tavis: to that undercurrent. let me ask a strange question. it came to me going through the book, which is whether or not and it may be forthcoming, whether or not you can now look back at your life with all the undercurrent and pinpoint a time when you were happeniest, most blissful on a personal -- happiest and most blissful on a personal level. do you have any idea when that was or is it yet to come? >> yes, there was a moment when i was doing my first play. "fool for love". 90 minutes. no intermission and the challenge from roger robinson. i had just seen years ago doing "soldier's play" at the ensemble play. tavis: he won an award last year. i love roger. >> he said pam, you should do it. you have this energy. you have a spectrum of energy and a well, a deep well. and i didn't think i could achieve what i saw on stage with these fine, fine actors and when i saw my first -- when i had my first performance, i felt it then. "fool for love." i was completely -- this is what i love. this is what it is all about and i was so -- i was content an

you don't get really big spills undercurrent conditions. but when a 20 percent increase in flow your getting more inflows. the system is sincetive to climate. the second important point here is, this whole project. assessing the risk, assuming we operate the system the same way thomas we operating today, we were told when we proposed the project we could not change the operating rules that reservoirs and could not change water rights and change the rule of the law of the river, basically. we had to do assessment of the water vulnerability in current conditions. that's a key point. how vulnerable are we - not under existing conditions although this is important information to know - but how vulnerable would be be if we had the flexibility to change the way we operate and that's a we question. and that races something more important than science and that's politics. next slide. what shouldn't be done? don't assume future climate will look like the past. actually i'll say it one more time on the conclusion. do not justify actions using climate

you don't get really big spills undercurrent conditions.ut when a 20 percent increase in flow your getting more inflows. the system is sincetive to climate. the second important point here is, this whole project. assessing the risk, assuming we operate the system the same way thomas we operating today, we were told when we proposed the project we could not change the operating rules that reservoirs and could not change water rights and change the rule of the law of the r

friendly government in charge which obviously denies india the space that it currently enjoys undercurrent in india which pakistan sees as you know a day destabilizing factor as far as the pakistan security situation is concerned i think that's where the difference lies pakistan sorry go ahead go go i was going to go to i was going to go to washington if it's interesting here what we heard dan just say in and i think maybe that this is where the biggest problem is is that pakistan wants to have an afghanistan that is friendly to islamabad but can that include mr karzai because that's that's the u.s. man in afghanistan i mean is that really where we have the differences can we find mutual accommodation between the two because we've heard just recently over the last week or so a pakistan and pakistan afghanistan relationship but where does that leave mr karzai and his agenda for afghanistan and the american one. i think first of all to go back to our tolls point you this is a missile alliance between the u.s. and pakistan countries really don't have friendships they have relationships and th

. -- undercurrent. technology seems to undermine everything to speed it up or make it more intense. today it is magnified. >> where did it start? >> i cannot tell you. >> where did you see it get worse? >> i saw it get worse during vietnam's. >> why would that be a time when if accelerated? >> people felt the government lied to them and that many thousands of people died for a war of the those waging it were themselves skeptical about and some viewed as on winnable, -- un-winnable, and we all lived through a time when society seem to be tearing apart in many respects, and i am not sure we ever fully recovered from that. >> i do not know if there is a list, but what institutions see you trust the most yourself? >> personally? >> word you say, i believe them? >> i trust region where do you say, i believe them? >> -- where do you say, i believe them? >> i trust my doctor. let's face it. people who are unhappy complain and complain loudly. it is clear there is a large amount of mistrust in the news media in this country, but i have not got to share that, and i guess you understand why i

there has always been some undercurrent. technology today and the proliferation of voices tends to magnify everything, to speed it up, to make it bigger, louder, more intense. that is part of it. there have been strained as long as there has been american history of mistrust. today, it is magnified and amplified. >> let me keep asking another question. where did it start? >> i cannot tell you that. i don't know. >> when did you see it get worse? >> in my own life, i sought get worse during vietnam. >> why would it have accelerated their? >> people thought the government lied to them. many thousands of people died for a war that those waging it were themselves skeptical about. some of them saw it as not winnable. we all lived three-time in which society seemed to be tearing apart. i am not sure we ever fully recovered from that and fully got back together. >> what institutions do you trust the most yourself? >> personally? i trust my doctor. because i live in it and know it and believe i understand it, i trust the media in a

there's that menacing undercurrent. he makes threats not to oksana but various demographics. >> so many people have questions about the tape. what can you tell us about the sourcing? did you pay for the tapes? >> without getting into knitty gritty of the negotiations with the confidential source so it doesn't stray from the issue here. i will say that a confidential source gave us the audiotape. as we said publicly it was not given to us by oksana herself. through old-fashioned investigative journalism. we authenticated the female voice is oksana and the male voice is mel gibson. >> all of the snippets, is this one recording or evening or over several days? >> if you listen to it in its entirety it's obviously more than one phone call. you hear the phone ring. oksana talk a breath before she answers the phone. it's not one continuous conversation but a string together. >> shawn robinson, what's the latest? we haven't heard anything verifying that's him. >> you think if it weren't him he would say that ain't me. >> so th

joining us now to assess the stakes and the undercurrents at today's meeting are robert. until last month the head of mission for the international group working on the peace process. a former deputy assistant secretary of state under george w. bush, he's now a senior fellow at the council of foreign relations. and robert malley who was special assistant to president clinton for arab-israeli affairs. he's now the middle east program director at the international crisis group. mr. malley, stephen hadley the former national security advisor to president bush was quoted last week as saying this meeting between these two was doomed to success. he's speaking about the atmosphere of it. is that right? >> that is right. i think both president obama and prime minister netanyahu had one overriding objective which is to overcome what had been a very troubled relationship in the past. they paint a very different picture. they had different reasons for doing that. in the case of president obama, the fact that he reached the conclusion that the months of tension over the issue of sett

there is a sweeping trend kind of an undercurrent thinking that if you hit those wrinkle areas beforee time to form, you're literally preventing where i think link, which is one part of the aging process. and for some people, that's obviously -- >> so that's part of the popular conversation. do it now so i can continue to augment it over time. >> right. >> are there any literal long term benefits for people who would do this at an early age? >> there aren't thought to be in terms of medical long term side effects or consequences right now and it is thought to be safe both for cosmetic use and therapeutic use. i think the greater concern here is when you talk about teenagers or re young pooem women in their 20s really seeking to prevent the signs of aging, you have to ask yourselves what is their definition of beauty and i think we need to be teaching our teenagers that beauty comes from within as does health. it's not always so superficial. >> yeah. aren't you more beautiful at 30 than you are at 18? >> and 40 better than 30 and 50 better than 40. >> and we haven't had this conversati