the other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom hartman welcome to the big picture. all right so let's continue our discussion joining me once again is dylan ratigan host of m.s. n.b.c.'s the dylan ratigan show and author of greedy bastards how we can stop

corporate communists banks tears and other vampires from sucking america dry you know there's something i want to ask you which i feel like we are hearing discussed a lot not only has it become a little more popular that the political rhetoric has changed i think from the occupy wall street movement to now we've seen the discussions drift away from deficits and from the debt and more about the problem of inequality in america and so a lot of people are asking about moral capitalism you write about this in your book too when you say that you know these corporations there aren't patriotic businessmen anymore right they're extracting everything from the country and taking it elsewhere but do you really think that anymore or that there is such a thing anymore as as moral capitalism right well i mean i wouldn't actually use that word i take issue with the characterization of moral capitalism and it's a word i actually deliberately avoid as it suggests that there's a moral variance in capitalism which i actually don't see capitalism is predicated on the integrity of the capital if there is retained risk by those involved with the capital their decision making will naturally align with the highest value

proposition when you allow a breach of integrity of capital as we have with the credit default swap market and all these other things then you incentivize debt manufacturing and debt export ing as a business model as opposed to equity building and investment and the distinction is that's not a moral distinction that is a mathematical distinction and so does that exist yes it exists all over the place i mean there are entrepreneurs with money working every day not only in this country but around the world to solve these problems and to try to start businesses and all these different things that are happening it's just that the entire system around them the tax code the trade policy the banking policy is working against them so the bar for success is vastly higher in the incentive for big money to invest in the debt speculation scheme which is my. lower risk and much higher return is the primary issue because we're depriving the investment flows that we need in infrastructure in entrepreneurial ism in things like teaching in nursing

away from the things that we need and we're diverting that capital flow into debt speculation and extraction that is happening for a very simple reason we have a transitioning from the industrial era to the digital era that is remarkably threatening to the vast majority of the financial industry that makes their money through gate keeping mechanisms lack of transparency that have been part of the industrial model because of the decline in the traditional profits of their businesses they are inventing these schemes and using the government to do it in a way to preserve themselves because doing that is for them easier than being forced to become legitimate capitalists or actual capitalist where they're forced to manage their capital and invest it as opposed to manufactured debt and export it but this isn't the only area we're talking about you do you don't solely focus on the finance sector you talk about all these other vampires that are sucking america dry and so if you talk about education or if you talk about health care more

specifically then where do you point the fingers who is the who are greedy who are they don't want anything with the greens about us or is the banks right and so you have to understand that people look at the banks as if it's one of six things like oh we've got the banks so we've got occasional we've got health care and we've got energy wrong wrong wrong we have everything else and then we have on the other half the financial system which is a tool it is a support device it is the instrument that causes the money to flow through health energy education infrastructure so you don't talk about finance like it's an industry finance is a government authorized service that happens under a bank charter and through the support of the government for the specific reason to drive money into these other industries that is why the corruption of that system is so fundamentally un-american and so fundamentally offensive to answer your question the same value system. is that are utilized in the banking system which is how do i create the appearance of something very cheap and valuable in exchange for transferring long tail risk or outside risk back to the government so that when it

blows up too big to fail that they pay and we keep the money that decision making process prevails over the entire health care industry the entire energy industry the entire educational apparatus and every other industry because it is the most profitable model so for instance it is vastly more profitable for the health insurance industry to pay money to the government to max baucus in order for max baucus to preserve their monopoly exemption so that they don't have to compete with each other it is much more profitable for those businesses to go to the white house on the health care debate in persuade the president president obama in this case to not create a competitive environment for drugs as long as people can of void the natural pressures of an entrepreneurial and innovative environment in the experimentation and failure that comes naturally from doing that because they can pay off the government to either prevent themselves from having to compete and or pay off the government to transfer the actual cost of what they're doing to them but here we're

getting upon another one of those problems right which is you're saying as long as we can try to find a way to avoid that but if people are always going to be motivated by profit you're not going to take that element out of the that's a good thing and it's a good thing but so then how do you actually come up with any solutions and you can say that at the moment right it's the government that is helping to and sent advise them because they know you can cheat the system even if the government is also created a national company should not be from cheating well with it but i guess is why you pay taxes right right the reason you pay taxes the reason you have a police force the reason you have a government is to administrate and enforcement of a system of justice on any society that's why you have a government and so if the police force is for sale and now they work for the drug dealers in mexico the answer is not to get rid of the police the answer is to not have a police force that's working for the mexican drug dealers if the issue is that the government is basically being paid off by the equivalent of mexican drug dealers to make rules. on behalf of the banks or the large health insurance companies or the large energy companies the answer is not to eliminate the government the answer is to create a government that is not toxified by the payment of those flows which is why my

call to action in the book and in my work is to get money out of politics with the twenty eighth amendment to the constitution because the way that i perceive that is through the lens of the end c.w.a. it's not for us to say who can and can't give money it's for us to say if you are a federal politician responsible for the enforcement of the laws of the land that way you do that which should be done with visibility integrity and choice because it is the twenty first century that the way you do that cannot be corrupted by the acceptance of private money any more than the quarterback at us c. can be corrupted when he's playing quarterback at u.s.c. words if it's good enough to throw a kid out of a job as a quarterback it certainly should be good enough to throw somebody out of the senate i want to switch gears just a little bit here because we're running out of time too and so on one hand we see obviously massive corruption within the government because of the fact that they are fueled by money right you're going to represent the interests of those that are going to pay you the most but we see it on other levels too and this is one of the things that i respect specially about what you do on your show is that aside from

talking about the banking sector and these greedy bastards is that you talk about afghanistan right you talk about the national defense authorization act which i feel like are so often completely missing from from because you've got one of the me up in the mainstream dial out there and so how do you stop that how do you stop this war on terror mentality that has fueled this other kind of massive government you know i mean my mind is expansive executive power i mean that may be one of the one of the great challenges obviously is that we have to deal with it at this point in time the way i think about it is this the defense apparatus in america has total control over america because there's a defense contract in every electoral district so that you have vascular system that is infected the entire machine so whatever the rational thought is about restructuring the defense apparatus inherently whatever you do comes to all you're a job killer right in america. as you're getting every distributor job done but even forget i gave you get past soft on terror i can still be macho punch somebody in the face but even if i do that if i cut there's still a job killer if we are honest about the fact that we have

a dependence on energy that is half of our trade deficit that is basically in slaving people in the middle east under dictators who then buy weapons from us to then point guns at the very people that are being in slave with us dollars so that we can get their oil because america doesn't like slavery in america but we don't mind it in the middle east and china as long as we get what we want. and we want it cheap but as long as we're doing that i don't know that you can resolve it however and we have a huge battalion a group of returning war veterans in america from the iraq war and the afghanistan war and i believe that the time has actually come for all of us in the media and all of us in this country to demand a defense energy project in which the incumbent defense assets of this country are staffed and incentivized to develop energy independence and efficiency engineering research such that the soldiers who are fighting for america's oil resources overseas who are returning who have been abused horribly by this country and sent

ten times over the ninety nine percent one percent of america is in the army getting sent over and over and over to these wars that we could create a situation where the last war ever for oil will be fought by virtue of these soldiers coming home and demanding the energy independence that this country needs and those are the sorts of things that are going to need to organize outside of washington d.c. because washington d.c. is bought and paid for to do to exactly. paid for and i think that we've seen outside organizations in a sense that we saw straight right and we saw a lot of this momentum pick up across the country but how long do you think that people are going to be able to wait how patient can they be the for the anger boils over that's an impossible question to answer i here's how i think about it. when a pot of water boils you don't see the incremental energy when the water goes in one hundred degrees two hundred one degrees two hundred two degrees two hundred ten degrees you know energies going in because it's on the fire but you don't know what

the temperature of the water is at some point it reaches critical mass and starts to boil and turns to steam you're asking me how hot is the water and when will it boil and i'm answering you i don't know but it's warmer today than it was yesterday and i believe it will continue to get warmer and we have to be in a position to take the energy as the water boils and use it to convert into actual solutions to our problems so that the anger doesn't result in a totally riotous assault upon our society which would be the worst case scenario seems to me like the water's boiling over and. i don't know if people greedy bastards that's it and so yeah let me let's let's channel that energy into a positive i'm with you john thank you so much for joining us tonight. our guys we're taking a break but coming up next on the show and find out if drones can be used for good in the military the cia might use them as killing machines some are arguing that human rights organizations to get their own governments and.

people calling what you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the. past you can hear behind me loud explosions.

you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else here see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry is a big issue. our

guys it's time for you said it i read it right take time to respond to my brilliance and engaging viewer comments from facebook twitter and you tube because we've got to say i listen now first i want to respond to a viewer the watched our interview with reddit co-founder alexis ohanian about the free internet act as a reddit user generated idea in response to pip and so but alex wolff off five said on you tube ordinary people dropping logs next thing you know they'll be expecting a democratically elected representative government i know it does seem insane doesn't it the people who actually use the internet know how it works might be consulted on legislation about it now one thing's for sure the read a community certain. he wasn't consulted on sopa and pipa not to mention that many of the biggest tech firms either now became very clear the internet users and those who really understand how the internet works were consulted and the congressmen

themselves all they got some serious shortcomings about knowing what this technology stuff is all about they just took whatever the m.p.a. that ari said and they ran with it and as for this reddit experiment while the community is made up of experienced law drafters it will be interesting to see if they can influence what actually makes it to the books next i want to respond to brian penny who tweeted about how he saw us on mainstream t.v. he said let's gloss over how i happened upon it leno used a clip from the low to show on tonight's the tonight show so don't worry i'm not going to judge you for watching leno's show we all have our vices i'm more partial to say. the handler but to each his own i do have to say that it's kind of fun to have a clip played on such a popular program even if i was talking about a penis tattoo and now finally i want to respond to a viewer that watched my main three miss yesterday i heard earlier this week on leon panetta statements about the rights of terrorists alan bigger tweeted to us

the m.s.m. piece on leon panetta was really good your team put together a very helpful fact based argument so thank you for the positive feedback and you put a lot of time and work into the open of this show every night and so i'm glad to hear you are convinced that's it my ranting tonight but i will be back with more as usual next week. well this week we saw president obama hold a google plus hangout where thinkable happened he answered a question about the drone program and assured americans that it's both on a tight leash and that civilian casualties are not as high as we all think of course what he says and what the reality may be could be starkly different as just of the cia doesn't release any data on its drone program but the a.c.l.u. is in fact now suing the u.s. government under a freedom of information act to get information about the government's targeted killing program specifically focusing on drone strikes last year that killed three american citizens including. but should organizations like the a.c.l.u. take it one step further writing the new york times this monday mark canis is one

of the authors of an op ed the push for human rights organizations to start using drones for surveillance specifically using the example of syria they argue that if human rights organizations can spy on evil they show it to now we have to ask should they join me to discuss it is mark canis founder of the genocide intervention network and scott horton contributing editor on legal and national security matters for harper's magazine and i want to thank you both for joining us tonight and mark i'm to start with you just start by telling us why it is that you think that human rights organizations should use throughout. human rights organizations to use people to monitor human rights violations we either give visas and do it with the permission of governments were sometimes they sneak in and go in there without governments knowing in burma for example lots of people are being killed there we've got human rights monitors there so the technology of drones it's cheaper it's more available and you don't have to put why is there a risk why not use technology to further advance what people already doing and allow people to see more the force from the trees than ever before and let's not

forget that when we say cheaper we still mean about a couple hundred thousand dollars right now they're not millions anymore but they're getting deeper but i think that you know and scott i want you to chime in here too does when this bring up a number of very big legal issues. oh of course i mean you know we see that right now with the cia and the state department's operating grown programs with clients over iraq which new york times tells us in the feature story yesterday he is arousing all sorts of concerns there and then as and bike is fun too but i think the big question is who's operating the ground so you know i i frankly think you know the population on the ground to be delighted to see human rights organizations out there monitoring them but i think you know i think suspect the syrians wouldn't want that is they do everything they can to block it but the bottom line is i think mark is right with this initiative it's a good one and it's something that should be pursued. but i mean let's bring up

another issue here too right we not only have the question of national sovereignty and human rights organizations also aren't state actors and personally i can't name a single government you just want to talk about syria i can't name a single government that would be ok with. human rights organization flying a drone over their airspace but there's also this idea that something that we hold dear here in the u.s. and cherish which is privacy do you know it's nice to say that oh it's just the a.c.l.u. they only have good intentions in mind but do you think about what bothers some people whether a combination of things that sometimes get brought in group together unfortunately is we're not talking about non armed non-lethal drones so this is basically like having a camera which we all do with our cell phones or with other digital cameras and human rights organizers both local and international are using cameras all the time and we're not crying privacy violations we actually want that footage to expose the human rights violations journalists are having a hard time getting access in places like darfur like syria so these are things that people actually want and it's no different than strapping

a camera onto remote control plane and people aren't crying evasion of privacy they're actually saying we want more of that stuff happening well that's not exactly the case here in the u.s. are you seeing law enforcement start to use drones right we saw that they were wanted to at the republican national convention also have some drones but they decided that maybe they'd scratch them because it was too expensive and you know personally i don't find that all that comforting well our argument is to do it in areas of large scale massive human rights violations in the areas of genocide or crimes against humanity in war crimes and so there are questions certainly with civil liberties and privacy argument is we're focusing on these areas where sometimes getting footage is hard or sometimes it's able to get it done but you can see the huge force for the trees and we should be able to have that access and make sure you can and it's testimony as evidence to the national courts provided to the media and you can provide it to government officials to hold them accountable just like we do with many other times with regular cameras well who's to say to you that let's say that the international criminal court at the u.n.

might have some footage or i or some of this video who's to say that they're going to do the right thing with it that they're going to act on it. well they might not do it right it was a but i want to come back to one of the points mark just discussed i made you're out on the streets of london today you're being observed in films all the time if you're walking around a major american city you're also being monitored old time so i think this means the privacy expert stations have gone down somewhat the biggest argument we're hearing an opposition to this sort of building in the united states actually comes from police officers they were objected very aggressively to being photographed. and yet the process photographing it filming their activities has been very very important if we look at what happened at some of the occupy wall street protests for instance the bill on the. new york police got there became an international celebrity when he was still so i think this shows really the process of

documentation get help and of course your point is true that is you can't expect that there's an incident being filmed it's going to go straight to the i.c.c. and reserved to the prosecution but i think we've seen the human rights community. has learned agents of this process and they learn about documenting things thoroughly and rigorously now can we do accountability far down the line that may take years it may take decades but ultimately if you talk to say you have before the throughout the photographs you have the other evidence accountability can occur i think at the point of technology can be used for bad or for good the worst thing there's no silver bullet for some catalyst to use drones to add to the toolbox of holding people to actually make this happen right how do you get who do you buy the drone from where do you get the permission from to do it because i'm sure that not only will certain governments be unhappy with it because of violating their sovereignty but the same time it can really put governments on the spot if you want

to say well now it's even more obvious than it was before that you are acting because of geopolitical and. rather than humanitarian ones sure so there's a variety of ways you can do it you can literally strap camera onto a remote controlled plane have local populations fly that and get that documentation and find a way to upload it onto youtube and they do this all the time in syria with the regular cellphones so that's the cheapest way you can do it there are other ways that you can get more developed countries that are that how the technologies are willing to sell its commercially and then you can buy that and you can hand it over to those human rights groups or you can have foreigners human rights organizations others pilot those so the most expensive is what we're use with lethal means we use satellite platforms to operate pilots operating in nevada flying drones in pakistan or iraq so you can go from this cheap as strapping on a can run through a controlled plane to having satellite technology and finding this the whole range is available what we're arguing is let's explore that and let's do it responsibly ethically let's not shy away from drones being used as an effective means to hold

people accountable for massive human rights violations you know what kind of responses are you getting from other human rights organizations we're going to mix a mixture of responses a lot of the same questions about sovereignty about violating national international law to other saying we love this idea we're doing this already using cell phones and cameras we would like to talk more about the information you have the response you're getting so we're actually trying to gin up more interest to actually see if this is possible and then find what conflict area might not work in syria and might not work in congo bit maybe maybe dar for so we're ready to explore what are the best options and see if we can get a proof of concept and then say let's let the u.n. maybe the u.n. should own its own drones and be able to do this and they'll hold themselves accountable just like the use international law for other things and you know it's interesting because we have seen you mention of course scott that it was the police that really didn't like this and the fact that now we have so much citizen journalism going on and somewhere in europe blanking on where it was we did see a little mini self-made drone in poland happen so they thought let's also monitor

our protests you can see how the police are responding i want to switch gears really quick lastly and just what the president said this week which is he publicly decided to address the pro the drone program and his google plus hangout but he said don't worry it's on a tight leash and the casualties of civilians are not half as bad as you think what do you think of that. i think it's absolutely the case that the cia telling him the casualties are not in the press is reporting and that's the reason why i think the a.c.l.u. has done the right thing for doing those documents and demanding their release so we can see exactly what the cia is telling the president about all this because i'll just tell you i've read a lot of independent investigations and i don't have a high level confidence and those cia reports the reports on the ground in pakistan do point to a very high level of collateral damage it's true that they're they're getting there they're improving their process and there we do sing the number of innocent

civilians who killed but it's troubling and i think the president may very well be misled by them. i think the best thing is for the jurisdiction to pass over from the cia to the court a defense and congress we all want a little more transparent figures i'm not really sure if i buy it that the president is being misled either you know i mean the questions are never ending unless we actually do see some kind of documentation john i want to thank you both for joining us tonight scott marc thanks so much thank you. still to come on tonight's show the colorado state lawmaker gets stuck in a sticky situation after he gets pulled over for a dui details in our tool time at happy hour ladies are sweating bullets after recalls been issued on birth control pills and google's now following in twitter's footsteps when it comes to country by country censorship explain away from the.

people calling what you said for free and fair elections. and we're still reporting from the land as you can hear behind me loud explosions. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something

else some other part of it and realized everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry.

hi guys it's time for tonight's tool time award and tonight the winner is colorado state representative laura bradford say bradford was pulled over last week suspected of drunk driving but instead of being booked in charge like the rest of us mere mortals she was let off scot free by the police officers and not because she miraculously passed a sobriety test or wasn't drunk it up mattering you see she even admitted to drinking herself but she would let go by police officers because she specifically mentioned that she was coming from a legislative function see part of colorado's constitution says that during a legislative session except for cases of treason or a felony legislators cannot be arrested during attendance at the session or committee meetings or going to. from such sessions which brings us back to bradford i stated that i was leaving a legislative function that i was on my way home. and that i was expected to be at the capitol the next day to work my statements were not intended to involve.