tv PBS News Hour PBS October 17, 2011 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> ifill: president obama began a three-day bus tour today to drum up support for his jobs plan. his road trip comes after a weekend of protests against social inequality. good evening. i'm gwen ifill. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, kwame holman reports on the demonstrations in more than 100 cities. and we assess the growing movement and its impact, here and abroad. >> ifill: then we look at the role of big money super pacs in the 2012 presidential campaign. >> brown: ray suarez interviews f.c.c. chairman julius genachowski about new consumer- friendly rules for wireless companies. >> ifill: betty ann bowser talks to the author of a new book about the addictions of two medical revolutionaries.
he loved the way cocaine made him feel. he was very interested in its psychological components. but he got to like it a little bit too much. >> brown: and we close with excerpts from yesterday's dedication of a new memorial in the nation's capital for civil rights leader martin luther king, jr. >> come and walk in my shoes. dr. king is is telling you that we have changed, that we are better people. we're a better nation. >> ifill: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:
>> soon computing intelligence in unexpected places will change our lives and truly profound ways. technology can provide customized experiences, tailored to individual consumer preferences. igniting a world of possibilities from the inside out, sponsoring tomorrow starts today. >> chevron. and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century.
and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: the anti-wall street protests went global over the weekend. and today, world leaders took note of the spreading movement and its possible implications. newshour correspondent kwame holman has our report. >> reporter: president obama drew on public discontent without mentioning the protests directly as he promoted his jobs bill in ashville, north carolina. >> when you hear what's going on out in the country, when you take the time to listen, you understand a lot of folks are hurting out there. >> reporter: the nearly month- old "occupy wall street" movement had started with 1500 gathered in manhattan's
zuccotti park but the ranks surged on saturday. an estimated 6,000 people joined a rally in times square insisting the system is weighted in favor of the rich and against everyone else. >> we're out here as citizens. we're out here at women. we're here to talk with, to learn more from other people who are frustrated with the system, with this system, with people who know that they're frustrated they're suffering. they want to have something done about it. >> can't do anything about it. they only talk about their views. they don't have any money. the banks are taking the money from them. >> reporter: as many as 1,000 common straightors went to a bank branch with some closed their accounts in protest. >> it feels really good. i don't want chase bank to have my money. >> reporter: in chicago there were overtones of the 1968 protests against the vietnam war. >> the whole world is watching. >> move back so... step back,
please. >> reporter: as crowds refused to leave a makeshift camp site in grant park on saturday night, 175 were arrested. nearly 1,000 people attended a rally in downtown denver where two dozen were arrested. >> in the name of the people of the city and county of denver, i ask all of you to disperse. >> reporter: there were demonstrations and rallies from los angeles where thousands marched through the city's financial district. to milwaukee. >> these are intelligent people, educated people, teachers, union members. these are working people. this is america right here. >> reporter: and in atlanta as well. overall organizers said more than 100 u.s. cities had protests on saturday. occupy wall street began as opposition to the perceived greed of large u.s. financial firms and growing wealth disparitys made worse by the
recession but over the weekend it gained momentum abroad especially in europe where it dove tailed with long-running demonstrations against wage and benefit cuts recently adopted by cash-strapped european governments. in rome, throngs filled the streets near the ancient roman chros but the peaceful gathering into a riot when some in the crowd smashed windows and burned cars. police used tear gas and fire hoses to push back crowds, and officials estimated property damage at more than a million dollars. there were clashes in germany as well. as protestors marched on the parliament building in berlin. and in london where protesters were pushed away from the london stock exchange before making their way to st. paul's cathedral. wikileaks founder julian assange addressed the crowd there. >> this movement is not about the obstruction of law. it is about the construction of law. >> reporter: but today russian
prime minister vladimir putin warned that the protests can be destructive. >> things can get to a situation that we are now seeing in certain countries with developed economies. when hundreds of thousands of people are taking to the streets, not a marginal group but hundreds of thousands and are demanding things that the governments of these countries cannot actually carry out. >> reporter: still in the streets at least the movement seems to be gaining strength organically. activists claim there were protests saturday in more than 1,000 cities worldwide. >> brown: we'll have more on the global economic protests later in the program. also coming up, super pacs and the coming elections; new guidelines for wireless fees; an historical tale of cocaine addiction; and the martin luther king memorial dedication. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: wall street plunged today amid resurgent fears about europe's debt crisis. doubts reemerged after german leaders said expectations of a quick fix were too optimistic. the dow jones industrial average
lost 247 points to close at 11,397. the nasdaq fell nearly 53 points to close below 2615. in yemen, government officials reported at least 18 people were killed overnight in fighting between troops and opposition forces. at least 30 others were wounded. the fighting in the capital city, sanaa, was the most intense in weeks, and it followed a weekend of violent confrontations. meanwhile, the u.n. security council has taken up a resolution urging president ali abdullah saleh to step down after 33 years in power. central america struggled today to recover from six days of downpours that have left at least 81 people dead. flooding and landslides ravaged parts of guatemala, honduras, nicaragua and el salvador. officials issued evacuation orders, as rain was forecast to continue through wednesday. barriers around bangkok, thailand, mostly held back rising flood waters over the weekend. but nationwide, the death toll grew to more than 300. we have a report from john
irvine of independent television news. >> reporter: it's known as the river of kings. in bangkok it's higher than it's ever been. but while the river has been breaking records, it hasn't been breaking its banks. not in the thai capital at least. but what about elsewhere? we were heading upstream to see what the river had wrought in the more rural districts that have formed the front of this crisis. not far from bangkok and the river has no visible banks. it's taken over as far as the eye can see. further on-- and this is what passes for two-way traffic in the historic city of iutia-- its ancient temples make this place a heritage site. it was the capital of siam. it's now the capital of thailand's vast flood zone. this is the heart of the water
world that central thailand became about two weeks ago. it's anyone's guess how much longer it will be like this. it's at least 50 miles in every direction to dry land. many of the victims the flood have sought refuge here because the authorities are present in force. we were on a raft delivering food and water. its arrival was always eagerly anticipated. later the police chief explained that for everyone the flood came as a total shock. neither his force nor anybody else saw it coming. when it did, it was too late. >> it came in two hours. >> reporter: an estimated two-and-a-half million people have been affected. many lives are now on hold until the waters recede. in one small town i asked an enter prizing shop owner how people were coping. she said she was sold out of
alcohol and cigarettes. if they could get to their temples to pray for this to be over, they would. but in a sense it's the heavens that are prolonging their misery, for they keep opening. >> sreenivasan: late today, the governor of bangkok warned the city is still in danger. he said there's an urgent need to build a wall of sandbags three and a half miles long within 48 hours. earlier statements by other officials suggested the worst had passed. the presidential election in liberia is going to a run-off. incumbent ellen johnson sirleaf failed to earn a majority in last week's first-round vote. she got 44%. on november 8, she'll face winston tubman. he and other opposition candidates have claimed the election was rigged. sirleaf is africa's first democratically elected female president. she also shared this year's nobel peace prize with two other women. tributes poured in today for indy car racing star dan wheldon. he died in a fiery crash on sunday during the early stages
of the las vegas indy 300. three other drivers were hurt in the 15-car pileup. wheldon had won the indianapolis 500 twice in his career, including this year's race. he was born in england, and came to the u.s. in 1999. dan wheldon was 33 years old. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: and we turn to a discussion of the causes, strengths and weaknesses of the growing public protest in the u.s. and abroad. for that, we're joined by sarah van gelder, executive editor of "yes!" magazine. josh barro is a fellow at the manhattan institute. and historian beverly gage of yale university. she is author of "the day wall street exploded," a look at a bombing on wall street in 1920. sarah van gelder, i'll start with you. what do you think is going on here? what are these protests tapping into? >> well, i think they've managed to name the essence of what's going on for the 99% right now. for the last couple of decades
middle class and poor people have seen wages stagnate. at first we were able to make up for it by working multiple jobs, by both mom and pop in the family working, by working longer hours. then we were able to make up for the stagnating wages by going deeper into debt, borrowing against the value of our house. but with the 2008 collapse we couldn't do that anymore. we started really feeling the pain of losing jobs, losing our homes in many indications, losing access to health care. i think at first a lot of americans really hoped that the washington establishment would come up with solutions. that hasn't happened. especially this summer. we saw how much gridlock there was in washington. i think people finally got fed up and decided they needed to take to the streets and speak for themselves. >> brown: josh barro, the people fed up? a sense that the system isn't working for them? what do do you see and why now. >> we've been through three years of terrible economic performance. i think it reflects a lot of the same discontent that drove
the tea party starting in 2009 but the left's reaction was delayed for a couple years because i think there was hope that the obama administration would provide them the solutions they were looking for. that hope has not panned out. but while i think that the protests reflect a great deal of discontent and especially upset with the financial sector and with people at the top of the income distribution, what we're not seeing out of these protests that we did see out of the tea party is an alternative policy agenda. we're seeing a lot of complaint and a lot of agitation. about but what we're not seeing is proposals about what the government should do to make people's lives better. >> brown: beverly gage you've looked at past protests against wall street. compare that. what do you see going on now? and what josh barro just said about the amorphous nature of this. >> i think that the big question of this financial crisis up to this point has been why we haven't seen more of this kind of protest? in past financial crises
looking back to the 1890s, for instance, or looking at the great depression you actually had a great deal of social unrest. up to this point we really haven't seen it. now that it's begin to go start and build i do think what we're beginning to see is fairly typical of a movement that is just emerging. it's a movement that's really about calling questions right now. as it moves into other stages we may see other things develop. but right now it's about posing this kind of question. i think that that's really the role that a lot of social movements of this sort have played from the pop last of the late 19th century through the kind of social unrest that we saw during the depression and now once again today. >> brown: sarah van gelder, what do you think of this question of the... whether it's an amorphous movement without a specific set of... a list of issues that could be translated into political impact? do you see it having that kind of impact? >> well, i think it will have tremendous impact. i mean it was... it would be
extraordinary the people representing the 99% could actually come up with a succinct set of policy agendas within weeks of having this movement erupt. what they've done which has been very wise has been to say we have a principle at work here. the principle at work here is that our economy needs to work for the 99%. right now the benefits of the so-called recovery, the benefits of all the increases in productivity, the benefits of our economy, have all been going to the 1%. that is taking our society and destroying it. it's destroying the prospects for the middle class and destroying hope for our kids who are graduating from college with tons of debt and no jobs that can pay enough to pay their debt and also pay their rent. so i think it was extraordinarily wise of them not to rush into trying to come up with a 10-point plan. instead essential sale saying to the politicians we need a society that works for the 99%. you tell us what policies are going to do that. >> brown: josh barro, what about this question of the 99%
versus the 1%? address that. >> well, first of all, the 99% of americans live in households with incomes of $593,000 a year or less. so a lot of the bankers working on wall street are part of that 99% bloc as well. so i think that conception of the movement is a little misplaced. it's not as though people near the top of the income distribution but not in the top 1% are doing poorly. they're certainly winners in the economy of the last couple of decades too. while the... that may sound like a nitpick the thing is when we actually get to the policy stage which has to happen at some point we're going to talk about things like do we need higher taxes just on the small sliver of very wealthy people or do we need to look at higher taxes on a broader base of people? if you try to focus on just that 1%, you won't be able to fix a lot of the country's fiscal problems, for example. i also think that there's a little bit of presumptuousness about "we are the 99%" slogan.
this movement does not have the support of 99% of americans especially once you start getting down to policy specifics. i think, you know, you can get a lot of agreement from the left and the right that people are upset about the way the financial sector has been treated over the last several years that banks have not seen the reforms that they needed to see to prevent... the need for the kind of bailouts we had to do in 2008. when you start getting into the specifics of what sort of banking sector we should have, what sort of tax code we should have the 99% is going to splinter because people have different preferences about policy. they want different things out of the government. >> brown: beverly gage, what does the past tell us about what it takes to build up a movement that is is, if not 99%, a majority of the country or to have real political clout some. >> i think the questions that we're seeing start to emerge with "occupy wall street" are questions that are sort of classic questions of social movements particularly movements that have targeted economic power, economic inequality, questions of what
the relationship with the democratic party is going to be. are they going to be somehow folded in, sort of a tea party style on the left? are they going to stand apart from party politics? what's the relationship with specific legislation going to be? is there actually going to be a legislative program? all of these are not problems. they're just issues that you find in any sort of social movement that we've seen in the past. i do think that one thing that's going to start to emerge-- and we've seen little glimmers of it already-- is that we've seen a lot of excitement, a lot of interest in this early stage of "occupy wall street." one of the things that is going to more and more of an issue is what happens as these become a more permanent feature of the landscape? what is the relationship with the police going to be like over the long term? how long are cities going to tolerate protests? we've seen some very dramatic and in many cases tragic outcomes in the past. things like the bonus army of 1932 which was unemployed veterans can brutally driven
out of washington out of an encampment they had made then. i think that those questions are going to start to come more to the fore. and i also think these questions about the role that the movement is going to have in relation to formal politics, to electoral politics, are they going to be part of it, are they going to stand outside of it raising questions? all of those are what we're going the see in the next month or so. now we have the growing phenomenon of these protests moving internationally. how important is that, do you think, and do you see a common thread here? >> well, i do see a common thread. let me just address the question of the agenda because one of the things that hasn't happened in the u.s. is we've become so partisan. we've become so divided that we haven't really had a conversation across party lines, across left and right. one of the extraordinary things about what's happening in these occupation sites is that you see those kinds of conversations. because whoever shows up gets to be part of it. that coo be a really interesting political shift in the u.s. political landscape.
internationally i think there is a lot that this has in common with what's going on internationally because many of the problems are still the same. we have the same situation in which large corporations are... and a small group of people associated with them and large financial institutions are getting extraordinarily wealthy while most people around the world are either seeing their standard of living stagnate or decline. so this notion resonates enormously across the globe. then we have social media to communicate those ideas. >> brown: a brief last word about the importance of the movement internationally, josh barro. >> i think that we're seeing similar economic conditions around the world so it's not surprising to see similar moferments. i think the underlying economic conditions are actually significantly different than europe. the root cause of many of the problems in europe are the unsustainability of the euro zone. i think it makes even less sense to focus on the financial sector in europe. the big errors in europe are pure government policy errors that need to be fixed by
policy makers there. whereas in the u.s. there's more of a split between problems in the private sector and problems in the public sector. >> brown:. thank you all three very much. >> thank you, jeff. >> thank you. >> when it comes to financing presidential campaigns an entirely new play book is being written. the traditional yardstick, the money raised by individual candidates may count less this time. instead hundreds of millions of dollars may come from a relatively new political animal, the super pac. the financing vehicle sprang up in the wake of a 2010 supreme court decision, citizens united, which wiped away limits on corporate and labor union campaign spending.
a candidate's ability to raise money on his or her own does still count for a lot. financial reports released this weekend show texas governor rick perry outpacing his republican rival, hauling in more than $17 million for the third quarter. with $15 million in bank, he put away half a million dollars more than former massachusetts governor mitt romney. who pulled in $14 million during the same period. no other major g.o.p. contenders raised as much. ron paul was next with more than $8 million. but the rest raised substantially less. and also had far less cash on hand. as for the man they all hope to replace, president obama brought in nearly $43 million last quarter. by the end of september, the incumbent democrat had $61 million in the bank. more than all the republicans combined. some of that will likely be spent responding to attack ads from the new super pacs, like
this one from the conservative group american crossroads, airing in north carolina and virginia. >> he raised our hopes. he seemed to understand. >> the last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of recession. >> but today he's different. >> ifill: but democrats are getting in on the big money action too. this anti-romney web video was released earlier this month by priority usa, a super pac run by former obama staffers. >> mitt romney may have no experience fighting terror but he does have some experience with foreign countries. sending our jobs to them. >> ifill: the messages may be familiar ones but the money fueling them could reshape the political landscape next year. joining me now to discuss this new landscape is tara malloy, associate legal counsel for the campaign legal center, a nonprofit organization that favors tightening regulations on campaign spending. and hans von spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation, which opposes new regulations. he's also a former member of the federal election commission.
since i almost got your position wrong there, mr. van spakovsky, let me start with you. and ask, is it really going to change the landscape? am i overreaching when i say that? >> i think there will be more money spent on the election but, you know, we get more money spent on every election. that's a long-term trend. i think in the long run it's actually going to be a wash because you have liberal organizations and conservative organizations raising money basically to oppose each other and, look, no matter how much money you have getting your message out, if voters don't like the message you're giving you're still not going to win an election. >> ifill: it feels like we have these conversations every couple years. each time it's about more and more money being spent in new ways. is that really so? or are we just funding a new way around new regulations? >> i think that citizens united was certainly a game- changer. it is true we've seen an upward trajectory for spending in elections.
however we can look at the 2010 elections. we saw four fold spike in independent spending between 2006, the last mid-term election and 2010. the first mid-term election following citizens united. although we see an upward trajectory in spending we do not usually see it quadruple. many commentators think that 2010 was a dress rehearsal for 2012. this is when corporations, unions and other big players who are trying to exploit the citizens united decision will really come into the fore. >> ifill: when we talk about super pacs, the term itself sounds sinister. who is behind it? and why are they different from regular pacs? >> well the super pac is a term to describe the new independent expenditure-only committees that could form. basically the citizens united decision said that labor unions and corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money independently of candidates to convince voters to vote for or against someone. >> ifill: without coordinate ing with thend candidates.
>> that's a very important point. so these super pacs have been formed because they can raise money, you know, not just from individuals which is what pacs, political action committee, could do but they can raise it from labor unions and corporations also. there's a lot of money there that can be raised and spent on independent advertising and other things hike that. >> ifill: is this just spending on advertising? it's not spending in any other way to support a candidate? >> i think that you're going to see a lot of dispute about how much these super pacs, these ostensibly independent committees, are tied or are not tied to individual candidates' campaigns. again in 2010 we saw some initial super pacs. for instance, american crossroads, the karl rove-led group was the largest. they did seem to support multiple candidates. what we've seen in 2012 is candidate-specific super pacs arising. almost every single candidate for the republican presidential nomination now has their own super pac. and when you start seeing these types of connections between the candidates and
these ostensibly independent groups. >> ifill: you said it twice, ostensibly independents. do you have the evidence that there's a connection some. >> some of the factors that we are concerned about. first, these super pacs are often established and led by former staffers to the candidates. it might be a staffer. it might be a former chief of staff. that's one connection. secondly, the federal election commission, the agency that looks over campaign finance law, has allowed the candidates that are the beneficiaries of these ostensibly independent expenditures to actually do some large degree of fund raising for these so-called independent groups. so we're seeing a tighter and tighter nexus between the beneficiaries of this independent spending and the so-called independent groups. this, of course, raises the specter of possible political influence and corruption. >> ifill: hans, does it make a difference if this money is spent, coordinated or uncoordinated, independent or ostensibly i could from the campaign, if we know about it, if it's all written down
somewhere? >> it does make a difference. in fact the federal election commission has issued regulations, and the regulations govern when something is being coordinated. if a candidate is coordinating the messages that are being sent out by an independent group, that's no longer an independent group. in fact, that kind of spending then can be attributed to the candidate. there may be violations of federal law. independent expenditures have to be exactly that: independent. that makes a big difference in whether or not it's being coordinated or not. >> ifill: but if it's candidate-specific, and the person running the super pac worked six months ago for president obama, say, isn't that just a loophole? what's the difference? >> the difference is, again, if you look at the regulations, there has to be actual consultation and coordination between them. i as an individual should not be barred just because i used to work for someone from then going out if i think they ought to get elected from getting other friends to help
me and of putting together an organization to help me as long as i am not simply acting as an official surrogate of the campaign. >> ifill: part of this rule means that you have to disclose. and in fact that has turned out to be... for some corporations to want to form these super pacs. isn't that exactly as intended? >> well, i think that another important point to make is that super pacs are not only the new beast on the scene. often times these super pacs are forming, first, a political committee which as you said has to operate fairly transparently but at the same time they're creating a sister organization that is a nonprofit group that is far less regulated. and these nonprofit groups are already quite active in 2010. what they have done is create a new vehicle that allows big donors to give to the nonprofit for general purposes. and then that nonprofit can spend up to 50%. it appears of their money on explicit campaign ads. they never actually have to
disclose their donors. the super pac structure is often super pac plus. even less accountability organizations. so there is a real concern that not only are we going to have unlimited spending but we are going to have in many cases very anonymous spending where we don't know the true sources of the money. >> ifill: president obama as the incumbent is the big man on a block when it comes to a fund raising so far. he put out an email saying he had a million small donors that were part of his fund raising that we talked about a moment ago. if there were a million people out there still will to go write small checks does that in any way counteract the effect of these big money super pacs? >> i think it does. look, he raised $750 million last time around. it was the largest amount that any presidential candidate had ever raised. he basically overwhelmed his opponent with his campaign spending. i still think he's probably... i think they're aiming to raise a billion this year. i think that that in large
measure will also help countersome of the money that's raised against him. plus remember there are going to be a lot of liberal organizes also raising money to try to help him get elected. i any in the long run it's going to probably be a wash. >> ifill: is it a wash? do individual campaigns no longer have an edge? >> i think the problem is that it's not simply a lot of money that's being spent. it's money coming from very few concentrated sources. a campaign finance reform group is not necessarily just concerned that there is more money, maybe millions more being spent. it's concerned that there are just certain donors that are able to give millions, sometimes tens of millions, to influence the election. of course the common sense question arises, what do they expect in return for this type of money? and this is the problem of corruption and the appearance of corruption that the supreme court has also respected as being a compelling reason to govern money in politics. >> ifill: tara maloy at the campaign legal center and hans van spakovsky of the heritage foundation, thank you both
very much. >> thank you. >> brown: next, new consumer protections for cell phone users. ray suarez has the story. >> suarez: most people who own a cell phone purchase a plan with limits on how long they can talk on the phone, how much they can text or use the web. but customers often go beyond those limits and end up with a higher-than-expected monthly bill. today the wireless industry, under pressure from the federal communications commission, announced new voluntary guidelines requiring companies to send customers alerts before they exceed their limits. the f.c.c. proposed such rules last year, then held off on implementing them under the new agreement. julius genachowski is the chair of the f.c.c., and he joins me now. mr. chairman, what's bill shock? and what was the fcc looking for in the way of customer protection? >> well, bill shock is what happens when you open up your
bill at the end of the month and you see a very, very large charge that comes from exceeding one of those limits that you just mentioned. >> suarez: do we have any reliable numbers on how often people do this over the course of a year? >> we've done a survey. consumers union did a survey last year. as many as one out of five americans, literally tens of millions of americans experience bill shock, charges of hundreds or even thousands of dollars that come from unknowingly exceeding data limits or traveling to a foreign country and incurring very high international roaming charges. >> suarez: your agency was about to announce new limits and then held off. why? >> well, our goal was to solve this consumer problem, and we said from the start that technology provided an easy solution. send people alerts before they
exceed their voice or data or text limit. and what we received today was a commitment from the wireless industry to do just that. to provide consumers alerts to empower consumers so that we can all manage our monthly bills and not be shocked by very large charges. >> suarez: once the fcc had announced its intention to move ahead on this, did the entry see eye to eye with the commission on what needed to be done? >> well, we had very healthy discussions. we were very clear about what we thought would be fair to consumers. our focus was on harnessing technology to empower consumers with information. we had discussions about issues, for example, should an alerting mechanism be opt in or opt out? and one of the victories today for consumers is that the new alerts will not require an opt-
in. they will be automatic, and if you're in danger, if you come close to hitting a limit, you'll be alerted and you'll have a chance to act. >> suarez: did the agency, did your commission, have in mind certain baselines that the industry was going to have to hit in order to make this agreement without you having to move to regulation? >> yes. and those baselines were part of the announcement today. alerting people before and after they exceed limits for voice, for text, for data or when they're traveling internationally on international roaming and are about to incur much higher international roaming charges. let me just mention a couple of other things. the other pieces were the alerts should be free. as i mentioned, they shouldn't require an opt-in. they should be automatic. >> suarez: and how long until people start getting a buzz in their pocket and look and see
that low and behold it's their carrier telling them they're about to hit one of their limits. >> that will depend on the carrier. some will start very soon. at the long end it may be 12 to 18 months. some of the carriers have systems to change and upgrade. but what we're going to do starting right away together with consumers unions is put up a website where we will be tracking what the different carriers are doing so that consumers will know and so that we'll see some competition among the carriers to provide this kind of service to consumers as quickly as possible. >> suarez: when you're in a situation like this, when you've allowed industry to move ahead before the federal government does, do you have to keep that regulation in your hip pocket in case it doesn't proceed as planned? in case one of the big players in the industry doesn't move ahead as you understood? >> well, that's why we're monitoring. that's why we said we would keep this proceeding on hold.
if we don't see compliance with these commitments, we will act. now, we expect that there will be compliance. consumers want it. it makes sense. technology makes it easy to offer these up-front aletters so we don't anticipate problems but we'll be watching closely. we'll act if we have to. >> suarez: when you look at these different kinds of communications-- voice, text, data-- it might be easy to keep track of your minutes. even of the number of times you text or the number of characters you text. but, boy, data plans often have certain limited numbers of megabytes across a month. if you watch a couple of you- tube videos or check your portfolio or something, it's hard to know how much data you're downloading into that little device in your pocket. is it easy to keep track of that? >> well, this is exactly why alerts are so important. people have an intuitive sense of minutes. no one really knows how
quickly you're getting to a megabyte limit. it's one of the reasons why so many people had these charges and why these aletters made so much sense. no question about it. all of the sufficient that is going on is very exciting. all of the services, apps that we're getting with data and data plans are providing enormous benefits to consumers, are helping our economy. we're leading the world in mobile innovation. this is a big plus for our economy and will become only more so as time goes on. what we're seeing here is that this is an area where we can both have tremendous benefits and services for consumers, a plus for our economy and job creation and treat consumers fairly at the same time. >> suarez: julius genachowski is the chairman of the federal communications commission. thanks for joining us. >> thanks, ray.
>> brown: now, a tale of cocaine addiction, involving two leading figures in the history of medicine. newshour health correspondent betty ann bowser has our book conversation. sig mund freud and william hall stead were two medical revolutionaries. freud the well known father of psychoanalysis, hallstead the less well known father of modern surgery. but just beneath the black and white success there's another story. both men shared a blinding addiction to cocaine. in a new book called "an anatomy of addiction" a pediatrician tells how the two tried to ward off self-destruction in the quest for knowledge. we caught up with the author at johns hopkins hospital in baltimore. where hallstead connected some of his greatest work. thank you, doctor, so much for doing this. >> thanks for having me. >> what was the connection between sigmund freud and william hallstead.
>> they both were contemporaries. they never met or at least i can't find any evidence. but their lives were braided together. they were bound together by a fascination with cocaine. and several medical papers that some they each wrote or some they read about the latest, newest miracle drug of their era, 1884. >> so here we are the medical library of william hallstead at johns hopkins university, one of the greatest medical centers in the world. what did he do? >> most of the modern safety procedures we take of how to cut open a body, how to handle the tissue very delicately and gently so that it heals well, how to suture it correctly, this was all william hallstead. he was also fascinated with aseptic surgery, not introducing germs into the surgical wound. >> at this point in medical history, cocaine was found to
do what, that would allow hallstead to do all these things in surgery and freud to do all these things with his medicine? >> here you had something you could inject or treat or rub on there. it numbed it to the surgeon's life. so hallstead became fascinated with using this deeper and deeper into the body to do all sorts of procedures without putting a patient under. >> so hallstead got involved with cocaine by experimenting with it in ways to use it in surgery? >> yes. it was very common for many a doctor in the late 19th century and the early 20th century to use themselves as guinea pigs. no doctor at this time knew of the terrible addictive effects of cocaine. none of this has been figured out yet. so the first arm to be put out and injected was hallstead's. >> did hall lfer... did hallstead understand at the time what he was doing to himself?
>> at some point he did. when he was still living in new york and literally ruining his career. he stopped going to the operating room. he stopped going to the hospital. he stopped going to medical meetings. at one point he was called down to the emergency room, bombed on cocaine, and he literally pulled away from the table and said, "i can't operate." and he walked out. took a cab back to his town house and skitered away the next seven months high on cocaine. >> hallsteady vent ally committed himself to an insane asylum in rhode island, hoping to be freed of his addiction. but in those days there was no real treatment, so for the rest of his life he struggle with the disease. across the tlik and long before psychoanalysis, a young doctor freud also believed that cocaine might be his ticket to fame and fortune. one of his closest friends was addicted to morphine. freud published journal articles proclaiming cocaine was the cure. but he also had a more personal interest in the
drug's effects. >> freud loved the way cocaine made him feel. he was very interested in its psychological components. for one it did make him feel better when he was sad. he also was amazed at how it made him talk about things endlessly that he thought were locked away in his brain. sound familiar? that's talk therapy but without the toxic side effects of cocaine. but he got to like it a little bit too much. >> did any of the writings, the sense of euphoria, all the things he got from using cocaine, did any of those lead to anything that we now see in psychiatry today. >> it did. to begin with, the idea of talk therapy where you talk freely, the free associate from one thing to another may have been inspired by the cocaine unleashing his tong or his repressed memories. but most importantly cocaine haunts the pages of the interpretation of dreams. the model dream is a cocaine
dream. addiction therapists would call a using dream. he was using cocaine quite a bit in 1895 on himself to the point he was having chest pain. he was depressed. he also his nose was so congested he to have a surgeon open it up with a knife so he could breathe. lots of sign you might want to lay off the stuff. >> in the 1890s after almost killing a patient while under the influence of cocaine, freud stopped using the drug. it was after that when some of his most famous work was produced. when cocaine was being used by freud and hallstead at this point in time, did the world look at cocaine as something fantastic or something to be experimented with? how was it use snd. >> all they saw were the good aspects. no one knew down the road it was very obvious when you had all these addicts that were created. it was overprescribed as was morphine and opium for everything. it wasn't until about 5 or 10 or 20 years later that people
started to say, hey, everybody i know is addicted to this stuff. there was no such thing as controlled substances either. you did not need a prescription. you could just buy it at a drugstore on your own. it really outlines the morality play that continues to this day of every blockbuster pharmaceutical agent. this drug when it comes out is the greatest, the newest, best. then as we find out more and more, well, it's not so great. it has to be used under certain conditions. >> so who you say... so would you say beyond this whole story is a contemporary cautionary tale? >> absolutely. it's a morality play for today as well as yesterday. that's why i could find all of these issues about addiction in general. we had to be very careful because as we're learning more and more about addiction, not just one's environment or the drug they use or the root of administration but also one's genetic predisposition.
think of it as a wheel of misfortune. as it goes around if you wind up on the bad wedge you could become an addict. >> doctor, thank you for being with us. >> ifill: finally tonight, tens of thousands of people gathered in washington yesterday to formally dedicate the national mall's newest destination, a memorial honoring the life of civil rights activist martin luter king, jr. i was honored to serve as emcee. >> ifill: hurricane irene blew the original plans away, but yesterday's delayed dedication of the martin luther king jr. memorial featured clear skies, huge crowds, joyous music. ♪ hallelujah ♪ i want to thank him, lord, for being so good to me ♪
>> ifill: the first family was joined by the king family as they toured the towering stone of hope sculpture near the tied al basin. and the president placed a copy of his 2008 nominating convention speech in a time capsule. just steps from the lincoln memorial where king delivered his "i have a dream" speech in 1963, the civil rights leaders who marched with him marked his memory. georgia representative john lewis. >> came to washington 48 years ago. we have signs that say white men, colored men, white women, colored women, those signs are gone and they will not return. ( applause ) the only place our children will see those signs will be in a book in a museum on a video.
and i hear too many people saying now 48 years later that nothing has changed. come and walk in my shoes. dr. king is telling you that we have changed. that we are better people. we're a better nation. >> ifill: southern leadership christian con convenience co-founder who just turned 90. >> we recognize here that in the midst of the amazing truth that an african-american preacher who never held public political office is recognized here among the fathers of the country. indeed, he has become a father of the country. for his leadership gave birth to a new america. >> ifill: ambassador andrew young. >> when you think of martin luther king as a giant of a man, but the one con plex he
had was a complex about his height. he was really just 5'7". he was always getting upset with tall people who looked down on him. now he's 30 feet tall looking down on everybody. ( applause ) >> ifill: king's daughter, also an ordained elder, said her father did not do his work alone. >> we would be remiss if we did not also recognize and honor the life and legacy of my mother, mrs. coretta scott king. after the assassination of my father, she was left to raise us four children. my mother also with her dedicated and tireless efforts raised a nation in our father's teachings and values. >> ifill: several speakers pointedly added that king would still have been fighting
today. the rev. al sharpton. >> he brought us from the back of the bus. he brought us to voting rights. but we must continue to fight for justice today. justice is not trying to change the voting rights act. and deny us in 34 states our right to vote with voter i.d.laws. justice is not executing people on recanted testimony. justice is not sending children to schools that are not funded. justice is not 1% of the country controlling 40% of the wealth. >> ifill: children's defense fund founder marion wright edalman called for an end to childhood poverty. >> where is your voice to say stop? children falling into poverty? why have we normalized and let our leaders normalize child poverty and homelessness and
hunger in america? stand up and speak up for your children and their future. honor dr. king by committed action. >> ifill: and martin luther king iii said his father's nonviolent ideals remain on display. most recently in ongoing street protests. >> the young people of the occupy movement all over this country and throughout the world are seeking justice. justice for the employed searching for months for jobs and those among them haven't given up in despair. justice for working class people barely making it. >> president barack obama. >> ifill: standing before the monument to deliver remarks displayed on big screens to a larger crowd a short distance away, president obama said king is to be remembered for more than his speeches. >> it is worth remembering that progress did not come from words alone. progress was hard.
progress was purchased through enduring the smack of billy clubs and the blasts of fire hoses. it was bought with days in jail cells and nights of bomb threats. for every victory during the height of the civil rights movement there were setbacks. and there were defeats. >> ifill: like king nearly half a century ago the president spoke of his dreams for his children. >> i want them to come away from here with a faith in what they can accomplish when they are determined and working for a righteous cause. i want them to come away from here with a faith in other people and a faith in a benevolent god. >> ifill: then stevie wonder led the crowd in a sing-along to the 1981 anthem he wrote as part of a campaign to make king's birthday a national holiday. ♪ happy birthday ♪ everybody.
♪ happy birthday >> brown: again, the major developments of the day. the spreading anti-wall street protests began getting more attention from world leaders. scores of cities in the u.s. and around the world had demonstrations over the weekend. and wall street plunged amid resurgent fears about europe's debt crisis. the dow jones industrials lost nearly 250 points. online we often post extended excerpts from our interviews. hari sreenivasan offers an example tonight. hari? >> sreenivasan: betty ann asks author dr. markel about cocaine's ties to such disparate subjects as rubber gloves, soda pop, and the pope. that's on our health page. plus, view our slide show on the eight most dangerous countries for journalists to work, from pakistan to mexico. find it on our world page. and another on the spreading protests inspired by the occupy wall street demonstrations. also there, links to reports
from our pbs colleagues. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. on tuesday, we'll look at the release of an israeli soldier, swapped for hundreds of palestinian prisoners. i'm gwen ifill. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> oil companies have changed my country. >> oil companies can make a difference. >> we have the chance to build the economy. >> create jobs, keep people healthy, and improve schools. >> ...and our communities. >> in angola chevron helps train engineers, teachers and farmers, launch child's programs. it's not just good business. >> i'm hopeful about my country's future. >> it's my country's future.
bnsf railway. intel. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> this is "bbc
world news." funding for this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu. newman's own foundation. shell. and union bank. >> union bank has put its financial strength to work for a wide range of companies, from small businesses to major corporations. what can we do for you? what can we do for you? and now