i think the rock the bombings beautiful and one well. we never got the live shows neighborhood can you say for get ready because you get the other freedoms. but the lord mayor would like a railroad. but can they alone a fellow you know get the real headline with none of them or see the problem with the mainstream media today is that they're completely disconnected from the viewers and what actually matters to those viewers and so that's why young people just don't watch t.v. anymore if they want news they go online and read it but we're trying to take those stories that people actually care about and transfer them back in t.v. . you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so for like sleep you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that

everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry welcome to the big picture . all right i know that we go on and on and on a lot about defense spending on the show but how much the u.s. really spend on our defense and our national security our national security goes

way beyond just what the pentagon counts but for the sake of the story let's start with defense right a few weeks ago the stockholm international peace research institute published figures on global military spending in two thousand and eleven and according to them the seven hundred eleven billion dollars of the u.s. spends over four times that of what china spent and accounts for over forty percent of total total global defense expenditures so if you take a look at that number and the five hundred thirty billion dollars based pentagon budget for two thousand and thirteen sounds pretty good right unfortunately that is not what the u.s. is going to be spending on our national security or our defenses here that is the wholesale number if you will so don't let anybody out there try to claim otherwise now chris hellman and the t a cramer of the national priorities project they have done these thankless task of trying to break down the real price tag for a projected two thousand and thirteen war in security spending so by their calculations it could be well over a trillion dollars and yes that is

a trillion with a t. so here's how they break it down to the base pentagon budget itself five hundred thirty billion and funding for the wars in iraq and afghanistan even though the former is basically over and a lot should be ending soon we still spend a lot of money on both and so you can add an additional eighty eight billion more than the federal government spends on education let that sink in now on top of that you have the department of energy funds for our nuclear weapons program and there's another seventeen point nine billion dollars for homeland security spending in the mix and you've got another forty nine billion dollars then there's our international affairs budget that includes additional money for wars peacekeeping and international security assistance and that amounts to another twenty four billion now of the most important components actually taking care of our veterans that comes to another one hundred and thirty eight bill. and don't forget the non-veteran military retirees are expected to get seventy six seventy six billion dollars then finally there's another eight billion in there for miscellaneous quote

defense related activities and all of that brings the national total for the security budget to a whopping nine hundred and thirty one billion and now before you and i have a chance to catch our collective breath we also have to account for the fact that this does not even include interest payments on previous war debt nor does it include defense related nass expenditures and the parts of the intelligence budget which are classified so yeah when you break it down that way you really realize that not only do we have a military industrial complex we have a national security industrial complex that includes a lot more than just the military but in this climate of deficit reduction surely those supply side republicans who warn that america's the next three support reducing this mammoth military budget right i think you are you know the answer because i rail on them every day for being hypocrites but it's never enough so take a look at this heart wrenching video the buck mckeon chairman of the house armed services committee released just yesterday. when california is the home of the

aerospace industry a lot of customers of the military because the ellabella is very dependent on aerospace and military and everything around here basically revolves around the words of plant forty to the defense industry is is the lifeblood of the and what valley we've been in business for nineteen years basically we grew until they started doing defense cuts nobody can defeat us from outside but we compete ourselves from the inside. we have to protect against that. that's right defense cuts are going to ruin lives apparently more than all the social cause the republicans are so keen on and it's not just macand that suddenly supports keynesian economics theory either just yesterday senator john cornyn more defense cuts would harm economic growth he said we have an entirely predictable and preventable jobs crisis approaching in january where because of the sequestration

my state alone will lose ninety one thousand private sector jobs and there are about a million private sector jobs at risk if the sequestration goes into effect on january second but the thing is this hawkish keynesianism is not actually a new phenomenon take a look at what senator and super committee member john kyl had to say last september. here with defense for example you've got high unemployment of returning veterans to begin with you have a reduction in strength you've got more people potentially unemployed you've got people making radios build ships and so on. and if those cuts therefore end up reducing the employment in those industries an amount of money spent in those areas obviously it could delay economic recovery yes that's right senator thank you. so republicans are against government spending except for when they aren't and they don't believe the government creates jobs except for one obviously does but only the jobs they like and unfortunately for them studies have shown that

keeping jobs isn't even an effective argument for keeping defense spending alive over social programs we spoke about this on the show just two weeks ago money invested in health care education and clean energy would result in up to one hundred forty percent more jobs than money sunk into defense but of course we can't cut from there so the education and energy sectors will continue to struggle as the defense national security giant grows out of control and unchecked now asking for a transfer of cash might be a little much to ask of our current stalemated congress but what i am asking is that they use the real never when it comes to this spending the defense spending the national security spending and be honest about the fact that we're now in the trillions of this government subsidized subsidized industry not the billions. now although the recording industry of america's campaign of litigation against individual file shares seems like a relic of the past one man has kept on fighting against

a six hundred and seventy five thousand dollars fine for downloading and sharing thirty songs on cars it's only the second out of thousands of cases that actually went to trial but this week the supreme court refused to hear the appeal joltin involved with a boston university student at the time and since two thousand and seven he's been in a complicated legal battle that includes a jury selected five more than twenty two thousand dollars per song a federal judge reducing those fines unconstitutionally excessive and the appeals court reinstating those original fines and what happens next we'll find out from joel ourselves tonight but if anything this episode has shown the term a nation of the are a to get their money so earlier i caught up with joel and i first of all and i first asked him about how he feels about the supreme court's decision to reject his case. we're disappointed but not surprised the supreme court doesn't see a lot of cases a given year and you know we've we've we've appealed to them before concerning things like the web just to try to get the trial with just the course objected and

the supreme court didn't decide to step in did either so it's not too surprising i'm sure the cheese continues in the circuit court. so tell me about what the next steps are you know you are one of two cases it's actually gone to trial in this sense and so you bear this risk of possibly the bringing a second trial against you unless you decide that you're just going to settle with them any chance you're going to settle. well i have actually already offered to settle they have. so the ari has tens of millions of dollars to spend on both prosecuting me and on their p.r. campaign they have a professional ukraine spokes person whose job it is to i guess to cracks of me one of the things they claim is that i never offered to settle and i could have avoided all this i at one point in time offer them over five thousand dollars to settle and this wasn't enough for them both physicists and they wanted over twelve thousand dollars that didn't seem to be like

a reasonable negotiation of that seemed to me like they should be entitled to that solace of the force of intimidation having had no legal. protections or are judgments based on the issue of five thousand dollars if you think about it right and it was thirty songs that they're going after you for downloading and sharing that's still a lot of money especially if you consider that these days if you actually want to pay for that music it's probably going to cost you like ninety nine cents a song so in your ideal world. how much would you pay them what you can do you think that ninety nine cents a song is something that would be a good settlement. well if you're going to make the claim that it was that there was a lost sale that every one of these songs was a lost sale and that itself is contested heavily contested by the r i a's own data well then you could say oh well that's a dollar per song and then maybe ramp it up a little bit if you want to make it some sort of punitive thing but the idea of

going from one dollar per song to something more than twenty two thousand times that value is of course ludicrous it's monopoly money at this point and bears absolutely no resemblance to reality in any sort of sense and that's why the judge did wind up ruling that such a damage was unconstitutionally excessive citing prior case law which we talked about in our brief. so i have to ask obviously it's a very hefty fee that they want you to pay here but you've been in the single battle since two thousand and seven i can imagine that that hasn't really been cheap either so has it been worth it. what do you mean i mean if you're going to keep pursuing a legal battle that's going to take years and years and years you have a lot of legal fees that you incur and so do you think that it's actually been worth it for you to actually pay these legal fees versus just paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading the songs well it's not like at any choice

in the matter if some of it's a bully goes out and picks a fight with somebody the person who's getting beat up there can't just be like oh well i can't do this it or it's not my choice i'm not the one who could dismiss the suit they can't i'm not the one with something to prove they are this is their lawsuit it's theirs drop which it doesn't look like they're going to do any time soon so i don't have any choice on this and i have to continue fighting this is as as far as i can which i will do not only for my sake but the sake of anybody of the millions of people who could potentially be in my shoes as i'm not exactly the only one who could be here in the suit right now. you're definitely not the only one here one of not not maybe not a few right there or there are thousands and for a time daria was pursuing cases like this very aggressively they were going after individuals but since then they've kind of dropped that strategy now they want to go after the big guys right now they're going after line wire and despite the fact

that it isn't exist anymore they say the line where owes them seventy two trillion dollars but why do you think they stopped going after individuals. where there was a very interesting analysis of business in the us is in one of these news stories that's come out recently in which. the person who is talking was mentioning that. this lawsuit is sort of a vestige of a remnant of a prior era in which the record industries didn't know what to do with all this. style sharing going on and so they just resorted to desperation and suing so. shortly after my case when they realized they were actually going to have to follow through on this kind of stuff they did stop suing basically right after. my case came to to prominence so maybe we get to take some credit for that maybe not but it does continue on they were doing the big guys for a while that napster because all along where it said are they're doing

a lot of different things in parallel they have a lot of money to spend and they have the most talented copyright lawyers in the world to throw at the problem so i don't think they're going to stop the time soon and i mean when everything when all you have is it when you have a hammer everything really does look like a nail. but i'm just curious you know have you been following everything else with our a the n.p.a. are trying to push when it comes to congress when it comes to the battle of herself and cispa and what they call in these copyright protective legislation well been following that loosely but i really don't read it too carefully because it does scare the well i don't know what i can say on this show tonight. the guy you know we you know we hear it we're recording it so you can bleep it out or we can point it out ok well it scares the it scares the bejesus out of me about the kinds of stuff that they're getting away with i mean the whole thing about them pursuing this on me and trying to get obviously it's not about getting hundreds of thousands of dollars out of me because i don't have it as judge gertner told them it up in

court they're trying to get water from a stone it's not about that it's about the power it's about the power of greed and example in the end the power to intimidate anybody who stands in their way and the sort of. further legal power and legislature that they wind up with as a result of this it turns every little bit on your computer into a potentially explosive lawsuit that you cannot defend yourself against because they will vastly overwhelm you scary we're all hard to i want to thank you for joining us tonight and we'll keep following here in case you keep biting at thanks sure thing a lot of. i would take it on one last break and i about like i'm back in there taking lawmakers think they are doing good by drafting a cyberbullying bill but there really has trampling on the first amendment in the details and are told time and again happy hour you'll never believe made it on to maximize the potus list and the president not killing so hot in certain primaries it's part of american power continues. things that are

so bad. might actually be time revolution. and it turns out that they were very good starbucks for him radio. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so poorly you think you understand it and then a glimpse something else you hear or 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. they are going to. look in their loan as though they'll get the real headline with none

of them are the problem with the mainstream media today is that they're completely disconnected from the viewers and what actually matters to those viewers and so that's why young people just don't watch t.v. anymore if they want news they go online and read it but we're trying to take those stories that people actually care about and transfer them back in t.v. . welcome to the capital account i'm lauren lyster.

all right guys it's time for tonight's tool time award and tonight we're giving it to two new york state lawmakers assemblyman dean murray and senator thomas o'meara see together they've drafted the internet protection act and this bill is supposed to combat derogatory anonymous posts online and here's how it requires companies to set up a toll free number or an e-mail address so that sims of anonymous internet badmouthing can lodge a complaint with the company's web administrators now when the admin receives a complaint under the proposed law they would then contact the original commenter force them to identify themselves online and if no one fesses up within two days then the comic gets delete it and guess what it doesn't even matter if the post is true or false it's up to the victim to decide now all martha says it's all about holding people accountable on the world wide web and here's what murray has to say about it. the goal of this bill is to basically protect victims that whether it be

cyber bullying will it be other verbal or written attacks this gives the victims of such attacks or slanderous statements it gives them a little power to either confront the person making the statements or comments or to have these comments removed from the internet. now look i understand that cyber bullying is a problem especially in this day and age it's been so casually dove the wild west of the web but dare i suggest that omar and mary's bill would actually help them in the world of politics they think about one of the best ways to exercise first member rights these days is to post political opinions online but if this bill became law it could force anybody critical of politicians to give their name expose themselves or face censorship and surprise surprise it turns out that this is kind of a personal issue for dean murray two years ago during an election year anonymous posts appeared online accusing worry of domestic violence against his ex-wife and it's

pretty clear that those accusations weren't true and it's terrible murray's x. even offered to vouch for him but hello am i the only one that sort of the constitution around here anonymous speech is a crucial component of free speech people who shed light on wrongdoing are usually afraid of retaliation and with good cause but if the internet protection act passes do gooder new yorkers could even be silenced or made vulnerable so it seems like those fear mongering about the dangerous anonymous internet have forgotten about the bill of rights and as if these new york lawmakers just completely brushed it off and we never really reach an era where the first amendment doesn't apply to certain outlets and unfortunately it's a pretty mainstream view amongst a number of politicians out there remember good old rick santorum thank god he didn't win the g.o.p. presidential nomination because if he had one american netizens might have got a lot in common with their chinese counterparts. the internet is not a free free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do and trample the

rights of other people but the idea that you know anything goes on the internet where did that come from i think the rick's a little bitter about the anything goes part of it like the fun that dan savage had with his last name i mean come on rick we see right through you so we get why politicians would find the bill exciting but if this legislation passed autocratic business interest could remove anonymous posts too so you can say goodbye to that ethic review about the bartender who flirted with the fat hairy dude instead of pouring a beer for you or you can attach your name to it and make sure that you'll never step foot in that bar again unless you like spit in your cocktail you probably see the point here right while the bill would offer some protection for web users it also takes a slash and burn approach personally i think this bill needs to be trashed it's blatantly unconstitutional i'd be shocked if it passes and if so it probably won't survive a single court challenge but either way for actually thinking they can just roll the constitution with their internet protection act or giving de marie and tom

o'mara tonight's tool time award. our guys time for happy hour and joining me this evening alone a show producer jenny churchill and medicine bonnie roll calls her on the hill reporter hello ladies. thanks for joining me this evening. we did the story a couple weeks ago right was of west virginia where there was the ex-con who was actually in jail in texas that had the gnarliest mulla i've ever seen that had it and it is. it out in the primary i tell you. the story was about i know. you know bruce lee would be i believe. the timing of all of it was the most

fascinating part of the story for it but it turns out that that wasn't the end of the president's bad luck when it comes to certain primaries or other states out there that really don't like it take a look. republicans are making a having enjoying the headlines out of out of arkansas and kentucky where the president forty percent basically over forty percent go with somebody else either uncommitted all the stuff they have a little fancy new little tchotchke e today that they've already got it but. yeah so majority of kentucky's counties their home state opted for uncommitted and then in arkansas he beat a tennessee lawyer named john wolf but really by fifty eight to forty one percent which isn't all that much considering this isn't a random lawyer and you're the president of the united states people thought it was tom wolfe but i don't know well on fire the van and for kentucky the really fascinating part is it didn't even take a mulligan you know to almost be obama which i mean i always vote for

a good mullet and i acknowledge yes let's do that but i think it's really it's really about us in the end because here obama is literally almost losing to him self it's anyone but obama and you know a lot of people have said that racism volves and i have to say i don't think that's the case i think that what we're talking about here especially in kentucky are people that are concerned about the issues they're concerned about things like energy where they're very dense obama when we're talking about coal and that's democrats and republicans alike but actually makes her say it's probably a lot more than just going to stuff goes into it but i'm saying it's been thrown i think unfairly on race in that state and i don't think it's fair to say it all comes down to what i've been telling you here i mean i read state though so you know what would you even put this is specifically democrats and not stay true true so. i mean i do think that it's never that simple you can't say it's race you can't say it's just gender you can't say it's i mean i know people say it's just the economy which probably it that's actually a bigger part of it than other stuff right now. i do think i was telling tony

before this i like the fact that undecided is becoming like poetry is that you know how i. wrote more poetry and fiction than anything. else that's our and decided we should all vote for undecided and see if it can fix that i can i mean why would i want to do that i don't know i think you know let's have an undecided and see what damage it does. to one hundred you just curious what i have in the national election all right. this is one of my favorite favorite commercials is a french commercial but i guess it just helps you get a little glance at the joys of parenting.

it is so good i love it now i love a bit of this so apparently though you know it's not all a hell when you have a little kid. you know shocker to me there's a new paper from a psychologist at the university of british columbia stanford and and basically british columbia stanford university california and so they're suggesting that in fact having children does lead to greater greater levels of happiness but they also found that parenthood was associated with greater satisfaction and happiness only among fathers and so there's been a lot of people out there saying that we have that make sense because they're not the ones that do all the hard work. obviously that. out of line every situation there always was a mess around lead time with their kids well i mean yeah i love my apartment more when someone else claims that i mean because it was you know it. when i have to do the work and like the heavy lifting. are you going to have children that are going

to be your slave that was your employer this is what i'm saying this is going to best part i'm going to exactly what i'm saying and all the mean internet. people. things. i think i have a few issues with this study because it said that people who have. children were happier then you know they were happier taking care of their children than doing other household things well for me that's not really the same as saying they would be happier than if they had not had children so i don't really think that's a fair comparison but that's just me i mean ok you you enjoy changing your child's diaper more than doing the dishes that is to really say i live no way all lot of wealthy there i got a lot but i was right all right thanks for joining me tonight i know it was a quick point are you guys that's it for tonight's show thanks for tuning it and make sure we come back tomorrow so long as david sirota is going to be back on the show in the meantime don't forget to become a fan of he'll own a show on facebook and follow us on twitter and if you missed any of tonight's show or any other nights you can catch all the you tube dot com slash below to show that

coming up next is. the. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture.

there hasn't been a thing get on t.v. . it is to get the maximum political impact. before source material is what helps keep journalism honest we. we want to present. something else.