war in american history. this 2 1/2 years after president obama entered the white house vowing to finish the fight against al qaeda. reportedly a few dozen al qaeda in afghanistan, pakistan the real threat, and yet 100,000 u.s. troops remain on the ground every day in the khyber pass paying bribes to fund our enemy. not to mention, we're ten years into this war that is costing is in excess of half a trp dollars we simply do not have. with more men and women die ing from a war we can't afford, a war that's the longest in history with no clear mission, other than be afraid of the boogie man if we don't do this, why is no one in washington seriously discussing getting out or for that matter pakistan and real issues related to american security? lieutenant corner tony, senior fellow at center for advantaged defense studies in washington.

he is an afghan war veteran who led black ops team receiving the bronze star for his service. and chairman, an iraq war veteran. both of them friends at this point in my career of mine. ashland, give us a sense what it means to go through a weekend, this murderous and bloody for our soldiers? >> i think whether you served or not, just an americans you look at it and everyone's devastated by it and as you pointed out in your introduction, it's another reminder of every time we get these reports back of cashalty, that have been going on for ten years and there's no real daylight or end in sight. i think a lot of people are wondering what is the exit strategy and the end game and how much more is this going to cost both in money and in

troops, and what are we achieving at at what price? >> your thoughts and emotions, listening to ashwin, tony, but digesting the news? >> it's horrific by the fact, as you said, there is no end in sight. i was stunned three weeks ago when i was asked to sit in on some hearings, congress asked me to sit in and listen to lieutenant general david barno and retired general keen, both talk in sworn testimony about the progress made in afghanistan, and get this, and you and i talked about this a number of times. general keen actually said they have made such great progress that "the taliban are no longer able to conduct military operations against military targets leading only civilian targets to attack." which, of course, if you think about it, counterinsurgency means protect the civilians. underlined strategy. barno there when i was there, keen said they made progress and could no longer attack.

>> let's back this all the way up. >> sure. >> america, as all three of us know, has invested trillions of dollars in resources, both economic and human, in defending itself and in protecting itself from the sense of threat going back to 9/11. we won't even go before that. we know for a fact there's limited al qaeda in afghanistan. we know for a fact pakistan took the helicopter that crashed from the bin laden assassination or killing, and gave it to the chinese, who didn't have it before as a stealth helicopter. okay? there's a pile of evidence that pakistan, i'm not getting on pakistan -- we know that our troops and our tax dollars are going through the khyber pass into afghanistan, and those trucks, a certain percentage, everybody has a different number, but 20%, 30 -- are hijacked outright for enemies

and the other two-thirds to three quarters we put in all with our money, our troops, our stuff, we pay bribes to the enemy so they can then buy either weapons to fight us with or take it to buy a condo on the beach. how real, tony, is the threat to american security of indulging the fantasy of security through this war in iraq while ignoring the reality of threats that exist not only in pakistan but through the deprivation of our own real security in our own country? >> that's the key. you have the official elements of d.o.d. talking in terms of victory and progress, and -- you know, i put on my facebook right after the hearings that i felt like it's 1969 again. we're in a situation, dylan, like the pentagon papers. the reality, i talked to one of my close colleagues who was just there two weeks ago over the weekend who said it's getting worse. the problem, official elements

of the pentagon who have basically signed on to perpetuating this set of lies. they're committed to it. no matter the reality, the fact we pay bribes to have the trucks come in, that money goes directly to the enemy and we're paying for the bullets killing our own troops. it's truly insane, and no one's willing to do the hard things, which slook at this for the reality and do something about it. >> and to that end, let's accept this for what it is, ashwin. has can people watching this show, what can i as the host of this show, what can we do to help people better understand the nature of this conversation so that we can focus the resources -- we're all so desperate to devote to our security in a way that actually provides it as opposed to bankrupting ourselves, gratifying our ego, playing yippie-ki-yay, while in the process, ensuring the opportunity for real threats to get worse? >> yeah. well, dylan what i would say is,

asking the questions that you just asked right now, which is, what is the return on investment that we are getting for these huge prices that we've paid? i mean, for all the troops that have died since 2001, both in iraq and afghanistan, for all the trillions of dollars that have been spent, are we more safe or are we more secure as a result of it? is all of this militaryism, is all of this presence throughout the middle east making our country safer, and helping protect us? i think if people honestly ask that question and look around, i think the answer is undeniably, no, it's not. i don't think the war in iraq has made us safer and it's very debatable whether the war in afghanistan has made us safer. if we ask those questions -- the next question, how can we spend these resources better? once that conversation starts, then i think we're on the right path. >> tony, you won a bronze star in military conflict. running missions most of us will never really understand and

can't truly appreciate the threat of bodily harm that both you and ashwin fundamentally understand in a way no one who isn't a soldier ever will. has is the risk as a soldier in a conflict situation of being attracted to something that you think will make you feel safer while ignoring things that are actually likely to kill you? what is the risk? >> well, the risk is lie high a this point. we have right now the best military ever. we have great men and women who are serving and giving their all. the problem is, this, dylan, the objectives they're assigned to accomplish are not fundamentally making us safer as we just talked about. >> thank you. >> the bottom line is this, we need to look at the region. the pakistanis have nuclear weapons. indians have their own issues. iranians, frankly slugging it out with a tenth century tribal group that are essentially a freedom movement is not making us safer. >> ashwin, is it clear, someone who knows more than i do and

perhaps more than the three of us do, could sit with a map of that part of the world and understand what the real power dynamic is? cold war between iran and saudi arabia playing out projected in iraq. that basic understanding that when you're looking at is a power dynamic between tehran and saudi arabia that's an expansion in iran speeding into the unrest, down south in yemen to try to screw the saudi arabias? the pakistani/indian relationship, which has its own core misalignment of interests, yet we are not relating to this region with our brilliant, incredibly disciplined well trained best arming, the level of both human capital and economic capital that exists in our army to reiterate, and military, to reiterate tony's point, when properly and effectively aligned with intelligent strategy would seem to be remarkable. do those people exist, ashwin?

>> well, you know, we're dealing with, you mentioned, conflicts, ethnic conflicts that have gn on for hundreds, even thousands of years in this part of the world. i mean, you mentioned some of them between india and pakistan. between iran and iraq and saudi arabia. and not to mention a different tribal conflicts with afghanistan. and we've taken sort of this position, or adopted a posture of trying to insert ourselves in the middle of it and trying to make sense of it and kind of adopted this idea that we can change if or stabilize it and create these lesser styled democratic governments that we think will be friendly to us. i'm not sure that's realistic, and particularly given the time -- we've been there ten years, very long by our standards, because it's been a ten-year war, but by their standards, by the length of these ethnic conflicts it's nothing. it's not even a blip. >> this is just how -- this is just how they spend the summer. right, ashwin? >> yeah. >> we barbecue, they fight.

>> it's -- this -- i would say that in many parts of -- in many of these areas, we're dealing with people, very accustomed to fighting and have been doing it for many, many years. they're fathers, their grandfathers and so forth that have been fighting the same group for a very long time and i'm not sure that our presence can change that. >> there's a smarter way to use this and is it misaligned interests? >> yes. the generals i talked to often said we have to demilitarize what we're doing. this is not our fight. we -- it's not our job to democratize the middle east. frankly, we should be thinking what is it in afghanistan? siding with the karzai and northern alliance over the pashtun. why? there's no reason noor. frankly, the larger issues have gone back centuries and we should look at how to use lessons learned and our ideals of the military force.

we cannot fight our way out of this. we have to use diplomacy and we have to lead by example, both of which at this point we're not doing well. >> i respect both of you for your contributions regarding our military and beyond that, for your contributions helping those of us outside of it understand incrementally over time a little better just how screwed up this is. kwai honestly, so i believe if we understand that, we might -- pretending it's not screwed up you'll never fix it. if we acknowledge how screwed up it is, we might. still ahead here, more with the political charades. not just the wars, as we know. the real barrier to fuel efficiency -- a little later in the show as well. lobbyists, you can fix that. if you think i'm kidding, $40 to the lobbyists. also, scientific charades.

nasa's secret mission to the moon just what may have happened some 40 years ago explain why we haven't returned. first, the road to recovery. or maybe just the road to re-election. obama and the republicans both vowing to bring jobs back. how much longer will we tolerate this carnival of promises without the integrity that produces results? hair and mascara, a lethal combo. i'm jon haber of alto music. my business is all about getting music into people's hands. and the plum card from american express open helps me do that. you name it, i can buy it. and the savings that we get from the early pay discount has given us money to reinvest back into our business and help quadruple our floor space. how can the plum card's trade terms get your business booming? booming is putting more music in more people's hands.

our biggest challenge right now is putting people to work, but i'm going to need your help to make it happen. you've got to send a message to washington that it's time for the games to stop.

>> well, fresh off an all-time approval rating low of 39%, president obama trading washington for the midwest fired up this three-state bus tour today in minnesota on jobs and the economy. mitt romney calling it the magical misery tour. kind of funny. the rnc coined it the debt and bus tour. that one also pretty clever. mind you, neither party doing anything other than discussing jobs. the only thing republicans seem good at at this point is name-calming the president. those were kind of funny, most of those. no policies. they may tell us we're on the road to recovery, republicans and democrats. it looks much more like they are on the road to re-election. meantime, no one doing anything to address our rig trade with china, our bought tax code, or extractionary bank policies. all of which are the root of the dearth of investment and lending in america which results in no jobs.

today's mega panel, sam seder, and imogene and tim carney. what do you -- it's impossible to know, i guess, tim, but what do you think the -- america's population's tolerance of hearing politicians talk about jobs and efficiency but not doing it? >> you have a duopoly, right? republicans who can put out drill, baby, drill and democrat whose put out, one new stimulus or jobs bill. >> right. >> all that stuff. >> what's the point of a duopoly? >> there's no real competition. both guys can find a nice stable balance of providing no value, and so with this blue duopoly and two parties i don't think either party has to provide. obama is hoping the job market will move up slightly and republicans hoping it will tick down and still be bad and they'll win. >> at the same time it is clear

and clear to most people in this country who understand it. clear to a lot who don't, they have an app to learn about it, learn about the tax code, we might be screwing things up, just how influential to the flow of money, investment in our country, spending in our country, not consumer spending. starting new jobs. 70% of new jobs come from new ideas, no things. yet we don't have anything from either of these political parties that say we're going to reform the tax code and end the tax code instead of buying loopholes for this or for that, just a tax code. >> no. i mean, listen, i agree we have structural problems and i think our tax code is problematic, because it's written by -- it's ultimately written by -- >> for sale. >> the fact is there are things that could be done in the short term to increase jobs. and that deals with the lack of

aggregate demand. you know, we are now seeing after this debt deal happened, the stories comes out in the media. >> i get that. >> but that's the problem. in many respects the media is to blame. >> i agree. >> they're not reporting that physics works. >> i get it. >> gravity -- >> the politicians imogene, have suspended math arithmetic and enjoying arguing about who they like. >> absolutely. part of the problem is actually our political system as well. in the u.k. system, parliamentary detention. the deficit reduction and obtaining the aaa rating. over here checks and balances. >> but what is a check and balance on -- >> and the election as well, which means short-term policy. >> what is the check and balance, and this is a question for the three of you, and we get it. executive branch. i learned in schoolhouse rock. executive branch, congress, supreme court and they check

each other off and it's all good and it works. where in the constitution does it reconcile for the fact that six major industries can buy -- >> this is part of my problem, when the liberal thing, we need more stimulus. >> kro want to talk about solutions. ip want to talk about the problem right now. >> okay. >> ignore sam. >> okay. check on -- >> what's the check on being bought? >> on hiringed lobbyists -- you're not going to like this. the check is get rid of the corruption in high places is to get rid of the high places. >> in other words, you wouldn't get rid of politicians, you would buy smaller politicians? gts make the politician -- >> why? the problem with making it north worth buying is, take banks, for instance. in order for banking to work we can agree you need some form of capital requirements. you can't have investors, lenders hedge funds investing in lending with no money. right?

that's not capitalism. capital requirements are definitively structurally foundational to capitalism. >> no, and you're right. >> let me ask you a question. if i -- listen, i can make that government not be bought and make it the right size what i would argue. or go with your argument, which is, let's leave them bought but make them smaller. how does a small bought government help create jobs? >> i don't think bought anymore. one important point. >> no. no, no, no, no. no, no, no. >> how can they not? >> accidentally stop getting bought? >> no. there's nothing there to buy. you couldn't buy me as a lobbyist. >> the point is -- no, no. no, no, no, no, no let me finish. the banking system, money and payments, is the core system that flows, that drives the flow of all capital globally. all the capital in america, all the capital in europe. all the money. and if what yump saying is that the government has no responsibility to enforce capital requirements at the banks, because we should get rid

of the government, i think that's the wrong answer. >> to the degree that the government is propping up the banks. whether this is fdic -- then the government gets to set the rules. okay? to the degree -- >> what if setting the rule, small fantasy government is still bought by the banks? >> this is why you come in -- >> hold on. >> because -- >> one at a time. >> you're saying corruption is the cancer and the cure for this cancer is kill the patient. and that is absolutely fundamentally wrong. >> explain your view. >> the problem is not the fact government is ruptable. of course it is. you must make it harder for government to be corrupted, and government is corrupted by money. and you -- to do that you need to take so much excess capacity, so much extra money and get it out of the hands. power is a hero sum game. diminish government's power someone gets more power and that is going to be the rich who already-doctor. >> go ahead. please, please. >> can i ask a question? how about politicians and people

ins they country gone more to the left and more to the right? reagan, for instance -- >> i'll tell you why i think that's the wrong question? >> okay. >> because all of our politicians, all the democrats in this country, all the republicans in this country, pretty much everybody that's there, gets all of their money for all of their political campaigns from banking, health care, energy, defense, communications and agra business. >> you left out labor. number one contributor to politics in of the last -- >> not right. you can't invent facts. 40% of all politician donations come from finance, insurance and real estate. >> five are labor. >> i understand, a great distortion of facts to make it look like labor controls the government. >> i don't mean control it -- >> banks survive -- let me just have one second. so is it matter of left or right or does it matter all politicians are bought by industries that profit at the

extraction of america? >> yes. exactly. is that question? >> in other words -- when we indulge the question, i wonder if we're democrat or if we're republican? i wonder about the yankees or the red sox when the problem is they're all bought. >> when you look at iowa and the debate in the iowa and saying, oh, none would raise taxes. after all, $10 -- that's ridiculous. saying reagan raised taxes 11 time, debt ceiling 18 times. something shifted in america that -- >> i'm saying, yes. they're bought. the future -- >> everyone in iowa was bought? is that what you're saying ask. >> yes. i'm saying, let me explain what i mean when i say bought. when it comes to social policies or divisive issue goods for the manipulation of power, nobody's bought. when it comes to the tax, trade and banking policies that are fundamental to the funding of michele bachmann, of barack obama, of john boehner, of every

politician in this country, then those politicianless happily play on the edges with the manipulation and distraction of power while accepting money from banks, trading entities and tax manipulators and dodger, all of whom control both political parties in america. >> there's an easy way to say this. that the real dichotomy in this country is between essentially the super rich and the rest of us. i mean, the fact of the matter is it's a class war. and -- >> i wouldn't disagree, but -- >> because it's money -- >> i think -- >> our policy -- >> yes, but i would say there are plenty of rich people who are suffering in this congress. in a way that -- believe me, i'm not saying suffering to -- by any degree of deprivation, but plenty of people -- >> how are they suffering? >> through the terror of feeling they are, as the desire to invest and work in this country that they actually believe in this country and want to invest in it. >> 70% of country would trade their suffering for that.

>> and i don't disagree with that at all, but to sit here and think to yourself, all of those rich people are sitting around gleefully watching america burn i think is unfair. because i actually think everybody's concerned. i think everybody wants to figure out a way to do this and i think you're watching a certain group of rich people, a certain group of greedy bastards in each greedy industry, a lot ho lose, a small group, exert their influence over washington. >> we're splitting hairs. a wonderful korgs, and i appreciate the three of you enjoying it with me. i hope you did. and i'm going to keep the panel. washington, of course, claiming its in favor of jobs. we no that. no results to back that up. and the way we're dealing with fuel efficiency, another example of the misaligned interests that are the true barriers to american prosperity. we'll discuss it, next. introducing the schwab mobile app.

it's schwab at your fingertips wherever, whenever you want. one log in lets you monitor all of your balances and transfer between accounts, so your money can move as fast as you do. check out your portfolio, track the market with live updates. and execute trades anywhere and anytime the inspiration hits you. even deposit checks right from your phone. just take a picture, hit deposit and you're done. open an account today and put schwab mobile to work for you.

a mouthwatering combination of ingredients...e for you! i know you're gonna love. [ barks ] yes, it's new beneful healthy fiesta. made with wholesome grains, real chicken, even accents of tomato and avocado. yeah! come on! [ barking ] gotta love the protein for muscles-- whoo-hoo! and omega-rich nutrition for that shiny coat.

ever think healthy could taste so good? [ woman announcing ] new beneful healthy fiesta. another healthful, flavorful beneful.

you may have seen the white house headlines on fuel efficiency. joining with the major automakers, making an industry standard of 54.5 mimes a gallon by 2025. that's america, baby. pretty impressive. 54 miles a gallon by 2025. oh, yeah. oh, hang on. until you find out that the european carmakers are currently outpacing the standard we're aspired to reach in 14 years -- right now. get this, as we talk here today, on the road in europe, they are using cars that get 71 miles per gallon with no batteries. just clean diesel technology.

diesel fuel. 71 miles a gallon. suddenly our politicians goal of 54 miles a gallon in 14 years doesn't seem quite so impressive. does it? perhaps our politicians decision to make suvs ten times more profitable than cars the past decade using the tax code which is for sale wasn't so clever after all. so america the least efficient, highest fuel burning country in the world has a goal of being 23% less efficient than europe is today by 2025. that's leadership. our specialist today from the clean vehicles program at the union of concerned scientists is brendan bell. i'm utterly confused. how is it we can have clean diesel v.w.s on streets of germany today at 71 miles a gallon and i'm supposed to sit here in america and wait until 2025 to get to the 54? >> well, you know, truly interesting, actually, the stands of the administration, actually what europe will meet in 2020. five years behind europe. that's largely because we sat

out the game three decades. having to play catch-up but we have the technology to do it and will get closer and closer to what they have in europe. >> again if we already have the technology. for instance, america as you probably know as a power generation fuel efficiency standard 34%. two-thirds of all the fuel we burn making pow sir dissipated. japan, same thing. theirs, 90% just using heat capture technology. germany, 85%. we're a little bit behind there. i don't understand why america, the biggest burner of energy, the biggest perpetrator of wr around the world, to try to secure energy, the one who has just suffered the bp oil spill and all the rest of it is so far behind asia and europe when it comes to efficiency? >> well we didn't raise fuel economy standards for three decades largely because the auto industry went to congress and said don't force us to improve. and then saw the auto industry face the brink of collapse.

and now we're reinvesting in technology. the bulk of our oil goes into cars and truck. thanks to these standards set when president obama came into office in the first year, we're going to save more oil than we currently import from the persian gulf by 2030. is that happening now? no. we're putting technology in place and catching up with the rest of the world. >> oirn we're wasting two thirds of everything we burn at a power plant. >> i get what you're saying, let me see. if tomorrow our government didn't have the capacity to set standards or decided not set standards, just let the market take care of itself, do you think that our cars would become better and more efficient? or would we be able to compete with europe or would we become less? >> let me insert one thing. if the market was taking care of itself the real cost of oil would be reflected and gasoline $16 gallon. the free market theory, if you had a free market theory where the clul cost of fuels is not offloaded to the tax payers, military environment and gas was

$16 gallon, answer it both ways. $4.16. >> what we saw the last three decades, what happens when there are no standards. some vehicles on the lot incredibly fuel efficient and used the best technology. automakers weren't required to put it in all vehicles. basically these standards are about saying the average vehicle in 2025, the kinds of car a kid born today will drive when they get their license will have the best available technology. raising all. not saying one vehicle like the prius gets good technology. saying every car, truck and suv gets better technology. >> the government scanners weren't there but the technology was there. indicating that the demand wasn't there for the super fuel efficient economy. ask the same question that dylan was asking. isn't part of the problem that we subsidized driving, oil through these wars. subsidized driving through paving the roads, part of what obama's infrastructure bank would do. so what about instead of or maybe in addition to your government mandates, stopping subsidizing driving?

>> talking about the tools we have right now. we have the ability to raise economy standards -- >> we have the ability to stop subsidizing highways and fighting wars in the middle east -- >> convince them to change our policy overnight that would be great. what the president is doing using the tools -- >> you're a lobbyist. you can go to congress and do this. >> we're about saying let's get the auto industry to build better vehicles. >> here's the question. everybody knows congress is bought. everybody knows the rules are made by bought politicians. the only way to counter a bought politician is to have a marketplace drive the adaptation in this case $16 a gallon gasoline. if you're saying, instead of releasing the actual cost of oil, which is now being hidden from americans why verify clue of political charades, that instead we should allow a lot of bought politicians who we're supposed to trust to set rules while we allow them to maintain the military environmental subsidies for energy? i don't see how that's quality problem solving oonchts think

you're saying that it's either/or. >> no. i'm saying a bought congress making rules is not anecdote to a subsidized cost of oil, and i'm saying all the rules in the world from a bought congress are nothing until you actually release the pressures as we saw in europe, by the way, where there's 71 miles a gallon, they also pays 12ds tos 15ds a gallon and have way more of an incentive to actually buy that car. >> no argument getting rifd the subsidies for oil makes sense. we're saying that if prices are going up you need to make sure all americans have the best vehicle possible so they're fought getting stk with high prices. >> we're saying, is the best way to make sure of that to actually release the marketplace to drive them as they did in germany or the best way, make sure americans get the best thing and trust a bunch of bought precision politicians to do it? >> two things. in europe they've had these standards for a longening time. why they have the vehicles on the road. >> the standard is not thes 15ds gas? go ahead, imogene, is that right? >> i would say $10 a gallon to

buy petro, to buy gasoline in the u.k. that's very much the reason everybody is buying -- >> i thought it was the standards? >> no. of course it's not. the fact you want to get somewhere at a cheaper price. therefore, what are the hance c getting riz of subsidies and moving forward with this? he's speeshless. >> i'm sorry. i think i missed the question. >> listen, we'll wrap it up, ben. thank you very much. expert from the clean vehicles program at the union of concerned scientists. >> thanks for having me o. thank you, brendan, and thank you to the panel. this doesn't make sense to me how you can leave the military and environment subsidizing oil and have -- >> he worked for the auto industry, they've gotten behind him. the ethanol industry. i don't know the details. there are ways to -- >> raise standards, let's all now commit to getting ends for,

subs skies for oil companies and commit to getting out of wars and to not oversubsidizing highways and put it in public transport. >> we agree on that. >> yes we agree. >> in noor? >> yes. >> imogene? >> absolutely. >> we just made a deal. very well done. thank you very much. coming up, we put aside the political charade, whether we've been dealing with the past half hour to look at inspiration and intrigue from the world around us. ♪ i like dat ♪ ♪ i like dat, all right

[ male announcer ] mio. a revolutionary water enhancer. add a little...or a lot. for a drink that's just the way you like it. make it yours. make it mio. you've been stuck in the garage, while my sneezing and my itchy eyes took refuge from the dust in here and the pollen outside. but with 24-hour zyrtec®, i get prescription strength relief from my worst allergy symptoms. it's the brand allergists recommend most. ♪ lily and i are back on the road again. where we belong. with zyrtec®, i can love the air®. host: could switching to geico reon car insurance? or more host: do people use smartphones to do dumb things? man 1: send, that is the weekend. app grapgic: yeah dawg! man 2: allow me to crack...the bubbly! man 1: don't mind if i doozy. man 3: is a gentleman with a brostache invited over to this party? man 1: only if he's ready to rock!

♪ sfx: guitar and trumpet jam vo: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. new citracal slow release... continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal.

those are you way too lot got a show. the perseid meteor show, for all of us nasa wannabes, so impressive from the space station, astronaut ron photographed this shooting star as it streaked through the earth's atmosphere. that's pretty cool. tweeted it out for the world to see. these showers becoming a yearly ritual for star gazers as the earth regularly slams into

leftover pieces from the swift-tuttle comit apparently burning up debris in our atmosphere. 25 to 50 shooting stars per hour. a nice surprise for anybody who happened to be up late enjoying the clear night. up next from the aspiring to the downright intriguing, a brand new film about what conspiracy theorists claim was nasa's secret mission to the moon.

yeah. 24 bucks later. that hurts. it's not like i really had a choice. snack on this. progressive's "name your price" tool showed me a range of coverages and i picked the one that worked for me. i saved hundreds. wow, that's dinner and a movie. [ dramatic soundtrack plays ] this picture stars you and savings. but mostly savings. out there with a better way. now, that's progressive.

experiencing -- >> look at this. the flag's gone. >> tracks. they aren't ours. they lead away. >> december 14, 1972, the last time a human stepped foot on the moon -- or was it? the government would have us believe apollo 17 was the last manned mission to the moon. we all know, the government xn always give us the whole truth. if you take nasa at its word, apollo 18 was cut for budget reasons but not according to a new film entitled "apollo 18" claiming the mission did happen and was rather disastrous in consequences. we bring in named nuclear physicist dr. friedman. what is the -- >> mr. freedman. sorry. >> what is the logic behind the "a "apollo 18" film.

>> it's conceivable secret missions were turned out by nasa with extraordinary evidence of strange things going on on the moon. the moon supposed to have no life, no activity, xwlaut just do up there, and there's always been a question. the 18 and 19 were built and paid for. the crews were selected. and the excuse was, well, it would cost too much money. but the money's been spent. so there's always been this puzzle. what really did happen, and some people can't believe governments can keep secrets. i worked under security for 14 years, for little companies like ge, gm, westinghouse, et cetera. >> small businesses there. >> yeah. yeah. and i've been to 20archives, wrote 20-odd some reports and have some feeling for how security works and chasing down the ufo scene since 1958, and

one of the things i found is that it's easy to prove that various government agencies have lied, to put it frankly, and blunt buy, and the press has not done its job in digging out those lies. >> and -- >> so -- >> go ahead. >> i was just going to say that i am pursuing the truth, and i brought along just to give you an example. it took me five years to get this cia ufo document which is very exciting. you can read eight meaningless words. now, that's not the only one like this, but, i mean, it illustrates the problem. >> and -- so -- oh. go ahead. >> no, just that many people think if you have a clearance you have access to everything. the other thing you need, is a need to know. and there are millions of classified documents out there that you can't gain access to. >> yeah. >> some people don't want to believe that.

it's democracy, we have to know everything. that's not the way the system works. >> yeah. at this point in 2011, i believe everybody knows we've got a bought government. one way or the other. i guess -- >> yes. >> and we're all, even those in the deepest of denial as they watch what's bearing out in front of our country in the terms of this extraction and all the rest of it gets it, i think, or is getting it, or is learning about it. what would be the incentive in the case of "apollo 18" to distorts, lie or prevent the understanding of what happened? >> the whole question of alien life, of people doing things that we don't know about on places that we don't know we can get to and all that is of great concern. it means we're less important than we'd like to think we are. it means there are forces that work about which we know nothing, and, you know, just a simple-minded example. the first successful u.s. spy satellite was a corona spy

satellite that went up in 1960 after 12 failures in public. know knew about them. it got more data about russian military installations than all the u2 flights that preceded it. now, we didn't find out about it, we, the american people, didn't find out about it until 1995. that's a pretty good example of keeping secrets. >> yeah. >> the national reconnaissance office which runs big, expensive satellites, some cost half a billion dollars, about three years ago announced they cancelled a program developing a new satellite architecture with boeing and had only spent $13 billion in secret. anybody says your government can't keep secrets doesn't know what they're talking about. >> the bought nature of our government as we learn through anecdotes like yours about the ability to control information

on certain things and more importantly, expend resources, secretly on things we don't know about, as we come to understand that, by virtue of the benefit of what we now have, the internet, connectivity, facebook, we can learn in a way that nerve hear been possible in the history of the world what do you think the implications are of the capacity in the meti universe that were never known before colliding with not only the american government, the global government, that it's been bought and duplicitous for centuries? >> a really serious implication. like the question, what difference does it make if flying saucers are real? who cares? so what? well, if the changes are viewable ourselves, who's going to negotiate and speak for the planet? that's a problem. we're not going to hold an election. we don't have 1.3 billion people like the chinese. changes are view of ourselves, and when the day comes that we start sharing secrets with each other, that will see a

difference in things. so the world is changing. ka person kis was wrong. earth is not the center of universe. the sun isn't the center of the universe. some people can't handle a blow to their ego. >> blass phoomy! t blasphemy. not the center of the earth. arithmetic is on your side when you look outside in the sky. thank you so much for the time today. appreciate it. mr. friedman. thank you, sir. >> you're welcome. >> stan friedman, nuclear physicist. coming up here, chris looking at what appears to be the gop's final plea for the white house. first a little time on a monday with keli goff and a rant about the f word, and i don't mean that one. [ man ] this is my robot butler. say i'm missing england... i type in e-n-g and he gives me a variety of options. would you like to have a look at a map, my lad? ah, why not?

should we check on the status of your knighthood? yes. again? yes, again! please. thank you! with my digital manservant, i'll never be homesick again. would you like me to put the kettle on, sir? no! i'd like you to get rid of that ostrich. it's been here a month. [ male announcer ] the new hp touchpad starting at $399.99. ♪ a network of possibilities. in here, the planned combination of at&t and t-mobile would deliver our next generation mobile broadband experience to 55 million more americans, many in small towns and rural communities, giving them a new choice. we'll deliver better service, with thousands of new cell sites... for greater access to all the things you want, whenever you want them. it's the at&t network... and what's possible in here is almost impossible to say. i'm not looking forward to my flight. try this. bayer aspirin? i'm not having a heart attack. it's my back. no, this is new bayer advanced aspirin... clinically proven to relieve tough pain

twice as fast as before. what, did you invent this or something? well, my team did. i'm dr. eric first, from bayer. wow. look. it has microparticles. it enters the bloodstream faster and rushes relief right to the site of pain. better? great! thanks. [ male announcer ] new bayer advanced aspirin. extra strength pain relief. twice as fast. test our fast relief. love it, or get your money back. test our fast relief. luck? i don't trade on luck. i trade on fundamentals. analysis. information. i trade on tradearchitect. this is web-based trading, re-visualized. streaming, real-time quotes. earnings analysis. probability analysis: that's what opportunity looks like. it's all visual. intuitive. and it's available free, wherever the web is. this is how trade strategies are built. tradearchitect. only from td ameritrade. welcome to better trade commission free for 60 days when you open an account.

it's monday. which means keli goff the turn to rant arrived. how are you, my friend? >> >>, dylan. how are you? >> good. >> recently i came out of the closet. i don't mean that closet. i'm referring to the other closet many childless career oriented women find ourselves boxed into. that of a closeted feminist. i doesn't even know i was in the closet until i mentioned on facebook i attend add screening of a terrific new documentary on feminist icon gloria steinem. gloria in her own words airing tonight on hbo. a self-described fan of mine expressed surprise and disappointment i would identify with all that so-called feminist stuff. which he considers detrimental

to society. i initially assume head was joking. after all, i write about womening issues so much during a recent interview about my new bood, a gq candidate, i was asked about this. among the sexism. after the kri79 criticism received i did reflection and rarely use feminist to describe myself in my writing. conscious on my part, definitely not. conscious choice, i'm beginning to wonder. a cbs news survey found 69% of women polled believed the woman it definitely made their lives better 70% do not consider themselves feminists despite the fact there are greater advantages to being a man in society than being a woman. i assumed like my so-called fan, many don't know the definition

of the word feminist or feminist. according to webster, the theory of political and economic associate equality of the sexes. gee, isn't that controversial sounding? who would want to stand for that? wet as we see from this documentary, the word feminist long used by those opposed to the feminist movement of gender equality. easier for equal rights opponents to vilify it exploiting people's ignorance of the true meanings of word. instead a synonym for man-hating unattractive angry witch, making the fen nift movement a covenant of witches. if so, pass me my broom. i believe in gender quality. if you do, too, that makes both of us the f word. it's time for all of us, then to come out of the closet. that's the only way it will stop being a bad word. so allow me to start. my name is keli goff. and i am a feminist. >> how does that feel? >> it felt pretty darn good,

actually. get it off my chest. >> there you go. >> come out of the closet. >> i feel i should come out of the closet about something right now, but i'm too tired to think of what it might be. i'm kind of exhausted now, keli. >> you're a feminist, too? >> am and not. my issue is feminism, suggesting you're not in favor of everybody being equal. i am in favor of everybody being equal and i think picking one group that has to be totally equal to everybody else -- as opposed to saying, we're all equal. black, white, chicken, blue, gray, woman, man, tha kind of is where my head goes. maybe i'm a feminist, i'm an quellitaria equalitarian. is that something? i'm an equalitarian, and chris matthews starts right now. the republicans shake and bake. let's play "hardball."