>> hey, martin. well, wee going to pick it up right where you've left off with the people in charge failing us everywhere. whether it's on college campuses, whether it's in the super can committee, or even in europe where it's getting really scary. but nothing about concealed weapons, martin. i know that's a sensitive spot with you. the show starts right now. good friday afternoon toll you. i'm matt miller, in today for dylan ratigan. first penn state, now syracuse rocked by an alleged sex abuse scandal involving an assistant coach. the latest on both stories, coming up. but first, the big story today, super committee, super failure. just five days until we're stuck with the $1.2 trillion trigger is our option to cut the national debt. but that trigger has no real bullets, and even the phoney one that exists pales in comparison

to the scope of the problem. we're about $15 trillion in the hole, the number rising by the second. today on the hill, democrats rejected the latest gop offer, calling it a cuts only plan. the 12-member super committee has until midnight wednesday to reach a deal, but given this congress, all signs point to failure. these were supposed to be the people with the political power, determination, and clout to get this done. and yet we're hearing all the same old hang ups once again. the bush tax cuts and entitlement programs. sound familiar? no wonder americans don't think a deal will happen. a whopping 85% doubt a deal will be in place before thanksgiving. and who do they blame? 39% blame republicans. 27% say democrats. and 23% would blame both parties. republicans now want president obama, who's been overseas in asia, to step in and pressure his party when he gets back to washington tomorrow. both sides say they'll work right up to thanksgiving if necessary.

>> we are painfully, painfully aware of the deadline staring us in the face. >> we're going to just work away. >> first up today, former senator byron dorgan, a democrat who knows a thing or two about working across party lines. he spent 30 years as a washington insider before retiring this year. welcome, senator. what's your sense of the end game here? is there any chance of a deal? >> thanks, matt. to me, in a word, this is ugly. i mean, it's unbelievable -- i have not seen anything like this in 30 years. and it appears to me that it's headed towards failure. as you know, this occurred, this so-called super committee occurred because we actually had people serving in congress, advocating that the country should default on its debt. so they kind of regurgitated this super committee, where 523 members of congress sit on the outside and watch 12 of them secretly try to negotiate some sort of deal, which appears to me not to be achievable at this point. >> now, do you think, senator,

that the markets may have the kind of reaction they had around the time of the debt ceiling fees cooviasco over the summer. could this really spook markets again? >> i don't know. in most cases, people think this is not going to succeed, so maybe that's already been considered. but i do think that the consequences of success are much smaller than the consequences of failure. if they would succeed, the $1.2 trillion, that's a baby step in the right direction to address $14 trillion additional of debt in the next ten years. so it's just a baby step. but if they fail, the message goes around the world, and certainly to the rest of this country, that congress still can't function, it can't address these significant issues that threaten the country's future. >> now, i mean, i agree with you. there's this image that washington can't make anything happen. it's hard to imagine congress's approval rating could go much lower. i think it's like 8% in the most recent polls. can it go lower? can there be more public

revulsion? >> i don't think. i think the people look at this and, you know, it looks like a slow-motion car wreck. i mean, there is nothing about this that looks like it's authentic or real, with real people saying, you know what, this country's in trouble. let's do what we need to do. you know, matt, you know this, because you write the column. this is not rocket science. i know what caused this, number one, reduction in government revenue with the big tax cuts a decade ago, i didn't vote for them, but dramatically reduced the revenue, then went to two wars halfway around the world for two years, didn't pay for a penny of it, and a green light to wall street to say, do what you want to the country, we won't watch, and it nearly collapsed the entire economy. you know, what we have to restore is our revenue base. we do have to cut some spending, and when you go to war, you have to pay the cost of it, and you do have to regulate, i'm talking about effective regulation of wall street, because we've seen what happens when they do what they do, and act like a casino rather than investment banks.

>> now, on the republican side, what's amazing to me is that there's not more exposure of the fantasy that republicans have as a party, about the fact that we're going to double the number of people on social security and medicare as the boomers are all starting to retire. you can't double the number of folks if those programs, even if you slow their growth, which i would say has to be done, without taxes being higher than their historic rates. but the republicans won't give that up. it's worked politically since reagan for them. will anything change their mind on how to make the math add up? because otherwise, we'll never make progress. >> none of it adds up. remember those old western movies, where there was a slick, silk-shirted salesman that would come along in a covered wagon with a tonic that would cure everything from hiccups to gout? the only thing the republicans ever tell this country is that what will cure america's ills is to cut taxes further. but there's no evidence that suggests that that would help. all the evidence is that that will put us deeper in a hole.

we have to cut some spending and recognize that we're going to have more people retiring. we have to make some adjustments in those areas. but the narrative of republicans is, we're going to go to the next election, never having broken a promise to increase any researches. so that means a deal is almost unachievable, in my judgment. >> that seems right. but here's my question, then. because some people are saying, well, this will have to be settled by the next election. i'm not sure the next election will settle anything, because we've got the same volatility among voters, they've got the same economic anxieties that has led them to throw the bums out from one cycle to the next. we could end up -- there's a very good chance we'll end up with some version of divided government, whatever the actual alignment is, after next november. what will be settled and what will we then -- are we just waiting for china and our other foreign creditors to tell us to get our house in order? and isn't that pathetic? >> i just came from china, i was just there a few days ago. >> me too! >> and you look at what's going on from this country abroad, and

you think, oh, my gosh, that's not my country. i mean, that's not the constitution government that i know. they wouldn't teach any of this in college when they teach about how your government works and what the constitution means. but i don't -- i hope that there would be messages coming from elections, but, you know, i'm a democrat, so obviously, i support the obama administration. but you look at the other side and see the leaders are mitt romney and newt gingrich and herman cain. is there going to be a message coming from that, when you take a look at what they're advocating? i don't think so. >> you know, senator, i was actually in china myself for about ten days, just got back. i talked to a bunch of their policy institutes and even to some rising executives a to the party, the communist party training center about the future of capitalism. you know what their big question was? is our money safe in the united states? i mean, it's insane that a country like china that's poor, you know, with a $6,000 per capita income or something is a major creditor of the united states with $40,000 or $45,000 per capita income, the same with europe. doesn't this just prove that our

governing class is failing us? >> yeah. there's no question about that. it's a dysfunctional government at the moment. they just can't make the kind of decisions we need. and the fact is, there's no destiny for this country that's going to guarantee things are always going to be the way they were. you know, additional opportunity, economic expansion. we need good decisions being made by this government, and soon. >> you know, i've been -- you know win worked in the clinton white house myself, as you know, senator, but i've, increasingly vulnerable to third party temptation, because i'm frustrated with the gridlock. i'd like to test an idea on you. because i don't know why an independent candidate can't come to the country with a message like this. we can put something up on the screen. this is the third party stump speech i think we need. something like, you know, my fellow alienated americans, how's this for something different. i want to raise your taxes, cut spending on programs you like, and force you to rethink how we run our schools, banks, armies, hospitals, and elections. i want you to cheer when i'm

done. because if you embrace the decade of renewal i'm talking about, we'll emerge with a more competitive, sustainable, and just america. the kind of america we all want to leave to our children. just about a minute left, senator. isn't there an opening now for a kind of truth-telling candidate or party? it would be nice if the president would take that approach, but i don't see it in the offing? >> listen, that opening still exists and i hope the president will. listen, we can't wait any longer. the clock is ticking. and i read your article about -- or your column about the third party, but that's not going to happen now. but it seems to me the american people are crying out for leadership. and we need something better than both parties are giving us. but this president has the opportunity, i think, to lead, and i hope will. >> well, former senator byron dorgan, keep fighting the good fight. i've applauded your work over the years and appreciate your taking the time to give us some insights today. >> thanks, matt. good to be with you. >> all right. coming up, another school, another scandal.

a syracuse basketball skoecoach put on leave amid allegations of sex abuse. the mega panel's on it, next. plus, as europe teeters on the brink, diving into the euro debt crisis. will the central bank step in and play superman? and the hot story here in hollywood today, the l.a. sheriff's office reopens the decades'-old case in the death of hollywood icon, nataliewoods. that's all ahead. ♪ i feel charming, oh, so charming ♪ al has been working hard for their clients' futures. never taking a bailout. helping generations achieve dreams. buy homes. put their kids through college. retire how they want to. ameriprise. the strength of america's largest financial planning company. the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you, one-to-one. together, for your future. ♪

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!

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.

well, it's now two major

universities embroiled in sex abuse scandals. syracuse university has placed longtime men's basketball assistant coach bernie fine on administrative leave amid accusations of molestation from two former ball boys. head coach jim bayheim is defending his coworker, saying about the accuser, there is only one side to his story. he is lying. at the same time, the ncaa has announced it will launch an investigation into penn state's child abuse scandal. and nbc is now learning that federal prosecutors and fbi agents are considering their own investigation into the allegations against jerry sandusky because of claims he crossed state lines to commit child abuse. the university's trustees have hired a law firm to represent them in relation to this scandal that has shocked the nation. let's bring in our friday mega panel to sort it out all. ari melburne from the nation, krystal ball, and chrystia freeland. you have to be moderated from a safe los angeles distance today. krystal, let me start with you.

we've had a kind of awful week of these penn state revelations. where do you think things stand with the latest developments? >> it's a little too early to tell, i think. certainly, the school at syracuse is pushing back on the allegations. penn state things look terrible and it's just a horrific tragedy. but, i think, i hope it gives us pause as a nation and we take a look at what a major problem child abuse and pedophilia is in the country. and a related problem welcome sex trafficking among children is a huge problem. it's estimated that 100,000 children in the united states are trafficked every year, and sometimes right under our own noses. there's a group organized by ground swell, encouraging village voice to take down their adult section on their website, which is known to be a platform for sex trafficking. so things like this are happening, and it's time that we speak out and really pay attention to it. >> very good points. ari, i want to read to you something. because even the penn state

faculty is now getting into the act. there was an op-ed today in "the new york times", i've got a quote i want to read. "there are also 6,000 full-time teachers and researchers working here and none of us have had anything to do with this mess. we are every bit as disgusted and horrified as you are. this is our place that has been trashed, and we care deeply about cleaning it up." that was michael berube, a professor there that holds the joe paterno chair in the humanities there. lots of different sides to this story on campus, obviously. >> i actually have read michael berube's blog. i didn't know the academic chairs were named for paterno. that's actually a perfect example of the influence of the athletic the department on the rest of the school. everyone has said, and including reports on this channel, that there's way too much money from the academic divisions that are, of course, dependent on the athletic divisions. so it is understandable that there is this sort of permeation throughout the campus, and this is an institutional problem.

this is something that catholic church dealt with and there are companies that go completely bankrupt, literally, because of the actions of a few individuals. i don't think that that, for most people who are looking at this, i don't think that's an unfair thing in the sense that people are very angry and there is a desire for justice and a desire for some retribution here. having said that, of course, it will be up to all of the other innocent people at penn state to try to come to some accountability and then move forward. it is a school, and there are many people who are innocent there. the only other point i'll make is, it's not enough to just do defense. there has to be, i think, a real re-evaluation of the athletic programs and how this stuff works. something i've talked about before on this show. so that's the the bigger piece here as well. we can't just disaggregate. we also have to reform. >> okay. well, chrystia, i want to get you in. let's segue, though, from the failure of people in charge here at home to the euro anxiety.

i know you and i have been able to share before, chrystia. i continue to be very worried. you know, as we go into the weekend now, the big talk is, will the european central bank basically step in and function like the federal reserve did in our crisis, become the lender of last resort, open the printing press, if that's what need be, and at least on friday, the noises coming out of brussels was that they weren't going to do that. what do you expect? is that just a negotiating ploy? the germans are trying to keep the italian's feet to the fire on some of these reforms. but i continue to worry that we are really on the brink. >> i think we are really on the brink. and i think as has been the case since the beginning of this crisis, it's all about germany and ultimately it is all about angela merkel. in some ways, this is a little bit similar to the debt ceiling debate, in that we have a potentially huge financial and economic disaster. i really believe that if we have an uncontrolled breakup of the

eurozone, it's going to be much worse than the collapse of lehman. so potentially a real disaster. >> and people need to understand, chrystia, people watching at home, this sounds like it's something overseas that may not affect them. if the euro claollapses and we have the kind of meltdown that i think a lot of us are worried about, it will be devastating for the u.s. economy, for jobs here, for people's retirement funds. i mean, it will be a total, total catastrophe. >> i absolutely agree with that, matt. i think that it is hard to overstate the gravity -- the potential dangers here. i think it could be much worse than lehman. you know, we're talking a lot now about the 2012 u.s. election. i think that you can make a really strong argument that the election is going to be decided by angela merkel and the head of the ecb. what, to me, is the real potential tragedy in all of this is, it could be fixed overnight if the european central bank said, okay, we are going to stand by the government debts of

all the european countries. after all, if you control the printing press of your currency, you don't ever need to default. you just print the money to pay back your bond holders. now, the reason that that is difficult for europe is europe has a single currency, but it doesn't have a single treasury. it doesn't have a single economic policy. and when the euro was created, the germans were very, very clear about saying, we are terrified of inflation. inflation was, we think, in some ways, the original sin of germany. the reason you had the rise of hitler. and we are really scared that if we let those spend tlift southern europeans go crazy, all hell will break lose. i think that's a legitimate fear the germans have. but i think that sort of long-term specter of inflation is surely less of a danger than the very real possibility that the european and world economy falls off a cliff.

so i hope the germans make the right decision, but i think it's going to be, you know, a very, very close call. and really tough politically there. >> and matt, to draw -- >> we're -- go ahead, quickly. >> i was going to say, to draw another parallel to the american political system, they've had to fewer than at least four supposed grand schemes that we're going to rescue the eu and the eurozone, and really all they've been doing, just like our politicians have been doing is kicking the can down the road a little bit further and edging a little bit closer to catastrophe. i just keep thinking of that winston churchill quote, you know, that americans will do the right thing after they've exhausted all the alternatives. and now i think we're looking and thinking, is the euro zone going to ultimately do the right thing after they've exhausted all the alternatives. >> we're obviously going to find out in the days ahead. ari, i wanted to touch on what's been big news out in l.a. where i live. this afternoon, the l.a. county sheriff's department announced it was going to re-open the 30-year-old case involving the

death of hollywood star, natalie wood. >> recently, we have received information, which we felt was substantial, enough to make us take another look at this case. >> now, ari, this was a, you know, a famous tragedy back in 1981, where natalie wood was with her husband, robert wagner, the actor, and christopher walken on a boat where she ended up drowning. and i guess the boat captain now has a book out that he's peddling. some are saying this is just a way for him to gin up book sales. this is 30 years later, but this mystery is still basically unsolved. >> i wish there was a way to talk about it without talking about the person selling the book. i don't think -- my view as a lawyer is i don't think most old -- you know, most old crimes that are unsolved, even of this nature, this terrible crime -- if it's a crime, as alleged -- then we're talking about a potential murder, but these things aren't usually reopened. so i think it is likely a function of the celebrity nature of this, that puts the pressure

on to re-open it. that's sort of my macro view. as for the statements that have emerged, all i'll say is you've got statements about a very old thing from someone who's contradicting themselves. so i don't know what they know about the confidentiality about what they're reopening. so we'll wait and hear. what i do know from the little that's publicly available is that there's not much here. >> ari, you're a lawyer, would you take the case? >> what kind of case? i mean, which part of it? >> clearly, this guy would never survive a minute of cross-examination with msnbc's ari melber. >> to krystal's point, if i was looking at this as an investigation -- again, i have to say, what's publicly available, i wouldn't take it as something that merits more attention unless they know a heck of a lot more than we do. >> we have all seen the boat captain who was on this morning, you know, he's peddling a book,

et cetera. in the press conference earlier today, though, they did say there were multiple witnesses and multiple leads that caused them to reopen. so we don't have all the public information. there may be more to it than just this boat captain. but it certainly seems it's a bit odd it's come right on the 30th anniversary of her death. >> i don't want to seem cold-hearted here -- >> you'll have to stick around. we'll put a period on it for now. but i loved natalie wood in "west side story," so it always makes me sad that she was lost so early. >> me too. coming up, billions spent in the global war on poverty, but what do we have to show for it? fighting inequity in the age of 1%. our specialist is next.

this administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in america.

the richest nation on earth can afford to win it. we cannot afford to lose it. >> that was president l.b.j. nearly 50 years ago, declaring a war on poverty in america. since then we've spent billions battling it and what do we have to show for it? this week, the u.s. census reported a record number of americans, 49.1 million, to be exact, are living below the poverty line. that's the highest since recordkeeping began 35 years ago. so what are we missing here? with us today is ester duflow, the author of "poor economics." the mega panel's also here to join us. welcome to you, ester. >> thank you. >> your argument is that we haven't really been thinking properly, not just in the u.s.,

but overseas about the nature of poverty and how we might best go about tackling it. tell us about how we're not thinking about this problem right. >> well, maybe this is this notion of war on poverty, which on the one hand is very, very powerful. and on the other hand, might set a goal that might be too -- like we are going to eliminate poverty. and it's easier to think about poverty as a set of issues, a set of problems. education, health, savings, that we can address one by one. and so before i get folks in, what are the kind of concrete recommendations that you would have then? i know there's this age-old debate that's raging about does aid work to poor countries, does it not work? what in a nutshell are your recommendations? >> so our recommendation is very much to look at programs by programs, interventions by interventions, policy by policy

and see what has worked. so you can look at education and say, well, what has been tried, what has worked, what has not worked, and why. for example, in education, we find that what does not work is to set goals that are improbably far. what does work is to try to focus at the level of the child where he or she is now and teach him or her exactly what's the next step is. in this way, you can see remarkable progress. >> ester, this is krystal ball. >> krystal ball's got a question. >> i was just wondering, is there an kblikability here for the government program. and what are some recommendations you would have for the u.s. government in that respect? >> absolutely. i think one of the key recommendations is that it's very important to evaluate the

effectiveness of policies. and to our friend, whoever comes in power says, well, we are going to do this policy and just does it. and doesn't spend a huge amount of time trying to figure out whether or not it makes a difference. so, the condition number one is try things out. do some experimental pilots. try something, and then if it doesn't work, try something else. there is a great quote by roosevelt, which is a quote he had in 1932, where he is, it is common sense to take an idea and try it. and if it doesn't work, try something else. that's a recommendation that would be very useful for policies in this country as well. >> ester, this is ari melber from "the nation" magazine. i want to ask you the obvious question, which is, what efforts do you think are necessary for

occupy wall street, this is now two months in the united states, to basically advance the inequality discussion that they want to put on the table? what efforts do you think are important for them going forward, or do you think they've taken as far as they can go? >> well, the occupy wall street complaint is really more directed at the top than at the bottom. and i think they have grievances at the top saying, you know, where is the decency, what aere the regulations to make sure that people are not making a huge amount of money on the back of everybody else. but it's true that they could also consider, what should we do at the bottom? what should we do for the 99%. or, in fact, for the bottom 15% or 10% of the people to help them navigate this economy. how do we make sure that the poorest of the poor have access to the social programs and are not shut out of them? how do we make sure that people

in our city have access to decent schools? this is something that has not hugely been part of the conversation, and i think would be a productive part to add. >> chrystia's got a question. >> professor duflo, very nice to talk to you. i'm a huge fan of your work. one of the things that you've been talking about with us today is that maybe public policymakers aren't sufficiently rigorous in testing their policies. is there something maybe that they can learn in terms of approach from the way maybe we test drugs and the ways that scientists use controlled experiences to see what works and what doesn't? >> absolutely. i think a very nice analogy in the war on poverty is the war on cancer. when we're thinking of the war on cancer, we're not thinking, well, let's get rid of cancer, full stop. we're thinking about breast cancer, we're thinking about prostate cancer, we're thinking about various kinds of cancer. and for each type of things,

we're trying to study it, we're trying to understand it. and when we have an idea, when we have a potential drug, we test it using controlled trials, where some people get the new drug, some people get the old drug, and we compare. and the same kind of things can be done in policy, that's exactly what we are doing at m.i.t., is to try things out and take the lessons exactly as in a medical experiment. >> is the problem maybe with that approach is that politics intervenes and there are more vested interests involved in making public policy than in trying to eradicate cancer? >> there is a lot of vested interest in try to eradicate cancer. there are a lot of pharmaceutical companies who have various interests. and despite that, they run the most highest trials to make distinct progress. likewise in politics, you know, politics plays a role.

we shouldn't be shy about admitting it. on the other hand, when there is more evidence, politics is also more informative. i think one reason why -- >> well, ester -- i'm sorry. go ahead. finish. >> one reason why the debates are sometimes a little bit -- in policy is that it becomes a game of he said/she said, because no one has very solid evidence to put on the table. and solid evidence makes the political discourse more informed and more useful. >> well, ester duflo, thank you for coming by. it's terrific you're putting this front and center on the agenda. i know you've got a lot of champions, bill gates among them, who are trying to fight poverty around the world. the idea with record poverty across the u.s., and a billion people across the world struggling on less than a dollar a day, it's shocking we're not doing more than that. kudos to you. we'll be following your work as it proceeds.

thanks again. >> thank you. >> and thanks also to the mega panel. as usual, that's ari and krystal and chrystia freeland for your insights across a wide range of domestic and international snafus, always a pleasure to be with you, even from afar. >> wish you were here. >> see you soon. straight ahead, a bracket involving brussel sprouts. we'll explain that right after the break. ♪ you, you ain't alone

♪ and just let me be [ male announcer ] this is your moment. ♪ your ticket home ♪ [ male announcer ] this is zales, the diamond store. that's not how successful investing is done. at e-trade it's harnessing some of the most powerful yet easy to use trading tools on the planet to help diversify, identify opportunities, take action. it's using professional grade research and your brain

to seek maximum returns to reach your goals. it's investing with intelligence and cold hard conviction. you made the money. you should have everything you need to invest it. e-trade. investing unleashed. but my nose is still runny. [ male announcer ] truth is, dayquil doesn't treat that. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your runny nose. [ deep breath] awesome. [ male announcer ] yes, it is. that's the cold truth! even if you think you can live with your old mattress... ask me how i've never slept better... why not talk to one of the 6 million people who've switched to the most highly recommended bed in america. it's not a sealy, a simmons, or a serta... ask me about my tempur-pedic. ask me how i can finally sleep all night. ask me how great my back feels every morning. did you know there's a tempur-pedic for every body? tempur-pedic beds now come insoft...firm...and everything in-between... ask me how i don't wake up anymore when he comes to bed...

these are real tempur-pedic owners...ask someone you know...check out twitter, or your friends on facebook... you'll hear it all...unedited! ask me how i wish i had done this sooner. ask me how this is the best investment i've ever made. tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied. than owners of any traditional mattress brand... to learn more, or find an authorized retailer near you visit tempur-pedic.com. tempur-pedic the most highly recommended bed in america. thanksgiving is now less than a week away. and as you head to the grocery store this weekend to buy your turkey, think about what sides you're going to get. stuffing, mashed potatoes, or sweet potato casserole. cranberry sauce, fresh or canned? the choices are endless and the argument over which are chchar hotly debated. so who is the king of the

thanksgiving side dishes? and what better way to do it than ncaa bracket style. yes, taking a cue from the ncaa basketball tournament, they seated 16 sides and set up their own bracket. the number one overall seed went to the old standby, stuffing. after the first round of voting, there was only one upset. 15th seed dinner rolls sent the number two seed, green bean casserole to the garbage. the winners of the foodie four will be announced tomorrow. i'm pulling for the sweet potatoes with marshmallows. my mother-in-law makes the best in the world, but they have a touch match up against stuffing. good luck, mashed potatoes. whether you winner or lose, you'll always have the prime spot on my turkey plate. next, in the wake of the penn state scandal, from ball fields to boardrooms, why do we fail to do what's right. the authors of the thought-provoking new book

"blind spots," just ahead. 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. so i wasn't playing much of a role in my own life,

but with advair, i'm breathing better so now i can take the lead on a science adventure. advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator, working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. if you're still having difficulty breathing, take the lead. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. get your first full prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com.

welcome back. we like to think of ourselves as moral people. and that for the majority of our decisions, we take the ethical path. but whether it's jerry sandusky and questions about a penn state cover-up or bernie madoff pillaging the life savings of people that trusted me, we as humans show time and time again that we're often willing to blur the lines of right and wrong to get what we want. our next guests say that bridging the gap between who we are and who we want to be will

allow us to run better businesses, build better communities and lead happier lives. ann is a professor of business ethics at the university of notre dame and matt is a professor of business administration at the harvard business school. welcome to both of you. max, let me start with you -- oh, i'm sorry. let me mention your book there. they're the co-authors of "blind spots: why we fail to do what's right and what to do about it." clearly i have a blind spot whef your book. max, when you see what's happening at penn state and the kind of shenanigans we've seen on wall street, it seems like the failure of elites to behave in responsible or ethical ways is pervasive at this point. why is that? and what does your research show is at the heart of it? >> thank you for inviting us on. i think you have it exactly right. what happened at penn state was clearly terrible and we also saw a failure of leadership to deal with a situation once it

occurred. what ann and i would highlight is that many of us, many leaders, across many situations fail to notice when we need to act. we fail to notice when others around us are engaging in unethical behavior. so we not only have coach paterno and the other executives at penn state not acting and not seeing all the evidence on sandusky, but we see parallels in a similar scandal regarding the catholic church. but we see lots of people around madoff who didn't want to the see the evidence. and basically ignored the very clear evidence for far too long. but we also see accounting firms who don't see the problems with the books of their clients. and we see problems with the securities that -- security ratings agencies who are rating. across all of these, what we find is that when people are motivated to not notice the evidence, we have an amazing capacity to simply not notice.

>> and so, ann, what's the answer to that? because, obviously, you've got self-interested people in every walk of life with responsibility and power, who might have a vested interest in not doing the right thing. now, most of the time, we like to think people still do, but what's the way to navigate when this seems like just a built-in problem? >> well, i think one of the things you have to do is you have to make sure that people are motivated to notice. i think we have to say that what we call the indirect blindness is not pervasive in our organizations and in our institutions. you simply can't pass on your unethical behavior to someone else saying, well, i told you, and so my responsibility is now over. i think we have to kind of change our cultures as well, from a don't ask, don't tell to really a must ask, must tell. >> and then, max, you teach business students, you advise

business leaders. is this worse as a problem today with all that we're seeing than it was 30 years ago? was there some golden age? and if so, what's changed? so i don't think we know the answer to your very interest question. given the differences and the ability of the media to help us find out things that have gone wrong, it's hard to compare to a much earlier age. for ann and for myself, i think the domestic is really future oriented rather than analyzing the specifics of penn state or analyzing the failures over the last 30 years. what i think is critical is for leaders to notice what happened at penn state and to -- and when they're not in the midst of a crisis to think about how they want their managers and kperkts to act when something going whereon in their own organization, and to get that message out now, not to figure out how to respond to their crisis when it happens in their own organization, but to figure

out how to prevent this kind of situation from occurring by being clear and communicating to their employees about what are the norms in our organization and how we want you to behave when you see behaviors that are wrong around you. i think that a lot of executives, in fact, do want to have an ethical organization around them, yet they have crafted environments where they've given their managers and employees the incentives to engage in bad behaviors, and to not notice when others are engaging in bad behaviors around them. now's the time to act. when we have this very salient situation of coach pa territern did pass the me think up the chain, but i think to the public, he simple didn't do enough. and this is a great mental exercise to ask ourselves, how would we want our managers and our organization to respond to this kind of situation, and what do i need to do to create the

environment in which they would behave in that way in the future. >> now, ann, i mean, you guys have great research and a great framework for thinking about this, but sometimes i think, this isn't rocket science. this really is about right and wrong. and i wonder, does this come down, somehow, to bad parenting? you know, are we afflicted through the culture, somehow? we've got a generation that's risen to leadership that just doesn't take seriously, you know, the kind of age-old injunction that you do the right thing, even when no one's watching. you have wall street full of folks who did all these short-term deals, knowing these big mortgage securities would implode on somebody else's watch, but the bonus was there for them this year. it worked by their incentives, and the hell with everybody else. doesn't that come down to the kind of core things that if you're teaching it at a business school, you're way too late. >> you know, i think, certainly, parenting and the values that we hold are really fundamental and we need to have them. but i think what max and i really are arguing is that there's a common psychological

tendency for us all to believe that we wouldn't do that. and i believe that the search for the bad apple in the organization, and then let's -- if we could just get rid of the bad apples, we would all be okay, our organizations would be okay, our institutions would be okay, is would mislead us, and continue to mislead us. because there is a common pervasive tendency for us to believe that we're more ethical than we really are. that we, ourselves, would never have done what any of those people would have done. and while we hoped we wouldn't have, i think the evidence suggests that we aren't quite as good as we think that we are. and if we can at least, first admit that we hold this fallacy about ourselves, then i think we can start to take the corrective steps that we need to to fix the problems. >> just very briefly, max, you teach at harvard business school. only got a nanosecond less. are students interested in these issues and trying to bring a real ethical approach to business. but is it still about getting there and worrying about the

rest later? >>, so i don't think that our students or our executives want to be lectured to or preached to about how you're supposed to behave, but i think they find it fascinating to learn about hour their decisions depart from how they think that they work. so as ann and i see it, the problem that confronts many of us is, we simply aren't acting as ethically as we would with more reflection. and what "blind spots" is all about is helping people better understand how their mind works and ways that lead to behaviors that they, themselves, would reject with greater reflection. so it's a very deferent message, as ann suggested. we're not after the bad apples, we're after the bad behaviors that many of us have involved in. >> the book is "blind spots," kudos to you to try to get a fix on this and help the rising generation or the next generation of those in power to get a fix on more ethical behavior, because lord knows

we're going to need it. thanks for stopping by. >> thank you. coming up on "hardball," a front-page story in today's "washington post" says newt gingrich made millions off health care reform. and politico reports he have a consultant with freddie mac until the takeover. chris asks what next from newt? but first, we both speak english, so why does so much get lost in translation. our friend imogen lloyd webber and her guide on how to talk to a brit. then i'd be like, you rule! and my kids would be like, you rule! i'd be like, yes, i do rule! ohh! that rules! oh, load up the sleigh; this is going to be a great christmas. yeah. ring dinga-ding, ring dinga-ding, ring, ring, ring me up. [ male announcer ] no need to wait with our christmas price guarantee. we're so confident in our prices if you do find a lower one between now and christmas, we'll give you the difference on a walmart gift card. save money. live better. walmart.

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...

in theory, americans and britts both speak english, so why does it sometimes feel like we're battling on a massive language barrier? we turn to our expert on all

things from across the pond, imogen lloyd webber. imogen, the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. i'm so grateful to be here as your guest in america. i think it's true that the british and americans have a special relationship. but as the saying goes, we truly are separated by a common language. the iphone 4s certainly seems to think so. hands up, the britts have some irritating speech patterns. such as a tendency to insult someone and then ask them to agree with a putdown. example, that's really quite daft though, isn't it? also, living in america has made me realize how perverse the english sense of humor is. we often have naughty meanings for words that americans innocently use. some friendly advice, don't mention roasts, fanny packs, or pants in front of a brit. it could have unintended consequences. americans have in some respects enhanced the execution of the english language. i used to say "good to meet you," and then get into a lot of trouble if i'd already met the

person. americans say "good to see you" instead. genius! i'm now utilizing your version and people like me more. however, american, your use of english can bemuse us english. take football. your players use their hands when playing your version. in our version of futbol, the players use their feet. but you illogically insist on calling that soccer. the whole world cannot be wrong. of the 45 national soccer teams for which english is the official language, 43 use the word "futbol." only canada and america use "soccer." two countries do not a world make. world series? please. but canada gets a pass here, because canadians can spell. what is wrong with my use of ls and ss? i'm english, surely i can spell it, and speak it. i usually get a blank look if i order water here in america. i have to say water with a "d."

you say tomato, i say tomato. on balance, both cultures as guilty as the other for polluting the language. for instance, americans can be heard saying "reach out to." the correct word is "ask." i could care less instead of i couldn't care less. meanwhile, we've exported improper britishisms this side of the pond. possibly the fault of harry potter and the spice girls. there's ginger for redhead, cheers for thank you, and a whole rant could be devoted to the word "posh." it is somewhat telling that probably the greatest communicator in history, winston churchill, had an american mother and an english father. the perfect language is a combination of the two. thank you, america, for giving me the opportunity to learn it. matt? >> well said, as always, imogen. you know, i spent my junior year in london at the london school of economics and came back with my own britishisms the myself. the thing i most me