tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 5, 2016 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
that doesn't quite track with the season. so it's almost like perhaps in the underground aquifers there's something going on generating methane for which that's then seeping through the soils. it's right under where curiosity is sitting. >> is there any chance of traffic jams in orbit? >> no. >> okay. crowded there -- >> no, we have more problems here on earth than we do at mars. >> okay. i have to get you to cop to one other thing. so when we were planning this event, one of the factors we were considering about when charles bolden was going to come is when insite was going to launch. >> yes. >> and you know there's only -- you can only launch to mars every two years. you could do it more often if you had a more powerful rocket, but it would take a lot more powerful rocket. so every two years they're lined up in just the perfect orientation that you need the least amount of energy to get there. and that's good because you can spend more of your energy on
scientific instruments. insite was scheduled to go this march, and what happened? >> so it didn't make it. we're going to have to step back and review where we are. and part of the problem was -- not part of it, the problem was one of the instruments, which is the seismic instrument that was being developed by the french at the french space agency couldn't quite get it together. the sensors were working great, the sensors were perfect, but it has to be in a sphere that has no air. okay. and the sphere kept leaking. the reason why that's important is these seismic instruments are so sensitive that even the littlest mars wind could easily wreak havoc with the measurements. so in space if we needed a
vacuum, we just open a port and, man, we got a vacuum. on mars it has an atmosphere and we have to bring in a vacuum. and we've never done that before. nor has the french. so this was challenging technically. they couldn't quite get it together. we had several attempts where the leaks did occurring and we decided -- and the last leak that occurred in december we couldn't go through the process of fixing the leak and getting it on board for the spacecraft in time for the march launch. all that means now is we're stepping back. we're going through a whole review, in fact my deputy right now is in toulouse going through the reviews going on right now as to the next step. but the french are solidly behind this instrument. this is a fabulous mission. it's going to tell us enormous amount about as i mentioned not only the thermal history of mars, which will complement the
seismic part. and the seismic part is really important for us because not only will we know how active mars is but the size of its core, its mantle and its crust and the flux of asteroids it gets from the asteroid belt sitting right next to it. which could also be a human problem running around on the surface if there's impacts. >> we've seen -- or there have been impact craters seen in the time that the orbiters have been up there. >> oh, yeah, we have. >> we have some knowledge. >> and actually they've been wonderful. and the reason why is particularly the ones that aren't too big, okay, so something that's a meter across that hits mars will create a 10-meter crater. okay. that will go doing five or six meters, maybe more. and what we see when we pass over with the high resolution
imageers we'll see nothing and then another pass will go over and there's a crater. and when we look at these in certain regions, it's just like frothy white all over the place. okay. and what's happened is we then over time watch that and it goes away. and what it is is ice. and so there's that ice layer at certain latitudes we're seeing all the way down to about 40 degrees. it's just very close to the surface. there's a fair amount of water there. mark wattny could have thrown out a grenade, blown a hole in the ground and went over and picked up the ice chips and brought them in. he could have done that too -- >> but it would have been salty. >> we don't know about that actually. the salt may just be laying on the surface of these craters, but the water itself we don't know enough about that to determine. because it is at a depth where
it might be warm enough to keep as water. >> i have another scheme, what we need to do is we need to get an entrepreneur be willing to sell martian ice here on earth. send them up to get the drill, they bring back a couple of tons of ice and you buy -- what do you think? no. okay. it's not surprising we spend a lot of time talking about mars because -- >> it's in the news. >> it's in the news. and it's the sexy one. it's the one that gets people's imagination going. but i really would like to take a little bit of a tour of the solar system because there's a lot going on. >> oh, a lot. >> last year -- i think last year, yeah, i think it was, sean solomon was here and told us a lot about messenger, but messenger is done. >> ran out of fuel. >> ran out of fuel.
did it have the same problem of anomalies, meaning they had to adjust to orbit, or was that the sun -- >> yeah, so every planet we think of as a nice real spherical ball that's just perfect, and it turns out it's not. it's always lumpy, gravitationally. and it's hard to keep things in orbit. there are certain orbits you can get into that are pretty stable, but even earth orbits are tough. the lu nar orbits are horrible because it's actually got some significant gravity anomalies. the messenger running around mercury, we knew mercury was going to drag it and bring it down based on the orbit it was in. and that was a great science orbit. you know, you want to get -- you want to do the science. so eventually it's going to run out of fuel to keep it where it's at. and so the plan was that we're going to take science measurements all the way down to the impact, which they did. they did fabulous. >> cool, so anything on the
books to go back to mercury? >> yeah, so the european space agency is in the process of -- the final process actually of testing for a spacecraft that's actually a two-spacecraft, one that is being built by the japanese from the japanese space agency, and they're going to take it. so there's an esa spacecraft and a japanese spacecraft, and we have instrument, a really nice instrument on the esa mission. and we're going to help them with the track iing. and that will launch in early 2017. comes up pretty fast. and then -- so that's the next big mission to mercury. >> venus. do we have anybody at venus? >> we do. japanese are there now with a mission. and this is a mission that tried to get into orbit five years ago
and because it had a thruster malfunction it lost its opportunity and took it five years to line it up and for them to figure out not only what the problem was but how to use the capability that they had left as a nozzle literally burned off. so you need these nozzles for directing the thrust in the right way. so now they understood their mission well enough to get it into orbit, which they did in early december. we helped them with that. and i have a whole team of people not only in japan but also in the u.s. that are looking at the venus data. >> why is venus not as interesting? is it because it's too hot and co caustic? >> no, venus is tremendously important for us to do. what you may not realize is a lot of the really important global circulation models we have of earth that tell us about
how the climate can change as you add more co2 are from scientists that did it first at venus. jim hansen, who you may know, was a venus scientist. and so venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. its atmosphere is tremendously dense, that means light from the sun will penetrate through the clouds, land on the surface, heat it up and change it to infrared light, changes it to heat but then the co2 prevents it from leaving. it's exactly what you experience when you get in your car during the summer because the window which is transparent to light you see is opaque to infrared, which is what happens to all your seats when they heat up.
they generate light in the infrared. and so it just heats up. and so that's going on on venus. right now it's hot enough to melt lead on the surface. all right. 700 degrees plus fahrenheit. really bad. and the pressure is so bad it's 90 times rs. they may not sound too much because we're breathing, okay, to 90 times at that must be bad, but how bad is it? it's a tougher pressure than you see in submarines down in the marianas trench. it's crushing depth. which is why it's really hard to get to. so venus is really tough -- a tough nut to crack. but we've had some great missions at venus. really wonderful missions. >> but now i have my venus fortune maker, we're going to
make a pizza oven. a venus pizza oven. no, kidding. all right. moving out slightly -- >> find an e-book on that. >> right. never mind. >> moon. >> right, moon. i was going to say. we got to earth -- you were telling me something, first of all, i know there's an orbiter, lunar reconnaissance orbiter. >> lro. >> that's doing some really cool mapping. for those of us just amused by these things it's been looking at the apollo landing sites and sensitive enough and resolution is high enough that it can see footprints -- >> not footprints but trails. >> trails, right. >> so as you walk around and scuff up the dust, you can see the trails that the astronaut takes. you can see the car -- you know, the rovers that they had. you can see the stand that the lunar limb was on and the blasted off.
and if you look carefully there's two backpacks sitting outside that that they threw out before they take off. you can see that. you can see all the experiments that they deployed and they had all sorts of articles and measurements they made and magnetic field measures and different things they deployed. so we've got high resolution image i imaging that we can take that really shows exactly where we were, what we did. >> but is there the same diverse ty. you said you're not going to the moon, you're going to a place on the moon. >> yeah. >> is that kind of data if we were to try going back to the moon before mars, would we need that da? or is that just of scientific interest? not just, but -- >> yeah, so high resolution imaging is critical for precision landing, okay? the difference being i'm going to land somewhere on the mall
and it's a crap chute, to i need to land somewhere out here because we're going to this building is what we're talking about. high resolution imaging is critical. and lro can see this table also if it was sitting on the moon. it's got such a great resolution. >> it does not seem to be the same energy, enthusiasm, excitement for going back to the moon as a human -- >> okay, so you're not talking to a planetary scientist when you say that because planetary scientists are really excited about the moon. >> okay. >> there's an enormous amount we can learn about the moon. let me take you back in 1960, and as i look through the crowd, many of us were alive at the time. okay. >> we won't ask for a show of hands. >> well, i'm there. the planetary scientists when they looked at the moon would say, wow, look at all those craters.
the moon must have been tremendously volcanically active to generate all those craters. okay. and then eugene shoemaker of studying some impacts here on earth said, wait a minute, we've got impacts here on earth -- we have things here on earth that look like the moon and these are impacts. okay. and by the end of the '60s the whole science community said -- in the beginning of the '60s, no, they're all vol canic, to, wow, they're all impact. completely changed our thinking. so the moon is a witness plate to the bombardment history of the inner solar system. it's all laying on its surface for us to interpret. and so when the apollo astronauts brought back 800 pounds of rock, we aged them.
how old is this one? how old is that one? how old is this one? and we found two groups. and this was startling, shocking, okay. one group, that was the age 4.5 billion years ago when the moon was made. and then another set of rocks that were younger at about 3.8 billion years. and so for a long time we didn't know what that was all about. for 30 or 40 years we still extracting fabulous stuff from the moon rocks. and then about ten years ago our modelers started -- we started to get really good at modeling how the solar system came together. start out with a huge cloud of material, start with the sun right here, here's where most of it acreates and now all of a sudden you're creating the planets. run the codes and see how it
happens. how long does it take? it turns out they were having enormous trouble with the outer part of our solar system, with the outer planets. they could not form saturn, uranus and neptune where those planets are sitting right now, even after 4 billion years. couldn't get them formed. and yet we knew that within the first 100 million years everything's formed. so a group of them got together in france at a conference. and at the end of that they decided, well, you got to put the planets where the mass of the material is. let's put them here at distances -- all these planets that are, you know, saturn's at 10 and uranus and neptune are at 20 and then 40 let's move them all in to 15 or less -- astronomical units. >> an astronomical unit is? >> one astronomical unit is the
distance from earth to the sun. so you just took the solar system and crunched it in. can you make it? it turns out you can make it. >> wow. >> and then something really spectacular happened. at 3.8 billion years jupiter in gravitational resonances with these other planets took them and threw them out. okay. and pushed saturn out, uranus and neptune out, and the belt we now know is out there with all this water, came in, along with the asteroid belt. and what's left of all that big activity is there now. there was enormous amount of material that bombarded the inner part of our solar system and brought an enormous amount of what we believe is water and created rocks, new rocks, on the moon with the right age. and then we knew we had it. then we knew where computer
models were perfect in the sense that they were beginning to describe completely independent sets of data. and what's exciting is, you know, when the earth forms and it's called the hadean era of the early earth, it's really hot. it loses a lot of the volatiles, a lot of stuff like water. and so when it cools, where's it going to get all the water it needs to make it look like it is here? and now there's a potential mechanism where this movement of jupiter, this muscling of jupiter, these outer planets bringing all this water in, could have brought the water. independently if you go to biologists and say, well, what about early life on earth, when did it start? they would say 3.8 billion years ago. that's where they find early life on earth starts. so if mars looked like earth at
that time period and life started at 3.8 billion years ago and curiosity is sitting in an ancient riverbed right now that's 3.8 billion years ago, we have a better chance of figuring out how life started if we started on mars. if it started on mars at the same time it started on earth. so these are the kind of revolutions that are sweeping the planetary community right now. huge steps in understanding the origin of life. so hard to do here, so we might actually find it first on another planet. >> i'm not quite sure, so 4.5 billion years ago it started closer in? >> uh-huh. >> and then jupiter was out there further than these other ones to begin with -- >> no, jupiter was in also, but it pushed it out, through a gravitational resonance interaction. >> all right. maybe i don't want to ask about
that. >> okay. so okay, you know, you got -- there's some science there. >> okay. >> but let's now take it to exo planets. >> the planets around stars -- >> planets around other stars. the first thing we started to see were these huge jupiters really close to their planets. and these highly elliptical orbits. well, they can't form in elliptical orbits when their clouds collapse everything goes into a disk. and it's in the disk that material accumulates to create these bodies, these planets. and they're all going around and either circular or little elliptical but not highly elliptical. they don't go like this. they don't form like that. so something created that orbit later. and it's through gravitational resonances we now know can actually literally move planets like jupiter, push them around. it's a fundamental gravitational interaction that we had no idea must be operating on every solar
system out there. and that's what gets these big jupiters in highly elliptical orbits. and then their suns push on them when they're really close, and that changes the highly ellipticals down to circular orbits. so all these orbit dynamics that planetary scientists do in computer models and understand what's happening, we can actually go to solar system after solar system and understand how they're formed. and that's tremendously exciting. >> absolutely. okay. so -- sorry, i'm thinking a lot of thoughts. i want to give people in th audience a chance to ask questions, but i also want to get to the rest of the planets before we do that. and i need somebody, if you don't do it, i'll do it, to ask about what discover is seeing on the moon. i'm not going to ask that question. somebody ask that question.
okay. so we've done we're out to mars. now we're out to -- >> asteroid belt. >> asteroid belt. we got stuff there. >> we have a spacecraft called dawn. it visited a huge asteroid called vesta, the second largest one. and right now it's orbiting the largest asteroid about 1,000 kilometers in diameter. you move out to jupiter, we're about ready to put a mission in orbit around jupiter called juno. we're going to do it july 4th. we try to ruin every planetary holiday we can -- planetary scientists do. >> insite was completely off kilter because it was going to come in the middle of november. >> yeah, so insite was going to launch an march 4th, my birthday. >> oh, okay. >> not that that was -- not that that had to be that way. >> okay. so fourth of july is ruined. >> you know. and then the next fabulous
mission at saturn we could have spent hours talking about because what kisini is finding out is about other moons that potentially look like they could have been inhabitable. just like europa does at jupiter. and another moon, called titan, which is bigger than mercury, has an enormous atmosphere. and it's the only other body in the solar system that has liquid on its surface, but it's not water. it's methane. and if we're looking for a weird life, life like you can't imagine it, it's going to be on titan. and then of course we don't have anything at uranus and neptune although we're studying how we can get out there and visit those, two beautiful gas giants. the new horizons probe flying by
pluto on bastille day, which is also my wife and my anniversary, it just worked out that way, on july 14th of last year. and now it's making its way deeper into the kiper belt. so we've got fabulous stuff. >> and still returning data from its fly-by, which i think is interesting. >> yeah, took so much data it's still coming back. it's going to do that for the next six months. >> okay. does anybody want to join the conversation? yes, hand shot up over there. >> -- collaborate with these different countries but what about with russia or china? are we collaborating with them or not collaborating with them? >> so right now we're working with russia right now on what we call benera-d. it's a venus mission and we're at the very early stages of what we call science definition team, where we bring the top
scientists in both countries that are venus experts and say what is the science we need to do. what are the things we have to know? and how can we do that? that's been going on for about a year now. the reason why they're critical in this role is they're the only country that is actually put things down on the surface of venus, knows how to do it and have it survive. and they're planning to do a venus mission, and we need to be on it. and so that's a big step for us. >> and china? >> china. we're not involved in their human program. and we're not involved in their lunar program other than when we have to interact with them with landing sites. there's some interaction. but it's relatively minor.
>> go ahead, gentleman. [ inaudible question ] >> so the administration and congress have both gotten together and have been solidly behind a new mission that's goinged to moon uropa. it's about the size of our own moon. when you look at it you would expect it to look like the moon, highly cratered, and you can hardly find a crater on it. the reason why is it's resurfaced itself. and it does it in tens of millions of years, we believe. and where the resurfacing is coming from is it's a nice shell. and it has underneath that ice shell an ocean. and we now know it's there. and in fact we can estimate the amount of water. and it's twice the amount of water that's on this planet is on that moon. now, what's really great and the
reason why this is going on sol tis has a slightly elliptical orbit around jupiter, so there's a part of its orbit where it gets close and there's a part of its orbit where it's much further away. and so if you just look at the body and you have tidal forces, wh you're close to huge jupiter, you get squished. and when you're further away, you relax. and if you're an ice crust, then that has to dissipate heat. and you melt the ice and you create the water. the ice crust on europa moves 30 meters every orbit, the whole crust moves up and down. that's like a nine or ten story building. that's huge. so this is a fabulous moon. and it's been that way since it was created 4.5 billion years
ago. so it's got water, we believe it's got the organics, it's certainly got the heat. and it's got time. and all those stack up for it being an environment where life might exist. >> go ahead. >> yeah, so this is going to be a life mission. >> so we sent a zamboni up there. [ laughter ] >> very good. yes, we were going -- now i know what to put on the surface. you're right. >> you can ask questions up in the rafters too, yes, sir. >> i think i heard a little but forgotten, how was that picture taken? >> the picture you saw coming in, it's a picture of the curiosity. but you're seeing it all around. >> yeah. so when you want to do a selfie, if you walk around and see these kids do, yeah, you use your arm or you use a stick, right? so that guy used its arm. so it has an arm. and on the end of the arm is a
high resolution imager. so it can go over here and look at very fine mineral structures and really get a good look. so it then goes picture, picture, picture, picture, yeah, so there's about 60 pictures that make that up. and you don't see the arm because it never takes a picture of its arm. [ inaudible question ] you might see a little spot of it in one location, a little spot of it in another, but it's the arm. now, it has done like three selfies. there's one that it just finished in january that's posted that's absolutely beautiful because curiosity is sitting the bottom amount sharp where the dunes are. it has to navigate these dunes, which are piles of sand. and they're just beautiful. and there's a fabulous picture the selfie that it just took that if you can log onto nasa website and curiosity selfie you
ought to be able to see it. and we have a twitter account and all that stuff. you know, if you're going to be anybody, you got to do that these days. [ inaudible question ] >> yeah, really good question. >> could you repeat the question? >> yeah, the question is what about changes in our own solar system over time, is it mature, is it done changing, what's going to happen? >> well, gravitational interactions are continuing. and jupiter is hammering a whole bunch of things. we believe there's an interaction that's going on right now with mercury. and what will happen perhaps -- and this is far off, there are some estimates of this, mercury's either going to get tossed into the sun, or it's going to be yanked or pulled
right out of the solar system. okay. there's a little debate on how that's going to go. the last paper that came out had it yanked out. when that happens we need to be on the other side of the sun. but that's going to happen in several billion years. so that's not our problem. you can just -- you can just eliminate that one. it's just nice to know. but it tells us the solar system is continuing to evolve. and with just a little snapshot in time, and that's important because what's happened on venus could happen on earth. what's happened on mars could happen on earth. and that's why really wonderful we've got three terrestrial planets who's pretty much the same except for their distance from the sun. and everything else is changed underneath them. because the climate here on earth, like it is on those planets, has done nothing but change. okay. so what's our destiny? so looking at that from that perspective is important.
the other big thing that jupiter's doing right now is it's messing with the asteroid belt. there's interactions gravitationally that occur, and so it will take these objects, this is a set of pieces of material that actually was trying to become a planet but jupiter would not let it. and how that works is acretion is a tremendous event because it starts with a collision. two bodies, they collide, and then the material gravitationally settles in and they come back together. so it's a catastrophe and then it's an acreation of material and that rearranges itself. and that's how you build up from smaller bodies to planet size stuff. but if you're big jupiter and you've got the gravity, after you collide, you don't go like this, you go like that. and the pieces don't come back together because they drift towards you. and that's why the asteroid belt is a failed planet.
it's only got pieces and remnants, but jupiter's still pushing them around. and what we're finding out now is a lot of those pieces don't always go out. they go inward. and when they come inward and cross our orbit, we call those near-earth objects. and some of them are potentially hazardous. we estimate there's at least 100,000 that we really need to be watching and monitoring. and we've only found about 12,000 of those. and we're on the hunt for the rest of them. some of them are really big. some of them are planet killers that cross our orbit. and that's a few kilometers on up to 6 or 10 kilometers in size. and they're going to be hazards. and they're going to hit this planet. and it's not about if, it's a matter of when. and so the more we understand about our environment so that we can find these objects and then make decisions when we need to about what we're going to do about them in terms of moving them or changing orbits in a way
that will not affect us, we need to stay on top of that. and we're doing that. we stood up what we call a planetary defense office just this year to work internationally to begin to draw together all the information we can get on these objects, find out where the potentially hazardous ones and then, you know, keep this planet safe. or we'll go by the way of the dinosaurs, which died out in a six-kilometer impact 65 million years ago. >> so there's -- but there's a range. it could be tomorrow or it could be in 65 million years. >> well, right now we feel really good that if there are impacts, they're going to be small. in february two years ago something the size of, you know, half this room, about 17 meters in size, came in. and as it came in it exploded and you ended up with pieces, but it created a shockwave that blew out windows and 1,000 or so people were hurt by cut glass and everything. that's really itty bitty one.
you know, we're worried about something that may be 50 meters and higher, something like 100 meters or so would take out the d.c. area. and so we're looking for all those. and something really big, you know, several hundred meters, you know, would be a significant continent. and then you get into kilometers and that would be the earth. what happens in these impacts is the material is exploded, it is blown up into the small pieces and it doesn't just fall on the ground. you know, it doesn't just end up going like this, it ends up going up through the atmosphere and then out into space and then the planet would draw it back in. so it ends up being a cloud of material at very high altitudes. it takes tens -- decades for it to settle in and finally collapse on the earth. and in the meantime it's
scattering all the sunlight making the earth dark creating a problem with growing plants. and you break the food chain and, you know, you then begin to eradicate a variety of species that can't take that. that includes humans if we don't watch out. so we're on the lookout for the really bad stuff. right now we feel pretty good next several hundred years we're going to be okay. but it's one of these jobs that we now recognize we need to do. ignorance we cannot -- it's like a 2-year-old kid running in the street. doesn't know any better. we cannot do that on this earth. we do not live in a safe place in the solar system. just by what we've known. just in the last couple decades we've learned this. in our lifetime we've recognized this. so we're going to take care of that problem. >> that's encouraging.
[ laughter ] >> there was talk about engines, number of engines, why did that occur and is it being resolved and does it affect nasa in its science mission in any way -- >> the availability of launch vehicles, or did you mean something else? >> so we've been buying russian rocket engines for a long time. and the congress would like the american industry to kimck in ad start building them. and they're in the process of doing that. so i don't see right now that it's a disaster or anything we need to be concerned about. it's a transition that's occurring. so i think we're going to be okay in the long run on that. i don't see that being a problem. but we also are designing different types of engines. one type of engine that is in the movie "the martian," that we actually have an early version of sitting on the spacecraft
called dawn is an ion engine. and that's really a very important technology for us. and we're building a really sophisticated ion engine right now for spacecraft called a.r.m., which is the asteroid redirect mission. so that sounds kind of neat, right? and this engine will carry with it a lot of hydroziene. you ionize it and throw it out into -- and just like anything in space, an action gives you an equal and opposite reaction, so if you throw something that way, it pushes you this way. that's the process of an ion engine, and they're tremendously efficient. and dawn uses it. that's how it got into orbit at vesta, spent more than a year there and got out of orbit and ran through the whole asteroid
belt to the other side and got into orbit around siriz. it's a technology we got to have. and so just like what's in "the martian," we're going to be using theses a space tugs with ion engines going back and forth to mars carrying a variety of stuff with this. so that technology we're developing now. it's a huge leap and you may hear a little bit more about that, but it's a great step for us. >> way in the back corner. >> like to hear your assessment on how we're situated for power supplies for outer solar missions. >> power supplies, so how do we power stuff where the sun don't shine, right? so we use radioisotope power, we use plutonium 238. and that was no longer made. it was abolished in the agreement years and years ago, i think it was 1982, but we had a
stockpile of it, and we've used it. we use it for curiosity. and now we've worked with the administration and congress, we've been given the approval to begin to generate it again. and it's not weapons grade anything. it's all about generating heat and power. and the department of energy is doing that for us. and they've made a slug of that just the last couple months and demonstrated they could do it. so this is a huge step. so the ability -- how this stuff works is you bring together this plutonium. and it has a certain mass in its nucleus with all these electrons that fly around, but it's really the nucleus that's important. and it's unstable. and that means if you had a group of it, in 88 years half of it would transmutate to
something completely different by having the nucleus explode. so when it explodes, it rips a part of it away. and that part is a slow moving but heavy set of material that then produces heat. and so when you bring this plutonium 238 together, it glows red, just like a red marshmal w marshmallow. and we encase it and we put it in a longer case that is surrounded by thermal electrics, and that means we take the heat on one side, generates a voltage on the other, we charge a battery and we run our experiments right off the battery. and the thing just constantly charges. so it's like having your iphone, you know, plugged in the wall all the time. you can actually disconnect it because you got plenty of battery, but you still have to charge up the battery. so we do that. we do power cycles, and we do kinds of stuff that allows us to
run curiosity during the day and during the night. we're in good shape. >> upstairs, go ahead. >> we're in good shape there. >> what can you tell us about the venus -- [ inaudible ] >> so we had a rocket -- okay. wow. so we had a rocket that we launched here on earth. and it looked at venus. and what we wanted it to do was to look at two things, hydrogen and heavy hydrogen. so hydrogen is a proton with an electron. heavy hydrogen is in the nucleus that has a proton and a neutron and an electron that runs around it. and that's called a duterium. so we wanted to see the d-to-h ratio. and then determine if venus had -- how much it lost in its water. that experiment did work. we got some great data from it. and it's kind of supports the
idea that venus was indeed like earth at one time, an ocean world. and it has lost its ocean. and so that ratio is really out of kilter from what it is today in comparing it to earth. now, we use the same technique when we looked at mars recently. and we looked at ice, water ice that's trapped in the north pole that's covered by co2 ice, dry ice. but we could get the d-to-h ratio. and the d-to-h ratio tells us that mars has lost an enormous amount of h in the form of water over time. and so when we back out how much water, that's where we get oceans of water on mars. because of that one measurement. and that was -- that also was a great measurement followed up on the venus mission. >> yes, sir. >> you talk about finding life
on other planets, are you talking about existing life, old life? describe what piece of equipment you might use to identify it. >> so finding life, how do we do that? that is so hard to do. and let me give you a little idea how. so we got a group of people have come together and we've said, okay, give us a definition of life. so we can figure out how to build an instrument to measure it. no problem. took them ten years. they're astro biologists. we brought the right groups of people to do that and ended up with a nice concise definition. life has three basic attributes, one, it metabolizes. so that means it needs liquid for ingesting and extracting and then waste elimination. okay. so the me tabization is
important part. second thing, it has to reproduce. third thing, it has to evolve. that's life. now, how in the heck am i going to build an instrument that's going to measure those three things? okay. so that's really hard. so what we did then is step back and say, okay, what we know about our own life let's now look at things that we can measure that only life predicts. so there are certain things, like aminos a it s acids, can w the basic building blocks of life. can we find molecules with the right what we call corralty. can we measure dna, can we measure rna? okay. so we created what we called the ladder of life. all these things that we can measure indicate that these are
the things that life -- that can be generated by life. okay. now that tells us right away that when we send a mission to europa to look for life, we're going to need several of those instruments. and they're all going to have to come out with positive indication to indicate that there's life. that was the approach the viking scientists used when they landed on mars, scooped up material and had three instruments and they needed three positive indications. unfortunately they didn't know enough about mars to realize that whatever they did with the material destroyed the life signature. and that's why they never came back with a positive indication for life. now, it didn't answer their question. could still be life there, or could not be life there. but the instruments didn't work as we thought they would on viking. so one of the best ways to do that is bring the material back. and that's what mars 2020's going to do.
it's going to start coring rock. it's going to be bringing the material back. it's going to take a variety of different types of samples and allow us in our laboratories once the samples get here to train all kinds of instrumentation that we couldn't miniaturize and put on rovers. >> but the samples -- 2020 isn't going to bring them back. >> correct. 2020's going to create them. so 2020 launches and goes to mars, takes about nine months, ten months to get there. and then it will have to go to these places. it will take a couple years. and have to create a sample cache. and then in the mid-'20s we're going to need to bring it back. and so that's the next set of missions we're thinking about and how to do that in a way that the samples can come back and we would do the analysis. that's for mars. now, for europa we want to get down on the ground. we want to get down on the ice.
we now believe that the way europa resurfaced itself is through fissures in the crack and cracks that we see open up, water sprays out and flies on the land. okay. and so we want to set a lander right next to a fissure that's active and let that slop right on the deck and make measurements directly. now, noaa sort of does that. they want to look at how life s is -- they can look at the waste in the water. so getting that material can tell us potentially an enormous amount about what's underneath the ice.
and that will be our first step. we'd like to launch it in the early 2022s, so by 2030 i believe we are going to be able to answer the question definitively is there life beyond earth in the solar system. and if the answer to that is yes, then it's everywhere. >> one more quick question. yes, sir. >> i've been coming to these talks for years and you just gave one of the best talks i've ever heard. [ applause ] >> thank you. my pleasure. >> i want to thank you for the nasa support of the movie "the martian." i think you loved it measurably. which leads me to a big question. manned exploration of our solar system around the universe is very, very expensive to do.
do you think we'll be able to do that given all the endless budget fights that go on -- >> so we all have to make our own financial decisions, and the financial decision i make is i put something away for future because i want to have a future. we have to do that. it's a balance. what is the future of this earth? okay? so, the future of this earth is the climate will change, we'll have to adapt. there's hazards out there. and i back up my drive, my computer drive at home, we're going to need to back up the human race in my educated opinion. we have an imperative, if this species is going to survive, to move out. and that's mars.
mars is that location. we are so lucky to have a planet like mars. so what will happen with mars? well, it was like earth. i went through an enormous climate change. we don't know how fast. we don't know exactly when. but it happened on mars. what will happen to mars in the future? we now understand that a little bit better. if the heat from the sun continues to increase, which it will, then the temperature on mars will increase. theco2 cap -- you know, this dry icecap, will sublimate, producing a greenhouse effect which will melt the huge water icecap and a significant part of the ocean will return and mars will look like earth again in its history. and we better be on that planet when it happens.
>> wow. that's an ender. you're absolutely right. you set the bar very high. thank you all for coming, and we'll try to find -- maybe we'll just have jim green back. >> thank you. i would love to do so. i would love to do so. so many other things we can talk about. thank you very much. >> if you love the next event in the series, it is talking about the human microbiome. president obama made a rare visit to the white house briefing room today to talk about treasury department steps to deter a corporate financial practice known as tax inversions. that's where corporations move overseas to avoid u.s. taxes. the president called on congress to close the loophole for good.
>> in the news over the last couple of days, we have had another reminder in this big dump of data coming out of panama that tax avoidance is a big, global problem. it's not unique to other countries because, frankly, there are folks here in america who are taking advantage of the same stuff. a lot of it's legal. but that's exactly the problem. it's not that they're breaking the laws it's that the laws are so poorly designed they allow people if they have enough lawyers and enough accountants to wiggle out of responsibilities that ordinary citizens are having to abide by. here in the united states, there are loopholes that only wealthy individuals an powerful corporations have access to. they have access to offshore accounts. and they're gaming the system. middle class families are not in the same position to do this. in fact, a lot of these loopholes come at the expense of middle class families because
that lost revenue has to be made up somewhere. alternatively, it means that we are not investing as much as we should in schools, in making college more affordable, and putting people back to work, rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, creating more opportunities for our children. so, this is important stuff. and these new actions by the treasury department build on steps that we have already taken to make the system fairer but i want to be clear. while the treasury department actions will make it more difficult and less lucrative for companies to exploit this particular corporate inversions loophole, only congress can close it for good. and only congress can make sure that all the other loophole that is are being taken advantage of are closed. campaign 2016 continues today with the wisconsin primary. live coverage begins tonight at 9:00 eastern, tune in for
complete election results, candidate speeches an viewer reaction. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. american history tv on c-span3. this weekend. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history -- >> what we see is new factors making emancipation desirable. old kind of obstacles falling by the wayside with result by august if not earlier of 1862 lincoln has decided that when the time is right he will announce a new aim for the war effort that would add to union human freedom. >> wheaton college history professor tracy mckenzie on the evolving war goals of the north in the civil war. and then at 10:00 on reel america -- >> how was it possible for america to achieve such production and at the same time build an army?
and the amazing reports came in from my agents of the united states, 20% of american industrial manpower was woman power. legions of american women were amassing to stop my advance across the world. forsaking the round of reverie for the grim tasks of war. >> this 1944 war department film documents how women in world war ii helped the war effort alluding that the hiding army of american women working in war manufacturing are a main reason germany lost the war. sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts, we viz -- daughters of the american revolution museum to learn about an exhibit marking the 125th anniversary of the organization founded in 1890. >> one thing that stands out at this time period is this creation of this imagery of the apothiosis, an old concept going
back to ancient times where a warrior is made god-like by lifting him up and celebrating him. >> on the presidency at 8:00. >> though washington and jefferson are two most prominent examples of slave ownering as presiden presidency, successors owned slaves, especially those who did so while occupying the white house. madison, who followed jefferson as the fourth president of the united states owned over 100 slaves, holding a large percentage while he occupied the white house. he's responsible for proposing an expanding the three fifths compromise which guaranteed the south held an influence upon congress to preserve and uphold slave owning interests. >> tyler perry, african-american studies professor at california state university fullerton on the 12 american presidents who were slave owners, 8 of them while in office.
for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. duke university sociology professor christopher bail is author of book called "terrified: how anti-muslim fringe organizations became mainstream." he recent spoke to a student audience at duke about the growing anti-muslim sentiment in the united states. this is about an hour. >> hi. thank you for joining us. i'm omid safi, the director of duke islamic center study. it's an honor and privilege to have professor chris bail joining us on a topic that is of interest to so many of us. professor bail is an assistant professor of sociology at duke university. he studies how nonprofit organizations and other political actors create cultural change by analyzing large groups
of text of newspapers, television, public opinions surveys and social media sites such as facebook and twitter. his research has been published by princeton university press. including this wonderful book that we'll come back to in a second. soak logical thee rer i theory and society, research and methods. he's a well published scholar. his work has been recognized by wards from the american sociological oergs, tassociatio for -- and voluntarily action. the society for the scientific study of religion and the society for study of social problems. he's been sut ported by the national science foundation and the robert wood johnson foundation. his research has also been covered by major media outlets such as nbc news, national public radio and "the washington post." and as of today, c-span.
professor bail earned his m.d. from harvard university in 2011 and his first monograph which you see from jekted on the screen is terrified, a study of how anti-muslim fringe organizations became mainstream. and he was published by princeton in 2014. please join me in warmly welcoming professor chris bail. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you, omid, for that very generous introduction and thank you to the john hope frankly center and the duke islamic study center for hosting me. i'd like to begin my talk today by looking at some recent media headlines. probably most of you heard donald trump comments last month in which he -- he xlclaimed to have observed muslims in new
jersey celebrating after the september 11th attacks. despite widespread disbelief of this statement he doubled down and later called for a ban on all muslimings entering the united states. and his competitors were not too far off his heels so ted cruz several days later made pointed comments that implied that most or even all muslims tacetly condone terrorism. marco rubio tried to outtrump trump and claimed that we should not only be shutting down certain houses of worship but any place where muslims congregate. and ben carson actually, before trump, nabled one of the biggest fund raising hauls in an hour for his disparaging comments about islam.
and, you know, i don't think we'll see an end to this any time soon. so my research question that i set out and i'll answer for you today is simply, how did this anti-muslim sentiment become so mainstream? how can a leading candidate for the presidency, leading candidate for the republican party, disparage one of the country's largest religious groups given that our country has foundational principles surrounding really just liberty and freedom? and you may think there's a few easy answers to this question. muslims are people who call themselves muslims implicated in some very terrifying recent events. most recently, the san bernardino attacks. but when we look at the numbers azumi colleague charlie has done, we see quite clearly that we should be much more afraid of a variety of other tlets to our well being than terrorism or least the threat of terrorism,
there's no clear cut evidence that it's increasing on an exponential scale. maybe it's isis. this terrifying, new organization that has proven that it can take over large swaths of territory, committed horrific acts of terror against u.s. citizens and dwrueuropean citizens, proven the capacity to do terrorism like paris and yet i'm going to show you the story begins years before isis was even around. maybe this is just 9/11, you might ask. maybe this is simply a story about a kind of butterfly effect. so, you know, most americans pre- 9/11, you know, could -- barely knew any muslims so the survey data we have suggested less than one in three every americans had ever met a muslim which is probably shocking and i think it's reasonably they
didn't nobly meet a muslim because muslims have been in the united states since the very beginning of our history, as many of you probably know. but, nevertheless, an event of the scale of 9/11 surely would provoke some type of backlash. interestingly what we see is an uptick in positive sentiment of muslims and specifically muslim-americans after the 9/11 attacks. we don't see a steady growth kind of wave like growth of anti-muslim growth from 9/11 on. and in fact, if we go back to the immediate aftermath of 9/11, prominent republicans such as george w. bush were, in fact, outwardly going out of their way to say islam is a religion of peace. were criticizing various evangelical leaders who had said a variety of disparaging things about muslims and this image here is bush meeting with
numerous leaders of muslim-american organizations, among them iwad down here, the current leader of the council on american islamic relations and an organization facing allegations it tacetly condones terrorism. i'll say more about that in a little bit. so if it's not fear of terrorism, if it's not isis, and if it's not 9/11, what is it? well, i'm going to argue today that a small network of anti-muslim organizations in the wake of the september 11th attacks captivated the media and speesk cli through emotional appeals. and though these organizations were once peripheral actors within the broader family of organizations trying to shape public discourse about islam, they've now raised more than $242 million to mount one of the most significant campaigns to shift american public opinion against islam. i'll show you how they have
exerted considerable influence upon our counter terrorism policy, the recent wave of so-called anti-sharia laws and, you know, perhaps most disturbingly, how they have even been hired to train our counter terrorism officials. and all of this, of course, occurs in the broader context of the so-called battle for hearts and minds that we currently find ourselves in against groups of daesh or isis and surely as i'll show you at the end of my talk these fringe ideas about these anti-muslim ideas are avid trappers. they get picked up by international media where i think they may do their most significant harm by tarnishing the reputation of the united states which was once a paragon for religious freedom and making it seem as though the u.s. is, in fact, anti-muslim. thereby validating the group of claims like isis or daesh that the u.s. is fundamentally at war with islam.
so this is the subject of my book that omid, dr. safi, mentioned. "terrified: how anti-muslim fringe organizations became mainstream." historically, social scientists, i'm a cultural sociologists. we have looked at small cases of organizations that exerted profound change on public discourse. we track down an organization that, you know, shapes the way we talk about, say, nuclear energy or any kind of big social problem we all kind of deal with and there are a variety of problems of that approach. we'd wind up studying groups that succeed and didn't look at groups that fail and have a distorted picture with circular reasoning to try to understand how groups exert enfluns on public discourse. but when i was trained, i was learning alongside other social scientists about the new wave of computational social science
methods for so-called data, data available due to the rise of social media, the internet, the mass digitization of ark ifill and historical records and so on and so forth. so in my book, i leverage the methods to try to answer this question. who gets to speak on behalf of islam before the american public and why? and to do this, i collected a massive sample of press releases produced by any organizations trying to shape public discourse about islam so these include not only anti-muslim fringe organizations, but also groups like the council on anti-islamic relations on various other muslim public affairs council and so on and so forth, other kind of religious organizations, think tanks and so on and so forth. all non-state and non-profit groups trying to shape public discourse about islam.
i then collected all mentions of these organizations in a large number of -- a large group of media documentsment these include newspapers such as "new york times," "usa today" "washington times" to measure the political spectrum of the media from left to right, as well as tv, fox news, cnn and cbs news. and the innovation of my work is to use a plagarism detection al go rhythm to track which exerts influence upon the larger documents, this larger public discourse about islam. and when's neat about this is we can identify verbatim quotes. here's a press res lease saying bias and hate are un-american. this will also identify near matches or paraphrased quotes of the press releases. and they enable kind of
quantitative measure of the amount of influence of each organization upon public discourse about islam. i also conducted in-depth interviews with the leaders of all of these organizations or -- sorry. sub sample of these originals, both those that succeeded in influencing public discourse about islam as well as those who had little or no influence on shaping public discourse about islam. and so, let me tell you the story that begins, my book actually begins with a history of muslim american organizations in the united states and the broader struggle to shape public opinion about islam before the 9/11 attacks. but today i'm going to focus mostly on the post- 9/11 period because i think it has the most implications for the current type of mainstreaming of fringe ideas of islam we're seeing among conservative leaders. it's difficult to forget this image. it's sered into my of our heads,
our sub conscious. and yet, what most of us may forget is that there was an outpouring of sympathy for muslims after the 9/11 attacks. so that pew forum with nearly yearly surveys of public opinion of islam showing that there was as i mentioned earlier an increase of positive sentiment of muslims after the 9/11 attacks. this on top of dozens and dozens and dozens of statements of civil society groups arguing that muslims are, in fact, a peaceful people who are being victimized by a minority among them who are hijacking a religion for political ends. and this is an example of how the plagarism detection analysis can show us this. so i need to take a few minutes to walk you through this graph. first of all, each of these
circles describes an organization, think tank or religious group, an advocacy group and so on and the size of each circle describes how much media influence they had, how many times newspapers or television channels regurgitated the message in the press releases. you can see some organizations that i mentioned earlier have a lot of influence. but most organizations have no influence, these tiny little dots here. now the position of these circles in space or xy space describes the similarity of their messages so with a group of research assistants, i coded the type of language each organization uses to describe muslims, could be things like, you know, a muslims as victims narrative or islam as an inherently dangerous and violent religion knavetive and what we see is most groups as i just
mentioned were using a mainstream narrative that was simply that mainstream muslim organizations or muslim americans are a peaceful group who are being victimized by a group of political radicals who have hijacked the religion nor political ends. yet, if we look at who got the most immediate why attention, it's groups like the middle east forum or the center for security policy. two relatively ab secure organizations at the time in the wake of 9/11 who are receiving the lion's share of media coverage. now, these groups were advancing a so-called stealth jihad narrative which will be another theme i'll talk about throughout the talk an their narrative was essentially that muslims and muslim-americans in particular are a fifth column that's secretly planning to undermine the u.s. constitution, implement sharia law an they hide behind a thin veil of political correctness in so doing. so this is an example of the
type of work that -- the type of message that is came out. on the left is daniel pipes from the middle east forrum, launched a campus watch campaign. his idea was u.s. universities had been infiltrated by terrorist sympathizers or apologiapoll gists for radical islam and that a concerted campaign was needed to out these folks and to prevent u.s. -- the future generation of u.s. leaders from being duped into the idea that muslims are actually a peaceful group when, in fact, he was arguing they're kind of trojan horse. likewise on the right here, you will frank gaffeny, one of the people who became instrumental in the so-called anti-sharia movement and the various attempts to create laws to prevent the use of sharia law in
the united states. and he famously accused the white house of being infiltrated by extremisextremists, among thr norquist with very weak ties to a hedge fund that funds many of the largest muslim american organizations in the country. and so, why do they get in the immediate gentleman? why didn't mainstream muslim organizations get in the mainstream? i argue in the book it's most message. these were, you know, visceral, fearful and angry condemnations of muslims and muslim personals in particular that really alerted a public that had very little idea, again, what islam was, who muslims were, a majority of americans had not met a muslim and a majority of americans could not have -- were unable to identify the koran as the holy book of islam or allah as the dayty associated with islam. and so, america's imagination about islam is very fertile. there was a real opportunity to
define what was going on. and as is so often the case with the media, the loudest voice gets most of the attention. now, the story might have ended there had, you know, the -- like the proverbial boy who cries wolf, we might have seen these type of emotional appeals disappe disappear. and it instead we saw something very different. though i have showed you that the groups represented a minority of all voices talking about islam, it appeared as if they were a majority. and that's because of the media distortion of this family of organizations. so the majority view wasn't getting out. the minority view was being misperceived as a majority view. this has a variety of consequences but one of the most important i argue was for muslim american organizations themselves. and so, this rise, this surge of anti-muslim sentiment in the media i argue in my book created what i call a rip tide of
reaction among mainstream muslim organizations that served to further increase the profile of anti-muslim organizations. this chart describes what types of messages mainstream muslim groups like muslim public affairs council were making in their messages. now, you may not be able to read this. on the top, this large line, this is the number of press releases per day and this is the period from 2001 to 2003, you can see it was very common for organizations to dispatch press releases that condemned anti-muslim sentiment. these were things like hate crimes against muslims, you know, controversies about whether, for example, imams should pray at an airport and so on and so forth. and many, many organizations were understandably very critical of the types of issues. this lower line here shows all
of these -- all of the press releases picked up by the media that condemned anti-muslim sentiment. okay? you can see the variety of the voice in the media was condemning anti-muslim sentiment. and this tiny line here describe it is number of press releases that condemned terrorism. groups like al qaeda which was then the foremost terrorist organization, of course. and this tiny sliver, this tiny slack sliver here is the number of press releases by mainstream fuzz limb organizations that received any media coverage. and so if you can imagine for a moment that you are an american with very little information about islam and you're confronted by a media that showed you fearful and compelling messages saying that islam is a dangerous religion compared with an apparent absence of condemnation of muslim americans themselves, and
instead, a group of people, muslim americans who appeared more concerned about dispatching and discarding anti-muslim sentiment than they were about condemning terrorism. and so, i'll show you in a moment how this kind of helped this anti-muslim narrative coa les. anti-muslim organizations were able to accuse mainstream muslim organizations of tacetly condoning terrorism because they never publicly, their message was not getting out that they were unequivocally condemning terrorism by groups like al qaeda. and, at the same time, it lent credence to the idea this these groups were actually hiding behind a veil of political correctness, that is, that they were more concerned about criticizing anti-muslim sentiment than about criticizing terrorism itself. now, at the time muslim american
leaders were immeshed in very vexing debates about whether and how terrorism should be condemned, there was a very real concern that by condemning terrorism, you would somehow legislate mate the idea that islam has anything to do with terrorism. and so, many, many organizations such as the council of american muslim relations spent much more time condemning anti-muslim sentiment than condemning terrorism. i'll come back to that theme a little later. and so, here's the analogy again is a rip tide. so, the more that mainstream muslim american groups condemn anti-muslim rhetoric, the further they get pulled out the sea until we actually see a sea change of public discourse around islam. that is that attacking fire with fire and that, by the way, why so many of the anti-muslim -- so
many of the condemnations of anti-muslim sentiment got media attention because they were also very emotionally charged. people were angry at people like daniel pipes and feeds the media frenzy. the immediate why sees the emotions and graf taits toward that. meanwhile, condemnations of terrorism is dispassionate. they like to invoke geopolitics and lacked the tangible emotion that the media gravitates towards so i argue in the book that's one of the reasons they didn't get much media attention. yet again, these condemnations of anti-muslim sentiment fed the media fire, increased the profile of anti-muslim organizations and enabled them to achieve even more standing within the mass media. so as you can see, this is the first graph i showed you which is the after 9/11 environment. here are organizations that produce anti-muslim groups,
here's the vast majority of pro or moderately pro-muslim messages and between 2001 and 2003 and 2004 and 2006 you can see that the number of organization pros deucing anti-muslim messages more than doubled. the color of these circles describes the value yens of their message the emotional power down here of anti-muslim groups was increasing as they grew in size. okay. but at this point, they still represent a minority of all groups battling or struggling to shape american public discourse about islam. how did they become mainstream? how do we get to the point to raise $245 million and compel major political figures to express such vehemently anti-muslim views? well, here's one more year of data. so, here's the plagarism detection analysis for 2001 to
three, 2004 to 2006. 2007 to 2008. and as you can see on the right side of the graph here, the number of organizations that are expressing an anti-muslim narrative increases threefold. these ties, these kind of arks between these organizations, describe organizations that share a board member and so you can see that not only did they grow in size but they forged ally janss to powerful organizations outside of the field such as republican jewish coalition and other groups who would enable them to solidify their stature within the public sphere and more importantly enable them to make lead tides to financiers, other political connections to solidify their stature. so this graph describes several of the largest anti-muslim organizations in the country at the time. and shows that their donations to contributions in u.s. dollars
here over this period from 2001 to 2011, again, grew exponentially, even at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. and, i argue in the book that the increased media profile of these organizations gave them the standing necessary to become visible, to become an organization that could be essentially donated to. and with this money they began to further consolidate their capacity to define islam within the american public sphere. so, one of the ways they did this i argue in the book is to invent experts. now, the very idea of a terrorism expert is a bit of an oxymoron. terrorism is by definition arbitrary and indiscriminate and, of course, collecting data on terrorism is extremely difficult and even among academics there's very little consensus how and why terrorism
happens. but there is an industry, a very well-funded industry, of people who call themselves terrorism experts, many of whom have very little credentials to call themselves such, many of whom don't even, for example, speak languages spoken in region that is are most afflicted by terrorism. and then there's also a variety of people who have the appearance of being muslim and, therefore, kind of get additional level of credibility by, for example, a color of the skin or accent but are, in fact, not muslim. examples of these are folks from lebanon, palestine who became really high profile media voices during this period. and published several best seller books on the "the new york times" best seller book list. so on the one hand, these organizations funded and propelled these so-called terrorism experts into a celebrity which then, you know,
now, again, picture yourself as the american public. you don't much about muslims. you've been exposed to the very scary message. muslims themselves don't seem to be saying anything and people who look and sound like muslims are saying that muslims are terrorists so you can see how there's kind of a confluence of event that is really begins to cohere around this anti-muslim narrative so not only are they funding these types of folks, to write books and to give talks and so on and so forth, but they're creating their own infrastructure for public outreach. this is an organization which translates media from the primarily from the middle east and north africa with the express aim of identifying hate speech in the middle east. this is a scene from the equivalent of "sesame street" in palestine which the organization translated it as i will shoot the jews.
this is a woman who's talking to these two young children who have said, according to this translation, i will shoot the jews. and this went on to air at cnn and one of the administrative assistants at cnn quickly realized it was mistranslated. it read the jews are shooting us. this is an example of the type of manipulate that exists and is possible when you have such power to define the public conversation. also funded major film. spent about $19 million on a film called "obsession." radical islam's war against the west. this film, which has, you know, very scary sounding piano at the beginning distributed this every newspaper in advance -- in the run-up to the 2008 election. it draws analogies of radical
islam and naziism. there's not a single kind of modified in my view mainstream muslim leader who appears in the organization. instead, again, there's a cadre of anti-muslim groups alongside some of the so-called expert that is i just mentioned who, again, lend credence to the idea that the american public is being duped by mainstream muslims. okay. so by 2008, we have reached the position where anti-muslim organizations are no longer part of the fringe. they're frmly part of the mainstream. they have lots of money, political connections, they have their own media infrastructure and meanwhile mainstream muslim organizations have little media influence. they're involved in, you know, in excrucial yating debate about whether and how to respond to the anti-muslim organizations and as a result they're really falling out of public view. now, this i argue in the book
provided an opportunity for anti-muslim organizations to attack the legitimacy of genuinely mainstream muslim organizations so now that you have the power to define what islam is, you can say who's mainstream and when's not. so groups are widely accused of, again, tacetly condoning or encouraging terrorism. there's an act of congress which is designed to condemn the organization. the fbi breaks ties with the council on american islamic relations probably at the time the largest muslim american advocacy group or arguably the most representative. we don't have good data on that. it's fair to say. but it's at least one of the larger organizations. and then we see in the senate hearings on the threat of domestic radicalization led by snow lieberman, susan collins and later peter king in which only one of the mainstream muslim organizations that
analyze in my book appeared and, again, it wouldn't surprise you to learn who appeared. anti-muslim organizations and people who call themselves terrorism experts but whom i argue in my book have very little cause to call themselves such. and one of the other neat things about this detection approach is that i can use it to compare the spread of anti-sharia legislation. so, one thing that happened around 2008 is some of the anti-muslim organizations got together with some advocacy groups that design, model legislation for policy and sent it to a bunch of legislators and i got my hands on a copy of that model legislation. and then i used the detection software to compare it to the legislation that was actually introduced in so many u.s. states. here you can see right here on the left these are groups that introduced the legislation and then number next to them represents the number of words in that text that were lifted
verbatim from the anti-sharia model legislation and you can see in some cases mississippi, 82% of that language was lifted directly verbatim from the anti-muslim organizations. minnesota, similarly. other groups were much lower. kansas is only 2%. and as many of you may know, some of these legislations actually -- some of this legislation actually passed. it's still under review by higher courts, but the irony here, of course, is that as many have argued this is kind of a non-problem. not only does the u.s. regularly all allow, you know, religious jurisprudence in matters of arbitration and nobody was trying to use sharia to challenge the constitution, nor would there be a legal mechanism for them to do so and so really the idea that this campaign got so much traction was quite telling. okay. but i have told you about the media. i have told you about your
policies and counter terrorism policies. what i haven't told you about is the regular public. i've been speculating it created an increase in anti-muslim sentiment. and indeed, if we look at public opinion surveys from 2001 to 2003, we see, again, a first blip if i showed you the 2000 data, it would be right about here. we see an increase. right around the time that anti-muslim organizations are gaining traction, we see a steady increase in the percentage of americans expressing negative views about muslims. now, i can't draw a perfect causal link between the two things but i do think it's telling that it occurs at the sa imtoo. one of the other neat things about this moment in big data is that we can harvest data from twitter and facebook. so here's are the percentage of tweets about certain set of civil society organizations with positive sentiment and you can see here that groups such as act for america which is one of the
largest kind of grassroots organizations that currently does a lot of public lecturing around islam or top islamization of america have very strong support among twitter users. surely not a representative sample of the american public but an increase bring important group of people who have come to define the media cycle itself. twitter users, that is. here from 2005 and 2007 to 2010 and 2012 the number of controversies about the expansion or construction of mosques or violent attacks upon mosques and there's been an 800% increase between 2005 right around when anti-muslim organizations were having their day in the media and 2012. really, just marked troubling increase. and again, no causal links can be drawn but there is -- this does occur alongside km pains of groups of stop islamization of america, act for america. these are grass dsz roots
organizations one of which was responsible for the protest about the so-called ground zero mosque. but also, many of these other controversies. and then we saw surge, of course, in famously terry -- the so-called koran burning affair and the innocence of muslims, the so-phomoric film that made slanderous statements about islam. thankfully, some of my work is getting out to there try to right the wrong, correct the misperception that they don't condemn terrorism an call attention to the fact that anti-muslim organizations having an exaggerated stature in this debate. surprisingly, the anti- -- perhaps unsurprisingly, the anti-muslim organizations aren't so happy with that. they're happy they're winning.
negative messages of muslims are increasing, even the left wing media. this isn't just fox news. it's "new york times," cbs and so on which relies on some of the same sources i've been discussing today. and they also don't like my book very much. this is the first review of my book on amazon. islam's sympathetic narrative. oh well. so, so what can we do? and what can be done? well, the first and most disturbing thing i think we need to think about is the potential for these ideas to travel abroad. you know, we saw evidence earlier, say, with the koran burning affair, groups like the taliban, you know, condemning americans and obama and using that as fodder for recruitment. but it wasn't until recently that we saw evidence that anti-muslim sentiment directly being used for recruitment by terrorism organizations like this. so here the leader of al shabab
one of the leaders of al shabab using trump's call to ban all muslims is evidence that there is no gray zone. right? you either need to join isis or leave. right? and now you can't leave according to this narrative. so this is the danger and we have seen this before. we have seen this with the coland burning affair. we have seen this with the sophomoric film the danger of muslims. the danger that the fringe ideas they can do when they travel abroad is tangible. they not only upset people, quite understandably, but they contribute to the misconception of a controversy among the u.s. government to be anti-muslim. and i think this is probably the most dangerous threat we face now. others will speculate, of course, that the rise in anti-muslim sentiment creates a potential for increased radicalization to the extent that young people feel that they can't belong in a society where a majority of people have negative sentiment towards them. we haven't seen evidence of that
yet. but i think the potential is plausible. so what can we do? we're not going to fix the emotional bias of the mass media. tomorrow. we won't go out despite many well intentioned attempts by a variety of leaders, dr. safi is a favorite example of someone who's really got the language and the technique for talking to the media down. it's no easy thing but we won't convince fox news to stop amplifying emotional concerns about terrorism. we are not. we can, however, begin to decide how to pick our battles. and i think the one message from my book that i'd like to resonate in the public is that if we put all of our attention against people like trump, if we fight fire with fire, we're going to burn -- we're going to burn everything down. and instead, i think we need new message that is refocus the public conversation around something that i know having talked to so many mainstream
muslim organizations which is that muslim americans unequivocally condemn terrorism in all forms and furious at groups like isis and terrified by groups like isis and haven't shown in the public sphere that genuine anger and fear that we know from sociology and social psychology bonds groups together that's corrective against and preventive against outgroup bias so i think we need to capture some of that emotional energy, channel it towards the media and see if that can right these wrongs. thank you. [ applause ] >> so we have our podium set up if anyone in the audience has questions, please come forward. >> hi, chris. thanks for the presentation. i was eagerly awaiting the last parts of the presentation.
>> yeah. >> which is basically, okay, fine. now what? and i candidly would like to hear more aggressive approach of taking control of the dialogue than we have seen before and i'm not faulting you as an academic for the person who should thattic that lead although you're the guy with the data and the ideas and you at this moment have more of a pulpit than most and candidly, since you are a not a muslim, slightly better position for speaking for the great unlost and those that don't know they've met a muslim. your response to that? >> yeah. i certainly, you know, i agree. i think, you know, all of us, especially those of us in the academy need to be more vocal, working on these issues. i have tried, i have written for "the washington post." i have done various interviews. but, you know, i can say all day that muslims unequivocally condemn terrorism and as someone
when's not muslim, i have very little legitimacy apart from the data that's compelling as compared to the emotion of leaders understandably concerned that there's a kind of media motif of an angry muslim. right? going on fox news and become angry, you only serve to furtherer the stereotype about angry muslims. right? but there's anger that's just anger about attacks on your religion and then there's anger that i think is equally genuine towards groups like isis or daesh and that needs to come out. and i think there's been a lot of understandable hesitation about whether that's a good idea but i think given what i've shown you today the opportunity, the time has gone for that type of corrective discourse. right? a majority of americans now has this conspiracy theory in their heads and so you can't simply throw facts at the problem. in fact, you know, some recent
research coming out of political science and social psychology shows the more facts you throw at people that have a conspiracy theory the more they double down and xser baits the spread of rumors so i certainly will do my part here and any opportunity i get but i also think muslim americans themselves could benefit from more vociferously condemning the groups that have slandered their religion. >> islam as i see it in america from a limited expoise your is not the same thing as radical people who happen to be muslims elsewhere in the world. that's a distinction which i don't believe i've seen enough of. i don't think i've seen enough full page adds in "the times" "usa today" and wherever else it might be coming from people i think reasonably represent mainstream islam and agree with
you, these guiles are nuts or words to that effect. >> sure. >> that's from my opinion a call to arms and using a miserable analogy but if we had done is same thing with handguns in the united states 50 or 100 years we would not face a contagion and needs to be caught earlier rather than later. >> sure, sure. i agree. i think it's worth pointing out that muslim americans are an extraordinarily diverse group and for us to assume that the group is kind of come together with single voice and, you know, when they represent, you know, the full spectrum of political ideologies, muslims by the way voted 3 to 1 for president bush in 2000, right? speak, you know, dozens of languages, come from dozens of different countries. and, you know, for a long time enjoyed status as a kind of model minority. we have blips. we had the iran hostage crisis which i write about in the book but by and large, you know, muslim americans were either a
model or invisible minority and seemingly overnight all that changed and for us to assume that muslim americans organizations come together overnight is -- >> we have reviled minorities in the country that seized control successfully, you know, i don't have to announce the names of those organizations representing fringe populations that have turned the dialogue around. >> sure. >> it is not an impossibility. >> in fact, interestingly some of the mainstream muslim organizations use jewish organizations as a model. use an anti-defamation league as models of how to do this. you're right. >> thank you. >> sure. >> hi, chris. >> hi. how are you doing? >> as a cultural sociologist, want to stretch you into europe, history in western europe. i'm reading a book now called "hunting season" which is about
the capture and killing of the reporter by isis, the capture apparently occurred before we'd at least we had ever heard of isis, the killing occurred later. this notion of mainstream as it relates to european folks, i'm really stunned and maybe shouldn't be by the number of folks who now see isis as a mainstream organization and yet are of european heritage. any insights on that? because, clearly, you talked about we need to do something now. i'm wondering if it's -- you know, it's not too late but it's already happening. >> sure. yeah. you know, i do know something about europe, i've done studies in britain, for example. know the muslim population in britain and france fairly well. there's some major differences.
you know, one, the population is more visible for much longer. you know? so, for example, in britain, you know, debates about islam and accommodation of islam go back to the sal man rushdie affair or the public slaughter of animals in public spaces. also, the type of muslims who migrated to britain much -- by and large much less well educated, had lower incomes and segregated much more than u.s. islams and the result i think much more politically charged situation until recently. i think we are headed in that direction but historically, britain has been having this debate for a very long time. and so, i think the idea that, you know, europe's own attempts to integrate muslims are failing are creating radicalization is plausible. you know, once again, what can be done about it and how it can be used to stop isis is another
huge, you know, million-dollar question. i think on the one hand, you know, we thought for a while that countries like france, which famously unite around the principles of publicism and offer citizenship to anyone when's born in france, of course, today we learned of attempts to remove that right for people accused of terrorism and even france, a model of, paragon of anybody can be french is disappearing. you know, we saw how vividly in paris how that has gone awry. so i think, you know, i think we don't know a lot about isis. ? again, we're not experts. we don't have do da that on -- there are some studies of political scientists have done that look at kind of return rates and who goes to syria, for example. but, you know, we really -- we also -- we're at a different moment now than we were at ten years ago. isis is a real threat.
i think it's worth reminding ourselves of that. you know, even if these are people who, you know, many of us believe are not muslim and who are slandering the religion, you know, thank you now -- you know, there's also a question worth asking which is, you know, well, if they call themselves muslims, you know, who are we to say they're not. if lots of people unite around that, right, you know, you can't simply say, well, this is again speaking to the previous question of who gets to speak on behalf of muslims? right? no one gets to speak on behalf of all muslims precisely because of the diversity of the religion. i think it's a dangerous, dangerous organization. terrifying. no doubt. could european integration policies be modified to help fix this problem? i think so but, you know, these groups that i have observed in the u.s. have many transnational ties in britain and elsewhere. so for example, the famous dutch
politician who is, you know, famously banned from britain, banned from entering britain for incitement to religious hatred to muslims is a regular guest on lecture circuits i described by anti-muslim organizations and again this debate is going on places like britain for much longer and so, you know, how you fix that and how you, you know, how you rebuff that kind of xenophobia there's -- again, i'm not aware of any magical solution. but again, i do think similar -- from european colleagues, i have heard that similar processes are at play in europe and so perhaps the solutio could be similar in europe which is to say that, you know, french muslims and british muslims need to, you know, more forcefully condemn terrorism and in an emotion alally manner to benefit from the solidarity that's created by shared
emotions like fear. >> the line's not too long. i'll step right up. >> i'm thinking a couple of books i've read by muslim women. i can't think of her last name. er -- iri. he w she was a part of the dutch parliament for a while. moved to the united states. works for american entb enterpr these books, at least these two authors very vividly describe what it's like for women in islamic countries, genital mutilation, all that's really, really tough to read. and i think that it's sort of an underground group of women that are tuning in to this and then extrapolate to islam broadly. and i think that has not been -- at least i'm not aware of its countered or at least how it
could be countered. i wonder if you have a comment. >> you mean the attacks against women by -- >> like how harshly islam in their experience treats women. >> uh-huh. well, i mean, you know, i should say i'm not an expert in, you know, muslim -- islam abroad. i'm aware, you know, of many, you know, cases, you know, such as saudi arabia and iran where there is clear evidence of discrimination against women, you know, also worth noting as many have argued that, you know, many of the heads of state in the world are muslim women, that's an amazing feat that we ourselves haven't accomplished. could have a conversation about the combination of gender. one hears of these egregious, you know, particularly among isis now, some of the things that recent new york times expose on women and how they're treated by isis is just terrifying. i think it is also -- so i can't really speak to, you know, how
-- how real that threat is. i can, however, say that many of the most promising muslim american leaders are women. so people like ingrid madson, former leader of the islamic society of north america, debbie almantazer. there are dozens of people who are leading advocacy groups. some of the best and brightest minds are muslim american women. if anybody can fight that fight, it is these folks. >> well, thank you, all for coming. as chris mentioned, actually ingrid will be coming to campus in about a month. so if you're interested, look us up at disc -- i can't remember the term. shoot, i'm sorry. islamic at duke. we tweet about all these events
as well as islamic studies.duke.edu. if you have more questions, please let dr. bail or myself know, but thank you, all, for coming. next week, we're here again. so have a good day. >> thank you. campaign 2016 continues today with the wisconsin primary. live coverage begins tonight at 9:00 eastern. tune in for complete election results, candidate speeches and viewer reaction. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. every election cycle we're reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed, c-span is a vehicle for empowering people to make good choices. it really is like you're getting a seven-course gourmet five-star meal of policy and boy do i just sound like a nerd right there,
but it's true. >> to me, c-span is a home for political junkies and a way to track the government as it happens, whether it is on capitol hill or in the agencies. >> most staffers seem to have a television on their desk and c-span is on. i think it is a great way for us to stay informed. >> i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. my colleagues, when i go back today, they're going to say, i saw you on c-span. >> you can get something like the history of grain elevators in pennsylvania, or landmark supreme court decisions. >> i believe that we will win. i believe that we will win. >> there is so much more that c-span does in term of its programming to make sure that people outside the beltway know what's going on inside it. >> i am proud to announce -- >> i announce my candidacy -- >> i am officially running -- >> for president of the united states.
>> a reporter who covers politics, and for so many of my stories in "the washington post," c-span has been part of my research, providing me with quotes and insights about people. >> there are so many niches within the political blogosphere and all of those policy areas get covered. >> how many nuclear warheads does russia have aimed at the u.s. and the u.s. have aimed at russia? >> it is a place i can go that lets me do theth king. and do the decision-making. >> follow tons of c-span here, watch house meetings, senate meetings, all sorts of stuff. >> good morning, everyone. phone lines are open. so start dialing in. >> the interaction with callers on c-span is great. you never know what you're going to get. >> you're right. i'm from down south. >> oh, god, it's mom. >> and i'm your mother. and i disagree that all families are like ours. i don't know many families that are fighting at thanksgiving. >> welcome to book tv's live coverage of the 32nd annual
miami book fair. >> c-span2 on the weekends, it becomes book tv. >> it has been a wonderful way of accessing the work of those folk who are writing really great books. >> every weekend c-span3 becomes american history tv. you're a history junkie, you've got to watch. >> whether we're talk ing about a congressional hearing, or we're talking about an era in history, there is so much information that you can convey. if you've got that kind of programming. >> whether it is at the capital or on the campaign trail, they have a camera, they're capturing history as it happens. it brings you inside of these chambers, inside of the conversations on capitol hill, and lets you have a seat at the table. you can't find that anywhere else. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> yes, i am a c-span fan. >> and that's the power of c-span, access for everyone to
be part of the conversation. >> assistant defense secretary robert scher recently joined a panel discussion on u.s. military cooperation with australia and japan. the center for strategic and international studies hosted event dealing mainly with the maritime relationship among the three nations. this is about an hour and a half. >> good morning. thank you, everyone for coming. i'm michael green, senior vice president for csis.
we are pleased today to release a new report prepared by andrew shearer, who i will introduce in a moment, which is available out front if you didn't get one on the way in. maritime cooperation creating federated capabilities for the asia pacific. andrew has been here at csis for four or five months now. working on this project based on his experience in multiple stints in the australian government. he is now a distinguished visiting fellow at csis and has come out of senior positions in australian government most recently the national security adviser to the prime minister tony abbott. he was national security adviser to prime minister john howard and has previously held senior posts in department of foreign affairs and trade and ministry of defense and here in the embassy in washington where i first met andrew about 15 years
ago when i was on the national security council staff. andrew will talk about the paper. then we will have some commentary from robert scher. this is a shop that owns the world and works on strategy plans and capabilities. bob spent much of his career working specifically on southeast asia and u.s.-australia, including positions in the asia office of the secretary of defense policy planning among others. bob is well-known for his expertise not only on planning and strategic guidance but also on southeast asia. this report builds on growing momentum for strengthening not only u.s., japan, australia
cooperation in the maritime domain, but growing momentum in the u.s., japan and australia to align and make more interoperable our bilateral alliances in asia. the u.s. japan alliance and u.s. australia alliance were born together but not in intimacy. in some ways quite the opposite. the australian side played us quite well. in 1951. and helped to design the alliances we know today to maximize australian interests and the u.s. australian alliance were part of this large grand bargain. that started changing particularly after the cold war. i think in an operational level it really began in the clinton administration. when i was in the bush administration, we began in 2001
the tsd, trilateral security dialogue. and things as andrew will tell you have really just accelerated from there. what andrew is going to present to you is based on his work on this area for about two decades, including the tsd, including the qadry lateral response to the boxing day tsunami and more recent work in the australian government, and i think it broadly reflects strategic thinking on both sides of the aisle in the u.s. and japan. but i should emphasize that andrew's paper is his paper. also that bob scher is here to comment, to give us the state of play in current u.s. policy, not necessarily to endorse this report. we often have court administration officials comment when we issue the reports, usually polite enough to not