greetings and salutations so watchers what exactly is our state of the union here in the good old united states of america and i'm guessing by now you've probably heard about a million and one polished perfect responses to that crew querrey not only from our great brand name in chief president donald trump but for most of congress as well regardless of their red or blue gang affiliations the state of the state is great the economy is growing we've got the lowest unemployment rates of decades our military is strong brave just too powerful our enemies have been driven before us and quiver with fear at the very mention of the red white and blue but if it

weren't for the republicans blah blah blah our border the democrats blah blah blah or for russia china iran north korea illegal sugar bernie boomers rolling hills we'd be the most bestest perfect nation in the history of the world in the universe that we already are but just even more perfect than perfect. but are we. you see the big thorn in the hyperbole bubble our elected officials live in is the reality of the united states that the rest of us live in the reality that was recently highlighted by the economic advocacy group prosperity now recently reported the quote forty percent of american households lack a basic level of savings these liquid asset poor households don't have enough savings to make ends meet at the poverty level for three months if their income was interrupted my friends that translates to the sobering fact that today in the supreme supposedly one of the richest greatest countries in the world forty. but

citizens are just one missed paycheck away from true poverty. that is not a prosperous great nation far from it that is a nation on the brink of collapse whose leaders refuse to take their heads out of the sand and their corporate hands out of our pockets which means it's time for all of us to start watching the hawks. to. get the. real thing this week. as part of. what they like you know that i got. was that we. would. welcome everyone to watching. the world and then times out of the other and i like

many americans a very attack away from it's not a joke i mean it really is that we people think that's the you know i guess people who have huge savings accounts and all of this available credit you know just got to go on the i'll be fine i'm kind of don't understand what that means they really don't there's a huge disconnect between the levels of this country and i think what the prosperity now report found that's very interesting is that everybody's kind of assumption the middle class was the middle class isn't really true no it's not because what they found is that that those numbers come from the middle class where they're middle class his paycheck away from poverty i mean to me that's his working class blue collar was what i know him and not jane and that you know it was like you work really hard but being blue collar essentially working class means you know the difference in working class and and you know middle class is a credit card and one credit card or a savings account with a month's worth of expenses and and we're talking massive numbers when you think

about forty percent of the country graph i mean you're talking about so you know we have about three hundred twenty five. almost three hundred twenty six million people hair and the people according to the prosperity of now it's numbers that what that means when you say that forty percent is that one hundred thirty million people are living in u.s. citizens are living in a situation or their family is living in a situation where one missed paycheck could mean losing your home not having anything having to go out and look for some kind of charity one bridge or one paycheck one page or one bad decision no one want any thing one your boss forgot something you know you're out you're with them and they sell that they saw that hardcore during the trouble government shutdown was suddenly like yes employees who have you know federal government does produce good study job health insurer you know all of those suddenly they're off limits to paychecks and they're going to

lawyers they now know how to do all this that's the reality for one hundred thirty million citizens and again like i said that's not a stable country no not in the in the richest country in the world this great the great america that so great got to be greater and there's all this whining there is zero reason in the year twenty one thousand for the united states of america to have working people be so poor that they cannot afford grocery rug and this isn't the working people's fault this isn't something now it's like oh well they're not trying hard enough and they don't have smart exact makes korean t.v. they're not being smart with their money you know that's no this is garbage i mean look you're talking about the urban institute study uncovered recently that four out of ten us of the old so they experience at least one type of material hardship like struggling to pay for groceries or housing in the entire year of twenty seventeen at least once a year that's born to forty percent again same group same group yeah you know and

then believe me these numbers skew even worse when you're not white working class when you are going to say you know borgen. for black americans the numbers rise even harder yeah you know this is scary and one of the other thing is that this idea of how credit scores were many most of us who are adults now know that sort of credit scores don't say how good you are with money really it's how much money they can make off of you and what you're looking at now due to everything the credit crisis layoffs everything it comes down to do i feed my kids or do i pay the bill a lot of people so feed their kids monsters who does that but now you have almost half about forty eight point one percent of americans with credit scores that are below prive meaning they could not get a store credit card they cannot get a loan they cannot get you know things at a rate that is an exorbitant in and oppressive financially so and then

you say that nearly twenty percent of households didn't have any mainstream credit in the past twelve months they didn't have a credit card that was usable they didn't have credit. and that's you know likely access and i will say this there's changes being done to credit scores now we're going to be able to look directly at your bank account coming up this year and how many times you've been overdraft and how many times you've been i know that it's all going to come together. and it's going to it's just going to get worse still worse. apparently if you're looking for someone who doesn't believe that show her and so to sugary drinks are unhealthy and contribute to obesity type two diabetes and heart disease well look no further than the c.d.c. the health policy journal mailbag quarterly published a paper this week that included analysis of nearly three hundred pages of eighty six e-mails exposing a brother symbiotic relationship between the centers for disease control and prevention and sugar water but he messed coca-cola the most to c.d.c. were directed to dr barbara bowman who at the time was director of c.d.c.'s

division for heart disease and stroke prevention cocacola representatives wrote to bowman that quote there are. clearly areas where we can work collaboratively collaboratively and share insights to advance the work and prevention of obesity and then to inform consumers of choices now realize those choices relate to coca-cola to low calorie or no galleria beverages with coca-cola representative claiming in e-mails that studies showing associations between diet ever doesn't wait. studies is likely the result of reverse causality so what they're saying is that people who drink diet soda are already are probably already sick with some sort of problem and obesity when they start drinking the diet soda but why would they be putting all of this effort into palin around with boman in the c.d.c. will coca-cola representatives wanted inside information and advice on how to combat the world health organization aries scientifically backed claim that reducing

consumption of sugar sweetened beverages would also reduce the risk of childhood obesity boman was helpful to them but she was forced to resign after the connections between her and top coca-cola executives were revealed and. what isn't necessarily wrong for corporations to engage government agencies and dialogue about public health it is wrong for those corporations to get help the fills their coffers at the expense of public. watchers your task dollars spent coordinating health campaigns and children that were designed to raise the profits of a nearly four hundred billion dollar us market. you don't want to pay for big big sugar to make more money. we pay the health. care over and over and over and over again. with their greedy little hands clawing in the. c.d.c.

let's be friends. we can. so how do we measure what they did was. they went in there and what that study showed is they went over all of this information and the paper laid out these three main themes and the correspondence all this. is a metaphor for what they're aiming for is to go to game and expand access obviously they want to lobby and make sure they can get their voice on capitol hill so that regulations things like sugar taxes won't go through and to shift attention the biggest one is this idea of shifting attention and blame a wave from their product sugary drinks oh remember we broke up again and things like it's a small idea of being part of this behemoths but what they really are doing is just trying to cheat the system if they don't like it and this is what hurts me the most about this is this isn't the f.d.a. where you do your natural your brain goes over food and drug administration ok well magic you know this is the c.d.c.

the centers for disease control right that coca-cola is getting her sort of those are two areas in which processed sugar has been shown to raise risk heart and stroke you mention the world health organization report coca-cola you mentioned the report will that report so what riled up specifically it points to the risks to low income children and adolescents in developing places like china and africa the cocos poisoning them so it doesn't want anyone stopping them essentially from poisoning brown children the world over in poor communities all for a profit that's what got another skin about the world health organization report is that it showed them for what they are vampires and they don't like because the e.u. and the u.k. has put these taxes on sugary drinks ultimately if you want to go sell your sugar drink all you want go for it one don't lie and say stuff is healthy when we know it's not part of the problem is that congress is way too trumping with with companies like coca-cola and that goes on we've seen coca-cola and all these things

to keep go on going and taking water from communities that while gary ruskin to co-director of us right to know which is the organization. not a originally did the foyer request that got these these e-mails he told salon that congress should investigate what really happened between c.d.c. and coca-cola and whether c.d.c. complied with relevant ethics that c.d.c. has not improperly influenced by corporations that manufacture harmful products i don't care and t.v. they are there and there's a clear as i asked that question we don't need an investigation corporations are definitely exactly there i want to get there's a quick way the see this is what cities at the coal framework provides checks and balances needed to keep the agency on track scientifically and at the clean the c.d.c. provides employees with resources to maintain at the go and scientific work. but the paper did actually look at it against the ethical framework of the c.d.c. and they in fact still showed a lack of effort on the part of those intended so if the c.d.c. about their descendants reading the paper they might know that they might they're

too busy talking a lot of x. as we go to break our watchers don't forget to let us know what you think of the proper government facebook and twitter see our poll shows that r t v dot com coming up we will bring to the at the cornwall crisis a big tech companies putting potentially dangerous new technologies to the market conservative commentator steve malzberg joins us to discuss so stay tuned for that . that's right the senate had a history lesson and could have. had zero zero zero votes on what has. i don't know that i don't know that there are guys that you know that are for the arts and i think yes that.

only allowed compatibility that's in line. and keep an eye on what i have to lose each on the console that is living. below and i want my machine with those i would rather than the owned lot of the one with the and then less of me on the hatefulness of doing. very good it's whole list choice for john john you say you have them and they are charming to me this is larry the auto. someone else for their little friends on this list said it to for jim and for you but i hope that our friend in the. leaves.

of science fiction has taught us anything it's that you can not trust cutting edge potentially dangerous new technology in the hands of megacorporations or omnipotent governments from walen you tanita cyberdyne it never ends well which is why it's not surprising to see that in january more than eighty five human rights groups including the american civil liberties union national lawyers guild chapters and freedom of the press foundation road to microsoft google and amazon demanding that they stop selling privacy crushing technology like facial recognition software to governments militaries on law enforcement agencies but apparently the heads of those companies did not see or understand the moral message of the science fiction films we watched we growing up because of the world economic forum in davos this

year when business insider asked the president and chief legal officer of microsoft bribed smith about the letter he replied i do not understand an argument that. companies should avoid all licensing to any government agency for any purpose whatsoever a sweeping ban on all government use clearly goes too far and risky and cruel and it's humanitarian a fact joining us now to discuss which is more cruel selling the u.s. government a very surveillance technology are not selling i got and i think i thought it was a good there are going to understand miles bragg. you know here in the flesh so when i disagree that we were. really going to know this is interesting this is a really interesting dilemma the kind of polls before society right now and i want to start as steve should companies who your opinion for should companies like microsoft and amazon be allowed to sell potentially dangerous software to the united states government or law enforcement agencies software that you know could be used for nefarious purposes but yes they should be able to and i think it

also can be used in news being used for good purposes first of all what these agencies want these eighty some odd groups and i'm a fan of every single one of them they want to total blanket ban they don't want to go into any government any agency anybody just like wrap it up and throw it away and that's never going to happen once the software is out there it's out there and people are going to get it one way or another but you know good is being done there the national genome research institute is using it to diagnose a disease called george's syndrome and they use facial recognition as you could tell in the face so that you know and they could prevent it or get it early also it helps find missing children out there some discrepancy there they say oh no it doesn't but in the new delhi nineteen thousand missing kids they found fourteen thousand the media is focusing on the five thousand that haven't been found and they are court says well this technology is not working we have find five thousand

but they found fourteen thousand so it does good can it be used for nefarious purposes yes and microsoft c.e.o. acknowledges that and wants limit. place when it comes to human rights violation of privacy so i mean i think his intentions are good and i don't agree with him there be whatever see a human catastrophe. technologies that can benefit humanity if you will i think that would be a bad thing well i think the obvious question is. these are all things that can be used for a good purpose. for humanitarian purposes. not evil but then when you put them in the hands of the hands of someone like google who has to remind themselves not to be able. to get out there. what the question them becomes because corporate created corporate greed of course why should they not make money but then what about supposedly us rivals what happens if they're like well we can

sell we can sell this to iran we can sell this to north korea we can sell this to any of these guys what happens with that well i think the sanctions that are in place against north korea and against iran would prevent them from doing that or they'd be in serious violation but it's a legitimate concern it could be an evil doer doesn't have a country a government could be an evil doer who gives it to them subsequently so the risk is always out there but once the genie is out of the bottle the genie is out of the bottle so the bad guy it's like to me the bad guys always go to have a gun so withholding it from law abiding citizens puts them at a disadvantage if i can make this analogy so withholding it from. good doers medical associations and government sort of put it to good use because of the fear that somebody nefarious will get ahold of it they're going to get ahold of it anyway and then the good people won't have it to use it for the betterment of society there's a very similar on an odd thing is sort of a plastic straw to. take away everybody. vironment what you're doing is actually

making a lot harder for non ambulatory people who need. it center. because there's a really this is one of those facial recognition software and you know because it was seen over the years and things like that apart from the good that it does it is still a very big brother kind of orwellian it is literally everything or yeah you know and so you got it you know so that it's one of those ones words like you you know we need our congress to act of this we need people to come in like let's put the rules in place now before it gets out of him. but i wonder kind of brings up the bigger question of where should we ethically draw the line when it comes to what should or shouldn't be for sale to law enforcement or or our government i mean is there is there a line that we shouldn't cross the business or should say you know we can invent anything but maybe there's a certain point where i'd like to think you're right yeah but you know i'd like to

say well maybe they shouldn't be able to look at us through our cameras in our computers when our computers are off. but they. maybe are true you should be able to spy on us twenty four seventh's know what it is so you know i don't know how you draw the line anymore i'm afraid to say because i think like i said the genie is out of the bottle technology is running so wild that what we have today will seem like nothing in five years so i don't know b. and so i share your concerns to a certain extent but i certainly don't have the answer i think that's the thing that's so scary is that there's all these great things come out of technology whether it's nuclear power there's a nuclear medicine saves people's lives but then when you think about a nuclear weapon or nuclear power plants or so many things so like i said it's like ok we're going to get the plastics are off your table but now someone else is being you know we're on this thing where there has to be some sort of moral ground of when do our rights of privacy like have we just given up i feel like you know so

many of us screamed for so long when everything came out from you know tortured to spy. everything's like you said there are computers i mean we're real just a little too quiet and then having never giving up i think the united states government the congress still hasn't regulated facebook and these other companies like google and the european union they slap a fine on facebook and they call it is ok berg evil or whatever then blah blah blah but there's so law parading freely and there are no restrictions on them right now to be honest with you except from a fine here or find there which of them is you know one nickel here and a quarter there technology is moving at such a extremely fast forward to the you know we might we might we could be developing something wildly barriers that we don't even know we're developing at this point and that's the big concern i mean think about it i mean what happens if if you know what happens if microsoft develops the new killer but like a good we go back to like but nineteen fifties what happens if like microsoft

developed the nuclear bomb before the united states government did you know obviously you know there's today there's restrictions on who could make weapons and things like that but what if you didn't realize it was a weapon until it is used as one of the marketplace i'm not going to say this point about more ality because you know what you know that we can question the morality of a nuclear bomb i don't know we should have used it or in our whatever we could do that but what science came out of it but that was a government funded program that was very secretive that was there was meant to be you know kept in the hands of secrecy was somewhere along the line the united states government kept saying well we can let these big corporations develop all this stuff honestly facial recognition should have been developed by darpa and everyone else a very long time ago and it shouldn't be in the hands of these corporations so my question to you is at what point does more ality come before profits for a technology company a company like where you like he said like where does the around it where you start to go that are not i don't and i don't know exactly who makes these things but you

could read article after article and concern have to concern about artificial intelligence and robots now that we're creating that can take. so for i mean physically and we all otherwise and it's a real concern to a lot of people that we've gone too far and we're going too far does it sit too far for you are you saying you know if i were i mean like i was using it as a universe you know what were the i mean personally i think i think we don't do it i think when it comes to that kind of stuff i think you know the i don't i don't like mad scientists do we have this in and creating a monster that's going to take over the world and maybe that's exactly what some of them are doing you go look frankenstein i was going to say and i thought this is mary shelley wrote a. column i don't know if you know what that thing is and i think that's that's a part that both sides of the aisle should be ok it should be absolutely we can agree on that and we definitely agree because i mean it's like since the since snowden since the n.s.a.

since torture it's very hard for me to put my trust in government and that's something that i can vote and change and control i can't vote can change and control a corporation unless i am a majority stockholder you know about it makes it even more scary for me when a corporation starts kind of running rampant or saying like no no they need to have this to be cruel for they didn't you know you can you can say that better both governments have to step up and put some some regulation is that even microsoft says they want they want to know. that it. was going to hate them i mean studio for a chinese revenue. by using a machine algorithm to test the brain scans of one hundred twenty one women and eighty four men who were aged in age from twenty to eighty two scientists found evidence to suggest that women's brains are younger than men in a way see they were trying to calculate metabolic brain ages to determine why women experience cognitive decline and a much lower rate than men do but this isn't

a matter of men maturing faster than women it turns out their brains are always metabolically three years older than. women's starving and adolescent obviously more studies will be need to be done or to confirm the results but it sounds suggest that there is a difference between male and female brain development and metabolism and these gender differences of our grey matter are less about gender and more about treatment so you know women's brains might hold the key to saving men if you can imagine but be patient because studying the most used organ in the human body can't be rushed but it's definitely a no brainer for science i was listening to what he said they obviously were using both sides of your brain i wasn't and so it's old rule for god ok where am i or you just look at the camera and read the degree of the thing but it's hard it's hard on me right now now that's an amazing study yet that's really neat and because we

forget a lot of times because everything is counted in years with the given your time and mirrors and all that that we forget that there's metabolic time and that is cool but when you really do like that to figure out why that actually it's true pollan does require both sides of your brains to work so if you understand my puns you're probably pretty smart so it's going that's pretty good all right everybody that is our show for you today brain and remember everyone in this world we are not told we are loved up so i tell you all i love you i don't tire rolled into in time to have a full of people are watching all those hawks out there another great day invite everybody. i've been saying the numbers mean something they matter the u.s. has over one trillion dollars in debt more than ten bicolor timestamping each day.

eighty five percent of global wealth you want to be rich eight point six percent market saw thirty percent rise last year some with four hundred to five hundred three per socket first shot and bitcoin rose to twenty thousand dollars. china is building a two point one billion dollar a i industrial park but don't let the numbers overwhelm. the only number you need to remember in one one business shows you can't afford to miss the one and only. just.

had to manually. and there's no no no not. can as you can buy at all of them ok if the. last minute i'm a student at a i kill with a battle they have way to have a good watch that i'm not gonna be able to get to them or that having. people. give their name not a come on what the how do we. know jane need the whole goal why go before. why do men get out of your was so i'm not.

i am. the. this is all breaking news this hour tell about representative claims that the united states has promised to withdraw all hoffa's troops from afghanistan by the end of april. great nations do not fight endless wars.