i think china is acting rationally or rationally meaning what's good for china on. at least in the short to medium term that doesn't necessarily mean that china especially or the u.s. stash anality or the irrationality on the part of the r. c. and countries necessarily is aligned you know because it's like to combat and if you go and each may act rationally but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's alignment you know clearly china's energy needs a massive of and you know projecting out for the next twenty years china energy dependence on the rest of the world is going to increase and if you look at what's happening in south china sea what's happening you know with the islands of you know there are. reports indications of estimates of four significant oil and gas reserves so i think that's a huge part of what you know china wants to be able to own that to control that and it's good for china now whether china can get away with that get away with it because players matt jump in what do you think about that. well i mean yes i agree with the professor mean it's a case w

go back to that rationality and irrationality has to do with are you acting in an intelligent way to serve your own interests as a nation that's all you can ask of countries and i'm not sure that korea is fully professional because it's such a palace politic thing that you know that into. become extremely parochial within that conflict but in your way and. you've got a country with an enormous history a desire to be a dominant power in the middle east and they're acting rationally in their own terms to achieve that so i don't think they're going to commit suicide richard they're acting rationally you agree or disagree with that. yes they're acting very cleverly managed to string along a nuclear negotiations tilt the capabilities they what they might need if they want to get a nuclear weapon without going so far as to and really engage in some kind of shooting war with anybody and i think that it's you're correct in drawing the difference between north korea and iran and they are the one reason why we haven't seen clear evidence of a nuclear cooperation i suppose missile cooperation i

of rationality go ahead. i think china is acting rationally rationally meaning what's good for china on. at least in the short to medium term that doesn't necessarily mean that china especially or the u.s. or the irrationality on the part of the us here and countries necessarily is aligned you know because it's like to combat and if you go and each may act rationally but it doesn't necessarily mean that there's alignment you know clearly china's energy needs a massive of and you know projecting out for the next twenty years china energy dependence on the rest of the world is going to increase and if you look at what's happening in south china sea what's happening you know with the islands of you know there are. reports indications of estimates of four significant oil and gas reserves so i think that's a huge part of what you know china wants to be able to own that to control that and it's good for china now whether china can get away with that get away with it because players all right matt jump in what do yo

got it i hope they rationalize it makes us look specifically especially dave in philadelphia what do you think. about what would happen if they got yeah i don't know if they'd use it i think they're not crazy israel's got it israel has about two hundred nuclear bombs and you know very high quality delivery systems. and would be toast if they used it and they know that so what you'd actually have if you had the bomb would be a similar situation only probably more stable than the one you have in india and pakistan with the two countries that are really hate each other having any nuclear weapons and the difference being that those two countries have borders that are flashpoints there's no borders that are flashpoints between iran and israel so i think if iran had the bomb it would make israeli diplomacy more difficult but it might me and actual he have a salutary effect on the two having to work out some kind of modus vivendi richard what do you think about when we're dealing with counterfactuals i mean you think that i mean a rand like north korea probably wouldn't use nuclear weapons

i think china is acting rationally or rationally meaning what's good for china on. at least in the short to medium term that doesn't necessarily mean that china especially or the u.s. stash anality or the irrationality on the part of the r.c. and countries necessarily is aligned you know because it's like to combat and if you go and each may act rationally but it doesn't necessarily mean that there's alignment you know clearly china's energy needs a massive of and you know projecting out for the next twenty years china's energy dependence on the rest of the world is going to increase and if you look at what's happening in south china sea what's happening you know with the islands of you know there are. reports indications of estimates of four significant oil and gas reserves so i think that's a huge part of what you know china wants to be able to own that to control that and it's good for china not whether china can get away with that get away with it because players matt jump in when you think about that. well i mean yes i agree with the professor mean it's a case

one you is asked me what's rational about threatening and then you have asked me what's rational aboutading. >> bill: threatening is rational but invading wouldn't be. >> look, it's not conventional diplomacy i'm not here to defend that regime i grant you. >> bill: i don't know what they would get out of this other than my scorn. >> which is considerable. and formidable in its own right. i hope it doesn't get harnessed to a missile. >> bill: i don't either. i think it's saber rattling. not like there is a bunch of miniature golf courses. >> that's a tragedy, i agree. >> bill: cammeron, so the president goes on easter sunday to the pastor, the presbyterian church and he says right wing people are racist and then the president leaves and he goes on easter egg hunt or basketball shots. if i were the president i would have said look, he says what he says. i didn't know what he was going to say. i don't agree with it and then, boom. leave it on. but then ed henry comes out and goes i haven't talked to the president about it. that's because henry doesn't want to talk to the president. >> jay

at the urs recommendations for security and they identified a broad range of what are considered rational and identifying threats by law enforcement and intelligence communities. these involve a series of events and many recommendations that have been identified will had been the building survive a seismic event and the emergency responder community of the occupants of the building in an enhanced position for life safety and then there is the use of explosives, potential arsonists events or someone introducing something into air. this is from san francisco, chicago, atlanta, houston or new york. these are published expectation by our law enforcement and friends down in washington. i think the east coast has been an unfortunate target and as we work around the country, we look at geographic opportunities that represent smaller or larger, and the answer is no. we have had events in washington and new york, i don't have the opportunity and denny's mentioned that she didn't have the opportunity to grant the relief based on where the country s we don't have the opportunity to look at ourselves

positions if these were two rational actors i would say they would have already made that decision to back down and unfortunately in a situation like this it's really not rationality which governs the actions of the players there were spawning two sometimes unconscious cues sometimes to non-rational factors but you know north korea is not a suicidal regime and of course the united states is not particularly interested in any kind of conflict at this point especially with cuts going through and military sector well north korea unfortunately has been alienated from its allies for some time china has never been enthusiastic about north korea's nuclear program nor is it been enthusiastic about north korea's decision not to follow chinese economic reform so the alienation is set in. the real question is at what point does china say hey it's not worth it any longer and we're going to pull the plug the plug in this case is considerable back anomic assistance to north korea up until now china has made a calculation that it's much better to have an unreliable ally as opposed to chaos collapse

>> he is very rational. he did his planning and he carried out his horrible deed. just because he is evil does not mean he is not capable of linear logic. entire "newsmakers " interview with larry pratt on sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> following the release of the marked unemployment numbers, president obama and republican governor brownback talked about their plan for economic growth. the president outlined his approach to the 2014 budget. in the republican address, governor brownback talked about how republicans want to grow the economy without raising taxes. >> hi, everybody. our top priority as a nation and my top priority as president must be doing everything we can to reignite the engine of america's growth, a rising, thriving middle class. .hat is our north store that must have every decision they make. yesterday we learned that our -- we created about $500,000 this year. we haveave got -- created about 500,000 jobs this year. but we have got more to do. there are spending cuts that are hurting the community. cut cell costs our economy h

. >> i wanted to give you the process rational so although we are looking at the protection requirement we put together a world class team of engineers. each experts in fire protection, fire alarms, communication, structural design, hvac, so as recommendations came in from urs, we could not only validate whether they were rational, we looked at the team that they were assembling and with their very specific expertise in these areas try to find the best solution to achieve a rational set of protective design standards. i will turn it back over to bob. >> thank you. >> i also want to -- i think that no one here argues that this is not a world class proposal and i think that we are pleased to see that so much thought has been put into this. but i think the question the board is asking again and again is are we looking at the most cost-effective measures in terms of taxpayer dollars and we need to establish that with a world class system. we can't get everything we want to see, obviously we want the platinum level but given the cost increases we have to ask these questions of how we can bes

rest of us especially those who are literally dying from this entirely avoidable mess of seaquest ration austerity standing hoyer congressman from maryland slammed his fellow representatives in a speech explaining why he would vote against the f.a.a. fix bill. while i want to end these delays for passengers in maryland across the country i will oppose this bill because it fails to address the whole impact of sequester let me share just a handful of examples of how the sequester will affect america's education head start seventy thousand children will be kicked out of head start nothing in those buildings with them is through a long long list of programs and people nothing in that did in that deal helps them either representative where is absolutely correct the lack of empathy for the thousands of toddlers who won't get a chance to go to preschool or the tens of thousands of seniors who are now going to have to decide which meal to skip is startling is it time for congress to hold phillis constitutional obligation and work for the general welfare of all americans not just the richest one

does that mean you can't have a rational debate?i know rational may seem like a harsh word. do you know what i mean by that? it's not an intellectual argument when it comes to background checks? >> look, i think background checks are one thing. you know, our state has a background check. you have to have a background check. a lot of states you just go at a gun show and buy a gun and take it home. i think there's a reasonable way to do it. i think if it's done on a timely nature, you know, if you have a little credit card, you can put it in a slot, and it can tell you whether you got credit or not. you should you can put it in a slot and it will tell you if you got credit or not. it should be able to be down in a reasonable way. but people are afraid that those guns get put on a shelf for months or a long time and they want to buy that and take access and these are the collectors and people who think this is part of their culture, but it should be done in a rational, quick way. >> maria, it does strike me with immigration, the reason

guest: this is not a rational debate. peter and i could do statistics all day long but this debate comes down to the budget debate is more emotional than it is rational. guest: people are making up their own facts. host: working for both committees, is this typical? are they doing something new here? guest: it's typical but exaggerated. i've never seen a situation as bad as it is now with one side blocking the other no matter what it is. used to you came to washington to do something, now you come to get re-elected. add to that social media, talk show hosts, don't take that personally, the way we communicate is different now. the overexaggeration. the tea party, you've got a situation that is far worse than anything we had when i was on the hill. host: i want to have paul ryan come back and see if there is anything the two of you like from what you heard. >> we believe we owe the american people a balanced budget. we balance this tpwhudget just ten years. this say document, a plan that balance it is budget in just ten yea

behind the rationing is china's thirst for western made formula.2008 the industrial chemical melamine got into the nation's milk supply killing six children and leaving thousands seriously ill. as a result, many parents distrust formula produced in the country preferring instead to pay more for international brands. >> translator: even 2,000 yuan is not enough for a month's supply of baby food. all the income spent on a baby's necessity. >> reporter: china's demand for milk has forced governments to step in. in hong kong curbs have been interested at customs. travelers will cannot leave with more than 1.8 kilograms of formula. last month several people were arrested for smuggling more than the allotted quantity. australia too has introduced restrictions. >> the reason for the shortage is a lot of people were out buying it and sending it overseas so people left here finding it harder. >> reporter: manufacturers tell cnn that there's no shortage of supply. that may be the case, but some may be stocking up. a quick search on e-bay shows hundreds of pa

act harms america's own interests is like shooting oneself in the leg so i don't really see the rational for this from the point of your bum administration which claims to be an administration that is paying attention to multilateralism to international partnerships it was definitely a blow to the relations between moscow and washington and now all this is happening amid the head of a visit by a senior. international or u.s. advisor to moscow on monday for talks and while it's pretty clear that these lists are definitely not going to make his job any easier. and stephen f. cohen a professor of russian studies and history at new york university feels the diplomatic fallout is due to the incompetence of the u.s. congress the act by congress was of course provoked by russia for its forces in the united states congress is itself is not russia which is just uninformed it knows almost nothing about russia most members of congress have no understanding of their national affairs or national security and law vs repression on the majority members of congress and this was a bipartisan and the liber

i don't believe that every government acts rationally. when you and i were younger, barbara tuckman wrote a great book called "the march of folly". >> rose: how world war i started. >> government took actions directly contrary to their own interests. north koreaing is a completely separate case and there's no basis for comparing it with israel. >> rose: therefore that may be a place where a rational solutio cannot bfod. >> it's a totalitarian society dominated by the military, completely isolated. and one of the most amazing things, charlie, when you go around the world and meet leaders of as many countries as i have is to see how often they are misinformed, uninformed, almost delusional about the circumstances in which they find themselves in. go back and read the history of saddam hussein sad in the last few months of his reign. it's almost unbelievable. the guy was completely delusional about what was going on. had concept -- >> rose: even though the ships were in the sea he did not believe they would attack. >> it's hard for leaders a

in other words, change the building permit from an alter ration to a demolition after the fact. mr. murphy who is president of the building inspection commission knows that this contradicts the policis in place and this would require a mandatory discretionary review and proof that 125 crown is not affordable housing quh it is. and i am quoting joe escanany, article bringing down the housing. the question is asked, is it possible to level a building construct a new one and define this as an alter ration or a remodel? 125 crown terrace their own designer confirms that. his quote is but you can't do it all at once. you have to do it piece meal, they have got codes that overlap and cross each other and so you try to fist through it all, get it approved and build it not get in trouble with the inspector for taking out more than you did designated than you were going to do. >> they can demolish a house piece meal and go undetected. it is valued at $906,000, this is affordable housing and mr. murphy is a real estate developer and he is disregarding the city's plan and using his intimate kn

because first the statute lets ipab define rationing.nd ipab decisions as i mentioned before are exempt from the judicial review. so, in other words, the authority on whether ipab violated the prohibition on rationing care is ipab itself. second, there is nothing else to enforce this or any other on a ipab's power. the statute imposes that on which it prohibits a to do is the same constraint that it imposes on that which permits ipab to do. manly the house and the senate and the president all have to agree on a substitute proposal. in other words, there is nothing stopping ipab, nothing in the statute stopping speech call from explicit rationing care. they can also rationed care of the government isn't paying the medical bills to recall what has to do is claim the imposing price controls on the private insurers to deny coverage for the services somehow related to the medicare program. that is the term the statute has. ipab can propose whatever it wants as long as it is related to the medicare program and that is a very loose standard and

toby got a right, the banks are acting rationally.hat is irrandall, ttional and lousy ones gail and the others survive with growth. and instead this is a screw nup this will probably get worse. >> it's not rational to use our money to pay back to your money? >> first, that was a little-- they're doing the same stuff. look, it's hard to it bail out banks and not make them rich along the way and prevent them from going out of business. and like it's going in a bad direction if we didn't do this. should we have made more money? definitely. look the at the stock prices and the banks and the bailouts. taxpayers should have made hundreds of billions in this deal and we gave them loans, and that was a bad deal, but better than doing nothing because anybody couldn't get a loan right now. >> here is the thing, this low interest loan, well, you know what? look at interest rates these days. why would any bank want to loan me money at 3% when they can invest it and make more? >> that's the biggest point. the best use of money, look, the loan dema

>> that was very rational. he had done his planning. e went carried out his horrible deeds. just because he is evil does not mean he is not capable of linear logic. >> the race to $200,000 less sure that was spent in the election by direct contributions. the structure is such that the sec does not disclose your money. where do get the bulk of your money? >> we are grass roots. the large donors. otherwise we would not exist if it were not for people making $15 contributions. they will pick up the phones, send a postcard to their members of congress. that is at the front line of ur activity. >> the nra gets a good deal of their funding from the roundup program. do you think that should be allowed to continue that do you think the nra should countries in that way? >> i think it is a great idea. i would like for gun stores to o the same thing for us. >> the other criticism comes from manufacturers. do you take money from the industry? >> we get a very small amount from the industry. we would love to have more. >> i want to talk about your ating system for house members and senat

, he's a conservative guy, but he's rational. why would he rationally think, i got to worry more about 30%, 40% who are gun people, second amendment people, year round, rather than 90% of people who are part-time gun safety people? how about answering the question? >> yeah, but it's irrational because pat toomey is not going to lose that 30% to any democrat. he doesn't have to worry about them. most of that 30% believes in background checks. most of that 30% believes in representative cummings' bill. gosh, the nra for years stood with me and said we need tougher law enforcement. a gun trafficking bill is tougher law enforcement. it's federal penalties for straw purchasers. it's exactly what we need. where are they now? they're frauds. pat toomey if he's smart, i still believe he is, chris, he's going to look and say, people of pennsylvania, even nra members, are for background checks. why would he take the risk? >> where's the club for growth? >> the club for growth is out of this issue. i think it's out of this issue. >> i hope

do we know -- was this as pir ration ration rational? did they have any kind of weaponry or explosive devices? >> reporter: they're in the process of executing those search warrants. from what i understand, they do not expect to find explosive devices. the attack was a real one. they believe they had the capacity to carry at it, but had not yet got to that point. they were likely going to bomb the tracks on the route. >>> there are new alleges that syria is using chemical weapons against forces. this time it is come israel. it is likely syrians are using sarin gas. if that is true, it is going to increase pressure on the u.s. to intervene. the pentagon says they are investigating. >> dzhokhar tsarnaev is revealing new details about the bomb plot, who was involved. the latest on what he's telling investigators right after this. i'm only in my 60's... i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male a

looked at that way, then a deadline perhaps becomes a little more rational. >> wow. so many to choose from. ben friedman in the far back. the gentleman behind him. sorry. >> ben friedman from cato. i agree that counterterrorism doesn't fessly require counterinsurgency, but once we're doing counterinsurgency, why is it the case that we think, it seems to me in the united states, that there's one model? it seems like in the history of counterinsurgency not just in the united states, but around the world there's actually a lot of different models, many of which involve co-opting insurgents like in pakistan where there's reaches of the country or even in india where there's reaches of the country that in the past have had fair amounts of autonomy with the rebels or would-be rebels. and it seems to me what we, the united states, have done in these two wars and to the extent we've been successful, it often involves co-opting insurgents by buying them off or as with the kurds, just letting them have a big chunk of the country so they don't become insurgents in the first pla

. >> what is the rational response for the obama administration? >> they responded well, they sent a b-2, a lovely item in flight, starting in missouri, went off to correa, returned home without stopping, and it can carry nuclear weapons. that is a message. we can hit you in half a day and turn you into a cinder. also, with all of the missiles, they sent to guam, around japan, and also on the east coast, the bolstering of the anti-missile defense is extremely important. that would neutralize any attack. it has had a reasonably restrained and get someone aggressive response, which i think is the right -- >> what happens if they do love the one into guam, or okinawa, or japan? one into guam? >> is a nuclear or conventional? game on. >> this will be a time for a regime change in north korea. you just do not hit back in a limited way. >> the president offers cuts in medicare and social security and takes a voluntary pay cut. fair we have tried to be and analyzed where we take those cuts -- and we take them because we have no choice. >> that is the secr