welcome to the lower show we'll get the real headlines with none of them or see where you live in washington d.c. now 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 how the army is working with one upcoming summer blockbuster to entice and americans to sign up and then it is the government trying to overreach by forcing the search engines to blacklist sites dedicated to quote

infringing activities we'll tell you all you need to know about the protect ip act and surely many of you celebrated 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 are bringing all that are choosing a vision of happy hour on tonight's show but first our top story. is the housing market officially in a double digit standard and poor's case shiller home price index says it is new data was released for the month of march today and home prices took a drop for the eighth month 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 glitter 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 economist partners peter thank you so much for joining us tonight so what do

you say it is that official when he says that it's confirmed that we're in a double dip housing market is just under beatable news. certainly sure i mean you know you don't have to really look at the close. i mean you just have to you know. a property owner who is trying to dispose of the 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. that we are in a double dip recession in terms of the housing sector and unfortunately there is no relief in sight and this turn has been. the worst decline actually say it's beaten the decline since the great depression percentage rise

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 that we're probably not going to see. economic growth see three percent for a long time then i think you know the question is how long is this depression in the housing sector last. i would suspect who looking anywhere from maybe three to five years. 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 and realize 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 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 plus a critic credit clause 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. any sub. levels that would that can satisfy. their their payments that we're probably

looking. at are you crises it may not come year from now probably you called ten fifteen years from now it any time you have access to credit. there's always that danger that you're going to create a dog whether it's with plastic whether it's in the stock market whether it's in the real estate it's going to happen so. do we learn our lesson perhaps in the short term yes but in the long term disability 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 through several. sectors within the economy and one cheap

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

speculation so anytime 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 two years from now could be the stock market also the chaplain started say about it we learned our lesson or now you're definitely not the only one that is trying to give people a little warning sign and say that this can't last rabbit will see if it really does change the makeup of our society at least before is that if you say we get back to a peak in fifteen or twenty years what it's going to look like with fewer americans their homes are americans that rants and are perhaps even more mobile and i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight. because of. that is the military working with hollywood to recruit new people let's say about one upcoming summer for armies money all over it and to protect ip after this 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 taking a piracy but is giving the government too much power find out after the break. we. heard. with the. safe bradley the conservative freedom.

hey guys welcome to shelly's hell on the obama show part of our just stop to sound the topics now i want to hear our audience has got a huge huge a video response part of twitter profile of the questions of please post on you tube as well monday and on thursday the show long response is currently. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for life complete you think you understand it and then you

glimpse something else and here's you some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't. charge the big picture. do you think of being in the u.s. army is just like being a mutant with superpowers because it looks like a battle but 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 just go for the extraordinary. talents straight. to. get. a chance to see. these.

scams. and there's army 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 that completely leaves out the realities and the dangers of fighting in conflicts 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 you think of this crosses a new line where suddenly they throw fictional mutants into the mix. well you're right to say this is a bigger story it is

a longer story the military has been advertising and using pop culture icons advertised for really for years i mean there was an ad back in two thousand and five people may remember it it looks like they were the greats the marine fighting the dragon now we've got we had after that we had in movie previews we had to have a military. war that like a video game and some might argue that a drone warfare is a bit of a game which is also syria 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 some where i 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 get its recruitment has to show its war states but i don't think it has an obligation to look and say kids if you if you join the military you

could die obviously that should be pretty implicit but we have to put this next to how the other parts of the pentagon are behaving you see you have one for the pentagon saying if you should join the military you can become a superhero with superpowers and you have another part of the pentagon apparatus which has been preventing the news media from just publishing basic images and basic stories about the downsides of war so when you put those two behaviors together he becomes a real question of what kind of propaganda 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 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 fine but they also said that this was the first ever sponsorship deal and this was something brand new and hasn't the military been working with hollywood in terms of creating films and

putting restrictions on those films for decades now absolutely and this is the part that we do is very very 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 purposes of shooting a movie to some military hardware and the military has said well we then it will demand your screenplay so that we can get it to make her screenplay more prone to error and what this ends up being is a huge subsidy to hollywood studios because the military provides the hardware at a discount rate for the person filming it and hollywood basically submits to censorship that's been going on for decades if not 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 or queer is owned by the taxpayer the pentagon is trading access that in exchange for pressuring and really forcing studios to change the content of their movies so that their content doesn't question militarism can you give us any examples of certain movies or certain criteria that the military even places upon those films certainly i mean the best example of it was top gun to be a zombie recruit to put this into high. here where the military think that the status of the military charged the studio a top gun 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 lying that it's a minute script they didn't question the military didn't question militarism is another example a crazy example a movie of thirteen days ago of the cuban missile crisis where the producers point to that are letters that would like access to some so some 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 it that dialogue is dialogue from the historical tapes of the white house case and the military still said no we're not going to give you access to our where you can even though the dialogue is his story actually accurate it still means the military in a bad right now really is just incredible you know i want to go back to something he said that he said to you don't think of the military has an obligation to let's say point 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 that 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 markets to children they have to get rid of joe camel alcohol is the same way but these also have to come along with strict warning labels that say they you should not smoke if you're pregnant you have cancer that you can die essentially why should the military have

the exact same obligation well look at the go to fair or because there's something to that i guess i would say is that before we even get to that point of asking the military to pull and say a warning label on recruitment have the first thing we should be sending is the military should stop trying to prevent journalists before the state the media for reporting on the realities of war so i guess my point is we're far out far. far away from that we're a situation where more extreme situation where military the. puts out these ads making war look see at the same time its media apparatus is preventing newspapers television shows radio shows for having access to the real images of what war is actually like we need to solve bad 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 right feel like congress could do something more immediately and

that sense if we ever even heard a whisper from any members of congress as to asking the pentagon not to actively recruit towards children. well and i think that what members of congress and the sleep an all volunteer army we need to try to reach out to teenagers and whether you support the concept of it all is your 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 kids hate this is an option for you the problem is you and i agree is that the reason taishan of what that option really is and how dangerous it is it's not being presented to fairly well in the recruitment as and just as troublingly work troublingly in the media itself and blocking access to battlefield pictures blocking access to reporters taking pictures of the coffins coming off of the plane at their over air force base and the fact that we haven't seen that in our media that creates a blackout so even of kids who are thinking about taking up their recruitment from those as you know they go where they look for ok what's battle really like they're

not going to see what it's really like even a liar now the reason it's hard to say to you that it's even like to think that it's implicit but if the truth isn't out there within the media then where else can kids find it has being a mutant with superhuman powers it really sounds like fun to me david i want to thank you very much for joining us tonight best ready. and that's why we've got a warning for anybody attempting or planning on launching a cyber attack against the 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. the u.k. is said to also be on board with the same plan and i've done a little concern with a strategy how the u.s. know for certain who is behind a cyber attack unlike traditional military attacks the cyber attack can be routed through several different countries and computer systems so it's 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 you're 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 if 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 this was called cyber shockwave and a seminar concluded that the u.s. government wasn't ready for a major cyber attack. communications structure is the exact. it starts with the college basketball bartsch man does that we cation for cellphones this supposedly hacker uses it to gain access to all the information stored inside. the nation's cell phones. and that group said that they were conducting a 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 inspirer cyberspace report so now we've decided we were willing to go to war over one of these and if areas attacks as it two wars can shadow war is going

to fake humanitarian intervention as if all of that isn't enough undoubtedly there are going to be billions more invested to protect ourselves is the pentagon doing the best the pentagon scaring people wasting money and leading the american people 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 it's a 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 force and techniques by getting search engines advertising networks and financial transaction providers all involved requiring them to cut ties with these domains i law so criticism of this bill ranges from tech giants like google and

yahoo either way to free speech advocates of technology groups so why that a senate committee unanimously passed this at the end of last week i should 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 there mike thanks so much for coming on the show it's been a while sure thanks for having me now let's start with the 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 was called corey but it's still really really broad and somewhat begun and allows all sorts of sites potentially to be cleared.

much grouper without. trial. i'm happy that you mention quite that because died last year and a lot of people have has called this quake a redux or redone and they've tried to put a friend your name on it to protect ip act and a friendlier face and you know now they like to give the impression that there is more due process involved 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 lay certainly listen to at least some of the complaints the report of last year and that is still rather than directly going after those sites themselves they have to at least make an attempt to reach the people behind the site and to pile a lawsuit against them which is definitely definitely a step forward. but 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 through the attorney general this year's bill added a private rights action which basically lets. companies themselves take action under this bill and that's something to be worried about especially given the very broad definition and very broad nature of the way the bill's written but considering that this is going after john means there are even based within the united states then if they can't find you they get to just take your site down before they go to a court before you get to go fight to keep it available if you don't in fact have any pirated material on there. well that's simply the fear is that you know while there are things in there that say that you have to try and find the person and. it's it's pretty broad it basically says if you can't find the people and it doesn't say that you have to necessarily try very hard but 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 attentional e you know shutting them down or blocking access to them in 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 they were sized overseas 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 heard what kind of precedent do you think that sets or what kind of example i guess does it set for the rest of the world of us creates legislation where based upon our kaki right laws we get to go out and get go after john mains set up 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 is the u.s. continues to present itself the u.s. government to present itself as being very very supportive of openness and freedom on the internet and certainly freedom of speech being a big part of that and they continue to talk about. you know supporting technologies and laws that encourage her speech and don't block or shut down or filter 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 abuse to rock the speech or to block innovation just because a particular industry doesn't like it and we're certainly seeing. countries like china and india have expressed the fact that they can they have legitimate reasons for sensory me internet and effectively pointing to us copyright laws and poses 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 well i'm happy said when certain industries don't like it if you go back and listen i mention 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. well i mean it's. you know in a lot of cases part of it is just the fact that a lot of the people making these policies are 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 from 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 white paper last week which explains why the proposal as it's written is really

dangerous would have serious unintended consequences we take down 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 you know that was discussed on your show as well. those types of things are going to continue with with this 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 to protecting our business well for now senator wyden is the only one standing in the way let's hope that they don't you know bring him down on this one mike thanks so much for joining us tonight thanks for having me. coming up televangelist makes a shocking comparison about muslims and larry in just a moment and yesterday american south.