we mentioned nist. nist is a great standards but very high standards above the bar and showing the american people that this particular website or any website that collects sensitive personal information is meeting or exceeding that standard. number two is ownership. what i would like to see the is the chief information security officer is your chief executive officer. you know, that's good news, when the ceo steps up to the plate and does what needs to be done and in this case i would love to see our president take ownership for the website and insure that good security and privacy practices are met as priority, not just on healthcare.gov but across the board. and third is verification. i'm an auditor. i have to admit this. i'm biased or used to be an auditor at pricewaterhousecoopers. this need that we can say we're doing all the good thing but having third party expert tell us we're meeting and exceeding the standard is very good idea and noble idea. that being said i think first person concluding gi

and the bloodiest battle of the revolution, and the point of no return for the rebellious column nists. he's a native boston and trained journalist. he is recognized authority on the history of man tuck et. he told an interviewer i don't think it's possible to have the death of the island's rich history. he has previous books that include "may flower." the finalist for the pulitzer prize for history. "in the heart of the sea" he won the national book award for fiction. "revenge of the whale." one of the hornbook aware. -- award. he holds a bachelor in english from brown. independent book sellers association. perhaps his passion for the subject can be demonstrated from the july 21st block postin connecticut when he attended the launching of the newly restored charles w. morgan's america's only survivorring 19th century whale ship. the picture he posted was quote taken at the moment of impact as a kristining bottle containing water from all of the seas. next i would like to introduce brenda wine apple. a non-fiction writer. a "new york times" reviewer in august noted that brenda takes th

participated in combat activity is could the civilian death toll be even higher than the us made or the nist report estimates given and that classification well i have to disagree with abraham when he said that when a new kind of warfare and therefore the way we classify people has to change under international law the definitions in the geneva conventions and additional protocols the definition of who was a civilian and who is a combatant who may lawfully be killed in combat who may not lawfully intensely be killed in combat has not changed and the united states is fully on board when the definitions under international law and under those definitions there are few if any of the people that the united states has killed any aim and pakistan and somalia who are legally defined as combatants and those are the only people we may intentionally killed abraham is talking about the dirty mess of war and clatter of damage but outside of an armed conflict sound were talking bout him in pakistan and somalia. none of those persons should of been killed under armed conflict rules state and perhaps could

largely because the geneva process and communique grants the key protag nists to the conflict veto power. the key phrase in the geneva communique starts that the parties by mutual concept are to discuss the setting up of a transitional authority, which means there'll never be mutual consent because bashar al-assad has not come to geneva to plot his on demise from power. >> did the disinvitation of the iranians, do you think it's a bigger stumbling block, besides being an embarrassment for ban ki-moon. >> iran's interests are being represented by the assad regime. i don't think that, in any way, will substantively change the prospects for peace, which i think are to be located in the nature of the structural flaws or the one key party that is responsible for the conflict has veto power over anything moving forward. >> what about the pictures. these are horrific, the indications of widespread torture and abuse. how serious a problem is that for the syrians as they enter the negotiations. >> it's serious for the syrian opposition because they have to sit across the table from the side that

i want to bring in columnist and progressive activist, sally kohn and come um nist and political commentator was reading something you wrote earlier, sally. you are suggesting that at the very worst, chris christie is like a bully who ordered and fired his staff to punish political opponents. if that's not the case, he seems like a passive leader that doesn't have a handle on the top staff. i think critics of yours would say you are delighting and licking your chops at a time when none of this is proven. this is a media darling for press good and bad. is that fair? >> i don't know about the chop-licking part. >> it was the folks on the right who for a long time have been out to get christie. they are the ones that are really delighting in this. look, of course, anyone who is a democrat, a progressive, anyone that looked at christie as a serious threat or contender or one of them for 2016 presidential race is going to look at this and say, you know, okay, yes, it is convenient, right? of course. that's obviously some of why it is getting air time. i do think there is some genuine concern here

commerce clause and enumerated powers area as i had been and orrs had been, and he was kind of the protag nist, questions about what about this and what about that moving into the area on the nsa surveillance. orin is a scholar of the fourth be amendment. he's the real expert on that area. i am somewhat entrenching into his field as i raise questions about the constitutionality, the dubious constitutionality of the nsa bulk day collection rams. but i certainly know the difference between being a fourth amendment scholar and not dig being one. so -- not being one. i do think it would be a big mistake the somehow our colleagues were to think blogging is scholarship. bloging is not scholarship, and it could be, i suppose, my colleague has legal theory blog. that almost amounts to scholarship, that does amount to scholarship, but that's totally unique. generally peek speaking, we are just utilizing the knowledge and expertise we have developed in real scholarship, and we're putting it to use. what blogging does allow us to do, though, is learn how to write better than we might have written in the

was the whole issue of cryptography, question of whether the national security agency prevailed upon nist, the standard setters, to weaken cryptography to make it easier for nsa to spy on people. and there's certainly been a lot of concern within the security community that this was a breach of trust on behalf of the u.s. government. again, and so, for example, a large number of quite significant security consultants have said they will not attend the rsa conference, big cybersecurity conference next month in protest over the idea they may have taken some money to weaken some security standards. and, you know, the important thing to note here is the internet is heavily dependent on the geeks outside government to, in order to operate. and undermining their trust in the wider cybersecurity community, i think it is going to be something that the government has to work hard to regain. that wasn't addressed here, and that probably is a reflection of the fact that there are no easy answers to this tension between counterterrorism and cybersecurity. it's not been particularly explored within th

>> people use that like i'm a gym nist, quote, unquote. what does that mean? begins a sentence with so. so, we thought a lot about this. so, we're going to have to take away your individual choices so, this is a good idea. >> it's a filler word. i'm sure i'm guilty of this, too. saying things like ah, um. filler. >> it's a tick. >> a certain kind of npr listener. >> it makes you sound erudite. it's a good idea, right? >> you know what i mean? forcing somebody to agree with you. you know what i mean? >> rhetorical. >> what are your -- what phrases in the office place do you want removed from your vocabulary for 2014? >> inappropriate. i'm going to say this again, inappropriate has no inherent meaning. it means, i don't care for it, therefore, you shouldn't be allowed to do it. >> you were fighting in 2014 to have that removed. >> i did. >> unless you are officially a kindergarten teacher speaking to kindergarten students, don't use the word inappropriate. >> he gets more fired up about this than the lottery. >> it's inappropriate. >> all right. we have other st