not to say we don't like you to do bork in your homes, we -- to do work in your homes, but maintenance will help home repair. i have some slides here. let's take a quick peak here -- peek here. we'll look at the outside buildings first and inside buildings next. outside buildings are typical maintenance issues. a whole plethora of maintenance issues. the siding, the windows, the doors, the stairs, the sidewalk, the landscape. so let's just look at a couple different kinds of buildings and the typical problems they might have. so, for example, here's a building with final siding. what kind of maintenance do we need with the vinyl siding? we have to wash the thing, that's for darn sure. what do you think? >> it's got to be washed, caulked, checked to make sure water is not getting behind the siding. >> caulking is not a replacement for good flashing. caulk something sort of a -- an interim waterproofing material that has to be maintained. if somebody says, we have a leak, let's caulk it, what that means is we've got a temporary solution that's going to leak some more unless you maintain

>> the bork hearings -- who has heard of robert bork and heard about the hearings? nobody? ok. one over here. reagan first nominated robert bork to the supreme court. he was a very conservative scholar, law professor, very prominent and very controversial on some of his views. and the. borking has become a verb, and it stands for doing away with someone in the confirmation process, kind of destroying their nomination. that came away from contentious hearings he had in the senate. that was very contentious. that was shortly after -- that was one of the first hearings that had tv coverage which contributed to the contentiousness of it. i guess i can say hearings are now more contentious than historical because you could go back to george washington to find contentions. he nominated john rutledge and tried to make and chief justice. he could not get him confirmed. nixon had a two supreme court nominees go down in flames. it is tv-covered now and in the press now but it is not a new phenomenon. >> you mention the media and we are joined by our friends and c- span and we are very gr

bork. maybe you remember that case. he should have been shafted out of the ruling. you very much. guest: the question of reporting on unsafe equipment or companies i think is the case, and whenever an individual knows of a company that is not safe, they are asked to reported to the department of transportation. the secretary came out with the consumer-focused peace. the consumer piece also has an 800 number where consumers can call the department of transportation if they have any concerns or questions about companies they travel with, and certainly with whistle-blower laws anyone who would turn in their employer or refuse to drive a piece of equipment because it is unsafe would be protected under the law in most cases. host: pasadena, md.. sander on the republican line. on the republican line. caller: i think a lot of the problems with the buses are a moral and ethical standard. morally you want to keep people say. you want to make a profit, but if you do it immorally and unethically you put profit before people. how do you address that? guest: great question. when

bork, if you recall.uest: the question of reporting and unsay companies or unsafe equipment might be the question at hand. whenever a company knows of another company that is not operating safely, certainly they are asked reported to the part of transportation. the secretary of transportation came out on may 5 with a consumer focus piece that says thinks they beat every trip, every time. -- think safety. with with lower laws now, anyone who would turn in their employer or refuse -- with a whistle- blower laws, they would be protected under the law in most cases. host: sandra on the republican line. good morning. caller: i think a lot of the problems with the buses would be a moral and ethical standard. morally and ethically, you want to keep people safe, and you want to make a profit, but if you do unethically and immorally, you put profits before people. how do you address that? guest: great question. when you look at the industry, and there are 3200 companies across the country. virtually all of them or

this accelerated with the bork nomination in the 1980s. there is this review that because these justices have power to strike federal and state statutes it is important to have justices in place -- there's no way out of this unless the supreme court decides on its own to be less aggressive about striking down statutes. >> host: this tweet from the republican. posner justifies torture on cost-benefit analysis but whose analysis is used? anyone who justifies torture. >> guest: i should comment on that. okay. justifying torture and cost benefit analysis is not quite what we were trying to do in this book. what we were interested in understanding is why people regarded coercive interrogation and torture as so much more horrible and shocking than other things the government does which are not nearly as controversial. putting somebody in jail for life is a way of imposing a tremendous amount of harm on that person and we tolerate it because the benefits are greater than the cost. the costs to that person are quite large but the benefits to socie

and so this accelerated with the, with the bork nomination in the 1980s, and i think now both the supreme court and aloer federal -- also lower federal courts there's this view that because these justices have so much powerful to strike down federal and state statutes, it's important to have justices in place that support my or your political opinion. i don't think there's any way out of this until -- unless the supreme court just decides on its own to be less aggressive about striking down statutes. >> host: this tweet for you, professor posner, from neorepublican. posner is an untidy thinker. justifies torture on cost benefit analysis, but whose analysis is used? anyone who justifies torture. >> guest: so i should comment on that. >> host: yes. >> guest: okay. [laughter] you know, let's see. so, first of all, justifying torture on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, that's not quite what we were trying to do in this book. what we were really interested in understanding is why people regarded coercive interrogation or torture as so much more, you know, horrible and shocking than other so