the. the the. happy friday folks i'm out at martin and this is a break in the set so yesterday the governor of massachusetts announced that federal prosecutors will be seeking the death penalty for a show cars of one of the alleged boston marathon bombers yes after shooting dozens of rounds of bullets it's been living in near death it was a nurse back to health only to face execution all over again make sense now of course justice needs to be served for the perpetrators of this despicable act in which four people tragically lost their lives and dozens more were left wounded and hopefully a trial will indeed prove that was responsible for the death penalty is banned under massachusetts state law which means he's the only third the only the third

person in the state's history to face federal capital punishment furthermore a september poll found that only thirty three percent of massachusetts residents support the death penalty first and by seeking execution the trial could drag on for months really traumatizing america for much longer than necessary but beyond just these reasons not to allow the state sponsored execution of the twenty year old capital punishment is just flat out wrong there is no humane way to kill someone and seeking the death penalty does nothing but continue the cycle of horrific violence and brutality that this attack first started now let's break the set. of the. it was a. very hard to say. well i never had sex with her but there are.

between tracking people's porn habits to spy on our next lovers you would think that the n.s.a. leaks couldn't get any weirder revelation from earlier this week shows that the agency is also watching you play angry birds to data mine everything from a user's political affiliation to their sexual orientation great cause i won't be playing candy crush any time soon but with all the flak that the n.s.a. has been getting over the past year it's easy to forget that our neighbor to the north how exactly been a huge advocate for civil liberties either so all the corporate media attention has

been soley focused on uncle peeping tom the most recent snowden leaks show that a johnny come knock who's also been sticking his hockey puck or doesn't belong today c.b.c. news reported that canada's own spy agency called the sec used the airport why fight attract travelers movements but the agency didn't stop their second continue tracking individuals long after they left the airport by monitoring when their wireless devices showed up at other wife i hotspots in cities across canada and the u.s. according to leave power point presentation in two thousand and twelve the program was a trial run for a joint the second n.s.a. program to track quote any target that makes occasional forays into other cities because we all know that for rain equals terrorism. the document also shows that the sec was able to go back in time once i did it once that identified a specific traveler and see that person's various wife by location leading up to their arrival at the airport yes retro active tracking and i guess time travel

isn't just reserved for marty mcfly anymore so how is the second responding to this by. shall report on a written response of the agency i'm sorry in a written response to c.b.c. news the agency said quote no canadian or foreign travelers movements were tracked no i didn't add quotes that were tracked that was their exact response i guess putting words in quotes is all you need to do to justify illegality in canada the n.s.a. should employ that tactic and their response is if director of national intelligence james clapper want to just use airports when he told congress that the n.s.a. does not wittingly collect data on americans it would put those old unconstitutional global surveillance in the rest in fact clinton might have been spared an impeachment if only he would have said that i did not have sexual relations with that woman and bush would have gone down as a slightly more popular president if he would have just said that we found the weapons of mass destruction the point is that they had gas city of c.

sec to get this type of response should be just as concerning to every canadian citizen as the revelation of the program itself terry was privacy minister on a convoke in even one as far as saying this resembles the activities of a talent tarion state not a free and open society. could have said it better myself and the continuing release of these documents show how the proliferation of these type of spying tactics are not just limited to north american borders in fact as i pointed out in the show before the agreement known as the five eyes between the u.s. u.k. canada australia and new zealand has been around since world war two and it allows each of these nations to circumvent their own survey limits laws and share their illegals by an activity is with each other so as we continue to turn up the heat on the n.s.a. here in the west and rightly so let us not forget about the other nations complicit in this criminal dragnet approach to intelligence gathering because in the end

although canada might seem like the less aggressive version of the u.s. when it comes to spine of the. like our docile neighbor to the north part of page right out of uncle sam's little black book. line is as old as language itself in fact the art of deceit is hardwired into every human being and it's important part of our species culture everybody lives some big some small and as often as we lie to others every day we're lied to anywhere from ten to two hundred times according to a study done by the science museum of london that same study of two thousand individuals found that on average men lie six times a day and twice as of women has often has of women do so how do you know when you're being lied to and more importantly how can you spot a liar tell me go over

a few of the tell tale signs of dishonest breaking the separatists are an huge liar man well we're all follow what is going on man. and i at so i think you know we're going to use this on the political context because i think that's the most important thing and not all lies are bad right i looked straight. at you like the poem i really tell a little why. not use it and i went straight to. you saying i'm sorry i missed it yes so you know lying isn't always bad sometimes it's used to spare people's feelings and also all of these signs aren't necessarily actual signs of lies they're just red flag wrote a book and used to kind of help tell if someone's line the first is this is very obvious and i think of course when people think of prominent political people who have been liars bill clinton the sexual i did not have sexual relations that woman let's hear him talking about this and i'm going to dissect what he says.

sexual relations with that woman miss lewinsky i never told anybody to lie not a single time never these allegations are false and i need to go back to work for the american. to go back to work man and stop i thought he learned his game i think you made a good point the last segment was said if he had just not said sexual really even if you just change the context a little bit but this is one of those the famous most famous like examples of lying that people use right now and it's i think for two reasons one is that it really clearly exemplifies how people tend to use formal very formal language when they're lying i did not versus i didn't or a man i didn't do that for all right and then that distancing language as well right that warman miss lewinsky. and. if you i don't really really really people tend to trip over words the inflections in the voice

these are all the kind of telltale signs in speech let's go on to body language nixon was another big fat liar i mean everyone is in politics pretty much a liar but i mean these are the big we're all liars we're all a lie if we are they all are liars we all are liars but nixon of course that one of the most famous cases of lies let's hear from him. i have never obstructed justice and i think that i could say that in my years of public life that i welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their presidents are crook but i'm not a crook i i everything. so what what's up with them i mean these these are micro expressions and i think i don't know if we were able to see at the very end where he folds his arms and he anytime that you see someone i mean and again because these are not you know exact says i'm not an exact science these are just red flags when people are open and they're relaxed that's

a sign of honesty usually you close yourself off you're in the defense of these are these are signs of someone being a little bit more deceitful and they're called micro expressions you can catch it in people's movements in the way that even in the way that they speak and i feel really bad for dick nixon because he used to always sweat a lot in fact that's one of the lessons that he lost the debate against kennedy before he became president was because he was sweating a lot and that kind of. every time you look at a press secretary they're just so why do you look nervous there's a line cantero netanyahu there is no god is this filter carol all the people ask questions of why their way out of it dick cheney. in congress you know and i'm sorry this is this is a great one within body language in congress when somebody is like telling you something but then like nodding their head like yeah i'd be happy to take a paternity. though those are the ones that are easy to catch but you got to be looking for yeah you know once people start looking for lies if they're easier to spot and as you mentioned earlier like i'd like facing toward an exit or

a scene like you want to get away your body language can be you know it's the exit test police use that a lot in interrogations because nobody you know police are trained to spot people use tactics like telling people to repeat can you repeat that i didn't actually hear that tend to go over that story you know what tell your story back and see how they do there when people are put up and in a corner like that their body language tends to point we're going to get the hell out of here dick cheney huge liar i don't know if you ever really had a word of truth there oh look at this and i'm sorry that we don't have a better picture of him actually i'm sorry and there's really isn't a lot of this actually pretty good symmetry in the face is tends to. a good sign of dishonesty and one of those that really stands out is contempt and this is a could all sit here all the felt like you thought it was a look at them from good old dick here you know the curl in the mouth this gal does have contempt for everyone around here

a good time and he might not even have been lying right there this is it also just we looked every day so we can move on without talking about bush the master of water only because we have been for a while let's play it. the main reason we went and you're right it's a time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction he didn't but he had the capacity to make weapons of mischief and also talked about the human suffering in iraq and also talked a need to advance of freedom agenda. and so my question my answer to your question is this is a measure of world which saddam hussein was there stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world. that so much there's so much hatred if people came and killed three thousand of our citizens oh my god oh my god he just said like ten different things circularly back to remember not all of it this is what's known as a logical fallacy and this is particularly important that people know how to spot when they're looking at politicians on the news or in press conferences that among

the many logical fallacies that bush was responsible for was red herring right otherwise known as changing the goalpost we talking about the real reason why we invaded iraq and then he goes full circle and brings about put what about what about now the label to force if we didn't do that and what could have been. my argument or something bad's going to happen and i have to say about this up it goes both ways journalist it's also the responsibility of journalists and people to decipher of these lies from politicians and report on them accurately it's not it's a two way street the lie doesn't work unless someone believes the lie right i mean you're watching you're watching politicians and if journalists aren't catching these logical fallacies aren't catching these signs then they're feeding into it because at the end of the day a lie is only good if the person that's being lied to accept that lie right so in a lot of ways it's almost a mutual understand and when it's as obvious as bush i mean really i don't there's no excuse for the establishment press and really every person in the press to accept that at face value i mean it's outrageous thank you so much man

a really enlightening subject is out liar how do. you know. shocking reaction through obama's fifty and figure out. a chance are forcing. him to finish line of the marathon. well you know. he. might have been hearing nothing but. the fact that. they were going to do the job did you know the price is the only industry specifically mentioned in the constitution and. that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy right now versus. rule. in

fact the single biggest threat facing our nation today is the corporate takeover of our government and i was pressed several we've been hijacked right handful of transnational corporations that will profit by destroying what our founding fathers once built my job market and on this show we reveal the big picture of what's actually going on in the world we go beyond identifying the problem. and rational debate in a real discussion critical issues facing the camera ready to join the movement and welcome in the big picture. so obama's state of the union was as as we expected all political pandering basis

platitudes and of course every mainstream t.v. anchor was in a dizzy trying to decipher every word in order to rally their party base immediately following the presidential address the g.o.p. put up their best and brightest to offer a hard hitting rebuttal to the president talks a lot about income inequality but the real gap we face today is one of opportunity and equality and with this administration's policies. that gap has become far too wide. wow brilliant retort by representative cathy mcmorris rodgers and the rest of her speech was plain painful to watch because it down it was apparently the republican party thinks it's going to save itself by treating americans like a bunch of glue eating five year olds moving on from this charade to another rogers then went on c.n.n. with wolf blitzer and got a chance to answer a real question about women's pay considering how right now women still make seventy seven cents for every dollar

a man does. so you want the president when he says that there should be laws mandating equal pay for equal work for women yes yes absolutely. republicans and i support equal pay for equal work my message last night was one about empowering everyone in this country no matter what your background no matter where you live what corner of the country no matter what your experiences are we want you to have the opportunity for a better life also i guess we can expect hail in the second to prove how much she supports women with all our political power right spiders start support of obama's rhetoric care rogers has already voted against laws specifically addressing the pay disparity between men and women not once not twice but four times and two of those times were against the paycheck fairness act which was aimed at ending salaries secrecies so women could be more aware of bias and discrimination in the workplace but all of this just isn't surprising considering how washington is built

on lies hell d.c. should just be called d.c. to say we need to get elected and then don't do any of it however admits the noise of the republican machine bases the calling obama a socialist there was an actual socialist offering her own response to the speech. these problems are not new and accident where king. people have faced nearly four decades of wage stagnation and rising income inequality these four decades with four republican presidents and three democratic presidents for decades that show that neither party is capable of solving these problems and that they fundamentally represent the same interests the interests of the super wealthy and because parishioners both parties bow down before the free market and loyally serve the interests of their corporate masters where the only difference being in the

matter of degree. word i was. the first official socialist elected to a political position in decades her entire statement is not only genuine it's officially a bad ass i can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear someone in the elected position calling out our political reality exactly as it is so one goes on a shred of pretty much every portion of the state of the union from fracking to the minimum wage it offers a hard hitting critique of how all of it is just perpetuating the same destructive status quo so one has caused quite the upset in the verge of a two party dictatorship by winning a landmark ninety three thousand votes to defeat a longtime democratic incumbent in seattle she won soley on individual donations of those who believed in her radical platform and refused a dime from big business for the campaign so walk back to mcmorris rodgers continues to teach

a preschool class on opportunity and he quality so want to speak you know hard truth the power that people are finally ready to hear. the supreme court recently heard opening arguments for a case called the harris quinn it's a decision involving home care workers employed by the state of illinois who are resisting their state union choosing instead to opt out of the mandatory union fees for representation the concern among supporters for labor unions is that the supreme court could overturn almost forty years worth of legal precedent that is given leverage for the organized labor movement and on the surface this case seems fairly innocuous and knock us excuse me as it has received little to no attention at the corporate media its outcome could have damning implications for the future of unions and middle class workers all across the nation earlier today i was joined by craig bakker general counsel but the a.f.l. c.i.a.o.

to discuss this case and i first asked him why it's problematic that states were. opt out of pain union feeds. there's nothing problematic with people opting out and that's what the law already provide so the law already provides and has provided for decades and no one is required to be a union member so if as in this case a majority of the workers wish to be represented then in the public sector as well as in the private sector the union represents everybody in the unit so if they negotiate a wage increase everybody gets it not just union members if someone gets fired or is treated unfairly the union has an obligation to represent everybody no one has to be a member of the union and the only thing that can be required of him is required by alan oil law is that everyone pay their share of the cost of representation so that's different from union dues which might say a contribution to a political candidate it's just paying your fair share of the cost of the representation that's all that can be required that's all that's at issue here

supreme courts making this case into a free speech issue. what is your opinion about that how is this a free speech issue or the argument about free speech is really about free association so the notion is that there's some form of compelled association here that these individuals who brought the challenge don't wish to be represented by the union and don't wish to associate with the union don't wish to support the union even though the union has brought them a wage increase and they represent them if they have a grievance so the notion is that it's a form of forced association now over forty years ago the supreme court said that's a form of force association which is justified by the way the system of collective bargaining works if you have one representative it works better when you have one representative it works better when that representative has a duty to represent everybody and that's not going to work if you allow people to essentially be free riders so there is an argument about free association and forced association but it is one that the supreme court has spoken to some four

decades ago. and the case. as you mentioned it's about the state of illinois would this have been the cations on you means nationwide the more narrow but very significant implication is that the organization of this type of work or at least home care workers is probably one of the biggest organizing successes of the last twenty five years by unions so in california illinois oregon washington these workers have organized and it's a very rapidly expanding occupation and the population is aging more people wish to be cared for at home as opposed to an institution so as unions organize these workers at the same time there were more and more of these workers. a million workers nationwide have been organized under these types of laws so the notion that you have these laws are unconstitutional or that the linchpin of what makes organizing and representation successful that is the ability to have everyone pay the cost and not impose

a cost only on members is threatened by this litigation that's the narrow implication the broader implication is that the court order at least justice alito essentially invited a broader challenge to the notion of exclusive representation and the so-called fair share fees. about a year and a half ago in a case called nocs which involved again a narrower issue about it in which he explicitly question this whole forty years of precedent allowing exclusive representation in the collection of these fair share fees in the public sector and that broader challenge is also ready to shoot so that would in all the states in which we have public sector collective bargaining about half the states really fundamentally change the nature of that bargain and if the broader argument was accepted was referring to the free trade board of education exactly. so it could affect that ruling in that broader sense from a very much. plaintiffs although they originally brought the case as the narrower

challenge and it was litigated in the district court and the court of appeals. on the seventh circuit on the narrow grounds the put the question essentially being does the rationale of the bood which up held fair share fees in the public sector apply to these workers who are considerably only jointly employed by the state as the state pays their wages so that's their wages provides various benefits but they're actually hired and fired by the customers who take care of them so it's a joint employment does that rational of a boot apply in this context that was the original argument encouraged by justice alito as opinion and mocks the plaintiffs have now explicitly asked for a boot to be overturned so much more fraud and and really radical argument indeed for those who don't really understand the right to work and and kind of the union issue in general is there any direct evidence that right to work states have any sort of different safety standards or pay difference is the non right to work states. and the use of the term right to work is very appropriate as we usually

think of the term right to work as applying in the private sector it is in the private sector we have a federal law which allows exclusive representation which allows the collection of fees to be used to fund the cost of that representation except in states which have adopted so-called right to work laws. which prohibit such arrangements what this case would do if the more radical argument was accepted was essentially constitutionalized the principle of right to work in the public sector and there is lots of evidence of the type you describe and there is evidence which shows that right to work law is correlated with lower union representation lower wages. lower safety lower wages. lack of benefits pension health care or other benefits or workplace safety the whole gamut of what you would expect where you have less union density and we have but

a minute left but. what would this or would this rather. have an effect on political representation and sort of the electoral process it would impose a burden on the unions treasury is that it would essentially require members and their dues to support the cost of representing other people not members and collect the bar so by weakening the unions generally it would certainly have indirect implications in the political arena but this could have severe positions on the labor movement as a whole kind of set it back. quite a bit well you know it's just as broad. said quite pointedly an argument this would really be a return to the one nine hundred thirty s. in terms of the court's intervention in labor relations that it would really him to have the court intruding into what half the states have said they want their system of relations with their own employees to be so it would be a very radical potentially very radical disruption of that process extremely important case i wonder why we're not hearing about it much thank you so much for

coming on breaking it down very enlightening craig bakker general council american federation of labor and congress industrial organizations appreciate your time pleasure. that's our show you guys a break the set all over again next week. we welcome aaron nathan abby martin to the two of the coast guard t.v. network. it's going to give you a different perspective give you one star never i'll give you the information you make the decision. bring you this is the revolution of the mind it's a revolution of ideas and consciousness. extremely you approach would be described as angry i think in a strong enough or single. stalled

talks accusations traded. made this sums up the process being played out in geneva with virtual stalemate on the battlefield. to make the hard decisions and compromises to alleviate and then to finally end war but do these outside powers have the political will. and. the very. sick.

sick. to. my. son who's. responsible billets. deal responsibility. this is many reasons why. i. started beginning for example we can. talk about the case of jose who was. so he got referred by his friend whose name was also. they were in times square.