taken their time and hope to represent britain on the world stage. >> thank you for putting up with my questioning of the monarchy tonight. >> you're very welcome. >> you can have the last word online in our blog thelastword.msnbc.com. that's it for tonight. "countdown is up next. which of these stories will you be talks about tomorrow? cut the defense budget. john mccain tells the tea party, don't tread on me. >> if you're serious about the budget, you have to look at the entire budget, military and domestic. >> i worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the republican party. dude, where's my health insurance? a conservative congressman-elect, a physician from maryland outraged his federal government health care

does not kick in for 30 days. this was his campaign platform. >> there is no constitutionally mandated role of no government health care. obama 2011.{ use your executive powers, pleads the center for american progress. or if this was the cover of "cosmo" 30 fun things you can do without the house or senate. bill maher is here. >> keith olbermann is right. >> i've liked bill since 1977. >> what defense spending really is is a giant welfare program. a jobs program for defense workers to build crap we don't need. of course, there's that trip to mars. one way. go there and stay there. >> and in prevailing motion -- for those left behind. combined with a spirit of curiosity for the adventure ahead. >> derek pitts joins us. people sister sarah would like to send to mars. fox news not knowing they're still on attacks sarah palin.

>> alexandra stanley had the best line. she said the news show is like the "sound of music" without the nazis, without the romance and without the music. >> stand by for the decree from her highness. fox news is the mainstream media. all the news and commentary now on "countdown." >> they could refeud yate. good evening from new york. this is tuesday november f 16th, 721 days until the 2012 presidential elections. the joke that is bipartisanship tonight took another major credibility hit. it's 493rd of the month. the big mcconnell, boehner white house meeting the day after tomorrow postponed at the republicans' request until the tuesday after tlanks giving. no reason given beyond scheduling conflicts. this news comes in concert with a growing sense the republicans could not be bipartisan by themselves. if you have two different

conservative parties they not only will eventually clash but begin to clash on a daily basis. our fifth story, i worry, i worry a lot. john mccain reacting to republican senator-elect rand paul on the issue of cutting the bloeted defense budget or{ as mccain calls it isolationism, addressing think tank, not by singing bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran, but answering a question of erosion of republican support for the misnamed war on terror. he said, isolationism worried him. then he dragged in mr. paul of kentucky. recall during paul's campaign for office he was unabashed in touting his ideas about foreign policy. he doesn't really have any. in july he told the "national review" i'm not thinking about afghanistan, foreign policy is a complete nonissue. senator mccain now acknowledging that kind of thing scares him. >> i worry a lot. throughout the history of the republican party in modern times

there's been two wings. the isolationist wing manifested before world war ii and at other times and the international side. and so i think there are going to be some tensions within our party. i don't know the incoming senator rand paul. i respect him, admire his victory, but already he has already talked about withdrawals from -- or cuts in defense, et cetera, and a number of other -- >> hey, you kids, get off my defense budget. mr. paul's coalition of the cutting entering the senate includes pat toomey of attention, who hat criticized congress. and mark kirk in illinois who called for across the board reductions in defense spending. on the house side florida representative-elect alan west who has security clearance on lean loan from god telling abc news you have to cut defense spending. back to mccain, the ranking member on armed services

acknowledges there should be some defense cuts to the defense cuts but he wants to emphasize he's really worried about rand paul's foreign policy. >> there's no doubt that this new group of republicans have come in with a commitment to take a meat ax to spending. i'm not sure that you could say, okay, everything in defense is sacrosanc( t the rest of these cuts in education, social programs, et cetera, are taking place. so i worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the republican party. >> joined by the democratic congressman from new york, anthony weiner. thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> big picture first. boehner and mcconnell postponed this big bipartisan shindig with the president. goes from thursday to two weeks from today. does it mean anything? >> perhaps. the hard truth about the republicans that got elected, they came in with a series of things. they're going to talk about what

they're here to do, they seem to be befuddled internally and talking to anyone else. i think most likely they didn't want to sit down at the white house because they don't know what they believe yet. that's going it be a problem with them when it's time to govern. a lot of the people that turn to them for change are going to find out they really bought a pig and a poke. >> to that point, cutting the pentagon in these opposing messages from senator-elect paul and senator mccain and mr. mccain notwithstanding, do you think this is one issue that there actually might be some compromise on and that something might actually get done in terms of at least taking the pentagon off the list of sacred cows? >> well, perhaps. remember, we've had three days with three kind of almost examples of schizophrenia among the republican party. first they say they want to extend the bush tax cuts but want to cut the deficit. next they said we want to cut earmarks but we don't trust the president to do the spending either. i don't know who's supposed to make the allocations. today they're fighting about whether you should be cutting

defense. i think there's a lot of room where a lot of democrats, look at agriculture policy, defense policy, where many of us believe these programs are functionally written to make them uncut bl. because they impact so many people's districts. i think we can get those things done. first things first, the republicans seem unable, even in these early first days when they're in their euphoria to come up with anything resembling a platform for how they're going to govern the next couple years. >> you just touched on the problem thathseems to be at the core of the pentagon. this procurement process, the manufacturing jobs and other jobs are in, as you said, varied districts and nobody wants to cut those jobs because it effects varied districts. is there a way out of just that that might, itself, reduce some of the extra spending in the pentagon? >> well, perhaps. i've always marveled at the idea the number of members of congress who don't get money from these defense contractors is larger than those that do. i think we do have an opportunity now, if there really is going to be this effort to

really look at every line of the budget, i think we should not be buying things the department of defense says. as a matter of fact they don't want. we do that all the time in congress. that's something democrats and republic republicans can agree upon. >> we've seen republicans when in control of congress and the white house and did not cut defense. they increased it with the war of choice. do you think if all the democrats tomorrow announced wooe in favor of cutting the pentagon budget by 3% that all the republicans would line up, even the ones who campaigned on the same idea, would line up against you because you came out and said that? >> perhaps. i don't really know. it's difficult to say. our members of congress who got elected from these defense districts, are they really going to say no to their own sacred cows? maybe that happens. i'm not sure what the correct policy is here. maybe someone is supposed to advocate for their home district. what is important is that we're learning none of these things got hashed out traditionally when they do get hashed out which is during elections and campaigns. a lot of these guys are starting to contradict themselves the

moment they get to town because they came in on this effort say we're going to be opposed to everything going on in washington. now i have news for them. they have washington. >> from the capitol, anthony weiner, great, thanks. have a good evening. >> it's a pleasure. thank you. there's the case of the gentlemen from maryland who will join congressman weiner in the house of representatives january. part of republican representative-elect andy harris' campaign platform was he was four square against health care reform. yesterday during his freshman orientation harris threw a fit receive his government subsidized health insurance. according to politico, harry, who's a doctor, was incredulous he would be sworn in on january 3rd but because of federal law his government-subsidized health insurance wouldn't kick in until february. according to a congressional staffer who wrnsed the blowup he asked the two ladies answering questions why if had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care.

harris asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap. buying health insurance from the government? especially when there's some sort of gap in your work insurance? hey, congressman-elect, you might be on to something here. you could call it -- um, uh -- the public option. >> this is one place where i disagree with our congressman. he said public option was a good idea. i think it was a terrible idea. >> except for him. harris, ousting maryland's frank cranibil on a one-issue campaign, anti-health care reform insisting there was nothing that otherwised the government to be involved in. it. his health care and his hissy fit. this is the only employer i've ever worked for where you don't get coverage the first day you're employed, he said. which must be troubling for people in his district who don't get coverage any days that they're employed. let's turn to msnbc contributor dave wagel. >> good evening.

>> government health care is evil, i want my government health care right now. is it enough of a tea party microcosm to put up a statue of congressman-elect harris, and if so how tall? >> whoever leaked this to politico knew what they were doing. this was a live grenade coming at a republican who some republicans were hopeful would become a credible spokesman on health care. and he's tried to spin this. his latest spin which he told a baltimore station tonight was that he was taking a point about how ironic it is everyone's required to buy health care because of this health care law but the government employees don't have it for a month which doesn't really -- the reason people are angry. yyknow, he -- republicans like to put up these guys who have experience in the medical field as spokesmen on this. he canceled an interview with the "baltimore sun" he scheduled. he dialed this back because it did seem to everyone who wasn't there, which is all of us, like

a tantrum that was hypocritical tantrum. >> the -- the thankfulness that harris should be expressing in here, statistic from the kaiser family foundation. it did an annual survey of employer provided health benefits. 74% of covered workers face a waiting period before coverage is available. the average waiting period is 2.2 months. he's coming out well in that part of the equation. are there any tea partyers who have put their health insurance where their mouths were during the campaign? has anybody refused, anybody stand up at this meeting and go, this doesn't apply to me because i have to have principles because i said there's no government health care, i'm not going to take this? >> well, no, not really. i mean, congressman weiner was making good points earlier that this wasn't really vetted in every single campaign. it was -- what they were running on was so anti-obama policy, so pro-repeal, that they didn't really go much further in explaining this.

they're going to try and dismiss this as a gotcha, which it feels like. this is a problem, though, a lot of democrats see with the incoming republicans. they don't really tie their theory of policy to the way this stuff works. and they claim democrats don't, but you know, look at unemployment benefits. it's considered a punch line to republicans that extending unemployment benefits will do anything but make somebody a permanent surf of the state who lives off government benefits. we know that that's not something that people who have been in a tough time for six or seven months and who need that money believe. in terms of what they want to do on -- or what they say we should have done on t.a.r.p. ore things like that. they say everything would have worked out great if we let the banks collapse. things like that. i mean, they ran as populists. a certain kind. they said all these problems are obama's fault and it's tougher to defend what they believe when

real issues come up like this. >> is there any indication as you described dr.-elect harris here, his reaction to the reaction to this. any suggestion that this has struck him? i was suddenly thinking of the scene from "citizen cane" where the corrupt politician says to orson welles, this is going it be a lesson to you. does congressman-elect harris have any idea what this meant symbolically to people who have been fighting for health care or health care reform? >> no. the lesson he's going to take from it is he shouldn't trust reporters. this -- he -- harris, background, ran for congress in 2008 and knocked off an incumbent who was more liberal. gillcrest endorsed the democrat who held the seat. he was a proto-tea partyer. he was one of the guys that ran back in the club for growth, actually and said if you compromise on anything you don't deserve to be in politics, if

you don't apply this very short litmus test on every issue and vote against things then you're doing your country a disservice. he's going to have harder tests than this. come january when they start voting on taxes, when they vote on health care repeal, and when they vote on the debt ceiling, for example, they're going to test whether this stuff works. so far he's had trouble explaining how this blanket policy works in practice. >> he's going to need more than one lesson. he's going to get more than one lesson. msnbc contributor dave waigel as always. >> good to see you, keith. >> good to see you. how to succeed in the white house without trying to appease congress. 30 thinks president obama can do with his executive powers. and bill maher.

hi, we're looking to save some money on our car insurance. great! at progressive, you can compare rates side by side, so you get the same coverage, often for less. wow! that is huge! [ disco playing ] and this is to remind you that you could save hundreds! yeah, that'll certainly stick with me. we'll take it. go, big money! i mean, go. it's your break, honey. same coverage, more savings. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

how to get things done without congress. the head of the center for american progress on 30 things the president can just do. why didn't they give him the list two years ago? realtime is on its break.

so they have time for us tonight. if you think they're water carriers at fox, wait until you hear what they said about her. derrick pitts with the franklin institute and an announcement on the vote about worst persons. get me my space modulator.

president obama calls for more bipartisanship in the post-sh lacking era of his presidency, progressive group tries to stop the broken record and offers the president advice. screw all that, you're the chief executive, you have executive powers, use them.

our fourth story, how-to blueprint for what the president can do without congress. one of its chief architects will join me. progress not positioning is the counsel given by john podesta and his progressive group, center for american progress, issuing a report today identifying 30 specific areas where mr. obama could act. the best part, no congressional consult required. the president can use his authority by issuing executive orders, use rule making, a9e management and diplomacy. to further his agenda. among the group's specific recommendations, use the epa to lower greenhouse gas pollution and use commander in chief authority to stop the enhorsement of don't ask, don't tell. the center's report pointing to another democratic president facing similar republican opposition in the latter half of his first term, bill clinton. president clinton used executive powers to establish protection for medical privacy and put 1 million welfare recipients into the workforce.

he protected more open land than any president since theodore roosevelt. ironic the de facto leader of the republican insurgency during the clinton years is now offering advice to president obama. former house speaker newt gingrich sitting down with christian broadcasting network giving special dispensation to the president saying, go on, take the rest of the year off. >> i think it would be really healthy for him if he could take off from thanksgiving through most of december and really think, i mean, walk on the beach, walk in the woods, whatever he likes doing. get away from the daily business. >> that guy doesn't think anybody knows how full of it he really is. joining me now is a former adviser to the obama administration, current chief operating officer at the center for american progress. nira tanden. thanks for your time tonight. >> great to be with you. >> you've been inside this administration. if the president didn't want to go and throw his legal weight around before, why would you

think he's going to do it now? >> well, look, i think it was totally appropriate for the president to spend the first two years when he had democratic congressional supermajorities to pass legislation. legislation like health care reform, financial regulatory reform, or to actually make change for the american people. now he faces congressional gridlock. i think it's imptant for him and the country to recognize that gridlock in congress doesn't mean that the government stands still. it's critical for him to keep on pushing for progressive change with all the authority that he can -- that he has at his disposal. >> the administration's use of federal agencies, perspectively, effectively so far? >> well, i think he's used them to some degree, but there has obviously been a lot of focus at the white house dealing with the congress. i think, you know, there's a lot of authority with the cabinet secretaries and it's important for the president to use his whole team, not everything should be on his shoulders. there are more than -- there's more than one messenger in this administration.

it's important for the president to use all of his cabinet secretaries to make change on behalf for the american people. >> there was a lot of talk and a lot of reporting about mr. bush before he left office, placing these burrows, the burrowing of people into federal agencies to create the situation where they could slow things down during the obama administration. is that still a concern? is it related to this? or has this administration been able to weed out the burrowers? >> i think that there was a lot of concern about, you know, very ideological lawyers at justice and elsewhere, really trying to promote kind of a conservative agenda, but i think over the two years there's been a natural attrition. there's been a big changeover in political leadership. you know, i think the republicans in the last two years have been doing everything they can to thwart getting the right people in the right jobs by obstructing normal -- the normal nomination process. still, i think over the course of the last two years, you know,

it's really the president has most of his team in place in the agencies and it's important to really let them flex their muscles by acting in the rule making and elsewhere to make positive policy where they can. >> the overall argument in these 30 proposals is sort of republican opposition be damned, change doesn't have to be small balled with the house being transferred to the republican party? meaningful reform obviously can still happen. what is your expectation? is there any ping bouncing back to you that suggests they're actually going to do this? >> we very much expect that the president and his -- and pete rouse, chief of staff and others in the white house are thinking through exactly how they can use the cabinet more effectively, use the agencies to do this. it's really -- if all the american people see is gridlock over the next two years and there's no effective movement forward on the problems people face, and the president isn't doing everything he can to

really push the ball forward and try to solve people's problems with every piece of authority he has, then i think we're all going to -- everyone in washington is going to pay the price for that. at the very least the president has to keep trying, no matter how much obstruction he faces to make change for people or people will get more cynical and that really only helps the other side. >> neera tanden, center of american progress. thank you. >> thank you. bill maher on the midterms. the obama-terms and media terms and the final verdict is in on worst persons.

to st. cloud, minnesota.

bill maher, the final vote on worsts persons and the secret fox tapes. what they say about s&p sp when they think they're not on the air. first the tweet of the day. please don't mention wills and kate tonight. there are so many more important things to talk about. pretty please? why would i mention morey wills and kate gosselin? let's play "oddball." are they dating? we begin on the internet. where ever since this video appeared last summer people have been looking for ways to spice up the old wedding entrance. these two next contestants make their entrance into the reception having decided to try the piggyback routine. down goes the wedding party. perhaps they should have saved the drinks for after their entrance. well, they're just following the old tradition. something old, something new, something borrowed and be black

and blue. whee. to china, for the quarter final match in the games. uzbekistan, leading cutters with an easy -- somehow he missed the entire -- missed the freakin' net. he hit the post, hit the post. lost the match 1-nil. in his defense, he is a soccer player and thus is not used to seeing a ball go into a goal. to mexico city, it's finally happened. bulls are evolving. they're trueing to kill off the market for bull fighting by killing off the spectators and the participants. bring them all on. the gate was eventually open and the bull returned to the ring to finish out the match. that is the biggest load of bull i've seen flying since sarah palin debuted her tv sereries. hey-oh! time marches on. bill maher next on "countdown."

our third story tonight, these are the quiet times for my next guest. bill maher will appear add the civic center in peoria, illinois, december 1st. it's the star plaza theater in indiana on december 4th, on the 10th the brady theater in tulsa and reno december 11th. mr. maher survived another first half of the season on the television from fake joints smoked to that little reminder it's always worth it to keep the tapes of old, old shows of yours because you never know which parts might be useful later on. much, much later on. the battle that is "realtime with bill maher" begins anew on january 14th. i welcome him with a reminder not only are the tapes of the old christine o'donnell interviews useful but so are tapes of robert klein interviews from 1977. good evening, sir. >> keith, what a youman you are to do all those plugs for me.

thank you. >> that's only the first and second times. we'll get to the third set of plugs later in the show. christine o'donnell is a wonderful place to start. do you take any comfort in the fact america did not elect her or angle in nevada or in fact did not elect a majority of the tea partyers? >> well, i'm a cockeyed optimist, keith, so of course i take a lot of comfort in that. yes, i think america did draw a line and when the nuts started falling out of the nut bag this year they said, yeah, even us, the electorate of america, the crack baby that we are, is going to say enough is enough. they did it, by the way, also i think with campaign ads. you can say almost anything in a campaign ad, but they did not like alan grayson calling his opponent taliban dan. they didn't like the aqua buddha of rand paul's opponent. but yeah, i thought -- you mentioned sharron angle. i thought that was a good race

to be the epitome for what was going on in america. here you had harry reid who, of course, we all know is very uninspiring, dusty, old harry reid. he looks like the druggist in a frank capper movie. you know what, he was a guy who got a lot done in the senate, as opposed to the crazy lady with 20 dead cats in the basement. that was the choice and it was that close? so yeah, i take some comfort, but not a lot. >> how, bill, how are republicans getting away with spinning november 2nd as a landslide? they've done a wonderful job of convincing their own people they swept the democrats out. they didn't take the senate under what were probably the most adverse circumstances democrats could have created for themselves. >> yes, but they didn't take the senate because they had people like christine o'donnell, as you well know, and have pointed out. if it wasn't for those crazy tea baggers in a couple of races they would have.

i mean, let's not kid ourselves. it was a gigantic victory for the republicans, but they shouldn't kid themselves either. people weren't really voting for them. people were just voting against the democrats. i think i saw a poll right before the election that said, congressional republicans, their disapproval rating was, like, 63%, and republican -- and democrat disapproval was, like, 60%. only democrats could lose in a popularity contest to someone less popular than they are. but yeah, i don't -- yeah? >> that takes us back to the white house. when you heard the president say, yesterday, that he wants to work harder at bipartisanship in the next two years, were you as encouraged as i was? >> yeah, no. i{ don't understand why he sticks with that. you know, i -- i have not

doubted him up until this last season, post-election, when he did not seem to get mad. he seemed to be beaten. he looked like johnny fontaine in the "godfather" when the godfather has to say, you can act like a man. you know, bipartisanship, i think, is one of those things that is so highly overrated. it's one of those things when a pollster asks people, what's the problem in washington, do you think there should be more bipartisanship? of course there should. i don't think people care. i think people want people to get something done. especially the people who voted for barack obama. we would like to see something get done. i thought at this point in his tenure i would making jokes about our first black president and what a gangster he is. you know? and how he's -- instead, we got, like, another in a long line of those democrats, like al gore and dukakis, who just look wimpy. he looks like when they ask dukakis, what would you do if someone raped your wife?

he said, i would put out a five-point plan or whatever he said. >> you just said you had not given up on him. do you think the president still has greatness in him? that comes with a corollary question, if he has greatness in him, is he going to share that greatness with the rest of us in. >> yes, i think he's, you know, highly intelligent. of course we don't know everything he knows and what he has to deal with. i don't think his lack of greatness is in what he wants to do and where he wants to move the country. it's not widely reported in the main stream media, this was one of the most successful congresses in, like, 40 years probably since lbj. the problem is they don't tell people about it. i was watching this, you know, "60 minutes" has done a couple pieces in the last month or so about the recession. i saw a woman in tears saying

she doesn't know if she can afford to keep her kid in college, with the tears coming down. i thought, you know, instead of crying, read. find out. there actually is one party that has been addressing that issue. you know, it's not just, oh, they all don't do anything in washington. one side is trying a little harder than the other. >> to that point, is the following a fair statement, do you think, and if so, why is it true, or not true? that republicans and conservatives are actually better at getting done what they want to get done or what they were elected to get done. whether or not it's good or bad for the country, that they're better at it than democrats are. >> way better. way better. democrats used to be good at it. if you look at all the ways in which they move the country forward, from the new deal onward, civil rights and social security and medicare, all those programs, and by the way, implemented quickly, you know,

11 months after i think it was they passed medicare, people were enjoying the benefits as opposed to what we do now, kick it down the road to 2018 or whenever this stuff starts. but yes, they -- because they kept their people in line and they knew how to twist arms and do those things that fdr and lbj used to be good at. we don't have democrats like that anymore. so what we have is, you know, one side which as you know, you and i i think are on the same page. false equivalency is a sin in this country. to pretend that both sides have moderates, they don't. there are no moderates on the republican side. there are no republican senators who will argue that global warming is a hoax anymore. for example. you know, at some point the left moved to the center, the right moved into a mental hospital. and there is no middle anymore. the right keeps -- the

republicans keep staking out turf further and further to the right and demand that the democrats meet them in the middle,9 (q(t that it's not the middle anymore. that's why health care is so watered down, because it's really bob dole's old republican plan from 1994, but somehow that got to be the middle now. same thing with cap and trade. >> right. the middle is the near right. you mentioned false equivalence. i'm not fishing for either compliments nor reassurance here. i don't know that i've ever heard this from you at any length. give me your assessment of television news and its effect on american politics today. >> well, gee, you could write a whole book on that. i mean, since people have stopped reading in general, for good or bad, we're stuck with it. that's how people get their news. i think, you mentioned christine o'donnell there at the top. i think i read that that was the most reported story of the

entire midterm elections, was christine o'donnell. that's pretty sad. but you know, i think the place where you go, where i go, for in-depth coverage is opinion news. when i say opinion news, people like you and rachel and lawrence o'donnell and chris matthews. you know, they have -- you guys have the time to really go into depth on an issue. so i think that does perform a service as long as you stick to the facts. you guys care about the facts. i know the conservatives would disagree, but the truth is, and here's the false equivalency part, one side in our great national debate just makes crap up. as you well know. when i covered this issue on our show, and you know, we are a little incestuous lately. let's be honest. in our opinion news, comedy, whatever it is business we're in because there was jon stewart's thing. then you comment then i took your side in that then jon is talking about me and i talked to

rachel about him. basically what i was saying is you were right about that. you and glenn beck are not the same. one of you, you, tries to stick to the facts. the other one is very close to playing with his poop. >> and beautifully phrased that was. bill maher. peer yore ra on the 3rd. maryville on the 4th. reno on the 11th. attend and you get a free package of pop tarts and spam. i hope to see you in the new year in your place. >> you will. thank you. >> we're all set. thanks, bill. the dangers of forgetting the mike remains open when you don't think you're on. what fox news really thinks about the half governor. you may be surprised. and the big announcement on the future of worst persons in the world if it has a future.

the fox outtakes revealing what they really think of her. derrick pitts on approach to exploring mars, astronauts check in but they don't check out. first, last week we asked you to vote on the future of our worst persons segment. i suspended it after the jon stewart rally as recognition of his complaint about tone. evidently you thought that was a dumb idea. the vote, 2.8% said pie, 9.1% said kill it, 15% said keep it but modify it, 73% said bring it back. so starting tomorrow, pie. no, i'll do northeast of the of the above. tomorrow we will premiere a new segment, the not really worst persons in the world.

that woman is an idiot. that's not me saying it, not this time. it's not an exact quote but close enough. number two story tonight, what they say at fox news about sarah palin when they think they're not being recorded. >> alexandra stanley had the best line. she said the new show was like the "sound of music" without the nazis, without the romance and without the music. >> that is the voice of liz trotta, former news reporter and a participant in a show called " at fox. this one from judith miller. >> did you see the review?

the count side of the voice when warning you to heed the bears will actually scare the bears. >> not exactly as if they had been nice to the half governor on the air either. >> the more you see her, the less you like her and overexposure is something the democrats have to pray for. >> give her something on a cartoon network. >> fox news watch used to be a genuinely good journalism program until roger ailes discovered it was, you know, fair, and 2 1/2 years ago they swapped out the cast including eric burns. given mrs. palin is employed by fox news one expects there might be another change in personnel and presumably involves miss trotta and miss miller, very well accomplished by using bears. two tickets to paradise. not paradise, mars. they're only one way. derrick pitts next.

the subject of getting to mars has been subsidiary to the assumption that anyone on mars

would try to get here first, to you know, kill us and eat us. this was reinforced by the fact the first six attempts to send unmanned probes there failed utterly. two american ships never got out of earth's orbit, three russian ships never got off the ground. a third disintegrated in the atmosphere. the fourth got to mars and kept right on going. our number one story, a great new bold idea has been proposed which we'll run past our friend derrick pitts presently. go there and don't come back. writing in the "journal of koz molg molg" an expert in eco geology suggests the quickest way to get to mars is not to bother buys a round trip ticket. the astronauts would go to mars with the intention of staying the rest of their lives as trailblazers of the permanent human mars colony writes dirk scuhlze and makuch{ davies. we have to get private

investment involved to scope out mars as a possible escape destination if and when we worry the ecology here or get hit by a big asteroid or the plans leak out for the invasion by convenience in 2012. sorry, i wasn't supposed to mention that. sorry. joining me to discuss the benefits and tax implications of leaving schmos here and living by yourself on mars with a few friends is derrick pitts, franklin institute in philadelphia. good evening. >> can i suggest who the first person should be to go? >> sure. >> i wouldn't bother. it wouldn't be good. >> the comparison the guys that made this thing, a one way ticket to mars is no measure outlandish than a one-way ticket was to america in 1920. >> it is a bit of an oversimple oversimplification because it's an endeavor to make this work.

there are many of us on the planet who would be deeply invested on what happens to a person that makes such a trip. if you actually put all the pieces together and think about it, just a little bit off target, you come to this idea it's very much like what explorers did 500 to 1,000 years ago. sail off across the ocean and we didn't know if they were coming back or not. >> weren't they sure wherever they were going there was probably going to be water and air? >> that's true. in this case, there's nothing like that there. you'd have to take it all with you or actually, keith, there are some ideas put forth in the mid 1970s by an engineer who thought we could send everything we needed to establish a colony ahead of when the people get there so when the people get there all their supplies would be there. so if we combine these two we might have something with hopes that on the back end somebody figures out a way to get that return ticket working. >> the premise right now is you only send guys and you only send guys in their 60s and they're not coming back and you only

choose those because the radiation would{ destroy the reproductive systems in younger people. >> what we're actually seeing here, to be truthful, is a new enthusiasm for this idea of doing human exploration beyond earth. with the advent of new ways of getting to space via commercial launch system vehicles and things of that source. it opens doors in the way that haven't been open before when we look at national space programs which are bogged down in problems of red tape through congress and expenses of a very, very expensive sort of overburden of the organization, itself. when we break it down and strip away the stuff it makes us look at new possibilities. >> look at the new possibility and tell me, i'm not suggesting you're a candidate based on their description. would you go? >> hmmm, what a good question that is. the answer is i think i'd be better off just managing things from this end.

>> philadelphia's complex enough for you. you don't need mars. two reactions to this. abc got ahold of edgar mitchell who went to the moon on "apalo 14" and said this is premature, we're not ready for this yet. the nasa spokesman said we want our people back. apart from the how can we miss you if you don't go away quality of this, one thing i'm not getting, what's the advantage of a series of one-way trips? is it a question of cost? >> it is a question of cost. this is how it's being looked at right now. the biggest part of the expense is how do we maintain a colony there and how do we get the people back? that's the big part of this. we can shoot people out there, but once we get them there it's the return trip that's always the problem. and how long they have to remain there. how do we maintain their existence? it's the hefty part. looking at this realistically, i don't think it's something that, you know, that we're going to seriously consider immediately. i think the idea is to try to exhaust every other possibility for how to get people back

before we resort to the one-way trip. and gosh, who really would want to stand up for that? although if you were the first one you could become quite famous. >> yeah, a statue for you, after you go crazy from being alone up there. last point, is there -- before the martian land prices go up, is there realistic chance of establishing human life there under controlled circumstances? how controlled would they have to be? indoors only? environment is much better than the environment on the moon, for example. the -- at least on mars you have -- you have some atmosphere there on mars and there's all the resources of the minerals there on mars and there is water there as well. so it's possible that something could happen. we're talking about somewhere down the road far into the future, but i think we need to move away from the idea that we're going to be spending millions of people to mars once we ruin earth. i think that's not a realistic consideration.