but in the in the show we'll get the real headlines with none of them or see or hear a lot of other washington d.c. now he's spoken about it before but it looks like it's finally here the double dip housing market so when we hear analysts say that there's no relief in sight how do we take that news then why i ask is the military using hollywood to draw in new recruits we'll tell you about how the army is working with one upcoming summer blockbuster to entice and americans to sign up and that is the government trying to overreach by forcing the search engines to blacklist sites that are catered to

quote infringing activities will tell you all you need to know about the protect ip act and surely many of you celebrate memorial day with barbecues parties but they will remind you about what the day really stands for we'll tell you about a group of soldiers who are too often overlooked female veterans or bring all that on our tuesday vision of happy hour on tonight's show but up first our top story. is the housing market officially in a double digit the standard and poor's case shiller home price index as it is new data was released for the month of march today and home prices took a drop for the eight months in a row now leaving them at their lowest point since the downturn began prices are now down thirty three point one percent from their peak in july of two thousand and six and according to david and blitzer the chairman of the s. and p. index committee there is quote no relief in sight so how do we take that news joining me to discuss this from our studio in new york is peter cardillo chief market economists. avalon partners here thank you so much for joining us tonight so

what do you say is it official when the s. and p. says that it's kind of farmed that we're in a double dip housing market is that just a little news. certainly a show i mean you know you don't have to really look at the index to tell you that i mean you just have to you know. a property owner who's trying to dispose of his property and he can tell you that he's not getting the price he's asking for already has to lower it there's no question about that and certainly today's report just confirms that. we were in a double dip recession in terms of the housing sector. unfortunately there is no relief in sight and this turn has been. the worst decline actually it's beaten the decline since the great depression percentage wise

and so. if you add to the fact that the economy the economy is presently sluggish and that we have a high rate of unemployment and we're probably not going to see. economic growth exceed three percent for a long time and i think you know the question is how long does this depression in the housing sector last. i would suspect who looking anywhere from maybe three to five years before we see of the market actually begins to stabilize and then probably getting back to some of those peak levels we're looking maybe at the next cycle which could be anywhere from fifteen to twenty years down the road so you think that there will be another peak cycle you don't think that perhaps americans have learned their lesson have realized that not

everybody can afford a home not everybody can get a loan and pay off their mortgage you would think that after this size of the collapse we would try to change our habits. well yes indeed you're correct but you know. if you look at what happened with plastic since its inception. and of course. it's only recently now that we're beginning to see that some of the credit is coming back and so people are using credit again that is plastic credit credit cards perhaps maybe more diligently but the truth of the matter is that many people today and i'm referring to household income that. is you know. a neat sub. levels that would that can satisfy. their their payments

that we're probably looking. at a renewed crises they may not come the year from now and probably have come ten fifteen years from now. any time you have access to credit. there's always that danger that you're going to create a bubble whether it's with plastic whether it's in the stock market whether it's in the gorilla state it's going to happen so. do we learn our lesson perhaps in the short term yes but in the long term there's always that element of greed and if we look back and we look at really what happened to the housing sector we can say that it was really all about greed. who created it i guess we can point the finger at her several. sectors within the economy and on cheap

money the federal reserve second the fact that. maybe lending institutions. to be excessively over generous and third probably the real. problem lie with the investor who became very greedy who went out and bought that one home but several homes and thinking that the speculation was going to continue on and on and on and was never come to an end in fact i was quite surprised that it took so long for this bubble to burst i was saying three four years ago before the actually before we got to the peak of the housing market that we were headed for real danger and i was just amazed how long we were and of course that was. led on

by unfortunately lower interest rates cheap money and the kids fueled speculation so any time you have cheap money you're going to create a speculative bubble bubble and no matter in what sector of the economy you're looking at. five years ago it was the housing market years from now it could be the stock market well so it's definitely still hard to say whether we learned our lesson or not you're definitely not the only one that was trying to give people a bit of a warning sign to say that this can't last forever but let's see if it really does change the makeup of our society at least before is after you say we get back to that peak in fifteen or twenty years but it's going to look like with fewer americans their own homes more americans that ranch than are perhaps even more mobile you know i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight. closer. then is the military working with hollywood to recruit new people let's talk about one upcoming summer flick that's got the army's money all over it and to protect ip out if the government

a lot of leeway when it comes to shutting down or blacklisting any part of the internet or has to do with post infringing activities take a higher seat but is this giving the government too much power to find out after the break. we. were given the. safety. and freedom.

hey guys welcome michel ancel the old on a show we've heard about are just stuff to say on the topic now i want to hear an audience is going to video response or to twitter profile to the question the police host on youtube every monday and on thursday the show long response is. you know how sometimes you see a story at the scene so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something

else and you hear or see some of the part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry is a big. deal like the being in the u.s. army is just like being a mutant with superpowers because it looks like a vassal the army is trying to tell your kids take a look at this new collaboration between the army and the new movie x.-men first class. ordinary people who discover the extraordinary. which the child looks straight. to. it's. a chance to see.

and there's a strong. that's right it's a new sponsorship deal where the pentagon is using its money to lure young people to go to war i mean to lure young people to their facebook page to watch exclusive clips of the x. men yeah it's pretty blatant pro-war propaganda they completely leaves out the realities and the dangers of fighting in conflict so why are they getting away with it and how long is this kind of thing going on joining me to discuss that is david sirota radio host and best selling author of the book back to our future how the one nine hundred eighty s. explain the world we live in now david always nice to have you on the show and i think we've all seen a lot of those ridiculous ads coming from our armed forces that really glorify what it is to be a member of the armed forces to go into war but do you think that this crosses a new line where suddenly they throw fictional mutants into the mix. well you're

right to say that this is a bigger story it is a longer story the military has been advertising and using pop culture icon sacrifice for really for years i mean there was an ad back in two thousand and five people may remember it it looked like lord of the grapes the marine fighting the dragon and now we've got we had after that we had in movie previews we had a military me war that like a video game and some argue that it drone warfare is a video game which is also scary into itself but now we're getting to a situation where the military it's almost literally televisual the same you'll get superpowers that can protect you on the battlefield if you join the military and my question is that i wrote about in supply was was where does it stop because these are clearly ads aimed at kids not want to be clear i don't think the military has an obligation to recruit and has to show its worst face right i don't think it has an obligation to tell kids and kids if you if you join the military you could die

obviously that should be a pretty implicit but we have to put this next to how the other parts of the pentagon are behaving he said you know one more of a pentagon saying if you should join the military you can become a superhero with superpowers show you another part of the pentagon apparatus which has been preventing the news the from just publishing basic images and basic stories about the downsides of war so when you put those two behaviors together it becomes a real question of what kind of probably gand are we going to tolerate. well it does seem like the media might be willing to tolerate a lot of propaganda there i mean you mentioned in your piece that the new york times wrote about this where they not only made this collaboration between hollywood and the pentagon sound like it was cool and it was funny but they also said that this was the first ever a sponsorship deal that this was something brand new but hasn't the military been working on it with hollywood in terms of creating films and putting restrictions on

those films for decades now absolutely and this is the part that is very very taboo to talk about the new york times is was right in the sense that this is the first time the army is i guess overtly sponsoring a movie but what's been going on for decades is that the u.s. military has been collaborating with hollywood in a way where hollywood screenwriters go to the military and they say we would like to have access for a person shooting a movie but it's just a military hardware and the military has said well we then it will demand your screenplay so that we can edit it to make your screenplay more character and what this sense of being is a huge subsidy to hollywood studios because the military provides the hardware discount rate for the purpose of building it and the end hollywood basically submits to censorship that's been going on for decades a lot talked about and it's

a huge amount of money and what you basically have is the pentagon treating access to the public's hardware remember that that's that stuff the military hardware is owned by the taxpayer the pentagon is trading access to that in exchange for pressuring and really forcing studios to change the content of their movies so that their content doesn't question militarism he'd give us any examples of certain movies or certain criteria that the military in places upon us now. certainly i mean the best example of it was top going to be a huge movie which really to put this into high. here where the military think that the status of the military charged the studio dates how can a combined total of about two million dollars for all of those f. sixteen s in exchange for being able to make sure that they were like that it's not scare they didn't question the military didn't question villagers and there's another example a crazy example thirteen days of the cuban missile crisis where producers buy into

that or is everybody access to some so shots to shoot and the military came back and said we have to change the dialogue between president kennedy of the joint chiefs of staff and the producers of who is a dialogue word for word dialogue from the historical tapes of the white house takes and the military still said no we're not going to give you access to our we're because even though the guy was. factually accurate it still paints the military you know that that really is just incredible you know i want to go back to something he said and he said that you don't think the military has an obligation to let's say put in their ads or in their recruitment videos that you might die if you join the armed forces or if you go to war but if you look at some of the laws we have in this country on the books that congress has passed you know let's say cigarettes for example not only are they not allowed to market to children they had to get rid of joe camel alcohol is the same way but these also have to come along with strict warning labels that say that you should not smoke if you're pregnant

you hear cancer that you can die essentially why should the military have the exact same obligation. well look i think it's unfair because there's something to that i guess what i would say is that before we even get to that point of asking the military to put a let's say a warning label on recruitment the first thing we should be saying is the military should stop trying to prevent journalists the fourth estate the media for her boarding on the realities of war so i guess my point is we're far out far. away from bad we're a situation where even more extreme situation where the military puts out these ads making war look safe at the same time it's media apparatus is preventing newspapers television shows radio shows for having access to the real images of what war is actually life we need to solve that problem before we can even get to a discussion and i think it's a worthy discussion about a basic warning labels i definitely agree that's a huge problem but i feel like congress could do something more immediately and

that sense if we ever even heard of a whisper from any members of congress asking you asking the pentagon not to actively recruit with children. well no and i think that what members of congress it's only an all volunteer army we need to try to reach out to teenagers and whether you support the concept of an all volunteer army or not i think there's something to that if we're going to have an all volunteer army the army to send a military needs to be able to say to kids hey this is an option for you the problem is you and i agree is that the reason taishan of what that option really is how dangerous it is it's not being presented fairly both in the recruitment as and just as troublingly it works really in the media itself and blocking access to the battlefield pictures watching access to reporters taking pictures of the coffins coming off of the plane at dover air force base the fact that we haven't seen that in our media that creates a blackout so even if kids who are thinking about taking up that recruitment from

those ads you know they go onto the web and it looks ok what's battle really was. they're not going to see what it's really why even at their wire the reason it's hard to say to you that it's you would like to think that it's implicit but if the truth isn't out there within the media then where else you could find it because being a mutant with superhuman powers really sounds like fun to me david i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight. that's why we've got a warning for anybody attempting or planning on launching a cyber attack against a u.s. cyber attack it's going to be seen as an act of war the pentagon is determined that a computer attack from another country could be met with a full u.s. military response and other words the u.s. might launch a few missiles in your direction if you screw with their computer systems the pentagon's working on a defense strategy for operating in cyber space report that's expected to be released next month and the report's going to help the military and the u.s. government understand how a major cyber attack could cause havoc across the country so the report looks at

several different scenarios including cyber attacks on nuclear plants subways pipelines and power grids and according to the people who have seen this report it says that the u.s. has every right to use traditional military force if a cyber attack happens so the conclusion is based on the review of various treaties and the u.s. top ally the u.k. is said to also be on board at the same plant but i've got a little concern with the strategy how the u.s. know for certain who is behind a cyber attack unlike traditional military attacks a cyber attack can be routed through several different countries and computer systems so difficult to find out the point of origin so there's a chance of the u.s. could bomb a country after a cyber attack at a later have to say oh sorry it wasn't you does not sound eerily like starting a war in iraq over weapons of mass destruction and then finding out they're not there but you know what this really sounds like to me even more is just another push by the military industrial complex to keep us in gauged in never ending military spending and fear building there's talk by president obama of cutting

defense defense contractors have to come up with a new strategy to keep that money coming and all else fails just scare the daylights out of people last year we told you about a cyber attack seminar held here in washington by the bipartisan policy center and it was called cyber shockwave and a seminar concluded that the u.s. government wasn't ready for a major cyber attack clearly our communications infrastructure is the exact. it starts with the college basketball and march madness application for cell phones the suppose it had her uses it to gain access to all the information stored inside . the nation's cell. and i'm very upset if they were conducting the seminar so they could advise the white house and the pentagon about cyber security and what you know just a little bit over a year later the pentagon's going to release that defense strategy for operating operating in cyberspace report so now that we've decided we were willing to go to war over one of these nefarious attacks as if two wars two shadow war is going to

take humanitarian intervention as if all of that isn't enough undoubtedly there are going to be billions more invested to protect ourselves and use the pentagon doing the best the pentagon scaring people wasting money and leaving the american people and the and less war. now just a few weeks ago we told you about the protect ip act it's a bill created in the senate that would give the power to the government to go after websites that are quote dedicated to infringing activities the very broad definition that has a lot of people out there concerned it also would allow the attorney general to bring legal action against the people running those sites saying how these are non-domestic domains that means of the u.s. government is trying to apply its own copyright laws internationally and to greatly expand the forstmann techniques by getting search engines advertising networks and financial transaction providers all involved were acquired them to cut ties with these domains i lot of criticism of this bill ranges from tech giants like google

and yahoo even a to free speech advocates for technology groups so why that a senate committee unanimously passed this at the end of last week let's just say that hollywood and the recording industry are big fans but for now senator ron wyden has placed a hold on this bill barring it from going to the full senate so let's look into what we should know about it before it moves on join me to discuss this is mike masnick c.e.o. and founder of tech mike thanks so much for coming on the show it's been a while sure thanks for having me now let's start with this definition of dedicated to infringing activities how broad is that. it's really broad you know they tried to do a few things to try to make it a little more specific in this bill compared to the bill they had last year which i recall quite well but it's still really really broad and somewhat begun and going to allow those sorts of sites potentially to be cleared. to

be without much group or without. trial were. i'm happy that you mention quite that because that died last year and a lot of people have just called this a redux or redone and they try to put a friendlier name on it to protect. and a friendlier face and you know now they like to give the impression that there's more due process involved at this time you get a warning from the attorney general that you can actually go to court and fight this but how far does that actually travel what are the some of the downsides sure there are some things in this bill that are certainly better lou certainly listen to at least some of the complaints the report of last year and. with this bill rather than directly going to the sites themselves they have to at least make an attempt to reach the people behind the site into a lawsuit against them which is definitely definitely a step forward. on the flip side what they did was they had some other things to

the bill whereas last year's bill. focused on just what the u.s. government could do and the attorney general bill added a private rights action which basically lets. companies themselves take action or under this bill and that's something different to be worried about especially given the very broad definition and very broad nature of the way. but considering that this is going after domains there are even bases within the united states then if they can't find you they get to just take their site down before they go to a court before you get to go fight to keep the vailable if you don't in fact have any pirated material on their. well that's never the fear is that you know while there are things in there that say that you have to try and calm the person and. it's it's pretty broad and basic this is if you can find the people and it doesn't say that you have to necessarily try very hard that you can you can start to go to

the second level actions that are within the bill which which do allow for all sorts of actions to be taken against these sites potentially you know shutting them down or a blocking access to them but a very very broad and serious way especially when many of the sites may be not infringing or depending on the definition of how it is you know last year there were sites that were earlier this year actually there were spies that were seized that were found to be legal in their home country and yet suddenly could be completely cut off from the u.s. market without a trial or without a chance to really discuss it right in front of a court and have their their side it heard what kind of precedent do you think that sets or what kind of example i guess as a set for the rest of the world the fifty us creates legislation where based upon our copyright laws we get to go out and get go after john wayne's set off in other countries then our other governments getting the impression that they can do the exact same thing. yes and this is actually

a really big problem and it's an issue that plenty of people have been raising for quite some time which is that it is the u.s. continues to present itself the u.s. government and he's presented itself as being very very supportive of openness and freedom on the internet and certainly freedom of speech being a big part of that while they continue to talk about you know supporting technologies and laws that encourage his speech and to own a locker shut down or a filter or any kind of free speech and yet here is the same u.s. government going out there sending something that can clearly be used and or used to block speech or to block innovation just because a particular industry doesn't like it and we were certainly seeing. countries like china and india have expressed the fact that they can and they have you know legitimate reasons for censoring the internet and effectively pointing to the u.s. copyright laws and proposals like protect ip act in order to encourage these types

of activities and to justify them when the u.s. says you know you can't censor free speech why makee said when certain industries don't like it if it has to go back to the list i mentioned google yahoo e-bay pay-pal american express obvious companies are against this legislation and we know of course that it's the are a the n.p.a. they're always pushing for this why does congress insist on not listening to all the tech experts but on listening to hollywood. i mean it's stuff that's how you know in a lot of cases part of it is just the fact that a lot of the people making these policies really just don't understand the technology involved i mean beyond just the companies that are expressing this which certainly should make politicians wake up and take notice some of the you know the most respected most knowledgeable technologists who understand who really understand and build some of the core elements of the internet came out with a light paper last week which explains. why the proposal as it's written is really

dangerous would have serious unintended consequences with takedown or limit access to plenty of perfectly legitimate sites similar to what we saw earlier this year where. homeland security took down eighty four thousand different sites and i know that was discussed on your show as well. those types of things are going to continue with business act and the problem is that a lot of the politicians and the people writing these bills simply don't understand the technology and you know from the people who are supporting it in terms of the entertainment industry a lot of them don't realize the larger impact of it or think that well you know that's kind of collateral damage be affecting our business for now senator why is the only one standing in the way let's hope that you have bring him down on this and i thank so much for joining us tonight thanks for having me. coming out televangelist makes a shocking comparison about still time later in just a moment.