tv Washington Journal CSPAN January 17, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
a news about climate change, nasa and the national atmospheric administration says that 2014 was the warmest year on record since record_keeping began in 1880. we will ask you to comment on that. here is how we are dividing the lines today. if you believe in climate change, if you consider yourself a climate change skeptic, if you're not sure and you want to wait in any way, please call in. on a social media, you can post your thoughts on our twitter page, facebook, or you can email us. some of the highlights from the findings that were released yesterday are highlighted in
the papers of mourning. this is the star_ledger out of new jersey, it provides a graphic. it says that for 2014, the earth's it says that for 2014, the earth's average 58.24f. nasa finding similar findings, 58.42 overall. they say that compared to averages from 1951 to 1980, it means that earth is warmer 1.22f. those are just some of the findings. also, a map showing the warming patterns. here to explain more is emily. good morning to you.
could you tells a little bit behind the findings? guest: sure, i can tell you how they came to this. when they say that the average of 58.24, they are averaging that across the globe for all land and ocean surfaces. what they're also saying is that this is stacking the evidence __ the earth is warming, this is the latest evidence in a trend. host: compare this to records that are kept back in 1880's. guest: that's right. host: tell us about areas of the world that show warming
trends more than others, there are red spots, there are blue spots. half of the united states is red, and half is blue. guest: the western united states was warmer than average, the eastern was not. that is because of weather patterns. it does not mean that the earth is not warming, it just means that the eastern u. s. got the cold side of the weather pattern. i know that sometimes people say, we have a really cold winter, or was really cold the other day, how could the earth be warming. that is not the entire globe, that is just us on the east side of the u. s. host: these reports show that temperatures are rising. that's because the water in the ocean, does he give you a definite reason of why these trends are happening? guest: that gets complicated.
signed to say that this is man_made. we are proof that greenhouse gas emissions are causing this. if you look back at the 1880's, you can see that in the past 36 years we have been warmer than average. 2014 was the warmest year since 1880. that is a nice headline. what they're saying is, this is not changing. this is the line up since the mid_1900's. i think the last call this record day with 1911, sunday that. host: something significant is that a phenomenon called el niño did not exist in 2014. guest: the next two warmest
years, 2005 and 710 were el niño years. this year was not. what makes that significant is that this year was warm without the benefit of el niño, which basically comes hot air into the atmosphere __ it helps to a long. the years that are the warmest gain extra boost from el niño. this was not __ year was not the case. that's not to say that all record breaking years are el niño years. one federal scientist said that the next el niño year, he would not be surprised that breaks this year's record. host: as it comes to this information being released, has there been any information from members of congress?
guest: so far __ probably because it was released on a friday, there has not been too much specific reaction. recently, republicans in congress, even those who you'd call __ sort of on the side of let's not rush to pass climate change legislation __ have told this line saying, yes, the earth's changing __ but we will leave that to the scientists. i think just the other day, one senator from alaska has said, yes, the earth is changing, but that is for scientists to decide how much. as far as the specific report, what i think it will do is add another piece to democrats and
activist saying this is happening, we need to act on it. also, internationally, there are talks to come to an agreement to decrease greenhouse gas emissions across the world. i think this will planes as well. host: emily yehle writes about these issues. showing us the warming [c __ trend on earth. now to your thoughts. the larger issues of climate change. here is how you can make your thoughts known __ if you tend to believe in climate change. if you consider yourself a skeptic. if you're not sure. you can also make your thoughts known on twitter and send us an email.
let's hear from tom, who considers himself not sure. caller: good morning. we have a brisk 15 below in vermont this morning. i know it is colder in winter and warmer in summer. i'm not sure if this is changing or not. i have followed it pretty closely. it seems to me that most of the people that are saying that man is affecting climate change seems to be people who work for the government. you know, different institutes, and have now gone off on their own. they seem to be saying that it is basically the universe __ the solar system __ that is having an effect on the climate, and not so much man. it will be interesting to see
what shakes out in the next two years. i tend to believe that it is solar related right now. i wish we could get both sides to sit in front of us and debate it squarely. it seems like they will run off __ one side will run off, basically the global warming people __ and they will not be confronted by people who think it is natural. host: see you think some sort of consensus could be reached on this issue? caller: if we can get both people to sit down and talk in public about it, i think we could. host: tom from burn marks saying he is not sure. our next caller is from georgia, and a believer in climate change.
caller: all of the scientific evidence seems to be pointing towards that. not just that, there is a trend over many years showing there is a warming of the earth, and there will be consequences for that. i believe that our government is already planning, as far as the military goes, and how they can respond to some of these changes over time. in the event that we need to be able to stay on top of this economically. i believe that the reason why our representatives aren't really admitting climate change is the fact is because they have an incentive to ignore the problem. they have to try to make sure that their donors __ a lot of them in the oil industry __ make sure that they continue to make profits. acknowledging the greenhouse gases is bad for us is not good
for the dollar. host: lorraine from new jersey. she considers herself not sure about the issue. caller: yes, i would like to make a comment about the climate changers. they never consider all the grazing of the beef. they do not talk about that. it is very important that if we had more of a plant_based diet in the works, and not so much beef, and all the animals that we have to graze, and give hormones to. it would be much better if there was not so much grazing and me eating in this country. they never mention that. the climate change is never talk about that.
host: you say you're not sure, what you think then when you see these numbers being released showing at shred and with 2014 being the wor year __ warmest year on record? caller: my comment would be they do not consider all the animals. host: correct, but you believe the numbers? caller: maybe. they do not use any of these animals. host: walter, from south carolina, he considers himself a believer. caller: listen, i cannot believe of the last person said. i know that methane plays a big part in climate change, but a lot of people forget that back during the revolutionary war,
we had the winter without the summer. that was because of the eruption of the volcano. listen, i do not think there's any way in the world the cars could fluctuate as much as cows can. the reason why we have climate change is because we are all addicted to fossil fuels. we're not going to be anywhere close to being off of fossil fuels until we get the money out of congress. we have so much money going into congress for oil, we will never change. host: when you hear about the rising of temperatures, do you get alarmed by that? caller: alarmed by it. man, i can look around and tell you, every year since i have
lived in south carolina __ i'm 53. since i was 13 years old, we can even grow peaches anymore. i see climate change all around me. the people who were climate change deniers, they are just worried about getting another donation further calls. host: we had to buy the lines by believers, skeptics, and those who are not sure. again, new information coming out showing a warming trend with 2014 being the warmest year on record since 1880. you can give us your thoughts on those numbers, or you the larger issue of climate change. joe from maryland, a skeptic. caller: one reason i'm a skeptic is because a lot of these governmental __
government scientists __ they are saying climate change is rising, and all that. they don't say that, they don't get their funding. a lot of it is money. if they say, yes, the climate is going down __ last year, the east coast was cool as anything, the arctic circle had more eyes last year than it has in years __ they're saying, we're going up by 1. they have to do that, it's funding. host: evan from new york, a believer. caller: i just want to make a couple points. the first one is __ the number
of parts per million in the atmosphere of co2. for 10,000 years, we have been able to detect through ice samples that the amount of parts per million of co2 has varied from 182 280 __ 180 to 280. we have consistently for the past few years popped 400. typically this happened at the end of winter. it is based on the beginning of the spring when biosynthesis starts __ when things start training green and the northern hemisphere. up until that point, there's very little biosynthesis. as a result, we're not putting out a lot of oxygen, because the plants are growing. for the last three years, we've been over 400.
if you figure that the median is 230, and we are not consistently at 400, that is a number of you cannot deny. host: that was evident from new york. the house speaker john boehner, as republicans were on their retreat in hershey, pennsylvania was asked about climate change. [video clip] >> certainly we have had changes in our climate, i will let the scientist the date __ debate that change. for us, it addressing climate change means killing american jobs. caller: the numbers are pretty accurate. the climate has been changing
for the last __ however many number of years that the earth has been in existence, but climate has been changing. i'm more worried about the fertilizers and stuff that we use. we had an algae bloom in lake erie, worse than we've ever seen. i wish they could take a real serious look at it. and we could evolve and adapt to whatever comes __ be a cold or heat. no matter what it is, we will have problems. we had an ice age for how many years __ people starved. the funny part of it is
scientist try to develop new products that are not affected by insects so much, people don't want to eat it because it is different. host: chris from milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: everybody's driving vehicles. that puts a lot of emissions into the atmosphere. you have to think about what that does to the world. it melts ice caps. icecaps go out into the ocean and melts off. that misses the whole circulation of the oceans up. that will mess up climate change. places will get colder this post be warmer. places this mostly warmer will get colder. we need to do something.
host: what you think is the best reaction from the federal government on this issue? caller: the best reaction? they just need to look at what is in front of them. look at what is happening and not to look at it, and say, yes, it is happening. host: the training of syrian rebels, new information coming out. writing about it in the "new york times" this morning. about 1000 soldiers will be sent to saudi arabia, qatar. it would bring the number of
americans working to train syrian rebels to around 1000 people. they will deploy in the next 4 to 6 weeks. if the training goes well, troops should be back on the battlefield by the end of the year. training personnel from two other nations will also be involved, he did not specify which countries. what's your next from wayne on this topic of climate change. 2014 being the warmest year on record. caller: to me climate change is the biggest hoax ever put on the american people in this country. it is the biggest lie. there is no climate change. i'm 60 years old and the climate has not change in the 16 years i've been here. there is no proof of climate change. the north pole is frozen about
2 miles deep. this is a bunch of baloney. on your show, there was someone who could answer any questions about. all these people calling in here, they must be nerds, or something. they just believe all this garbage. people believe all this garbage. obama started all this mess. i never heard anything with bush with climate change. we have to have energy, we cannot ride our cars, we could not go anywhere, we would be paralyzed. every world needs energy. host: our next caller from hawaii.
caller: it was about two years ago __ i think with us __ 2012, and 30,000 scientists said that there is no global warming. host: so you believe those scientists over other scientist who say that the earth is warming? caller: i think they're trying to put a fun together __ obama is trying to put a fun together to raise money. he does not want to hear any climate change deniers. when you think about it, why is it that they change global warming to climate change. the globe was not warming. it was not holding up. their whole concept. i believe they are swaying the
scientist to not express the truth. they are holding back with the real truth is. if 30,000 scientists have said there is any, i believe that. host: were you skeptic of climate change before those scientists weighed in? if so, what made you a skeptic? caller: what made me a skeptic is who knows this. when you talk about climate, it's the people who study it. i believe forbes is a reputable magazine that they do their homework, and do not just interview anybody. if there was a study done that 30,000 climate scientists said this. host: alongside the story on climate change, the story occupying most of the papers
headlines __ the supreme court deciding to take up a case to look at same_sex marriage. this would signal a final chapter on gay rights advocates. ohio, kentucky, michigan, and tennessee __ the court accepted challenges to same_sex marriage bans in the states. to climate change __ new information from two organizations take a look and showing that when it comes to 2014, the warmest year on record, one of them is nasa.gov aand the other is noaa.gov. we are asking you about the numbers, and the idea of climate change in general. give us a call. david from arkansas, hello.
caller: as usual, we have a big divide between the believers and nonbelievers. i have several conversations with people __ i explained it in a very simple way. you have signed is on the right, scientists on the left, believers and nonbelievers. i explained like this __ using a water well as an example of the earth and its atmosphere, if you were to go out to your well __ can't really figure out a good way to say this __ relieve yourself and your well every day. your water may not taste find that day or the next day,, but sooner or later, your water will taste funny. what we put into our atmosphere will come back to us. as far as mr. bain's comments
about hurting jobs __ i look at climate change as a way for america to turn around and make jobs. detroit could be rebuilt by using electric cars. host: what you think should be the federal government's response if indeed the scientists say what they say and earth is warming? caller: i think the federal government should use this, as i was saying, as a way to start a jobs program. to go full tilt into it. even if climate change is proven wrong, by driving to rebuild our infrastructure, create electrical cars, all this would create jobs. host: tony from louisiana, not sure about climate change.
caller: hi. i agree with so many of your callers. the one from arkansas and michigan. we've seen so much in our lifetimes. i graduated from high school in the 70's, in the middle of oklahoma. my graduating class had 19 people in it. we did not have a lot of traffic, nor pollution, overcrowding. there was an abundance there. it seems to be, coming out of all the revolutions, and social things that were said in the 60's and 70's __ there was a little voice about population control. somehow, that got turned around and became an offensive thing to say that. the backlash was to overpopulate in one area, and go vote.
we offended someone, some minority somewhere by discussing our love of the earth, and how to conserve its resources here on this little ship that we have, that has a finite amount of resources. host: so tony, you still consider yourself not sure? caller: i am sure that there are answers. i'm sure that we have only so many resources. when we discussed the amount of nitrogen that flows into the lakes, because we are having to fertilize our soil. if there were fewer of us to feed, we would not have to do that. host: antiphon from illinois. go ahead. caller: thank you. i'm a little bit of a scientist.
let's do a bit of history __ let's go back about 260 million years ago, the flora and fauna was beautiful, the earth was basically methane and sulfur. now we have these beautiful fossil fuels that we have to utilize for energy, and we're pumping them back into the atmosphere and environment. what is occurring? we're altering the whole earth. we are returning the earth back to prehistoric jurassic period. we have had three extinctions in the period of this world history. if we, as a people, do not pull together and maybe either colonized the oceans __ i'm talking about building underwater domes made out of
sand __ start harvesting the oceans because the navajos live in the desert, the eskimos live in the ice. everyone seems to get along for thousands of years, then we come along, and all of a sudden everything is upside down. host: brand is __ brandy is up next. caller: on gonna say is that we have to say this planet and __ that's it. host: john kerry in paris delivering several messages in light of the attacks there, including a performance by james taylor.
kerry is the highest ranking u. s. official to visit friends since the attack on a kosher grocery store and the satirical magazine charlie hebdo. he was joined by an american singer james taylor, a longtime friend, who performed "you've got a friend" in tribute. that concert sparked a reaction from at least one u. s. legislature from colorado, saying this __ secretary of state john kerry is a national embarrassment. you can read those comments in full via his tweet and the new york daily news. our next color is __ caller is from indiana.
caller: i am worried about engineering of the clouds. we do not have any normal clouds anymore. it is just sprayed silvery white block in the sun. since they started doing this, our weather has been crazy. host: claire from florida, a believer. caller: i have been in environments was for 50 years. for the people who are calling in who watch fox news or think the earth is 6000 years old, they are going to keep us behind. the reason the politicians are giving these polluters and oil companies a pass, they are stalling, in order to benefit __ how evil is that. we have animals disappearing __
frogs, bees, bats. i do not want to go into all the details. c_span had a wonderful form a few weeks ago, they had hours and hours of scientists from all over the world. if people do not wake up while our oceans are dying. host: we've had believers of climate change on this network, skeptics, a lot of in between as well. the caller preference a program that she saw two weeks ago. you can go towards c_span website, c_span.org, we have a video library. you can type in climate change, and everything on a network will come up __ on both sides. sybil is next. caller: i do not believe in
climate change. another thing __ they let people starve to death, like in california. now they are doing away with jobs. host: tom from wisconsin. caller: hi. thanks for having me on. i think i'm not sure. there is always some crisis somewhere. i was wondering the countries could get together and sit down to figure this out for the planet for children to come. someone said it will get bad for our children, that is what i'm concerned about. there is always a crisis here. we need to get together and figure this out. thank you.
host: a story that appeared on the front page of the "washington post" talks about the justice department. this is something called asset_seizure. it says that state government barred local and state police from using federal funds. since 2008, thousands of local and state agencies have made thousands of seizures or cash and property worth $3 billion under a civil asset forfeiture program at the justice department called equitable sharing. the program has enabled local and state police to make seizures. that full story on the "washington post" website. it is on their front page.
a few more calls on the topic of climate change. jake from nebraska. caller: i'm glad you're having me on this station. i'm a skeptic on this climate change. i think some spots have as much or more __ all you have to do is follow the money and you will find out what's really driving this climate change debate. host: what do you mean by that? caller: is the united states is not going to have any effect on climate change, when you look at china and india __ which are burning more coal and co2 emissions __ the united
states will not have a bit of an effect on it, we will end up ruining our own economic activity, and making the middle class and the poor in the __ making the middle_class poor in the united states. host: a comment on twitter __ what do you believe in climate change or not, we all should hedge against it. another, on twitter, i don't care if you believe in climate change or not, you should care about pollution though. you can make your thoughts known on this topic and information released yesterday __ the star_ledger of new jersey comes up with a great graphic on the warming trends, 2014 being the warmest year on record. those are the resulting temperatures that they register for 2014. chris from pennsylvania.
caller: my question to you is this __ those lacking in trust are not trusted, but when the task is complete __ host: chris, what does that mean about climate change? caller: the average person does not note politics. if you look at the "wall street journal," they transition the private sector of the government __ transferred from private sector to defense department. it went from bombs and missiles to giving the world
civilization to help feed people who are lacking, saying africa. that's the transitioning. the problem is that human beings still have the passion to go out and commit crimes, have wars, they do not want to be controlled. host: bobby from west virginia. caller: yes, this is bobby. thank you for taking my call. i'm just a little bit of a skeptic. i think that whether changes that happened for centuries. a lot of trees have been cut down. those trees, i know we put them back into the ground to grow, but that develops the oxygen that we breathe.
that could be a lot of the problem. also, under the earth's core is law the. we've had a lot of earthquakes lately, that puts out a letter gas and heat. i also believe __ and why the station, they had a scientist that says that the son is having changes and that is causing the earth to heat up. i think there are so many reasons why am a skeptic about that. host: felicia from tennessee. caller: listen, i grew up on a farm. i grew up in a 70's. we study, and everybody stayed the same books. we live in a bubble. everything that goes up the atmosphere stays. our earth __ i sell my bed, i
feel grumbles, i think it is trucks going up the highway, then you find out that they had a close down for fracking, and the fish down there in arkansas are floating up to the top, the birds are falling out of the sky. next thing you know, some volcano in hawaii arrives after that. everything in atmosphere that we put in it, goes in it, and stays in it. that is why spacemen wear helmets, there is no oxygen. everything up there __ we have mercury in the water. host: if you believe that there is a warming trend, do you think it can be reversed? caller: i don't know if it is too late. as a kid from the se i __ the
70's, i was so proud of the awareness of population control. now, i look, and we have huge massive floods every year. we're such a great nation that someone has told us we are no longer capable of doing wonderful things, we're capable of doing anything. water runoff, we could change it. host: frank is from south carolina, he is not sure. caller: think you. i just wanted to say something to all the viewers __ we need to take care of the earth. we need to all think about earth day. we need to all put into consideration that as humans, we need to care for the earth. that's basically it. us, as humans, need to work on that.
host: one more call. this is jim. caller: i appreciate the form you have here, it is very enlightening. i'm not sure if the categories you have are so clear. i think climate change has been happening for billions of years __ or millions of years __ and is not related to man's import. if you look at history, the vikings had an agricultural society on greenland. they were farming on greenland, that is a historical fact. it was not cars that cause the warming trends. there are changes that have gone on for long periods of time. i'm in the category __ earth's changing, but how much is it affected by mankind?
pollution __ but that's only affects lake erie, but it is better than it was when i was a kid. a lake erie, you can actually swim, and see the shoreline. you do need to be responsible, but how much is actually in the atmosphere __ i think sunspots also have a huge impact on us. i think we are the sole input on atmosphere, i'm skeptical of that. host: jim, you will be the last caller on this topic. we're ggoing to change topics to politics. you probably heard that mitt romney is considering running for a third term as present. we will sit down with michael warren of the "weekly standard." then, we will talk about education and student and teacher testing.
education and environmental issues were the top of our "newsmakers" program with senator john hoeven. here is a portion of his interview. [video clip] >> are those for votes findable? >> we will see. of course, that is why we are having the open amendment process to foster bipartisanship and to get something that will attract for more votes. if we can't, our plan b would be to bring the bill back, attach other must pass legislation. perhaps an appropriation measure. there is precedent for doing that. the first keystone though britain, that we passed in 2012, we passed it with 73 votes.
>> that would make president obama make a vote in 60 days, correct? >> and he rejected it. >> that's right, that's why we came back and wrote this bill. >> the president has been increasingly critical of the pipeline in the last several months. he has been saying that jobs are temporary and therefore somehow not as good as perhaps some other broader infrastructure jobs. he has been saying it will not lower gasoline prices. what you make of these negative comments? do you think he is getting ready to reject the pipeline? if he does reject it, what with congress to at that point? >> number one, we have addressed all those criticisms. we have used his own administration's statements. the reasons are excuses that he is giving to not approve the
project, it is hard to understand why he __ why are we still sitting here six years later and he has not done it? then when you have poll after poll showing 65% to 70% approval for the project, we're a bipartisan majority in the house and the senate, and all states have approved it __ why does he still not make a decision? >> "washington journal" continues. host: a look at 2016 presidential politics. you may have seen this on c_span, mitt romney speaking to the republican national convention last night. talking of principles that should be part of the focus for 2016. here he is. [video clip] >> tthere's some speculation as
to whether i will embark on a political endeavor in which i was previously unsuccessful. let me stay, i've no intention of running as senator massachusetts. seriously, for our party, and for nation, 2016 is not going to be about the obama years. it is going to be about the post_obama era. the post_obama era, conservative principles are needed perhaps more than ever in our lifetime. i realize that this is not the right moment for me to lay out all the policies that would be right for a party, but i do want to mention three principles that i think should form part of the foundation of what we take to the american people. first, we have to make the world safer. second, we have to provide opportunity for all americans. finally, we have to lift people out of poverty.
do we communicate those three things effectively, the american people will be with us. host: joining us for conversation on 2016 and presidential politics, michael warren of the "weekly standard." what you think of the speech? guest: it is interesting. the three principles that he puts out sound like what a republican candidate would run on. make the world safe to __ i think mitt romney has been impacted by world events. particularly, russia and russian aggressiveness in the world, he made the list of __ made those debates of lot, and was actually mocked by obama. opportunity for all __ interesting principle as well.
you hear a lot of republicans talk about that. not just the 47%, you heard ronnie say that, those who receive government benefits. also, looking back at romney's campaign, paul ryan was trying to go out there and talk about poverty. it was reported after the campaign that he felt a lot of resistance from the romney campaign, to not talk about poverty. it is interesting to see romney say this is something the party ought to move forward on. i'm a little skeptical that romney is the face, and maybe the vessel, for that message. but clearly, he and some members of the rnc are considering. host: skeptical, why? guest: you have to look at the 2012 campaign.
he said 2016 will not be about obama. in many ways, you could have said the same thing but 2012. i think they were, the romney campaign that is, were so focused on saying obama had something's wrong. he screwed things up, he had not save the economy like he said he would. it really was not a vision for the future. i guess i'm a little skeptical given that __ a third chance __ in 2016, ken romney really rise to the challenge of taking a future __ a forward_looking agenda for the american people? in many ways, he was last elected to office in 2007. he left the governor's mansion in massachusetts. the politics have changed. mitt romney can lay claim to have ryan and okay, admirable
campaign in 2012, but you cannot seal the deal. what makes people think he will seal the deal in 2016. host: commenting this morning on the romney campaign __ saying, don't do it, mr. romney. there was something called reaganism, you knew what you're voting for, it was a philosophy, if they are right and pertinent to the moment, they make you inevitable __ from the "washington post". guest: she goes on to say that __ if romney is and is a thing __ reagan was not reagan until he became reagan. he really took up ideas that other people in the party __ a
lot of the supply_siders on the economic front __ he was a champion for ideas and took up those ideas. ronnie could very well be a champion for ideas. i'm not sure i heard that from the clip. that does not mean any number of republican candidates cannot latch on, and learn from the intellectual power that is fueling the republican movement. i have not seen that in the past for mitt romney. i'm skeptical that what we see in the future for mitt romney will be any different. host: the 2016 gop politics, our topic for the morning. if you would like to make your thoughts known, call in.
before, we heard from mitt romney, before that, jeb bush. what you think he would bring to campaign if he makes the official? guest: he brings an outside perspective. it is kind of ironic considering that he is a bush. he has not been in elected office since 2007. he served two terms as governor. he has been updated talking to people, giving speeches. he has not been here in washington. that could be seen as being an asset for him. he has been removed from the party bickering here in washington. in many ways, he has risen above that. i believe that is kind of the message that he is trying to send to republicans, to donors __ i do not want to get involved, i do not want to move
too far to the right, i want to be me. there's something to that. the most successful republican candidates at the presidential level for the last generation and a half has been the bushes __ there's something to save for that. the world has also changed a lot since 2007. i think we all remember what happened in 2007 and 78 with the economy. we all know what has happened since 2008 across the world. i wonder in question whether jeb bush really fully understands where his party now is on a lot of these issues, and where the country is. i think that remains to be seen. again, jeb bush is someone who is interested in ideas and policy. if the right policy agenda comes along, and met with a charismatic candidate like jeb bush, perhaps we could see another reagan.
host: to think shifting positions on immigration, same_sex marriage, does that help or hurt in the long run? guest: i don't know. sometimes politics and memory are so short. in a lot of ways, barack obama is a perfect example. he was against same_sex marriage in 2008. now he is vehemently __ maybe not vehemently __ he emphasized that he was for a traditional marriage, now he has changed his mind. the country has change in a lot of ways on this issue. i think it remains to be seen if this even will be an issue in 2016, because of what the supreme court announced. i think primary voters' memories are bit longer. the education issue will come into play when jeb bush comes a
fair. i think he has to have a good answer to those questions that primary voters will have. host: on the cover of the latest "weekly standard" is ben carson. taking ben carson seriously. guest: ben carson, as most people know, is a doctor. he has a fantastic life story. he comes from a difficult background, and rose to be one of the top neurosurgeons in the country. he has made a name for himself. i think in many urban school districts, he is taught alongside martin luther king as a real hero in the african_american community. a few years ago, it he gave a
prayer __ he is a christian and is open about his faith __ and he scrutinized obama for not following christian principles. he burst on the political scene. he got on the cable news scene, on fox news. he has taken storm, conservatives. his critique of the obama administration has gotten conservatives and republicans excited. it remains to be seen. fred barnes wrote the cover story for us and got to know ben carson very well. he described ben carson as a long shot, and i think that is true. he is definitely an outsider in all aspects of the word. i think he is interesting and will have interesting things to say if he does decide to run. he has also shown plagiarism allegations in his book that he might not be ready for prime
time and running for president is a big stage. you have to be prepared. that is a warning for folks like jeb bush and mitt romney -- it is -- it has all changed. host: ben carson will be on this program monday morning. john from florida, you are up first with michael warren of "weekly standard." caller: my question to you, you know jeb bush is running for president. why is it that in 2013 in "the new york post," jeb bush said we should be celebrating fracking because it happens in north dakota pennsylvania, other states, and he is involved with fracking, he and his family, and in texas they have a situation now where they are going to court because they banned
fracking in one of the towns in texas. my question to you is why isn't the media talking about asking president jeb bush, or soon to be president jeb bush, about fracking? guest: i am not sure about the specific lawsuit the caller is talking about. this is somewhat of a problem for jeb bush and it was a problem for mitt romney, in a lot of ways -- the sense that these candidates are a part of big business, the wall street crowd, and it plays into the republican party's perception that it is a party for the rich. of course, on the democratic side, hillary clinton has a big problem with this. she is very well-connected with wall street donors and a lot of the money comes from wall street. that is an issue with both parties. on the issue of fracking and energy, i think this is a great issue for republicans to hang
onto. two and half years ago i spent a week in north dakota and it is a fascinating story happening -- it is really the wild west. interesting things moving -- happy with people moving out there with no connection to the oil industry. north dakota has some of the lowest unemployment rates highest growth rates in the economy out there. i think there are a lot of lessons. republicans, to their credit, have in many ways latched onto this as a political issue. expanding energy production, happy not just north dakota, what is the caller mentioned pennsylvania, colorado -- this is a huge issue, energy independence that republicans are uniquely qualified to talk about and promote. host: democrats line. ruth. go ahead. guest: i can give you all three
republican candidates. they might be popular but none of them would -- yes, i can give you all three republican candidates, and they would be popular, but none of them would make it and would make it a win for democrats. jeb bush, besides fracking, one word, enron. he was very much involved with that. chris christie, the hurricane money -- he did not take care of a lot of the towns that are still completely devastated from the hurricane. and reagan -- i mean, romney -- oh this man is trying to run on his father's background. his father and him are two
completely different people. host: ruth, thank you. guest: i think it is interesting the caller mentioned those three, romney, jeb bush, and chris christie, as the republican candidates, and those are the names you see people throwing out. every once in a while some place like the "weekly standard" talks about an outside candidate like ben carson, and i think that is a mistake if republicans are thinking this is it -- this is the field. we are in january of 2015. jeb bush has started exploratory committee. mitt romney has not done anything official. chris christie, even less so. there are a lot of candidates you could argue that are from a younger generation, a new generation politically. i go back to 2008. it was such an important year not just because barack obama won the election, but because of
what happened in the economy. i think it changed people's perception of the relationship of government, business, banking, consumers, and the level to which government ought to be involved. look at wisconsin governor scott walker who was elected governor in 2010, reelected in 2012, and 2014 because of that recall in 2012. his is someone that has been fighting this the past decade. not the previous decade. i think candidate like that that are part of this new generation, ought not to be deterred that "the new york times," and "the washington post," have mitt romney, chris christie, and jeb bush fever. guest: -- host: nine debates have been sanctioned.
others will be added. talk about the primary process. we'll it be extended, with a be shorter so that one candidate emerges earlier? what are your thoughts? guest: it seems the republican national committee wants to shorten the process have fewer debates. i think there was a feeling there were too many last time around. i started to lose count after the 10th or 11th that i attended. i do not know that the problem was necessarily the number of the debates. it might have been the quality of the debates. the questions were not always helpful, more designed to, sort of, stoke arguments, as opposed to debate between the candidates trying to position themselves as the most conservative on this particular issue, or the most reasonable on this particular issue. there was not a lot of policy debate to let primary voters understand where all of these people stood, and there was also
a difference were mitt romney was, kind of, the front runner the whole time. this time, i think it will be a lot more open. despite what we have been talking about with these high-money front runners, there will be a lot more people jumping in, and to that extent, a longer primary process is not necessarily a bad thing. i think 2016 will be a moment for the republican party to figure out who exactly they are -- where they fall on his economic issues. whether they are going to strike a more populist tone on these issues, what kind of foreign policy proposals and positions will they take up -- debate is a good thing in that sense. i think the rnc ought to recognize that having those debates, having a long drawnout process, could actually be good for the party in sewing up the nominee and getting it all
finished and out of the way. it might not always serve the republican nominees' interests. host: terry, you are on with michael warren. caller: good morning. you spoke -- stole my thunder. my candidate would be scott walker. as far as mitt romney, i prefer to buy new tires and retreads. scott walker has beaten union goons and the liberal media. he knows how to win. mr. romney trying to do the same thing john mccain did, the a middle-of-the-road, sweet little guy, trying to get the liberal media to love him, and that will last until the ninth, -- knives to come out.
i do not know he would be in fort, but i think ben carson would be a good vice president running mate. host: thank you. guest: that is a sentiment. i am looking for to hearing what voters like terry have to say. in many ways there is a lot of aberration for mitt romney for what he did in -- admiration for mitt romney for what he did in 2012, but then there is the sense that we need to move forward. scott walker is an example of that. marco rubio, collected in 2010 -- a new face, young face, fresh face. i think it is interesting that governor walker is being thrown out there is a real possibility. i think he is thinking about it. trying to way -- trying to way when to jump in. since "the washington post,"
"the new york times," are covering mitt romney, jeb bush, someone like scott walker might benefit from jumping in. he will not have as much money as those candidates, but people start covering you when you are running for president or when they think you are running for president. it would be a good opportunity for him to bone up on foreign policy, and make the case that what he is done in wisconsin the leadership that the caller talked about, is something he would like to apply to the country. host: armand. richard. -- vermont. richard. democrats line. caller: my thoughts on the president -- whoever is president should not deny climate change. it is probably one of our highest priorities, and anyone that does not believe in it, i think they are barking up the wrong tree. guest: there has actually been
quite a bit of science that has added some skepticism to the idea that there is significant man-made climate change, global warming -- whatever you want to call it. beyond that, there is a debate on whether or not this is something humans are doing to the environment, and that there is something that can be done. i think, politically, there has been a lot of, for lack of a better term, steam, that is, out of this movement, even within the democratic party. this is the kind of thing -- the push for higher taxes to regulate pollution these policy ideas that sound great when the economy is booming, when things are going great, and people feel like they have enough money to put food on their table, and have jobs on their table, and earn some cash. the economy is not quite where it really should be to be addressing these kinds of things. i think, ultimately, voters are
just not interested at this point in really seeing the government take this on. with all due respect to the caller's position, to take this on as a major policy issued. they are more concerned with if they have enough money to spend on gas or put food on the table. i do not think a republican presidential candidate will do himself any favors by embracing a big government response to climate change, and there is a debate on whether or not government can do anything to stop this. host: you spoke about where the party will be by the time the elections, round. on social issues, we think this falls as far as 2016 is concerned? guest: it will be interesting because there is this sense social issues, particularly same-sex marriage, that the country is moving in one
direction, and the party is completely on the other side of this issue. i really do think that the court -- it is the court's decision. i do not know anyone that has said the court will uphold these laws banning same-sex marriage. i think we're going to see the courts basically legalize it and in many ways that will take the issue off of the table. that is not to say that republicans will not be asked about same-sex marriage. i think that will be a distraction from some of the more important issues -- the economic issues, foreign-policy issues that are actually affecting americans day by day. by the time 2016 rolls around -- host: a different shade. guest: exactly. and it will probably benefit republican presidential candidates. host: from baltimore, maryland, nat, independent line.
caller: it is a pleasure to talk to two of my favorite sources of information. i would like to ask two questions. number one, do you think made romney, if he would have taken advantage of his ability to speak spanish, that he would have been elected in the previous election? number two ben carson, i am supporting him, but if the republicans to not pick him up the democrat certainly won't, but would he run as a spoiler third party? and third, if anyone doubts the business of the u.n. gaining control by this pseudo-problem of global warning, is it possible they would look at some of the more scientific sources like the nipcc.
host: thank you, caller. guest: the real question is if romney had simply done better with the hispanic voters would he have done better? i really doubt it. if he had gotten 50%, he still would have lost. he would have picked up, probably florida, might have been able to compete in colorado, but it would not have been enough electoral votes enough to win ohio or wisconsin -- he's made -- these midwestern states. that goes to the republican party of 2012. it under-performed with white voters. it has increasingly come to depend on what you want to call blue-collar, white working-class voters.
and the inverse of that, is democrats have a -- had to rely less on that, what has historically been a democratic voting block, the reagan democrats of a generation ago. in the issue of ben carson running as an independent, i do not know about ben carson in particular -- i am not sure about his abilities to do that. i think you need a lot more money on the scale of ross perot, but i am intrigued by the 1992 campaign, particularly if jeb bush wins the nomination and you have a bush-clinton race again. i think we are living in the same world we were in 1992. a center-right country that is not quite sure what to move on from here, and the broadly center-right section of the
electorate is at odds with each other. you have more of a business, chamber of commerce, wall street wing of the republican party and more of a grassroots, conservative politics wing. if there is anger at the party you could see another spoiler movement. i am not sure ben carson is the man for that. and the u.n. -- there is really no political momentum for any sort of international treaties on climate change. host: i want to go back to the calls, but the first point about spanish -- talk about the larger issue of immigration and how the house and the senate do with this issue, and what that means for those that will run as candidate in 2016. guest: this is a real split within the republican party. i cannot think it is something the party has grappled with yet. there is a segment of the party
that truly believes if they sign on to some kind of comprehensive immigration reform package signed by president obama or whomever is president, that would open the floodgates and hispanic voters will flock to the republican party. there is another part of the party that says this is not right. to grant amnesty or whatever you call it, is the wrong direction for our party. i think there is truth to both sides of this. i think the momentum of the issue is on the side of the grassroots. there are more of them, for one thing, and as i said earlier the economy is not -- if he economy was going rate, prices were low, inflation were low and everyone had a job, i think you would see things a little differently. i do not think you would be having such a push from the grassroots, a push from conservatives out there pushing
back on barack obama's executive order. i think it is a perfect example of -- i do not think the leadership was keen on holding this vote, but their conference was. i think that tells you where their party is on this. they have to grapple with the way they talk about immigration. a lot of times republicans fall back into this rhetoric that blames immigrants themselves instead of blaming a system that is clearly broken, and a system that incentivizes people to break the law to enter the country. i do think the populist wing of the party does have the momentum here. you saw this with eric cantor losing his primary last year. a lot of that was on the immigration issue. host: michael warren with the "weekly standard" is our guest. caller: i would like to follow up on the lady who mentioned
three candidates and was inferring about the last-man standing nomination process the republicans seem to have. i was extremely disappointed in the elections last year because all of the republican experts picked john cornyn to win his senatorial election, not because he was the best candidate, but because he was unbeatable. mike pence has been in the news lately, and i am just curious as to how your guest and your callers would feel about going to lafayette, indiana, and talking about mitch daniels. he was an excellent governor. he was part of the bush administration -- the director of the office of management and budget. it seems the key is the obvious candidate that no one is looking for -- looking at. guest: something that "weekly standard" wrote a lot about in the run up to 2012. mitch daniels is the president
of purdue university. seems to be comfortable in the academic standing. i think the caller is right in the sense that it is not just enough for a nominee to be electable. this is how mitt romney was sold in 2012, and he was not, ultimately. he did not win. the party is, at this point, demoralized about what happened in 2012, excited about what happened in 2010 and 2014 in those midterm elections, and is hungry for winning, but they are also skeptical of folks who say this is the guy you have to pick to win. i think primary voters will want to see what everybody has to offer. i think i go back to what the rnc is trying to do -- primary season it seems like it is the wrong direction for the party wants to go and ought to the. daniels -- we had a great cover
story about him and his final years at the governor's mansion and he seemed uninterested in running for president and ultimately did not. mike pence has been a successful governor. i think we will hear a lot more about mike pence. host: the current cover story of "weekly standard" taking a look at ben carson. ben carson is also a guest on our program monday. rachel. texas. independent line. you are next. caller: yes, what upsets a lot of people is the way you label people. the way you vote does not have anything to do with the way you really. -- believe. republicans are not all christians. democrats are all not for gay rights. that has nothing to do with your beliefs. the way the country is right now, with jobs and everything else -- it is both of their
faults. both of them should take full responsibility. they just bigger, and they do not try to work things out. i am a christian, and i voted republican, and i have voted democrat. i am so tired of them acting like children out there, and we are suffering at the time. guest: that is a sentiment, if you look at any poll of how congress is doing, how people feel about congress in washington, it is a sentiment that is widely shared throughout the country. but i think there is also -- the country does not know what it wants. there is schizophrenia, if you will, about the political future. i think you see this in the fact that the country elected barack obama twice in 2008 and 2012, and a republican congress in 2014 and 2010. the divided government is a
manifestation of where the country is right now. they do not like the fact that taxes and cost of living is high, the fact that things seem to be more expensive than they used to be, and that they are not really getting anything in return for their investment. they are also discouraged by the fact that so many people are still out of work, the fact that schools do not seem to be working the way that they should be. there's a lot of disagreement about what is the right way to move forward. a lot of times folks up here in washington do not always frame their arguments and their debates, and maybe do not always debate along those levels of discussion that this is really about the heart and soul of the country, and what should be done. i think communicating that to the american people would help their poll numbers. host: texas. democrats line. pat, go ahead.
caller: hello, there. interesting that you are talking about immigration. jeb bush came to texas -- jeb bush's wife came to texas when she was 17 years old and waited 20 years to become a citizen. will "weekly standard" cover that? you think the gop will endorse a man like ben carson after they -- the way they treated barack obama for the last eight years? seriously, tell me the truth. guest: on the issue of jeb bush's wife, i do not know what the issue is to be covered. he does have an hispanic wife who speaks spanish. jeb bush himself speaks spanish. it is seen as an asset for him to try to improve the republican party's image with hispanic voters. george bush spoke a little spanish as well, not as well as
jeb bush, and did the best as an republican candidate has done with hispanic voters. on the issue of ben carson, this is a canard by liberals, that opposition to barack obama has been on racial grounds. it is simply not true. if president hillary clinton or president john edwards had won in 2008 and had proposed the same agenda, that would be the same amount of outrage from republicans. the disagreement about how to move this country forward -- if the republicans nominated ben carson you would see the same amount of support for ben carson as you would for other candidates. i got to get is a racial issue at all. host: one more call. billy from new york. republican line. caller: thank you for having me on. i just want to say, i am an old man. i talk to young people all over
the country every day. my family is full of young people that vote and i speak for everyone of them -- if the republicans make the mistake of running another moderate liberal, like you are -- like they are going to do, you can look for a new party in this country. we have not run a conservative since 1984, and if they run christie romney, or jeb bush who is a democrat in any way i can see, they will see a third for sure. the end of the republican party. the difference between the parties -- let me tell you this, the republican party is made up of approximately 60 million of the smartest voters in the country, but are run by the 20 dumbest people in the country. the democratic party is run by
the 20 smartest people in the country, and had 60 million of the dumbest voters in the country. host: billy, thank you. guest: i am not sure where he falls. i think there is a lot of discontent about the nominees. if you look back, you have mitt romney, george w. bush, bob dole and you are right, you have to go back to 1984 to find a conservative movement. in thinking about what the republican party ought to do to put a fresh face forward, it out to be someone who is perhaps, young, not from the baby boomer generation. we are in the presidency of the third baby boomer president starting with bill clinton george w. bush, barack obama. it might benefit the republican party to nominate someone young
marco rubio, scott walker, who are in their 40's. a new generation that is separate from the baby boomers and separate from those debates that the caller earlier was complaining about, i think in a lot of ways has to do with the generational debates of moving past those and talking about the future. it would benefit the republicans. host: among the field of who has expressed interest or announced, who is the strongest to take on hillary clinton -- right now? guest: it is a good question. hillary clinton will be a formidable candidate. it is also mentioned to see what primary candidates she brings. elizabeth warren has been talked about a lot. bernie sanders from the far left of the party has been wanting to get in and criticize her. hillary clinton has put in that
they really would prefer to run against then ronnie than -- mitt romney than jeb bush. i'm not sure if that is really what they mean. i think any governor, any young person running in the party would have a good shot. again, not to keep mentioning him, but he is high in my mind -- scott walker from wisconsin is someone that could make the case and argue the case that in wisconsin and real america, out there in the heartland, they are finding the solutions that cannot be found in washington, where hillary clinton has been for the last 20 years. that is a message that could win. host: michael warren with "weekly standard" with us to talk about 2016 politics. . --thank you. guest: thank you. host: coming up, we will meet lily eskelsen garcia, the new president of the national
education association. that conversation comes up next as "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> the deadline for the c-span student camp video -- student camp -- studentcam video competition is tuesday. for a list of the rules, go to studentcam.org. >> here are some of our featured programs for this evening -- weekend. on c-span2 tonight at 10:00 bret stephens argues that competitors are taking advantage
of the u.s. as it focuses on domestic concerns. and, a recent novel about a salesman in a top-secret government surveillance program. on c-span3, on "lectures in history," john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion in the american west in the 1930's. sunday afternoon at 4:00 p.m., on "reel america," the film on the forced desegregation of little work -- little rock, arkansas, all white school. find our program schedule on c-span.org. let us know about what you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400. e-mail us, join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter.
>> tuesday night president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern including the president's speech, the gop response delivered by newly elected joni ernst. on c-span2, watch the speech and reaction. the state of the union address live on c-span, to spend -- c-span2, and c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host:, -- join us now, the president of the national education association, lily eskelsen garcia. guest: thank you for say my name right. you got all the syllables. host: how long have you been president?
guest: since -- i have been working with activist teachers for years and years and years. we are now in a time when we have a chance to make history because we're talking about reauthorize -- reauthorizing this thing called no child left untested, and we can change that to something that works for kids. host: what you mean by that? guest: we have been in this nightmare of 30 words like no child left -- who could -- no child left behind -- who could resist that? you have to look at the details. good, honest people said we have to do something for kids and we have to know how they are doing and we went yes so we will give people a standardized test once a year, and then we will use it
to make these huge decisions -- this kid is not get to go to fourth grade, get to graduate based on whether or not they hit a cut score on one standardized test. every educator took a deep breath and went are you kidding me? one indicator, even if it is a good indicator -- you cannot make those huge decisions, this school has failed, this teacher is incompetent, you cannot do that. host: progress has to be measured somehow. in what way? host: i am -- guest: i am better than i think i am and i think i'm fabulous. we have to demonstrate to the world, even the parents -- i could sit down with you as a dad , and moms, and say here are the
portfolios, kids work, you can see their progress, so parents had a good idea about how their kids were doing. teachers knew, but how did we demonstrate to the world, the taxpayers, who deserve to know, are we doing a good job with our kids? one of the things the indicators showed us, if there was one good thing out of no child left, it was the disaggregation of test scores, poor kids, children that face discrimination because they are children of color, students with disabilities, english-line which learners -- now we have disaggregated data. even on that one standardized test, when you see that affluent kids do considerably better on those tests than poor children than children of color, then you have to say there is a disconnect here. there is a gap. where they failed in no child
left -- where they failed miserably, they said who do we blame, who gets fired? we said wait a minute, maybe it is because the kids are hungry. maybe it is because those kids are missing a lot of school, for one reason or another. they jumped right to -- and then we will conclude it is all because you are a failed school instead of doing deep analysis of why we are seeing the gap. host: our guest with us to talk about this issue. if you want to call and ask questions, we have divided it to four lines. students the current education secretary, this week, talking about student assessments. i've seen your philosophy. let's see what he has to say, and that we will get your thoughts. [video clip] [applause]
>> i believe all teachers deserve fair, healthy systems of evaluation and growth that take into account student learning growth. assessment, and they have to be good ones, are one indicator additionally be one part of the picture. i think parents, teachers, and students have the right and the need to know how much progress all students are making each year toward college and career readiness. the reality of unexpected, crushing disappointment about the lack of college preparedness cannot continue to happen to our hard-working 16 and 17-year-olds . it is not fair to them, and it is simply too late. those days must be over. that means all students need to take annual statewide assessments aligned to classroom instruction in reading and math in grades k through a, and once more -- through eight, and once more in high school. we need to do more to support
teachers and students when so many are courageously raising the bar for student achievement. assessments, the test themselves, has been and should be an important part of this debate. we must be very thoughtful here. i'm actually convinced we need to know how much progress students are making and we have to do more to ensure that the test and the time spent in preparation for them do not take assessment time away from national classroom instruction. great teaching and not test prep is what engages students and leads to higher achievement. host: ms. lily eskelsen garcia? guest: there is a lot we can agree on. absolutely, we have to know what our children are doing and we can appreciate that the secretary understands that over 12 years after no child left passed under the bush administration in 2002, 12 years
later, test after test have been layered upon our students taking time away from actual class learning. yes, he has acknowledged there is too much standardized testing, and whenever, i am a teacher. we invented tests. we are not against testing. this is a narrow kind of test. it is a standardized test where you fill in a bubble, get four choices and a lot of memorized answers. my kids take test every single week. we would do a spelling test. this is not a question of should kids take test. it is what kind of test and more formally, how the test data is used. we believe they have taken this tiny, little band of a certain kind of testing and they have turned it into everything, and they will say that is all we need to know about kids, and that is not all you need to know about kids. host: ultimately, teachers --
there has to be bad teachers and how the we doubt the bad ones question mark why not use tests to judge that -- ones? why not use tests to judge that? guest: i talked affluent kids and at the homeless shelter. if you were to look at their test scores i would look like a totally different teacher, and i'm a fabulous teacher -- did i mention that before? i will bring that into the conversation a few times. a really good teacher wants to do a really good job. we will talk about making sure that we have good evaluation systems -- there is absolutely no research that says you can look at a student standardized test score ann callis it is a good teacher or a bad teacher. there -- standardized test score and say if it is a good teacher or a bad teacher.
when i asked one of my colleagues in an international conference we are discussing teacher evaluations, how it is that you identify quality teachers and teachers who need help, and teachers who really should not be there -- how would you identify a poor teacher, a bad teacher in finland, and she looked at me like i was insane. a lot of people do. she said are you telling me that you have a system that allows you to hire a bad teacher? it flipped my head and i went, good lord, they put it all on the front. they make sure that unless you are highly qualified, highly experienced -- they have a residency program like a doctor. i love the way that they care for, nurture, and develop the most highly professional career teachers in finland. that is a whole mother show. one of the things -- a whole
show. in finland, when they decided to transform the education system, they got rid of all commercial standardized test. they said it is a waste of time and money. host: our guests are lined up. gary. from indiana. go ahead. guest: --caller: i want to point out something really quick, and this is really important what i want to say here. as a kid, i was an under-achiever in school. i had the ability to do a lot better than i did and i did not care because i thought life was one big, rock 'n roll party, and you know, i did not realize until years later that real life is about purpose and responsibility. that is where education comes in, and hard work -- if you do not have those things, you are out of place. i hate to tell you. that is what it wanted to tell you all out there.
something to think about. host: gary, thanks. guest: that is an amazingly important thing. one of the things that educators across the country, teachers support staff, principles -- they said we have to get back to teaching that whole blessed child. the whole child means yes, their critical, creative minds, the you are also talking about healthy bodies, and ethical responsible, compassionate character. you are trying to get kids to see their own responsibility in life and so, those are the kinds of things you cannot put on a bubble sheet, on a standardized test, and they are sometimes the most important kinds of things that a teacher can impart to a student. host: a parent is in safety harbor, florida. mike next. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span.
he went for taking my paul -- call. good morning to the guest. the problem i have seen over the decades, the federal government's role in replacing what the states used to do effectively. if you look back -- i was reading a few weeks ago, there was a test to graduate the eighth grade from, i believe, the state of iowa or idaho -- i cannot remember exactly -- but it was mind-boggling me -- difficult. i could pass it because i spend my time learning things, but there was no way -- most college graduates would have failed this test. the problem is a lady who is the former assistant head of policy for the department of education under ronald reagan, she notes in her book "the deliberate dumbing down of america," that essentially the soviet model was
taking over, and we are teaching, as you said, our kids, to pass tests, and essentially become good workers, but we are not teaching them to be freethinkers and intellectuals. >> i could not --guest: i could not agree more, and that is a really important debate that has to be had. what is the role of the local government, the state government, and the federal government in something like education? there is no mention of public education in our constitution, in our federal constitution. it is usually in the state constitution. if you go back to what no child left came out all, it came out of the 1965 civil rights legislation that lyndon johnson signed. remember, we were just getting into fixing segregated schools then, so you had the federal government say look at all of the states that are ignoring the
educational rights of minority children, of children with disabilities, of children in poverty, and we will give them the sea -- the elementary secondary education act has become no child left behind. it was all about supplemental help -- title i money for tutors, special training, special education. now it has become this absolutely pervasive federal government saying every student every school will test. you will make the decisions based on nothing more than those standardized tests, which tell you, maybe important information, but very limited information, and the federal government now in no child left saying you will label and punish your schools based on nothing more than those standardized test as failures, and some of those students are talented in other ways that are
not measured on those tests. that is a we are in. is it the federal government's role to go into a state and say not only do i want the information on how well your students are doing on this limited indicator, but i am also going to tell you not how to fix it, but how to label kids and schools as failures? host: on our educators line from rochester, michigan. james. good morning. caller: a pleasure to speak to you and your guest. a quick question and a -- the reform movement, i would argue is no longer in its infancy, it has been around in our national a while and i think they are manufacturing crisis. when constantly comparing u.s. children to children in finland,
singapore, japan -- schools that are typically held as meeting a higher grade than u.s. students, they tend to deemphasize standardized testing, and my question would be his are -- is our other countries equal opportunity educators like the u.s.? we take all comers in public schools. we do not discern between who has and has not. i would like some commentary from your guest on that. guest: i appreciate question and the comment. we are often -- people will often say we have to do all of this stuff because of our global competition, so we look at our global competition. ironically i am on a plane this afternoon to finland. i will be going to norway and to finland visiting schools and giving speeches about our education system here in america. that is why they invited me.
in finland, which has consistently been at the top, it was not always at the top. a very homogeneous group of people -- not a lot of diversity or language issues that we deal with, but they were right there in the middle of the international rankings, with the united states. in the middle. norway sweden, other states, other countries, very homogeneous -- not a lot of income, diversity, even. then finland made some decisions 30 years ago about transforming is public education system and they shot through the ceiling. did we want to know what they did? maybe we should want to do what they are doing. they are doing the exact opposite of no child left. they said standardized testing costs a lot of money wastes time, does not listen of information. out. it is a business deal. out. they did -- they put in a lot of work in recruiting and
developing a career force of teachers that are second to none. what they did was said we are giving you incredible authority and autonomy on the school level, on the building level. here are the national standards. every third greater should know this. every fifth-grader should know this, but you design, and a collaborative team -- but in a collaborative team on your building, how you will deal with someone falling behind, how you will involve parents -- they are given incredible authority on the building level that has really been sucked out of the school. they measure what matters. they stopped obsessing about standardized tests and rankings. by the way, their goal was not we want to be number one in the world. they said we want to have really well-educated students. it was not a competition. it was not racing around for prizes or punishments.
they focused, before anything else on equity. they said every public school should be well-resourced, and when i talked to my colleagues, they said if we put a blindfold on you in finland, we could walk you into a school, take the blindfold off coming you would not know if you are in the richest neighborhood or the poorest neighborhood. every kid -- off you would not know if you in the richest neighborhood or the poorest neighborhood. what nea would like to say -- see, what the national education association and our 3 million hard-working educators would like to see -- where is that dashboard of educators question we have this one number on a standardized that educators -- educators?
i want to walk through the most affluent neighborhoods and say where is your athletics program, your ap chemistry lab, your advanced placement stem classes. host: you say that as information comes out, even in the papers today, about over half of poor students attending public schools. guest: i want people to get their heads around that. think of this statistic. more than half of all public school students are living in poverty. if you are looking at poverty as a measure of how many of the parents -- how many of them qualify for free and reduced lunch -- which is a good standard. you have to meet income standards to qualify for that -- more than half. so, as we have policies that have really, really let the rich get richer, and we will get more tax breaks for the 1%, it is not
that the poor are getting poorer, but the middle class is getting poorer. the middle class is slipping into poverty. for me, as an educator, that means my students, my kids are going to come to me with more and more needs and if they do not get it from their public schools, they do not get it from a music class. their parents will not send them to a music class. if they do not have a good athletic department, their parents cannot sign them up for little league. it costs money. if they cannot get the extra help, their parents are not going to get tutors for them. it has to be a well-resourced public school. that is where finland put their investment and where we should put our investment. host: next call is virginia. regina. caller: you are speaking about the teachers and bad teachers. to me, you kind of brushed over that. one of the things that i have
discovered is some of the teachers, their expectation level of students is very low especially minority students. how do you train someone to raise the expectation level that a minority student would do just as well as a white student, and how do you teach them to love that job and be creative to make sure that they are teaching in the various different styles of teaching that saw the students do not teach? how you train someone for that? guest: i have had some incredible colleagues in my career, teaching for 20 years in a lot of different situations and it is true that you will sometimes walk into a school, and you will find some challenging situations. you will find some very discouraged educators, what i have seen happen, when you actually can call that faculty, the staff together, where you can say we need your best
thinking, we need you to be creative with your students -- so often teachers and educators today in the building, they are being told our goal is to hit a cut score. these kids are not going to be able to hit a cut score. work with the bubble kids. work with the kids on the cusp. give them drills and practice so that we can make our number. it is like we are treating our schools like a factory, and that has to end. educators do not want that. teachers do not want that. what we are looking for is to really get down to that school building level, and challenge those teachers to do what you just suggested. these are kids with infinite potential. all of our blessed kids. how do we find ways that they can succeed? a lot of those kids, it is not going to be hitting a cut score on a standardized test. they will hate school if that is
what they think school is about. i want to do current events -- "were you watching c-span? did you hear what pedro said? i want them to be critical thinkers, learn about the world around them, make learning, live again for our students, and that means you have to make teachers understand their own responsibility for teaching the whole, blessed child. when they are given the authority and the responsibility to design something where you say i want our kids to really love coming to school, i want them to learn on many different levels, and it is your job to get them there, whenever we have done that, teachers have stepped up, and that is where, no matter if it is in the poorest neighborhood or the richest neighborhood, that is where you see the difference being made. host: a reader wants to know if you support the movement to ban -- abandon the a-d and f system.
guest: that does not work. that does not work. host: if you get an actual eight, b, c, or d on a report card. guest: sometimes a teacher's hands are tied on how the school district forms their report card. people have tried a lot of different ways on giving parents good information on how their kids are doing. i love to do project-based learning. i love to do something where kids had to organize something. they had to communicate. they had to work collaboratively. you could work math, language arts, writing skills -- a lot of things into different project. that is hard to quantify with who got an 82 on that. i could -- i could say here is
the standard. this is what it looks like. you measure it. you did not meet it. i could explain that to the reason why that strict grading has been a problem for me is i was able to open up a portfolio on a table like this and say let me show you the progress your student has made. i did have to make up report cards. i had to explain how i got to that number. host: one of the things they are finding is students make strident ability to reason, but many start and a deficit. is elementary education, do they teach analytical thinking? guest: what we find out when kids get into higher education
we've got another standardized test that is supposed to predict that you will do well in college. it actually predicts that you will make it to your freshman year. after that, there is no correlation with success. they found that long-term success was correlated with your grade point average in high school. those points you did in high school, it's more well-rounded than can you memorize facts. it did you turn your homework in on time? can you write a coherent essay? those are the kinds of things that kids are not getting enough of as we ramp up the just hit your number on a standardized test. that's being lost. it's all about can you be a good test yes or. that is not going to serve you
well. what we want our critical, creative thinking skills and people who can collaborate on a project. those are the things we're going to be fighting for as we take on dsca and diminish the importance of that one indicator. host: our guest is the president of the national education association. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for your work and dedication to public schools and students and children. i'm 56 years old. public schools saved my life. they kept me surrounded by good role models and good children trying to do well. i/o anything i have gotten in life the public schools.
i'm not going to put words in your mouth. maybe you can comment on some of these things. no child left behind is similar to the language of the patriot act which allowed corporations and government to spy on their own citizens. it was sold through nice patriotic language. my seventh grade teacher allowed us to read "animal farm." privatization is corporatization of public schools. that denies teamwork that lily is speaking to. no child left behind has a corporate agenda. some of those people we need to take a look light are the carlyle investment group or george bush is brother josh -- george bush's brother. caller:guest: there are a lot of people
getting rich off the testing mania. i have no idea that they started it, but there are business opportunists. the one thing we know when you are going to sell somebody something, if you can generate fear, they will buy. what i have heard all over the country are those administrators and school boards who are terrified that they will be unfairly labeled failure because they are teaching communities that have so many needs. they are communities in poverty. if we can't get these test scores for our quota, we will be labeled failure and the kids will be labeled favor. -- failure. the salesman will swoop in and say here is the test prep.
they are selling these bundled packages to districts that don't have any money. we are going to train your teachers and train your kids to be great test gets her's. host: no child left behind was a bush administration thing, why not take ownership of a different way of doing things? guest: we have now been under no child for 12 years. kids who were kindergartners would no child left was put in place our seniors this year. they have lived under nothing else other than hit your number on a test score and that's all we care about. the teachers care about more and your parents care about more. it's like a sports page, we have to rank you. it's been a failure. host: why did the administration hold onto it?
guest: i think there are a lot of different motivations area and i think honest people said that will shine a light on some of our children who have been ignored. what if it was the opposite? what if it shine a light on english language learners? they said to a bunch of administrators, you get a bunch of bonuses if those english language learners get their test scores up. one administrator called them in one by one and talk them into dropping out of school. you get your lowest test score takers to drop out of school. he frightened them. they left school and the test scores went up when you can manipulate the test pool. this has been nothing but corruption and a waste of time and money to be obsessed with that one number. host: from tennessee, and
educator. go ahead. caller: i want to say that i am happy to hear something about ben carson. he was on briefly. i'm not going to sound like a nice guy. i am the grandfather of 25 grandchildren. ben carson was asked what was the most important thing for our country. he said honesty. i have to admit that after 31 years, most of it in public education, i think the whole system is full of dishonesty. one example is tenure. i can't think of any other job where you can't lose your job.
even the best of people are not going to do their best if they can't lose their job. there are a lot of other things that are contrary to common sense. host: go ahead. guest: tenure is probably the most misunderstood issue of the day. people do think that it means you can't lose your job. due process like tenure means that if you are accused of doing something wrong or incompetence or whatever reason somebody fires you in a utah and most other states it means that if you think you are being fired unfairly, you can have a hearing and present your case.
what we are finding out now more and more of our teachers are asking questions like can i get fired if i am asked why apparent what their opt out rights are if they think these tests are bad for their kids? i would like to tell them what their rights are. i have someone telling me that i can get fired for that. the bottom line is they could get fired. we have had teachers get fired because they were telling them their right under the laws that exist in their state. with so many reasons why a good teacher needs to be able to say if i speak the truth, if i am honest, what risk do i take that i might use my job? we have
people that will go to school board meetings and stand up and speak out against a superintendent and say they don't think a policy makes sense. they risk being fired for that, being citizens in their own communities. there is a lot of reasons why a teacher would need to say i do have some protection if i am doing my job well, i can't be fired for a bad reason. host: if you want to read more about teacher tenure, time magazine takes a look at that. there it is on the website. dylan is in south dakota. caller: i have been listening. when my son was going to school he was always uptight about taking tests. a lot of the teachers now they
were busted for cheating on their test scores. they wanted to get bonuses. why don't you do what we did when we were kids, just have your test once a year and that's it. guest: again, i think the word is corrupting many times. when you have this high-stakes for this one number is a problem. whatever your motivation, it's a corrupting influence. when you using things like student achievement data, its use to benefit the students. we are hearing -- i wish we had heard from's from -- from some
students. some of them are saying they cut our spode's -- sport program or our arts program. some schools are not allowed to have recess until kids had their test scores. for some of these teachers, it's the testing being used not to improve things for kids. it's a numbers game. a lot of people when they think it's a numbers game and it doesn't really matter, that is a corrupting influence in and of itself. it doesn't matter to kids. we want everything to matter in that school. we want to do something better for students. we are seeing this distraction that has become corrupting. we have a chance to fix it. we have a chance with re-authorization. this department of education this congress could talk about
better indicators and talk about equity indicators. they could talk about how we make sure teachers are the most highly qualified people, having authority to really do what the kids need them to do on that building level. very few people are talking about what to do to make it right. we know that people want to do the right thing. host: senator alexander has been meeting with democrats. the you think it's going to happen? guest: let me tell you what we're up against. no child left untested had that horizon to achieve a statistical impossibility. in federal law right now, it says in the year 2014, that just passed us by, 100% of human children will hit and ambitious
cut score on math and reading tests. if one kid misses it by one point, the entire school is labeled a failure and all of these punishments get kicked in. principles get fired. schools closed down. all of that is in federal law. that's why they've been passing out these waivers like crazy. anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows all of the special ed kids don't read on grade level. your entire school is labeled failure. everybody is being given waivers and that can't go on forever. the waivers can have strings attached. they become the lawmaker. something has to change. you are giving incredible authority to the department of education to say if you want a waiver, this is what you have to
do. i think what that means is you have a lot of governors and senators and congressmen on both sides of the aisle that are saying i'm not comfortable with the department of education declaring whether or not 100% could be labeled failure. washington state did not get one of those waivers. they did not want to play that game. the best of the best will be labeled failures. unfairly and it certainly. >>caller: thank you for c-span. what this lady is saying is absolutely true. i'm 62 years old. i grew up in extreme poverty. i never want to -- excuse me, i'm nervous. i started school year late.
i went to second grade and spent two years in the second grade. i did pretty good for the next three years. i went back into the same mess. i ended up going from fifth grade in high school as i was 13 by the time i finished the fifth grade. i spent my next two years in high school spinning my wheels because i never went to sixth seventh, or eighth grade. i ended up graduating from high school without any help from anybody. other than my teachers, i got taken out of the mess i was in. guest: my heart goes out to this collar. a lot of people are in that situation.
i did teach at a homeless shelter where we had kids who were all of the map. there families were in different situations. they were in trauma every day of their lives. they needed so much from me as a teacher. it was the best gig ever as a teacher. i was able to care about that child. you had a social worker, they had a health clinic, they had a dentist. the services that we gave those families, we looked at the whole family. that's becoming less and less. the reality in school is challenging. schools in poverty don't have a counselor. they are getting rid of the programs that might actually interest those kids. they are just saying it's just
the test score. teachers are ready to fight for their kids. parents are ready to fight for the kids. this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is what do you want to do with that child? how is this country have well-educated children? half of them come from families that are struggling and they need so much more from that school. this is our favorite charity. were not asking for a charitable contribution. this is the best economic investment and the best investment in democracy. this is a chance to reverse 12 years of insanity. host: angela is in florida. she is a parent or it --. caller: good morning.
i know a lady who is a school counselor. someone who worked in the school -- this is in the public schools. they would not leave the job. they have nothing else to do. this lady has moved from school to school to do nothing. host: what would you like our guest to address? caller: outside of a certain age, they should be told to retire. guest: i couldn't agree with
mandatory retirement. we have some amazing teachers who have meant toward me. -- meant toward me -- meant toward me. we have some amazing new teachers. you really need that pipeline of experience. it's a good thing. i have seen the amazing things when you put together generational diversity of educators as well. i do believe that people should constantly be honing their skills. we should have good professional development. we should be looking to be better and better educators. we should be given that authority and that responsibility to be instructional engineers on that school level. if we are able to make the plan
for something better for our kids, it's our plan and we want to work it. i have seen that on the ground. host: let me talk to your experience as a school lunch lady. republicans in the senate say they want to take aim at the nutritional standards. guest: we rely on healthy kids. anybody that wants to take a shot at child nutrition programs and school lunch programs and the help that poor families get in nutrition programs, let me at them. this is so fundamental and basic. i have had hungry kids walk into my classroom. i would bring a purse full of little reckless ours.
when i was teaching in a public school i knew which kids did not have breakfast that day. of course we need to have strong nutritional standards and services for our kids. i started out as a school lunch lady. i was right out of high school. nobody in my family had gone to college. it was not an expectation. i just look for a job when i graduated from high school. because it was a head start program, these were kids in struggling families. coming through that line in looking at what they could get for lunch, they were smiling. that was the only hot meal they would have that day. host: it's the meal that comes into question. guest: let's not do that. we need healthy food in front of kids. case closed.
who wants to argue for unhealthy food?? host: the you think they were too stringent? guest: we know there is a childhood obesity exit epidemic -- epidemic. we know the kids don't have access to healthy food on. food they are going to get at school, it may be the only meal they will get that day. i have visited schools in some challenged immunities. they send backpacks home. they work with church groups and food banks and they identify the families who on the weekends those kids might not get a meal. it's a fun thing. you get a little backpack with nonperishable food you can take home.
this is a crisis. the least we can do, the least we can do is make sure that those kids have a model of healthy food. host: now the head of the national education association joining us. common up, the supreme court decided they will take the case taking a look at same-sex marriage. we will talk about the details of the case. there are two lines you can call. we will take up that when "washington journal" continues after this. >> our guest this sunday on q&a is on the front line battling infectious diseases. >> we have drugs that when given
it to people who are hiv-infected i can show you the dichotomy in the early 80's, if something came into my limit with aids in the early 80's, the survival would be six months to eight months. half of them would be dead in eight months. if tomorrow, when i go back to rounds on friday and somebody comes in to a clinic who is 20 years old and recently infected and i put them on the combination of three drugs, i can accurately predict and say we can do mathematical modeling to say that if you take your medicine regularly, you could live an additional 55 years. to go from knowing that 50% will die in eight months to knowing that if you take your medicine you could live essentially a normal lifespan, just a few
years less than normal lifespan, that's a huge advance. >> dr. anthony felty on q&a. on the martin luther king holiday, we are featuring all day programming on book tv and american history tv. monday morning, cornel west on six revolutionary african-american leaders and their impact on their own generations and now. at 4:00 gail sheehy. on american history tv, when he did jones abernathy on her experience during the civil rights movement.
state of union addresses. at 8:00, historians talk about ferguson, missouri. find a complete television schedule at www.c-span.org. you can e-mail us. you can send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. "washington journal" continues. host: the supreme court says they will take up a case looking at gay marriage cases that took place in several states. it could decide same-sex marriage nationwide. we will discuss the details of the case. here is how you can join us and make your thoughts known it.
those numbers will be on the screen. we will leave those up and you can choose the one that best represents you. champlain, indiana, what do you think about the supreme court taking the case? caller: i am not opposed to gay marriage in itself. there are so many other issues that the supreme court could be hearing right now. one is revisiting citizens united. there are some of the problems in this country for us to be involved with social issues which divide people. there are other things we could work on, including no child left behind and other issues. we are not doing it. these social issues should be done on a state to state basis.
host: bill is from pittsburgh. go ahead. caller: good morning. one thing that comes to mind, we have been talking about the results of what the extreme court is expected to do. don't you can to explain the constitutional basis of equal protection. this is what they will be deciding. this is the details of what they are deciding rather than is the liberal side of the court for it and the conservative against it. i hope that everyone will understand something about the equal protection clause by the
time this is over. i very much support the recognition of gay marriage states just recognize a marriage. this is a state prerogative. this is handled by the states. the case that is coming up is going to decide whether the government can override it. i don't think they should. i think the recognition should be done on a state-by-state basis. if the state does not recognize it, the benefits in that state would not go to couples. host: bill is mentioning some of the details of the case. joining us on the phone is a
reporter from "wall street journal here co --." can you talk about the 14th amendment? caller: it was ratified in 1868. it was the centerpiece of the unions war goals. it was designed to prevent states from repressing there's citizens. states are prohibited from denying citizens or any person, not just citizens, the equal protection of the laws and due process of the law. how are those entities interpreted and enforced by courts today? the judiciary has developed ways to interpret challenges to state laws that plaintiffs allege violates the 14th amendment.
they look at the reasons people are treated differently under state law. if they are justified by legitimate state interest, the supreme court has to consider these four cases. it's whether or not treating same-sex couples worse than different sex couples when it comes to marriage is justified by any legitimate government interest of the state. host: are there previous court cases that would support or oppose that argument? caller: in 1972, the supreme court in a single sense decision dismissed an appeal from the minnesota supreme court over the same issue. a gay couple in minnesota looked to get married. they challenged the state law prohibiting that.
the minnesota supreme court upheld the state law and at that time, the supreme court was obligated to hear an appeal. they dismissed the appeal saying there was no federal issue. that was a precedent from 1972. it was about his brief a statement as you can get from the supreme court. the sixth circuit court of appeals in cincinnati which upheld the four state laws at issue decided that decision. the supreme court has already ruled on that, there is nothing for us to do. the federal appeals courts that have considered the same issue in other states took a different position. they said that a number of things have happened since 1972, including decisions affirming gay rights of affirmed by the
supreme court. it overrules that 1972 case. since that time, the law has changed substantially. those courts held that the old precedent has been i passed by opinions that have struck down the core of the federal defense of marriage act, which denied benefits to same-sex spouses. the opinion known as lawrence versus texas which invalidated laws that criminalized sodomy. the supreme court struck down a colorado voter initiative that canceled local ordinances that had given civil rights protections to gays and lesbians. host: who is the justice to watch as this proceeding goes forward? caller: there are two.
the most important is anthony kennedy. he has written all three major gay-rights decisions starting in 1996. justice kennedy has a number of in-store strands whose jurisprudence. a fairly strong respect for states rights and the prerogatives of states under admiral is him. that is something that gives opponents of gay marriage some minor hope that he will respect state authority. he also has a tremendous interest in what he describes as human dignity and individual dignity. his opinions on gay rights have
10 quite forceful in affirming the view that individual dignity and individual sexuality is something that is core to one's identity. it is outside state regulation. he is the one to watch. many observers believe that event where he has been and how he has developed his thinking in this area over 20 years, he will be the one to write this decision that many expect will affirm a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. the other justice to watch is roberts. he dissented from kennedy's opinion in the windsor case. he would have upheld the defense of marriage act. he wrote his opinion much less
forcefully then another. roberts has a pragmatic streak. he is concerned with the court's overall reputation. he is aware of the overwhelming trend among the lower courts that is seen the constitution is protecting gay couples in this way. he expects to be on the court for many years into the future. the question is, given that this case is likely to have an impact on the credibility of the court going forward younger people of all ideological persuasions are former likely to favor same-sex marriage rights, whether the chief justice says this is outside our power.
whether he is able to fashion some sort of opinion that can draw in or can place them in a position that doesn't look retro grade in the future. who knows with the court will ultimately do. they have surprised us in the past. the transit seem to be favoring a decision that strikes down these marriage restrictions. we don't know how it will come out. if it comes out as a surprise, it's quite likely that the chief justice would be involved in that outcome. host: he covers the supreme court. thanks for your time this morning. caller: happy to do it. host: we know the details of the case, now to your calls.
marlon is in detroit. go ahead. let me push the button. good morning. caller: thank you for having me. i have heard all the rhetoric over the years. host: go ahead. caller: i have heard all the rhetoric for years. what i don't understand is these are grown people who love each other. what makes them different from anyone else who wants to get married? why is this such a grand issue in the first place? caller: i just want to thank you for biting your tongue and being the moderator and not injecting your opinion. i am on the fence.
i believe the perpetuation of man has been a man and a woman. times of change. if you're going to open this pandora's box and allow gay marriage, then you have to open up this box for all. i am referring to polygamists. you can't pass something that only satisfied one section of society. i would think of gay marriage allowing polygamy. host: virginia is in wisconsin. you are on. caller: i supported. i feel everyone has the right to marry who they wish. i think these judges are no longer working for the people.
i don't think they are working fairly for the people. i think their pockets are being lined by corporations. i think we have to find a different system for making decisions. host: this is dennis from new jersey. caller: at the beginning of the world, it was not male to male. these people want to adopt children. children are curious about who is their father and who is their mother.
[indiscernible] host: harold is in westwood, new jersey. caller: a very interesting topic area you are going to have somebody talk about family faith, and freedom. at this time in our history everybody has the right to marry. if you are a male, you have the right to marry any female of your choice. if you are female coming of the right to make -- marry any mail cheering anything is not marriage. if we want family, natural law and biology, you can't have a family if you have two men or two women. they cannot have a child. god has protected this country.
throughout the history of mankind, got his fulfilled. he promised abraham he would have as many children as the stars in the sky. god wants children. you have freedom, but you can't have freedom to do what's wrong. we should love everybody. we should have mercy on everybody. we should not encourage children to think you are not really a man. if you have a same-sex attraction, it's not something you should fight it a little bit. host: let's hear from leo. caller: when you look at lady
justice, she has amassed on her eyes. she is not determining who is in front of her. hello? she is not determining who is standing in front of her. one person is the same as the next person. if people are gay or whatever. as far as polygamy, the difference is nobody is allowed to have polygamy. that's a big difference. host: a person at the health
care law is leaving the agency that manages this. they oversee the health program. she is resigning as the administrator of medicare and medicaid. she has been with them since 2010. her agency wrote many of the rules. frank from maine. go ahead. caller: i think it's not a question of equal rights and
they are asking for special rights. it's always been against the man -- law for a man to marry a man. they are asking for special rights. the government should be ashamed of themselves for letting them adopt kids and put them into a deviant behavior situation. host: ernest is up next. caller: i oppose it because god created man for woman and woman for man. anytime someone goes against that, they will burn in hell. the government is trying to make arrangements for same-sex marriage will meet the repercussions of god's damnation. host: from the financial times there is a story previewing the state of the union address. that is on tuesday.
you can find out more information on a website. mark is in california. you're on. go ahead. i'm going to put mark on hold. go ahead. beth is in florida. caller: hello. thanks for having me. i would like to say for everyone supports a marriage, where does it stop? like the man said earlier, we will have to allow polygamy read one of 70 what's to marry their brother and sister. you have to have a standard. the standard has been man and woman. i know there have been polygamists in civilization. i am talking about modern civilization.
if we start changing the standard, where does it end? the standard has to say the same. to protect the family. to keep our children from being confused about what really is a parent couple. we should not say that marriage is from a man and a woman because it will keep evolving. host: stephanie is in new york. caller: this is debbie. i am calling and support. people have to understand there is a difference when you get married in any church or synagogue or whatever religious community. you still have to be married by the state. if you get married in one of those religious institutions,
that's holy matrimony. it should be separated from marriage. the right to marry should be given to all. host: if you watch our sister channels on the weekends, we have tv that deals with nonfiction books. both of those channels feature highlights of cities across the united states are in it willing west virginia is the focus this weekend. we will present all of our nonfiction book coverage from west virginia. >> if you look at the budget for the war on drugs it's billions of dollars. i was curious as to why that is and how does this fit into the larger picture of american
foreign-policy? >> we associate this with richard nixon. he said those words. if you look at that time. , the war on drugs was connected to the next and administration. if you go further back in history, neck's and didn't start the war on drugs. it had been in effect and we had strict drug policies domestically for most of the 20th century. what nixon did was expanded and enlarged it. the war on drugs is something the u.s. has used. it's been justification for intervention activities.
>> this is a police action. a put your weapons down. host: more from that and other offerings from wheeling, west virginia. book tv is on c-span to an american history tv is on c-span3. caller: i oppose same-sex marriage because when you talk about marriage, it's between a man and a woman. god put man and woman there to have children. he didn't say two men have a child. on that ground, i think marriage is between a man and woman. it's not to be discriminating against same-sex couples, i think from the biblical term, marriage should be the standard between a man and a woman. the other concern i have is if this is approved, what is
marriage going to mean? can a man have three wives? can a woman have for husbands? you open up pandora's box. what is going to be the limit? you are confusing children. you are going to have children that identify themselves as another sex. there is a lot of confusion. host: let's hear from millie. caller: i believe that -- i believe that gays are born that way.
religion needs to be out of state and politics. hello? host: barry is from massachusetts. caller: i don't believe that marriage should be between two men or two women. god didn't make it that way. i don't think the president is right back in it and i don't think the supreme court should back it. no politician has the right to change what god has made. host: from marion indiana, this is david. caller: hello. i supported because i believe that everybody should be happy. it doesn't matter if you're gay or not. it's about happiness. if you are happy with the same sex, let it be. it doesn't matter if it got made
people different. that's all that matters. host: the issue of climate change has come out into reports. one is from nasa. they are talking about the warming of the earth, 2014 been the warmest year on record. for the third time, the hottest year on record. 2014 averaged 50 .2 degrees fahrenheit. nasa calculates the temperatures differently and puts on a 14's average temperature at 58 point 24 degrees fahrenheit.
that is higher than the average. let's hear from in indiana. caller: i'm just going to make this fast. i am not homosexual. i've got a buddy of mine who lost his job. they went to mexico. he has two kids. my wife passed away. we get married. now i am going to have dependence. i work for a phone company that has good insurance. my buddy and his kids are going to have insurance. he will be eligible for my social security. i've got a place in southern indiana.
we take the kids down. i've got a girlfriend and he's got a girlfriend. host: tennessee. caller: i am definitely in support. in today's society we've had so many of our young teenagers commit suicide because of this. everybody has the right to pursue happiness. no one has the power to sit in judgment. the lord has that. i supported wholeheartedly. whatever you want to do when it comes to that, you should have that privilege. host: tomorrow, a look at political strategy with two people who follow the issue very closely. we will talk about issues of the day. we will look at the congress. that will be at 7:45 a.m.
we will also talk about counterterrorism issues. that discussion will be at 8:45 a.m. we will see you then. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up this morning on c-span, a house ways and means hearing on the u.s. economy. then chamber of commerce member thomas donohue discussing the state of congress.
here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2 tonight at 10, on book tv's afterwords, bret stephens argues that -- and sunday night at 10, democratic representative from new york steve israel on his recent novel about a salesman and a top-secret government surveillance program. and on c-span3, george mason university professor john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion in the american west during the 1830's. and sunday afternoon at