don't think you're çoverweight. i'm not going to have that. >> i think it's important that we model health. >> okay. >> for the children. >> absolutely. >> tooth decay, these sorts of things. >> absolutely. >> right now we're going to do our tv show. thank you for teaching me today. >> okay. well, good afternoon to you. my name is dylan ratigan. and today's big story once again, penn state. breaking developments in the child abuse scandal surrounding, as you know, jerry sandusky. the judge that was handling his case, a person who was tied as a volunteer to sandusky's charity, has been replaced. also today, e-mails emerge from mike mcqueary, a name you may know at this point, the grad assistant who said he saw sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the penn state locker room. this goes back to 2002. the e-mails that were released contradict what was in the grand jury report. now in the mcqueary e-mails, he

says, and i'll quote, i did stop it, not physically, but made sure it was stopped when i left that locker room. i did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police. he goes on to say in the e-mail, i am getting hammered for handling this the right way. now the definition of the right way, of course, has been the subject of heated debate, a debate had a has now reached congress with representative bobby rusch calling for a congressional hearing on the ncaa's reluctance to investigate the charges against sandusky. the national collegiate athletic association claims that it, quote, lackedç jurisdiction to investigate which is strange because they don't hesitate to launch an investigation when rumors crop up that a player sold his autograph for money or that coaches have been texting too many recruits in the wrong

season. it seems a convenient position for the ncaa to hold, but it's one that will get tougher to stand by as details and allegations continue to come out. on that note, new reports say that jerry sandusky housed six different children through the fresh air fund. this dated back to the 1970s, and this is information that was not disclosed widely and publicly until last week. first up is taylor branch. he's a famous civil rights historian and pulitzer prize winner. he recently turned his attention towards the culture and role of authority and the economy in college sports. the result of which you can find in his e-book, "the cartel, inside the rise and imminent falls," so you can see where he's coming from of the ncaa. also with us today, paul monas, when works throughout the nation representing victims of sexual abuse. he says the number of victims is

likely far higher than we're being led to believe. and i want to begin, if i could with you, taylor. it's obvious from the title of your book you don't hold the ncaa in particularly high esteem, even for your cynical and jaded eye as to the corrupt or dysfunctional nature of this institution. how do you respond to the revelations of penn state and the ncaa's handling of those allegations? >> well, theç allegations are shocking. i thought and still believe the ncaa is profoundly misinformed. however. i didn't contemplate and i'm certainly not pleased to read stories that it has allowed this kind of sexual abuse of children to take place, but i'm not shocked that once it happened it was contained because the whole purpose of the ncaa is to concentrate power and control and money in precisely the hands of those officials who have been indicted and/or fired at penn state. nobody else has the standing

to -- to really get anything going. if you're a student you're going to lose your scholarship. you have no right of due process. you have no right of anything. the ncaa allows them no membership, no nothing. so if you concentrate power like that, you're going to get this kind of exploitation, both financial exploitation and sadly, we now see, physical exploitation. >> truly community predation. >> absolutely. >> paul, we talk about, and we've seen the statistics and we're learning more and more about how widespread this type of assault is. there's perhaps no crime more disempowering to any human being than to be sexually assaulted, the compounding of that obviously really explodes in the context of a powerful adult with a child. where do you see the opportunity to expand the national awareness, not just of child

sexual abuse and child rape but of a culture of ignoring the fact that one in four girls suffers from a sexual assault or a çrape, that one in six boys suffers from a sexual assault or a rape when it is faced with a natural tendency not to be discussed and a natural tendency of the power structures that taylor just described to try to not have it discussed? >> yeah. i think that's the big takeaway from this is are we going to learn anything? you know, back in 2002 when the catholic church crisis exploded, oh, yes, we all know about sexual abuse now. you would think in 2002 we would be educated about that, but the problem is throughout the united states sexual abuse of children through trusted adult figures disappears in the fabric of our society. people don't even see it occurring, unfortunately, because they -- these perpetrators are contrary to general perceptions, you know.

oh, it can't be a coach. it's got to be the guy, you know, sitting outside in the dirty rain coat waiting for kids to come out of school. it's not that. it's people who we know intimately who are the abusers, and so it's a matter of educating people. you know, i've heard a number of people talk on television about, well, you know, using the old phrase that we hear in airports. if you see something, say something. it's just not that simple. people have to realize that these people who commit these crimes have been doing this for years, and they are experts at it. they are experts at it. they have -- and they finally hone their skills, and it's not just, you know, it's been left out of the national dialogue. it's not just the kids. it's the parents as well. parents are groomed by these people so it's a much more complicated scenario. >> yeah, yeah. >> than saying okay, you see a kid. >> i got that. >> the reality is nobody really sees a kid being molested as mcqueary allegedly did. >> taylor, which brings us back to the ncaa because it's very

hard to -- to do anything but agree with what paul just said. >> yeah. >> which is why our reliance on institutions that are not the individuals involved, that are not the individuals at risk one way or the other but institutions that represent our highest and most just values, the ncaa, is the place that we look to to ensure that behaviors that could naturally or typically behave the way paul just described doesn't happen, and yet the very institutions to whom we're looking to protect us are actually working in concert with the predators. >> absolutely, and i hope what this stimulates is profound fresh education on all campuses, not just penn state about how college sports is structured and about how can protect people and about the balance of power so that the power and the money will not be so concentrated in these adults that they have so much incentive and so much power to exploit people and cover it up. >> paul, do you agree with that?

>> and i would agree. i agree, and i think this is going to be a watershed. i was backed involved in litigation throughout the united states and against the catholic church and all of us, a handful of attorneys in the country who specialize against this said this is going to change. really, people were able to say in that case oh, it's catholics, only the catholic church and it's not anybody else, and now we realize when you have a hallowed institution such as penn state where it occurs, maybe people, maybe people now will get the message that it can happen to everybody. because in the catholic church crisis, çdylan, nobody in congress was saying we need open investigations and it's really only to expand it out, bishop finn indicted in kansas city did we really see the public prosecution process get involved. >> right. >> children can't speak for themselves. >> the thing when it's the catholic church or the ncaa, that the children implicitly, and explicitly are being told to trust these institutions as

institutions of grooming and development. >> right. >> the church is a place where you learn to be a -- a better connected, better informed person, a more spiritual life. the athletic universe is a place where comradely and competitive energies are harnessed to the greatest potential and the refining of who people are. if you look at what that does to the -- to the psyche when the institutions do that, do you agree with what paul was saying, that -- that you can't dismiss the one in four girls get raped and one in six boys in america get raped. they are not all getting raped in the catholic church. they are not all git getting raped at penn state. >> no, that's correct. >> this actually is a fact that exists. >> none of us should say that it's somebody else's children getting molested. it's all of our children getting molested and, therefore, all of us have a responsibility to make sure these institutions function properly and don't insulate and protect the exploiters. >> i've got to wrap this up. >> can i just say -- very

embarrassing. to think that this is a problem just with joe paterno and his group up there at penn state would be a mistake. it's easy toe attack those people, but the more difficult issue is for every day people seeing children -- çyeah. i -- we agree with paul's point. we'll finish it for him, that the issue is the acknowledgement of the base data, the base reality. >> right. >> and the responsibility whether it's the catholic church or those institutions to assume responsibility for their custody and the way that we all expect. >> i agree, absolutely. >> taylor, thank you. look forward -- i look forward to listening to the book. i recorded my first ever book the other day. pay you money to read your own book. it's ridiculous, but i'm going to listen to your book, "the cartel, the rise and imminent fall of the ncaa." taylor branch, thank you. >> thank you, dylan. >> coming up, thank you, paul, nice to see you, thank you. thought we lost you to the digital universe. >> thank you very much. >> coming up here on "the "d.r.

show," patriotic millionaires, members of the 1% are on capitol hill telling congress tax me more. are they crazy? that and what senator tom coburn thinks really crazy is or what he calls sheer washington stupidity, excuse me. he's with us right after this. plus, a single innovation that our guests say could solve america's food, water and energy problems in a single event. we'll discuss and have you got the right stuff? nasa is hiring. [ male announcer ] an lg smart tv, lg optimus cell phone and...an apology card. this is ridiculous.

yeah, and it's got apps. nice. it's got vudu, twitter, facebook. no honey, not facebook. ♪ honey, you think my sweater's horrendous? cats don't skate. i think it kicks butt. [ male announcer ] get low prices on the gifts they love, like lg tvs with the latest technology. backed by our christmas price guarantee. save money. live better. walmart. helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. for a hot dog cart. my mother said, "well, maybe we ought to buy this hot dog cart and set it up someplace." so my parents went to bank of america. they met with the branch manager and they said, "look, we've got this little hot dog cart, and it's on a really good corner. let's see if we can buy the property." and the branch manager said, "all right,

i will take a chance with the two of you." and we've been loyal to bank of america for the last 71 years.

we believe that the .01%, we, should pay more taxes. we want to pay more taxes. >> those of us who can afford it should step up, and that's our message to the super commit, and the i hope they listen. >> well, two members of a group of self-proclaimed patriotic millionaires practically begging our congress to raise their taxes, but is washington listening? in the past 30 years the)top 1 of americans saw their income skyrocket 281%. meanwhile, their tax rates plummeted. bear in mind that population now controls 40% of all of our nation's financial wealth and capital, but only pay 28% of our nation's taxes which means we make up the difference. making it worse, a new congressional report shows the taxpayers, you and myself and so many others, are physically actually financially subsidizing the wealthy lifestyles of the 1%

because, of course, they can purchase our country at auction. friend of the show republican senator tom coburn wrote the report and calls this welfare for the well off. senator, there's a big difference between inequality which is something people tend to understand and sort of relate to and inequity, a sense that there is not a fairness by which the resources are being divvied up. this seems to fall in that category. >> well, a couple of things. the two people you had on in that clip, they can all pay more taxes right now if they want to, and they can choose not to take the deductions, if they want to, so i discount a lot of that. i think we have inequity in the tax code because what we've done is written in deductions and credits and favorites and the ability for those that are well off to take advantage of things that other people don't have available to them, so before we tax the people that are making more than $1 million a year in

this country more, and by the way, i think your number is wrong. the top 1% pay 38%, according to the irs. >> understood. >> but before we tax them more, the first thing we ought to do is take the $28 billion -- >> just for clarification, i didn't know, senator, apparently theç 28 is the overall number. 38 is the income tax number. >> yeah. >> either way, the problem is the problem. go on. >> the problem is we have selected advantages for those that are well off in our tax code, and we ought to be getting rid of those, and we ought to at least make them fair. you know, when we pay $76 million in unemployment claims last year to people who had adjusted gross incomes of greater than $1 million, probably we ought to have an earnings test for unemployment. that's number one. then we have all these other things where they are taking deductions and claims that they can take advantage of because of their wealth. i mean, we have people who claim

yachts as their second home, deduct the interest as a second home in terms of their mortgage and write off the pierage fees and everything else as an expense because one time last year they rented it out. >> that sounds like a sweet deal, man. >> it is, and so -- what i'm saying is if we're going to go to tax fairness we need to reform the code and make it apply equally to everybody, and everybody ought to pay their fair share, except those on the very low end of the scale, and we're not doing that today. we have a lot of people that aren't paying anything. >> and i think this is one of those issues where, again, 80% to 90% of the country when you get to the principles of the base rhetoric agrees with what we're talking about. the question becomes, okay, what is the barrier between talking about it on television and -- and implementing it as a set of policy reforms? >> well, i think we can do that. i think most people would agree with the report we put out. some would disagree that there ought to be an earnings test associated with social security, i understand that, because people have contributed to it, but in canada they have an

earnings çtest, and by the way their social security is not insolvent in the long run like ours is. >> yeah. i get it. it's rational. >> you bring up one other thing in the limited time we have left. the last time you and i spoke i was and continue to strongly advocate to address what i call the 94% problem which is 94% of the time the person who raises the most money wins. i view that as an auction. you countered my point by saying, listen, dylan, i don't know it's the money that's your view by the incumbenty bias is such a power for power retention, and i listened to you when i said that and recognized that and did a little bit of research and want to show folks some data on the incumbency bias that you drew our attention to in the last conversation. this is from 2010. 86% -- this is a wave election, by the way. this was a tea party rejection of the status quo. we're not going to take it anymore. this won't be had, and in that context, 86% of house earthquakes won, and 83% of

senate incumbents won. now i would argue, senator, that part of that is the money in politics issue, and by no means have i relieved my own aggression towards that issue, but i do think you're right to bring up the incumbency bias as a second and significant issue. is there a brief answer as to where we begin to address that inequity? >> well, you know, i think if you look at the state of virginia, they have no limits on anything in terms of campaign, and they have never had a problem that we have nationally. we put limits. we've got rules. we catch people in traps that -- i still think the biggest problem is the power of the incumbency, the power to raise money over an advantage, so what you see is people winning and putting their own money in to defeat a çsenator. that oftentimes is the case. in rare exceptions it's not. so there's no question we have a tremendous advantage, and we continue to protect that advantage, and that's what we ought to be addressing. >> listen, we don't have the time now, but i'd love to have a bigger conversation about addressing that. >> we'll have it over lunch some

day. >> look forward to it, senator. >> okay. >> thanks for the conversation this afternoon. tom coburn. >> good to talk to you. >> out of oklahoma. >> our mega panel is here. imogen lloyd-weber, jonathan capehart and reuters editor at large, chrystia freeland, channel coburn with a channel of rational thought. your interpretations? >> i think he makes a good point. i think one of the things we've seen and one of the drivers of this inequality and inequitable inequality that you've talked about, dylan, we've seen at the same time that the rich have been getting richer because of some sort of profound economic forces at work, the tax code has actually been taxing them less and a big way that that happens is there's a lot of deductions in there that favor people who are well off. >> yeah. >> i think that there would be broad-based support for removing those. part of the problem is this tax pledge that so many of the republican legislators have

signed. >> isn't the issue with the tax code very similar with the issue to cutting the defense budget? every single congressional district has some constituency that's benefiting from some special tax arrangement, the same as every single district has some defense pork that's coming out of defense budget so you can talk tax code all day but good luck chopping anything up. >> right, correct, and when they do do defense cuts or let's say base closings, congress couldn't do it because it would never get done. they had to send it to a commission, indepe%dent body, say a super committee, to make the tough decisions for them. you know what, dylan, it's great that those patriotic millionaires are out there asking congress to tax them more, but there's going to have to be more of those millionaires from across the country, but also patriotic corporations who come forward and say, okay, look. we want to come forward and help the country, and so far that's not happening. >> interestingly, imogen, and senator coburn hit the name on

the head, there's a difference between patriotic action and rhetoric. if you want to pay more taxes, you can. you don't have to ask someone to raise them. can you spend them more money, if you want. and there's something disingenuous, i don't mean to diminish the integrity but whether it's the occupation movement and all the protest that we see around the world, they are calling for not words but not actions. >> i think so. what's missing at the moment in america is that sense of i think core fairness. you always love success and celebrate success. that's what make america great, but it's also supposed to be a fair country and that has been lost. i was talking to you about this last week, a little bit about shared sacrifice we all have to make. the military, 1% of americans serve in the military, they have done something for the country. what can the rest of us do? are those patriotic millionaires, they are saying we would hike to do something. okay, congress, make them do something. politicians step up and we collectively, how can we help? i feel like i belong here, i pay taxes here. i can't vote here >> you talk funny.

>> what can i do to help, and we all have to bail america out, put america on the right track shared sacrifice. it's that fundamental point. >> dylan, can i jump in? >> please. >> i was just going to say to this point that senator coburn made that you sort of supported about well, you know, these millionaires, they could just pay more. no one is stopping them fromç individually doing that. sure that's the case, but there's also a collective action issue here and if each one of those people pays more taxes, that doesn't really move the dial in terms of the u.s. budget. >> of course. >> who wants to pay into swiss cheese anyway. >> go ahead, right, exactly. so i think it's absolutely legitimate for them to be saying, no, we want a change so that everybody in our tax bracket has to pay more, and i salute them for that. >> and i do think that there's a huge distinction between inequality which is prevalent in all life, naturally and otherwise, and inequity, which is really what we find ourselves dealing with in the sensibilities and everything

from the occupation to the patriotic millionaires. the panel stays. straight ahead here, our specialist, an original voice in confronting the inequity of the banking system at the origins of the tea party movement. carl denninger joins the conversation after this.

well, some developing news for you this evening. italy's newly sworn in prime minister helping to form a new government as his country continues to teeter on the brink of economic collapse having been allowed to burden itself with an exquisite amount of debt lent to it by banks who quite simply never had the money in the first place and quite candidly those countries never economically qualified to remotely borrow as much money as they did. our next guest, however, says global crises like what we're seeing in europe what, we saw in our own country in recent years,

will continue to happen as long as all of us allow a rigged system where powerful interests act as puppet masters for governments where banks are empowered with no capital, no actual resources, to lend money to countries and institutions purely with the incentive to create debt around which they can speculate. carl denninger is a specialist and one of the original tea party voices. his new book is called "leverage," and the definitiooç of cheap money, of course, carl, money that has no capital, no underlying as tote reinforce its currency. why has it been so beneficial to the elite to go down a path of a cheap leveraged currency for the west? >> it's very easy, dylan, to allow this kind of thing to happen if you never have to pay the piper when the bets go bad.

we've seen this since the 1980s, starting with continental illinois. the people who loaned money to continental illinois. they didn't pay the piper when continental illinois blew up. did the same thing in the 2000s and now again. we're in a situation here where the banks and other institutions get to play heads i win, tails everybody else loses, and that's why we find ourselves in a situation we're in today. >> imogen, go ahead. i'm fascinated to know your view on the you'ro. do you think it can survive? bear in mind the eurozone countries have broken all their own rules? >> probably not as it is currently constituted. my expectation, however, is because of the way the treaties are structured, you can't throw somebody out, so the most likely outcome eventually is that germany gets tired of paying for everybody else's profl grassy and leaves on their own, and everyone looks at that and says that would be a disaster for them because the deutsche mark would be insanely strong against the euro of today. at some point why do i want to

give 10%, 15% of my domestic output to prop up people who are not producing anything, and that's what we're running into here in the united states as well. >> the consequence of a broken euro, it would seem, would be an aggressive short-term move, not just to a strong deutsche mark, but even a strong dollar, çkar which would seem to provide a real risk to u.s. exports and manufacturing, among other things. is that a fair interpretation? >> yeah. i would expect to see the dollar go dramatically higher simply because the higher index is a trade-weighted index, and the euro is a big part of that. the deutsche mark, of course, would be extremely strong as well. the intermediate term though of this is that it's going to cut off the game-playing that we've been doing here in the united states and that they have been doing over in europe, and it needs to happen, dylan. we've got, you know, just in the medical system alone, we've got a 10% growth rate in cost over every year that's been going on for 20 years. no increase in income, and this

means that you double your income in 25 years, but the cost of medical care goes up ten times. >> it's absurd. >> cristehristchristia, go ahea >> today i interviewed the ceo of the bank of canada, i asked him what is the one rule he would put in place if he were in charge and he had an immediate answer which is a limit on leverage. he says if you do that, that takes so much risk out of the system. do you agree with him? >> i would go further than that. my rule for sound banking is one dollar of capital which means for every dollar of unsecured lending you want to do, or if you want to be -- and that includes, by the way, speculating in things like derivatives, you need to have a dollar of somebody's capital behind it. if you want to loan against assets, that's a different matter. $1 of capital solves this problem because the essence of what's happened over these 30 years is these institutions have naked shorted the currency.

>> in a nutshell your answer is an absolutist answer, endç leverage and go to a 1-1, is that fair? >> no, no. if you are lending against assets, there's no particular problem in doing it. what we have now is essentially unlimited leverage, and if you look at what happened in 2007, we were putting $6 of debt into the system for every dollar in gross domestic product that was added. that's unsustainable. >> jonathan, go ahead. >> karl, all of what you're saying and the graphics shown while you were speaking, they all make sense. they are all reasonable. they are all rational. they are all the right things to do, so who is standing in the way of getting this done? >> look at the problems we have in washington, d.c. last year the federal government essentially provided 12% of gross domestic product by aboutoing and spending money. that is 12% of domestic output that really didn't exist in

actual demand in the economy. we manufactured it and pretended it was there. we've been doing there,for three years. it has to stop at some point, but you have a deadly embrace between the banks on wall street and the congress. neither of which want to face the truth. can you not have government services that you refuse to pay for in current taxes. it's that simple, and that's what europe got in trouble with as well. >> the resolution, andrew liverus, the chief executive at dow kemp call, karl, was -- spoke recently at a committee for economic development meeting in which -- and ced actually wrote the marshall plan after world war ii, and he made the argument that the rational way forward here is the restoration of capital requirements or leverage limits, they are the same thing, different words, and a global architecture for a global debt restructuring modelled after

>> that's right, that's right. very rational mathematical conversation. something they don't have that often, i know, in washington. interesting conversation from all of you. thank you, thank you, jonathan. an international show.

people don't realize it. dylan had a panel with karl and jonathan and chrystia and aren't they so pretty and smart. they are foreigners, people, okay? we've got a canadian. these are foreigners. >> and proud to be canadian. >> grateful for my green card, but i love canada. >> and i love my visa. >> listen, the conversation is better for it for ten reasons, and we appreciate it. thank you, guys. the conversation we just had, reason enough to get money out. 94% of the time the money wins. you can't deal with what we're talking about if you don't have the money out. as you know,ç tuesday, we shar the exciting news that the movement is growing in resources and diversity. the get money out foundation merging with the democracy fund to form a new circle called united republic. we are basically going from a few people with a few hundred thousand dollars to more than a dozen people with millions of dollars and multiple resources. check out their website at

unitedrepublic.org. i'm really excited to help them. their first campaign will be get money out. as always, learn more and join the petition at getmoneyout.com. they will be coming out with a survey and all sorts of stuff for that list. as we take a break here. job creation going intergalactic. we'll tell you about an out-of-this world job posting. [ male announcer ] juice drink too watery? ♪ feel the power my young friend. mmm! [ male announcer ] for unsurpassed fruit and veggie nutrition...

v8 v-fusion. could've had a v8.

mine can. td ameritrade can. they've got trading specialists i can call for help. and paper trading. free practice trading that helps me hone my technique. complex options. and free tutorials online or in person. can a trading site really make a difference? if it can't, why are you trading there? number one in online equity trades. td ameritrade. [ male announcer ] trade commission-free for 60 days. plus get up to $600 when you open an account.

well, my childhood dream could finally come true. nasa looking for some folks with the right stuff to be the next generation of astronauts. >> we need you to help plan for this future of exploration. join nasa. get your application in now for the 2013 astronaut candidate plan. your space flight experience begins right here, right now. >> that's no joke. if you need a job and the star's the limit, that could be the gig for you. nasa now accepting applications online at the government's

website, usajohns.conley. according to the site, the full-time gig pays between $64,000 and $116,000, a paycheck for gaining planetary prowess, i'd go for free, but before you get too restricted nasa isn't relaxing their standards. you need at least a bachelors degree in engineering, biological science, physical science or math. most astronauts have masters or a doctorate as well and you also have to have basic physics and be between 5'2" and the 6'3" and don't forget we do not have our own spaceships right now so you're going to have to learn russian so you can hitch a ride with the space cosmonauts. m%u sound like i'll have to head back to class, learn some russian, brush up on my physics. that or i could just call my buddy richard branson and see about being an astronaut for

virgin galactic but for my seasickness and fear of heights. next, could these structures be the key to solving our food and energy problems? the big potential of vertical farming when we come back. what's better than gold ? free gold ! we call that hertz gold plus rewards. you earn free days, free weeks and more fast. that's a plus. upgrade your ride. that's a plus. rewards with no blackout dates so you can redeem anytime.

and it's easy to redeem your points online. already a gold member ? just select gold plus rewards in your profile and start rewarding yourself now. just go to hertzgoldplusrewards.com to join. hertz gold plus rewards. journey on. yeah, i toog nyguil bud i'm stild stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't un-stuff your nose. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid gels fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your stuffy nose. [ deep breath ] thank you! that's the cold truth! two of the most important are energy security and economic growth. north america actually has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. a large part of that is oil sands. this resource has the ability to create

hundreds of thousands of jobs. at our kearl project in canada, we'll be able to produce these oil sands with the same emissions as many other oils and that's a huge breakthrough. that's good for our country's energy security and our economy. [ female announcer ] who'd have thought that the person you'd grow up to be -- how creative or confident or kind -- was shaped before you lost your first tooth? ♪ the first five years are forever. ♪ that's why pnc is devoting $250 million and ten more years to helping families discover learning opportunities all around them. pnc. grow up great.

well, 7 billion mouths to feed. that our collective obligation. the world's population recently racing past that new milestone, you probably heard.

the globe, of course, under unprecedented stresses to sustain it. right now over 925 million of us do not have enough food, and even those keeping full saw a 37% spike in food costs from last year, thank you, central bankers, and your money-printing. but our next guest says it doesn't have to be like this, that there is a way to make enough local and cheap food. we simply have to look up in the sky. did you get that? that was like a metaphor i was trying to do. it was weak. you get my point. the same structures that could help solve our energy and water issues are, again, in the sky. with us now, columbia professor dixon depalmier, a big proponent of what he calls vertical farming, something he lays out in his book "the vertical farm, feeding the world in the 21st century," and it's an absolutely pleasure to have you here, professor. lay this out in a nutshell. obviously the premise is evident

by the cover of the book and by the pictures. the real question is how is this anything more than a gimmick? sp@t's not really a way to meaningfully alter our food chain just because i decided to grow a tomato on my roof. >> no, that's right. i agreed this started out as a crazy idea in a class that i taught in 1989 and every year's worth of graduate student had a piece of the action in terms of determining whether this is a crazy idea worth trying or a crazy idea not worth trying, and it turned out to be a crazy idea worth trying because there are six vertical farms out there. >> what is the crazy idea in. >> the crazy idea is to actually grow food where you live. most people choose to live in areas where they are forced to, and they are usually forced to because their farming has failed and they are moving to the city to look for other work. they are not finding that work, so why not grow food where we live. >> so i'm sure it's presented in

the book, that suggests the idea of vertical farming is worth messing around with. >> quite worth messing around with it. more people are messing around with it. they are making a living doing this, so the indoor greenhouses that you've read about that have high-tech hydroponic farming opportunities associated with them, they are spread out all over the world. there's one in arizona, 318 acres worth. the only difference is that there are about 3,000 miles away from where i live, so why don't we bring this closer, and every time you do that, you'll have to stack these up higher and higher to take up less room, so just -- >> and i guess -- if i'm reading between the lines properly, what you're saying is that the technology exists. >> that's right. >> in a way that maybe hasn't in the past. >> correct. >> but technology exists both in terms of,ç you know, soil management, lighting, water, all the necessary resources that you need to manage to grow -- >> that's right.

>> living plants. >> exactly. >> exist, and so we can now do this on the roofs of our build. >> we can, so why don't we? that's the question? >> why don't we? >> we are doing it, so we're doing it more and more now. >> okay. >> the idea caught on not just with people but countries. cierra has invested a large amount of money to make vertical farming a reality in all of korea. i've visited their prototype farm. it's quite remarkable. there's one going up in china. one already up in japan. >> are the vegetables cheaper and look at these contraptions we're looking at? >> that's are eye candy produced by people who had this idea, too, and heard about it and decided to make something quite remarkable. >> dramatic. >> it's dramatic. >> illustrative of how i can look at me, i can grow vegetables in crazy shapes. >> if you go back and look at the buck rogers rockets, today's rockets don't look anything like

that. >> are the vegetables more cheaper or expensive than what i get at the grocery store? >> if you go to japan they are cheaper than the ultimate market because people thinks the winds on the open market are radioactive so they can promise you non-radioactive food. >> okay. >> what about in general, if i -- i live in new york city. >> sure. >> if i'm dealing with the cost of the garden on the roof of my building compared to going to the grocery store around the corner, forget whatever the physical aspects of it. >> sure. >> what are the economics like? >> well, at this point it's too early to tell. we're still in the prototype. >> it's a little more expensive. >> oh, of course. always moreç expensive to devep an idea through to economic viability >> walk me through. the vertical farm has all this potential and you're really drawing our attention to that and i want to help you obviously by bringing you out to have this conversation. beyond that you argue the problem-solving mentality used to solve the food supply chain problem as described here is equally adaptable to energy?

>> correct. >> in fact, they are all tied together. right now -- >> elaborate. >> right now outdoor farming in the united states uses 20% of our fossil fuels, 20%. t. boone pickens said that's about a $700 billion nut, and we -- and we import that oil. what if we didn't have to do that? >> we all want to. how? >> if you use hydroponics with low energy l.e.d. lighting and grow your food next to where you live. there's no transportation costs. >> by virtue of the vertical farm reducing the carbon footprint. >> period, that simple. all you have to do is do it. >> hold on. one more problem. >> i've got solutions. >> i see that. i like this. so, okay, fine. we can reduce our carbon footpri footprint. >> right. >> we can get better food for ourselves and children. we can learn more because we're involved with the verticality of our food sourcing, it's fun for

us. we can grow fancy tomatoes and have a good time and it's great. >> i like that. >> the co-op board or the building management company. >> right. >> or the urban planning building management regional zone director person, or theç lawyer for those people. >> yes. >> may not like it when i head up to the roof of my building in chicago, miami, san francisco, st. louis, los angeles and start planting tomatoes. >> you're right. >> now what? >> you'll have to get a new board. >> okay. >> just unelect them. >> political reform. >> i can tell you what happens because chicago is one of those epicenters that wants this to happen so former mayor daly and i had a conversation about this. >> city mayor. >> he gave us a ten-minute period of time that lasted one of an hour and a half. he wants chicago to be the

center. >> i can see the meeting with the leeks and the plants and the bedroom with the wrong person's bedroom. my team vote plants are leaking, we can't do this. professor, an absolute delight. i love it. "the vertical farm, feeding the world in the 21st century, modern solving solving before your very eyes," from the professor and all of his students and the professor. >> and they are in the book. >> i'm sure. >> thank you, professor. >> you're welcome. >> coming up on "hardball," how many blunders can the gop take? republican presidential candidates have made their share. chris matthews covering and concerns that they are crashing the party. first, ari melber with a rant on a topic that everyone has in front of them, penn state and our relationship with power and our communities. trition? ♪ [ gong ] strawberry banana! [ male announcer ] for a smoothie with real fruit plus veggie nutrition new v8 v-fusion smoothie. could've had a v8.

constipated? phillips' caplets use magnesium, an ingredient that works more naturally with your colon than stimulant laxatives, for effective relief of constipation without cramps. thanks. good morning, students. today we're gonna continue... n:ayarcabens thanks. to ney,fots'cs f .. odup emch n:ayarcabens thanks. wa e. to ney,fots'cs f

we end like we began, with the thing everyone is talking about, the penn state crisis. ari melber with the rant. hello. >> hi, dylan. thank you very much. today i want to talk about what we might actually learn from that tragic child abuse scandal at penn state. according to the allegations, which have not been proven at a trial, this was not an isolated or obscure crime. as everyone knows, jerry san dusky is ac a lot of people knew about it. now, how many? well, pennsylvania's attorney general officially identified 14 people who had direct knowledge of the allegations. that includes, of course, joe paterno and the penn state president. that number does not count the victims, their families or many other people who were in a position to know what was happening. now, this is a familiar story line. last month, for example, the former head of galleon group, one of the largest hedge funds

in the world, got an 11-year prison sentence for insider trading. his conspiracy reached into the board rooms of some of america's top companies, and, of course, many people have compared this penn state scandal to the catholic church, a sacrosanct institution whose leaders looked away during the commission of such crimes unimaginable. another things these scandals have in common, after abject failure by the leaders, adults, who stepped up? the government. the only reason we're talking about penn state this week is because government prosecutors investigated these allegations. look, we're look living a period of profound establishment failure, from religious, to sports, to business, to the media. people don't trust american institutions anymore, but at the very same time we're repeatedly told the powerful can police themselves, deregulation, let the markets decide, get the government off our backs. this is backwards, and it's precisely i think during times like this when we should remember the government is the

run back stop in our society. when everything else fails the government is the single institution that's built to fairly confront the powerful and wealthy and criminal elements getting away with murder or other crimes, but i don't think we'll hear a lot about that. if anything, the establishment says this argument that i'm making to you, this is out of bounds or it politicizes a tragedy. i thinkç the hard issues ahead however, are not going to be about blaming individuals. they are going to be about public policy. we have to decide whether we're going to confront these public universities that use our tax dollars to act like private fifedoms. we have to decide what the government should do about all these people who look the other way. and the next time people casually rail about shrinking government, i think we should defend the role of any government and any government employee who stands up for those who have been failed by everyone else. >> can you do that that when money is speech? can you do that when the government is sold at auction? >> i think the prosecutors here have b