't point to him? >> it's saying to the kid, don't say everything that's on your mind. >> don't be fully honest. >> you can have an inside dialogue, but don't make it external. we have to keep a front that is

not perfectly honest. >> doping in sports. >> we get all of these news reports about people who dope in sports. imagine you are an athlete. what do you think is acceptable, not acceptable? what would you find out. >> from the other athletes. they are doing tyou are a sucker if you don't. >> a physician wrote me and said, he has a lot of pate who is are athletes, he thinks the actual amount of doping is lower than people believe. but the people believe that everybody is doing it. now, understand, we can do it as l. the same thing about illegal downloads -- everybody's doing it, it's fine to do it as well. >> i tested this power of the peer effect. i went to miami beach and went to the hotel where they put out a buffet that said ssn society. something for nothing. the buffet was appealing.

lambchop, shrink, fruit. people started to inspect the food. >> so, what do you think you? are the psychologist -- did people take the food? >> i would predict that it's really hard to be the first person. there is something pristine and if you are the first person, there is a signal that says nobody has touched this. so if you are the first person, that would be really hard. but once something starts breaking down, i am predicting a slew of people who are going to run onto the buffet. >> that's exactly what happened. we put the stuff out. for five minutes. nobody touched t. they respected other people's property. i was worried that i wasted all of this money and this experiment for nothing. then, soon, others did start to take and more d. i confronted some of them about t. most were embarrassed. >> this is for the sfn society. >> oh, i'm sorry. want it back? >> no, you can keep it. go ahead. keep. >> it many freeloaders weren't ashamed at all.

>> are you embarrassed? >> no. are you? >> you are coming in for five shrimp here. >> it would be a shame to waste those shrimpy soar i alt a couple. >> teachers are not paid enough. you know that. >> this is the kind of rationale people use? >> yeah. "teachers are not paid enough," "the insurances company cheated me at some past." there are lots of stories we tell ourselves at the moment. >> this group effect, you tested yourself at carnegie university? >> we take a cheat of paper and 20 math problems that everybody could solve if we gave them time. but we don't give enough time. i say, solve as many as you can in 5 minutes and i will pay you. you solve as many as you can. at 5 minutes, i say, stop. and count how many have you. now go to the back of the room and shred the paper. guand you shred the paper.

and i say, tell me how many you got correctly. >> honor system? >> and you destroyed the evidence. people report 6 problems. what people don't know, we played with the shredder, stow only shreds the sides of the page, but the main body, we can jump in and find out how many questions people solved. and on average, people solved four and report six. lots of people cheat a little. very few cheat a lot. lots cheat a little. and then we added two components. we hired an acting student. and that student, 30 seconds into the experiment said, i solved everything. >> he was obviously cheating. >> and you are working on problem 1, you know that nobody solved everything. the second thing we did, we gave people the money up front and they paid themselves from an envelope. the moment he raised his hand. you solved everything, take the envelope and go home. now you see somebody cheat in an

egregeious way. what happens? lots of people copy him. one way is to say, we proved to people that you can cheat and get away with it. the other thing is to say that in the demonstration, you told people that if people are in the same social group are cheating. which one? we tested in a few ways. but we changed the outfit of the acting student. everybody in the experiment was a college student in a regular condition, the students were in commonly worn outfits. and in the second, he was wearing the university of pittsburgh -- >> a different school. not one of us. >> that's right. an "out" group. what happens when an out group cheats? the cheating went down. people said, cheating is involved. and other people, we don't like so much -- i am not going to do that. people became more honest. >> what can we do to increase honesty? >> we found a lovely thing. we asked a group of 500 students

to recall the 10 commandments, sadly, none of them could and some of them invented. >> but they thought about it. >> what happened afterwards? we gave them a chance to cheat in the same way, nobody it is rcht that the people who remembered more, no, even if we take self-declared eighth atheists and we give them the bible, they are more restrictive in your own investigation of your own morality. you are more vigilant and thfer, we behave better. that's one of the tricks. >> thank you. >> coming up, more on what you think you know -- that isn't so. @

>> it's forest fire season. fires are raging out west, destroying homes, and who leads the fight against the fires? the u.s. forest service. it spends billions fighting fires, often straying chemicals right near the fire, fire retardants that are supposed to slow its spread. given that fighting fires is what they do, i would think they would be careful to use the right fire retardant. but do they? it's one bureaucracy. how often does government adopt the latest techniques for anything? not often. so i'm not surprised that peter cordonnie says he has a better flame retardant, used by more than 200 fire departments, but not the forest service. ed clineman used to work for the forest service, but now he works for peter. peter, you are an inventer, you make soil enhancers.

>> all life-saving products. we don't make luxuries. we saw the need for it. -- >> how did you discover this? >> 10 years ago, i was fooling around, working on another project and i stuck my hand in it and i put it -- >> you stuck your hand -- >> it felt cool. >> i showed it to some people and i put it on an ice cream stick and i tried to light it. it went from there. we started to show it to fire departments, people who have the knowledge that i didn't have at the time of the fire. and they said, man, you may have hit upon something unbelievable. >> the fire department -- hundreds of them have embraced it enthusiastically and some government agencies. >> it's unique because you can use it direct impingement, cool the fire, create a fire break and they can be used for numerous type of fires. >> ed, you worked for the forest

service. if this is betterue brought some. let's play with it here. >> this goopy stuff here. >> if this is better, why wouldn't the forest service use it? >> basically, they are stuck in the mold of using one product that they have used for about 50 years in the way that they have used it. for one reason or another, they are slow to adapt to a product that is just obviously the better product. >> this is half the price of any fire retardant used. it's lighter, which is a big issue with the planes they fly overhead. here's what they say. they don't want to use it because they say it might evaporate by the time the fire get there is. what's your answer to that? >> well, that's like trying to spray paint a lawn chair in the wind from 10 feet away, the way we are using that chemical now -- >> the forest service says most wildfires are suppressed through

indirect attacks. they are too big for direct attacks to be safe. >> well, a forest fire isn't like an avalanche or like a tsunami. it doesn't move across the landscape, it consumes fuel in front of it and it needs fuel available to propagate itself. unfortunately, what happens is the fire will propagate itself by spotting out in front of itself and this being able to work behind the fire and work on the heat is something that has always been done and done by every country in the world. e >> in new new mexico, we put 5g fires out -- >> the u.s. forest is not using it -- >> some state governments are starting to use it because they are finding it's the way to go. >> take a look at what is going on around us. we are losing a tremendous amount of homes in situations. and this product will protect the homes. >> you say this is so good that

if i would stick my hand in this thing, i could stick it in fire and i won't be burned? >> absolutely. firefighters, people are trapped all the time in fires. this is one product you can coat them with to give the team minutes to get you out. >> all right. so he says, i won't be hurt if i stick my hand in fire? i hand won't catch fire? let's try it! fox won't let me try it here in the studio, for some reason. so we have to go outside. so let's go! and maybe i'll stick my hand in the fire after i coat myself with this. but let's run the test. we'll see if he's telling the truth.

>> weare back, outside my studio. the studio's right in there. peter claims that his fire retardant, which the u.s. forest service won't use -- is so good that when it's on my skin, kistick my hand in here and i won't be hurt? >> yeah. correct. >> so, what do do i? i dip my hand. >> dip your hand in there. yeah. >> scoop it out. >> get your fingers tight together. >> okay. not -- my hand isn't catching fire. creepy. all right. so you have a superior product. but the u.s. forest service doesn't use it. >> you would think the government would use the best techniques to fight fires. but what you think you know often is not so. i have learned that repeatedly in my 40 years reporting. often as a research things, i

found that what i thought i knew wasn't true. the experts said, we are running out of oil. t no, we are not. people told me, premium gas is better for your car -- that makes sense since it costs more, but it's not better. you are wasting your money, unless you have a very unusual car. everyone knows cousins can't legally get married. turns out that isn't true. cousins can legally marry in half the states. everyone knows women are bad drivers. but wherate evidence? we men pay higher insurance rates because we are much more likely to crash. one more method, do we he a full moon tonight? no. whew -- police and hospital workers tell us when the moon's full, there are more accidents and more crimes, something about the full moon makes people crazy. but scientists look at the data and it turns out that's totally false, too. the cops think it's true because when there is lots happening, they notice that, they remember

the connection. when there is no full moon, you don't remember. there are so many methods and stupid things that people believe, i wrote a book about them, but i realized, the biggest methods and the most dangerous one is that when we have problems, solutions most likely come from government -- it's intutive to think that the wise people in washington know more than we and they should plan much of our lives. but it is not true. that's why i wrote the new book -- no, they can't. because we, free people pursuing our own interests are far more like three solve problems. governments fail, but individuals succeed. individuals like peter, individuals create prosperity, it's the politicians and bureaucrats would get out of the way. that's our show, thanks for not setting me on fire. thanks for watching. thanks for watching. good night.r2 [ mission:

impossible theme plays ] target acquired. check. check. rjcheck. check. target in the pool. squeaks ] no! there's my angel. make u:oupervised pool access an impossible mission.

>> alisyn: good morning, everyone. it's saturday, july 28th. i'm alisyn camerota. and i don't need music. olympic games kicking off across the pond. team u.s.a. is sporting those made in china uniforms. that wasn't the only controversy. >> great. meanwhile, mitt romney heading to israel today as president obama sends big money to the same country. coincidence? we're live in washington with the details. >> in rough, tough, and green? ford taking a gamble on america's most popular vehicle. why the ford f-150 truck is going green. "fox & friends" starts right now. >> good morning, every. good saturday morning. yes, there is a bank on the plaza. that's how alli got to work.

why is therein there am 551 sheridan tank on our plaza? to give you an idea give you idea what i got to drive earlier this week. you can drive one of these babies at drive a tank. crush cars, buildings that's the thing about manhattan. you needed it. perfect it's here. we can run over some cars later. thank you for waking up with us this morning. maybe you were up a late last night. 30th olympiad. and by all accounts, pomp and circumstance. people saying this was unabachedly a