tv Third Rail Al Jazeera January 21, 2016 6:00pm-6:31pm EST
>> every monday night. >> i lived that character. >> go one on one with america's movers and shakers. >> we will be able to see change. >> gripping... inspiring... entertaining. "talk to al jazeera". monday, 6:00 eastern. only on al jazeera america. , tonight terrorism, climate change and a sluggish economy. our correspondent thinks that our biggest threat is psychological. in our panel another whitous at the oscars, does hollywood need action? my final thought on why politicians, including president, should stop inviting divisive guests to the state of the union.
i'm adam may and this is third rail the u.s. has the world ace largest economy and military, but is it still the world leader to shape events on its own >> we have lost the trust and confidence of our friends. enemies. >> we don't have victories any more. we used to, but we don't let's assume all of this is true. how will americans respond to a changing world when they can't chant that we're number one. our guest, steven, good to have you >> thanks you recently wrote that the u.s. is a fading super power. aren't some of these people like donald trump and others right
decline? >> america is not in decline, but other countries are rising. it's natural that as the post cold war era unfolds, countries that were small and week in military power are going to become bigger and stronger. america's power will decline because other countries are rising. this is a challenge for americans that goes beyond the political or the military. it's really a psychological challenge. nothing in our history prepares us for this, for the prospect that you're going to have countries that are bigger than we are, more economically powerful, traditionally a huge actor in their neighborhood. we are used to dominating and in the future we're going to have to use a skill that we've allowed to athophy, shaping them.
if we have a world in which we don't dominate and we have to negotiate and we don't get everything we want, the u.s. has all the tools that it needs for success in the 21st century. if we can't, we will be attempted to lash out in destabilizing ways this concept of the psychology of being one of the biggest threats, is this going to be hard for americans to just to and is that a bigger threat than let's say terrorism or change? >> the arc of american history is not only short but very misleading. our history tells us that we're going to get richer and more powerful and that hasn't happened to any country in human history. if you look at the countries that have survived over thousands of years like china or iran, you see that those are countries that have learned how to ride the tides of history.
we have never had a low tide in the american history over the last 10 years. now we're seeing that a tide is never in. there will be times that we are not as powerful as we were. we have to understand this if we want to survive. no-one has ever survived over a low period and been dominant forever. either they adjust to the changing trends of history or they disappear. this is a really challenge for the u.s. in this coming century because americans are not prepared for it. we haven't got the dna to realise that there are times when we're not going to able to win, we're not going to be able to dominate, and other countries have interested and we have to accommodate if americans continue to grasp on
to american conceptualism, or should we try to protect its inner borders >> i see the opposite. if we continue to focus on this idea that you called american exceptionalism, we're going to be tempted to launch wars in different parts of the world whenever we see something happening that we don't like. we have this impulse that whenever we see bad people doing bad things in the world, we want to go over there, wherever it is and try to stop it. that shouldn't be the measuring stick for our intervention. we shouldn't intervene when we see things getting worse. what we should do is intervene when we think there is a real chance that we can improve the situation didn't the president just talk about that during the state of the union. he basically said that we can't be the world's policemen any more. is he putting his money where his mouth is on this? has he? >> i was improesed to see that the president recognised in his state of the union address some
limits to-- i was impressed to see - he-- our limits. he be didn't mention that he has learned the lesson of his own failed interventions, especially the one in libya which has turned the country in a base for terrorism. what i think is depressing about what i heard in the state of the union address is that it comes so late in his presidency. this is so typical of presidents. they come into office full of enthusiasm for the idea that american military power can make people safer and make their lives better all over the world. slowly they begin to see the costs of these interventions, but it takes them so long to learn this. i think the next president will come in again full of enthusiasm for these kinds of foreign adventures and it may take a couple of more punches in the face before that president comes to the same conclusion that obama after seven has come to you wrote recently that fear
is becoming part of our daily lives, that it is not justified by reality. it sounds like president obama was making a similar point during the state of the union. do you think anybody is listening to that or is the retrospectic just too loud? >> i think we get back to the question of human psychology and the american-- rhetoric-- psychology. we understand, i think rationally, that we have more chances of drowning in the bath tub or being struck by lightning than in a terrorist attack. it doesn't make us less fearful. paps it's the political climate that stokes these fears. i think there's piece of this. since the soviet union has disappeared, we don't have anyone to hate. we've picked out russian and china. now we've got islam out there as a unifying fear.
there has been political scientists over history that written that countries need enemies, they unify countries, they give you a sense of national purpose and if you don't have an enemy, you should go out and find one. i think in a certain way it is an appeal to give you the sense of living living on the edge of danger even when that's not true you're saying that we shouldn't reach out to alien civilizations because you wrote if aliens are anything like humans we should hide from there. are you trying to make a point about fear? >> that's quite the inciteful question. somebody does read between the livenls. it was a bad idea for us to try and contact alien civilizations because in the history of the world, every time a civilization that considers itself superior has crashed into a country full of people that it considers inferior, that civilization has
either killed or enslaved or brutalised that population. it would be wise for the u.s. to pull back from that. it can produce short-term victories bru those victories carry within them-- but those victories carry within them the seeds of future troubles which there are examples around the world now about that. the past shapes the future. we have a chance to begin shaping the 21st century. let's not shape it according to what the 20th century looked like. one of the problems with our foreign policy is it doesn't change. we're not agile as a country. saudi arabia is a great el. we needed saudi arabia as an ally during the cold war to face the soviet union and supply us with i will. now they're not there. we don't node saudi oil but we
haven't changed our policies. we need to recognise as the world changes our policies should change. we sthupt be trapped in the patterns that we thought broughts us success in another ear ar-- brought us success in another era we're going to leave it on that. thanks so much for your time. the third rail panel is coming up next. >> i think it's also perfectly legitimate and appropriate for all of us who are subject to these algorithms to know what our scores are. >> i know what my score is. if i commit the same crime thatte >> "inside story" takes you beyond the headlines, beyond the quick cuts, beyond the sound bites. we're giving you a deeper dive into the stories that are making our world what it is. >> ray suarez hosts "inside story". only on al jazeera america. the only way to get better is to challenge yourself,
and that's what we're doing at xfinity. we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience. and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20. it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible. because we should fit into your life. not the other way around.
welcome back. a town in california is at the forefront over the debate of high-tech policing. why shouldn't cops use all the data at their disposal? >> a new technology designed to figure out how much a threat the individual is. it come puts a numerical score or risk index for each person. >> it gives the officer an awareness >> the product is big brother >> this sounds like a very ip slippery slope our panel. the new yorke coach, a contributor to the hill and host
of syria's xp stand up. good to have you with us. starting with pete, we hear from victims of crime saying where is police? >> i think it is crazy when i read this story. i can't believe that this is being considered. i think we know exactly what will happen. the same types of things that happen when we profile in new york, stop and frisk. we know who they will target, low income folks, people of color. they're going to be the losers. people who look like me who commit the crimes at faster and higher rates are going to get off scot-free. that's exactly it i completely agree with you. the long black man up here, this is something that i i think is a deep concern of people of color, xhubts of color in terms of how aggressive something like this will be played upon in communities. i think it is somebody that-- communities what is the fallback. if they assign a threat assessment to your address or you as an individual and police
the responds, why not have-- >> what if i live in a high-crime area. the home that i live this is a home where a particular homicide may have taken place but maybe i don't have a criminal record. that will elevate the threat level if they go to my place of residence of the what does that mean for a person like me? there are people of color who live in communities where we see over-aggressive policing and often times we see collateral damages. look in chicago, there were police in an area, woman comes to a door to see what is going on. police kills her. that is a huge problem. >> the most vulnerable members of our society live in these communities. these are the communities where the most crime unfortunately takes place. folks in chicago are not getting the protection they need. we have charged our police officers and our police forces who are on the public payroll, as they need to be, with protecting us.
i think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever data are at their disposal that has been obtained through legal means and also legitimate and appropriate for all of us who are subject to these algorithms to know what our scores are. there has to be transparency about that too >> if i commit the same crime that eric does, i'm-- seriously. different? >> yes. even if he is in a suit and i'm absolutely. >> that's not what they're going on. they're going on data. no. >> we have to look at where the data is coming from and how transparent is that. that's the problem that exists here. we don't know the data come from arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep web searches. this is a wide web.
>> we have a larger condition in america that we refer to as mass incarceration where there are men of color predominantly filling up our prisons. there is a reason for that. in idea will only make that worse at a time when we need to reverse that. the only thing i would say is no vulnerable - you identified those vulnerable communities. i agree there are a lot of people that are vulnerable in these communities. i would ask you to ask them what they want. i'm guessing they don't want this >> they would probably say they want to be better protected than they are now we need to arm law enforcement with as much information as they need in order to be able to do their job. i do think we need to always err on the side of the people they're there to serve. sometimes they're not getting the type of service in communities that they need and deserve. ichlts i think a case in point here was baltimore where they have invested millions of dollars in
cctvs and yet that city had its highest crime rate ever. does that not show that some of this high-tech gadgetry, maybe they don't work >> >> they haven't been using those particular sorts of techniques in baltimore. do we need much more? absolutely. we need to have a wholesale change in our communities. safer communities-- >> in our police departments we need that. we need systemic reform, institutional reform. >> we need community policing i do believe this is actually just another brick on top of the large brick of wall that is being built where we're seeing an over militarization in our police department. >> i'm talking about putting cops back on the street, on the beat, with their communities, bonded to their communities. we need more of that. >> you will see more white
people smoke willing pop than-- smoking pot over incarceration is a big problem in this country >> absolutely. it's a big problem there is another big debate people are talking about in hollywood right now. should the academy change the rules so it can be more inclusive of people of color? >> these nominations are awfully white again this year. >> no film is feature itting nominated. ism there is not a single actor or actress of color. >> that's surprising in a year of these movies. >> none at all >> maybe if there's 50, we will get they're nominations what do you make of this? is this a calculated or just a buy product of our greater society. what is happening here?
>> again? again? we just had this last year. i think the reason why we're talking about this and i think why this is such an important issue is because i think this is part of what we see taking place across the country. the lack of opportunities, the inqualitys that is impacting communities of color and women. i think this is just a micro chasm of that larger discussion. of course it's annie agree jous issue, something that needs to be addressed - egregious issue. if that's the price that we have had to pay for being shut out, then i think that was a cost too high 92% of the membership is overwhelmingly white, over 60 and male. that's the issue we have at the highest structures in almost every constitution in america. nothing annoys me like liberals
like myself who advocate for rights and opportunity for people of color, women and others who have been minimised and discriminated against. when it comes to our own communities and schools and jobs, maybe not my community >> there's a lot of that >> yes. >> if you look at in from an economic perspective, from a business perspective, look who is going to the movies, you have a large minority population made up of latinos, women going to the movies, when we look at in terms of the highest honor for your craft, for your art, it is these very people who are being white washed who are being wiped out of this entire process. i think that's problematic we found more than 30% of the u.s. is made up p minorities. 16.7% of lead roles in 2013, the last year they analysed these data, was composed of minority >> it is a tremendous opportunity for those who are motivated within the industry and those of us who are
consumers of these products to do something about it do what? should the academy consider something similar to what the n.f.l. did with the roonie rule, coaching? >> what matters is who is voting. if the membership is white and male of a certain age, that is probably an institutional change that the academy can make. in terms of agents and studio heads hiring people of color behind of the cam, that's something that is very hard to regulate and hard to create some kind of affirmative action for. that has to be people of conscience understanding what's happening. it's not like there is not money to be paid, tiler perry probably owns an island somewhere. there is a tonne of americans, black americans especially, that are paying for this stuff at
movie theatres and renting and downloading. there is money to be made. there's a huge market for it. there's just a tremendous ignorance and issue with actually getting it also too, we've got an african american president right now, we've got the presumptive democratic nominee, a woman, and we look at hollywood, the epicenter of image creating and america that is predominantly white and male. that is a problem for this country what about this, people like norman lee >> including the jeffersons this. >> that was 30 years ago. this is the 21st century and we're having a conversation about this t >> for example, oprah who is cross-over from media to hollywood. she does create those opportunities no doubt for people of color, as she should,
but we all should be doing that. it is long past time t i just read yesterday we only had two african american governors in the history of america. i couldn't believe that. only 16 cabinet members of the we have a long way to go. >> the republican presidential field. we have two men of hispanic latino origin, a woman who happens to be - they want to run those opportunities. the more we empower the leads hollywood is the symbol of what is happening with the rest of the country >> it has its own elite but culturally and by consumer demand can we do that? absolutely. hollywood has a long history of neglecting talents people. >> we want silicone valley to be more diverse. we can't ask congress without asking hollywood, the places where we see the images of who
before we go it's time for our final thought. this week president obama gave a 7th and final state of the union. it began with george washington as a report card on the state of the nation. we have seen political parties inter minimum dpel with democrats and republicans sitting side-by-side. if you look at the special guests invited by members of congress, you saw great division, people that stir political arguments, the president tweaked his opponents by gun laws to leave a chair empty. not to be outdown paul ryan invited two members of the little sisters of the poor to watch the president. that's the order of catholic nuns currently suing the government over obamacare. people engaged in the debate over same sex marriage saw both sides represented. a controversial
clerk kim davis, or at least a staff if you believise ignorance of the invitation. the first lady had the named plaintiff for the supreme court case who won marriage rights. both of these people were featured on tv shown in cut aways. the divide continues more than 20 democrats invited muslim guests to attend. when two members of care, the council on american islamic relations accepted, g.o.p. presidential candidate ben carson actually demands eld an investigation. now, i know this is an election year, but the state of our union should not be the state of our politics. there are so much americans can do if we work together and this national event shouldn't be used to drive us further apart. there is simply too much at stake. rail. >> water is a human right! >> flint in a state of emergency. >> this can cause death... all kinds of health effects.
>> we're already having trouble, but now what little i have has to completely go towards water. >> only on al jazeera america. presidential candidate ted cruz was born in canada and the only surprise about it becoming an issue in the campaign is that it took this long. the country has never had a president born in a foreign country and like so much in this unusual campaign season, it has been made an issue by donald trump. the constitution is clear, sort of, on who can be president. why was that qualification in there in the first place? has our interpretation c