Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  July 17, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT

6:00 pm
captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: a gunman identified but what were his motives? the investigation continues into shootings that left four marines dead. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. also ahead: the historic pact with iran, secretary of state kerry says there's only on alternative to it: >> if the congress of the united states turns this down, there will be conflict. >> woodruff: it's friday. mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. plus, building smarter, more efficient aircraft-- scientists take cues from nature's best tiny flyers. those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour.
6:01 pm
>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. ♪ >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- >> and with the ongoing support
6:02 pm
of these institutions 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. >> woodruff: the question today in chattanooga, tennessee was: what led to the deadly shootings yesterday at a military recruiting center and navy training site? but as hari sreenivasan reports, so far, there are no answers. >> sreenivasan: investigators spent the day poring over the crime scene and chasing some 70 leads. f.b.i. special agent in charge, ed reinhold: >> f.b.i. agents are partnering with state and locals to run down every lead that we have received. as our team continues to develop additional information, you may see or hear about f.b.i.
6:03 pm
activity in other areas of the state and nation. >> sreenivasan: the four u.s. marines killed in the attacks were identified today as: gunnery sergeant thomas sullivan of massachusetts, a two-time purple heart recipient. lance corporal skip wells of georgia. staff sergeant david wyatt of north carolina. and sergeant carson holmquist of wisconsin. three other people were wounded. the kuwait-born shooter naturalized american citizen muhammad youssef abdulazeez, was shot and killed by police. the 24-year-old lived in nearby hixson, tennessee, and by all accounts, was not on federal law enforcement's radar. and, those who knew him were stunned. luke russell is a former high school classmate. >> it's crazy to hear about not only in your hometown, you never hear about it in your hometown, but to hear someone you went to school with?! everyone is shocked. we are just blown away to be honest. really, i just can't believe it really. >> sreenivasan: authorities today searched the gunman's computer for clues. they also looked into his foreign travel, but said so far there's no link to the islamic state or other terror groups. >> that is a possibility that we will explore just like any other
6:04 pm
possibility. at this time we have no indication that he was inspired by or directed by anyone other than himself. >> sreenivasan: in the meantime the army's chief of staff, general ray odierno, ordered a review of security at all military recruiting and reserve centers. >> woodruff: we'll return to the chattanooga shootings and the issue of domestic terror after the news summary. a texas grand jury will take up the case of a black woman who died in jail this week. police say sandra bland hanged herself monday, in hempstead about 60 miles from houston. she'd been jailed for a traffic violation. bland had acknowledged she suffered from depression, but family and friends say they doubt she would have committed suicide. islamic state bombers have struck again in iraq in one of the worst attacks yet. they claimed responsibility today for a car bomb that killed more than 100 people near baghdad. the force of the blast brought down buildings in a busy
6:05 pm
marketplace as muslims marked the end of the holy month of ramadan. the latest greek bailout moved forward on two fronts. the european union confirmed today it will supply $7.7 billion by monday, so athens can make a crucial debt repayment. also, lawmakers in germany-- the e.u.'s biggest player-- approved starting negotiations on a formal bailout package, after a plea by the chancellor. >> ( translated ): i know that many have doubts and worries whether this way will be successful, whether greece has the strength to permanently go down this road, and nobody can wipe aside these worries. but i am firmly convinced of one thing: we would be grossly negligent, even irresponsible, if we did not at least try this road. >> woodruff: the broad outlines of greece's bailout program were agreed to monday by the euro- zone's 19 leaders. in ukraine, hundreds came out to mark one year since a malaysia
6:06 pm
airlines passenger plane was shot down, leaving 298 people dead. friends and family members of the victims-- and local residents-- gathered near the memorial site in rebel-held eastern ukraine. they laid flowers and released balloons at a stone marker. back in this country, the u.s. justice department formally announced a partial settlement involving sheriff joe arpaio of maricopa county, arizona. arpaio is known for his outspoken stance against illegal immigration. but federal officials accused him of discriminating against latino inmates and retaliating against critics. under the settlement, maricopa county agrees to federal oversight and new policies. former new york congressman michael grimm will serve eight months in prison for tax evasion. the staten island republican was sentenced today, after pleading guilty last year to filing false tax returns. he was accused of under- reporting more than $1 million in wages at his restaurant.
6:07 pm
grimm resigned from the u.s. house in january. and on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average lost 34 points to close below 18,090. but the nasdaq rose 47, as google has its biggest gain in seven years. and the s&p 500 added two. for the week, the nasdaq rose 4%, the dow and the s&p gained about 2%. still to come on the newshour: discerning motive in the attacks on military sites in tennessee, secretary of state kerry on selling the iran nuclear deal, planned parenthood practices spark political controversy mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news, designing drones inspired by nature's best flyers and running and leaping through a concrete jungle.
6:08 pm
next we take a deeper look at what we know about the attack in chattanooga and the current threats against americans. hari sreenivasan picks up the story. >> sreenivasan: investigators are still combing through clues to find out why muhammad youssef abdulazeez went on a shooting rampage yesterday in chattanooga. officials describe the case that targeted members of the u.s. military and took the lives of four marines as a terror investigation. to discuss this we are joined now by michael leiter, former director of the national couterterrorism center. on the one hand, we have federal authorities saying we do not have a direct link yet to i.s.i.s. on the other hand, this is exactly the type of attack that i.s.i.s. and al quaida are trying to inspire around the world. >> that's exactly right, and i think federal officials are being appropriately cautious. it is only 24 hours after the event and much that will be uncovered is not yet open or public. all that being said, it's quite clear, i think by all indications, that there was some inspiration from al quaida or
6:09 pm
i.s.i.s. ideology. exactly what the links are back to those organizations, that's what we still have to figure out. >> sreenivasan: and i.s.i.s. has been asking members to target the u.s. military. >> that's right and i.s.i.s. has been successful at using social media and calling for muslims globally to attack at home not traveling to afghanistan, iraq or syria, and targeting either law enforcement officials or members of the military. so in that sense, certainly the initial appearance of this attack very much falls in line with what i.s.i.s. has been encouraging. >> you mentioned social media. how cooperative have social media companies been in balancing the privacy rights of users versus aiding authorities in an investigation like this? >> it's a very thorny problem especially after disclosures by edward snowden, there's great discomfort between the international community and social media companies. i think social media companies are doing what they can, but
6:10 pm
many in u.s. government believe they can do more, and that would be disclosing information to federal officials, once they say it is closely associated were terrorist activity. the fact is social media and other means oversecure communications are how these organizations are getting their message out and in some way communicating. so it will have to be a very cooptive effort between the technology community, u.s. and aboard and global counterterrorism officials. >> sreenivasan: we have members of the military saying the equivalent of let's raise the threat level and recheck the security features we have but how do you prevent an attack from a lone wolf like this? >> this is really difficult and this is some of the worst fears of the u.s. counterterrorism officials. detecting these people in the first instance is difficult because to have the nature of social media and communications burks even once you identify them, to actually track and surveil them, really, the resources of the f.b.i. and local law enforcement are totally swamped. so it's a real challenge.
6:11 pm
so this will involve workover seas to ninish organizations like i.s.i.s., domestic efforts here and forced protection. but some of these people will always remain vulnerable in a society where people can easily gain access to weapons, unfortunately we are going to face events like this. >> sreenivasan: what are the red flags counterterrorism officials are looking for? because this individual was not on the radar. >> well normally officials would be looking for again, engagement in social media, statements or communications of known terrorists which really suggested a radicalization and potentially a movement toward executing an attack. certainly some of the travel might have raised red flags but this is an individual of jordanian descent, so simply traveling to jordan wouldn't do it. what's most concerning about this case, even if it's only 24 hours later, right now there are very few red flags very few dots that appeared to be missed. in that regard, the speed with
6:12 pm
which this individual appears to have gone from a well-educated, well-integrated individual in society, to someone who would perpetrate these attacks with few in any indicators, highlights how hard this challenge is. >> sreenivasan: mile mile former director to have the national counterterrorism center, thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: the nuclear agreement reached by the united states and other major world powers with iran has provoked an intense reaction in washington and around the world. this morning i sat down at the state department with the obama administration's point man on the deal, secretary john kerry, to discuss it and the reaction it has generated. secretary john kerry, thank you for talking with us. >> my pleasure. >> woodruff: so it's been three days since you made this announcement. >> is that all? feels like an eternity. >> woodruff: when did you know
6:13 pm
yourself that this was going to come together? >> i really only knew in the last couple of days, and even then there were some tough issues to resolve in the final hours which could have snagged the whole thing. but a week before i think it was sunday a week out i had a very direct and very sober discussion with my counterpart questioning whether or not they really had the ability and/or the political space and the authority to be able to make a deal and i made it clear that if we didn't move in a different direction from where we were we were ready to go home. >> woodruff: but it turned around. >> it turned around, and we really got down to business. things began to move. there was always the relationship of key issues with other issues, and as we began to make progress it sort of unlocked the keys to the puzzle and it was a puzzle. all the pieces have to come together in the right way.
6:14 pm
>> woodruff: what do you make to have the reaction, especially on capitol hill which you know so well is this. >> well, look, i look forward to my discussions on capitol hill, i really want to sit down and go into the deal because i think the deal would stand scrutiny. i mean, we've spent four years negotiating this. this was not a rush. if it was a rush we would have done ate long time ago. we needed to make sure we were doing the things that closed off the four pathways to a bomb. we knew we would be scrutinized. what i regret is so many members of congress without even reading the agreement or knowing the components were just automatically, out of politics or something, saying no and then finding the reasons to hang their hat on it. i think that's regrettable. but i look forward to really engaging on this and i think it deserves a very responsible and deep analysis and we're ready to dig in with everybody and go
6:15 pm
at that. >> woodruff: let me ask you about some of the concerns that have been raised take them one by one. inspections. the administration officials were saying back in the spring they were going to be anywhere, anytime access. the president is now using the language "where necessary," "when necessary." that's different. >> i tell you as a negotiator for these last many years, we never had a discussion about anywhere, anytime. anywhere, anytime is this you euphemism that's out there maybe in the political atmosphere but it's not a realistic or existing term of art within arms control. there is no country anywhere in the world that allows anywhere anytime or has anywhere anytime. the only example i can think of is iraq after we invaded, once we had a total sur surrender and takeover of the country. that's different.
6:16 pm
so what you have under the i.a.e.a. is what's called managed access or access structure. but we negotiated something that doesn't exist in any other agreement, and that is a resolution of a standoff. if they are not allowing us the access that we need in order to properly determine whether a suspicious site or some site where we have activities that we have questions about that that is being accessed, if that doesn't happen, we have a specific process by which we can go to the united nations security council, we can bring back all the sanctions and we can literally order inspections and, if they don't comply, they're in material breech of this agreement. that's never happened before. >> woodruff: the former u.n. weapons inspector said this is a plan that's highly dependent on the attitude and aggressiveness of the international inspectors. he says they will be under enormous political pressure not
6:17 pm
to be too hard on iran. >> i disagree. i think it's the exact opposite. they will be under enormous pressure to hold iran accountable and let the world see that we get the answers that we need. there is nothing in this agreement, judy, that is based on trust. every aspect of this agreement is, in fact based on verification and the ability to know what is happening. >> woodruff: another aspect of this, mr. secretary are these past military-related nuclear activities. mr. dolpho said the ability of inspectors to get access to these dozen or so sites is still highly uncertain. he's read the agreement, talked to others about it he says it's still not clear if we have that kind of access. >> first of all, they are not all sites that have to be visited. there are some sites and some people that need to be talked to and other investigation needs to take place. there is a plan that has been signed by iran and the i.a.e.a.
6:18 pm
which director general amano is satisfied that will allow them to solve the issues. there are sites that have been negotiated as part of the plan. we have confidence the i.a.e.a. will get the answerons a very specific schedule they need and no relief, no sanctions relief will be given to iran until that is done, made a point about the particular phase they're doing and then ongoing efforts by the i.a.e.a. to determine the broad conclusion which is whether or not iran is engaged in any activities in declared or undeclared sites with respect to reppization. that takes a longer period of time, and the i.a.e.a. is satisfied they will be able to make that determination. >> woodruff: you've emphasized this is a deal at iran's nuclear
6:19 pm
program and wasn't intended to get to anything else, and yet there is concern iran will take money from the unfrozen assets and use it to create mischief more mischief in the area -- give some of it to hezbollah some to the shiite militias in yemen, so forth. what is the u.s. prepared to do about that? >> we'll clamp down. they're not allowed to do that outside even of this agreement. there is a u.n. resolution that specifically applies to them not being allowed to transfer to hezbollah. they are specifically not allowed under another u.n. resolution to transfer to the shia militia in iraq. they are specifically not allowed to transfer to the houthis. i will be meeting with all to have the gulf states in about two weeks and secretary carter is meeting with them in riyadh next week, we are laying down the steps we will take to work
6:20 pm
with our friend and allies in the region to push back against this behavior. now, with respect to the money, i can't tell you that some -- you know, some amount of money might not find it's way to something or another but i tell you something nothing around what they have been doing today is around money. the gulf states are spending $130 billion a year. so there is something else going on. this is about organization, about capacity. and what we're going to do is build the capacity of other states in the region to be able to push back. in addition to that -- and this is very important -- our intelligence community has done a full analysis of iran's fiscal needs, monetary needs. president rouhani needs to deliver to the iranian people. they have high expectations from this deal for a change in their
6:21 pm
lifestyle. iran needs to spend $300 billion just to bring their oil industry capacity back to where it was five years ago. they have a $900 billion need of expenditure for their banks, for arrearages, for infrastructure. so $100 billion which is their money, by the way, which we've frozen and they then get is the price you pay for achieving no nuclear weapon. the other choice, are you prepared to do what the u.n. resolution says which is lift the sanctions over a period of time in return for their negotiating where by the way, they didn't just come to the negotiations, they have cut a deal, or do you want to go to war? because the alternative to this deal is they will do whatever they want we will lose the sanctions, we will lose the support of the global community. if the congress of the united states turns this down there will be conflict in the region because that's the only
6:22 pm
alternative the ayatollah, if the united states says no, will not come back to the negotiate and who can blame him. >> woodruff: two other quick points. one, what do you see the u.s. doing in this new relationship with iran? do you see the u.s. working not only the parallel for iran but working for the same purpose to try to bring stability? >> well, the truth is we just don't know. this was a nuclear agreement. because we believe that getting to a place where iran cannot have a nuclear weapon was essential priority number one because, in the pushback against these other activities, you are clearly better off pushing back against an iran that doesn't have a nuclear weapon rather than one that has one. so we haven't negotiated these other issues. we don't know yet what president rouhani said, which was welcomed, by the way, i think he made important statements about
6:23 pm
their willingness to work on regional stability. my counterpart foreign minister zarif made important comments to me about willingness to do that. but we won't know till we go down this road, implement the agreement and work on the possibilities of some of the other issues. >> woodruff: related question -- even friends of the administration are saying that this president will have to work now to reestablish normal relations with israel again that those have been badly frayed by this iran agreement. >> i talked to prime minister netanyahu yesterday i've talked to him regularly throughout this process, and we are absolutely by far more linked day to day in the security relationship with israel than at anytime in history. president obama is prepared to upgrade that, to work to do more to be able to address specific concerns. but we still believe that israel will be safer with a one-year
6:24 pm
breakout in ten years than two months. there's no alternative provided by these other people. they all say why didn't you crush them with the sanctions? i tell you why, because they won't be crushed by sanctions. that's proven. and because we'll lose the other people helping to provide the sanctions. they won't do that if iran is willing to make a reasonable agreement. so there is a lot of fantasy out there about this "better deal." the fact is we spent four years putting together an agreement that had the cop consent of russia, china, france germany, great britain and iran. that is nottize easy, and i believe the agreement we got will stand scrutiny and will deliver an iran that cannot get a nuclear weapon. >> woodruff: finally nip doubt in your mind -- any doubt in your mind the supreme leader will endorse this and any chance the u.n. will delay the vote in the security council? >> we don't delay the vote in
6:25 pm
the security council but it was structured to completely respect the prerogatives of congress. >> woodruff: the supreme leader? >> i can't speak -- i don't -- you know if he decides not to do this, then that solves a lot of problems for people on the hill and it solves a lot of problems for those who think this doesn't meet their standard, and i think it creates serious problems for iran. i doubt that will happen, but i'm not going to vouch for any choices that iran may or may not make. >> woodruff: secretary john kerry, we thank you for talking with us. >> good to be with you. thank you. >> woodruff: this week a group of abortion rights opponents released a hidden camera video of a conversation with an official from planned parenthood, that's the non profit organization that provides reproductive and other health care services including abortion to women and families. our political editor lisa
6:26 pm
desjardins screened both the edited and unedited versions of the video and reports on the footage that is causing a political firestorm. a warning: some of the images and details in this story are graphic. >> reporter: this is the edited version of the video, with the undercover anti-abortion group's added graphics. on screen is dr. deborah nucatola, national medical director for planned parenthood. off screen are two anti-abortion activists who've spent months posing as medical researchers, looking to purchase fetal tissue. >> reporter: the undercover team later asks about buying specific fetal parts. a warning this excerpt is graphic and may be disturbing.
6:27 pm
>> reporter: the legal question here: is planned parenthood-- provider of 40% of all the nation's abortions-- selling fetal tissue? that is illegal. but donating fetal tissue-- or recovering other expenses like shipping costs-- is clearly legal. and part of a fast-growing research field. some cells are used to help patients with immune disease or to research cures for things like alzheimer's research. that research has its own ethical debate. the issue here is whether planned parenthood is profiting from aborted fetal tissue. in a video statement, planned parenthood director cecile richards said absolutely not. >> recently, an organization that opposes safe and legal abortion used secretly recorded, heavily edited videos to make outrageous claims about programs that help women donate fetal
6:28 pm
tissue for medical research. i want to be really clear: the allegation that planned parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true. >> reporter: richards did apologize for the tone the staff member took. >> this is unacceptable, and i personally apologize for the staff member's tone and statements. >> reporter: the newshour reviewed the nearly three-hour unedited video. in it, planned parenthood repeatedly stressing that tissue transfer is meant to help research and clinics only charge to recoup their costs. >> reporter: this is a repeated theme. >> reporter: the video has enflamed the long heated abortion debate and republicans like house speaker john boehner
6:29 pm
have pounced. >> now if you've seen this video, i don't have to tell you how sickening it is. so rest assured, we're going to get to the bottom of this and protect the values that we hold dear. >> reporter: for presidential candidates courting conservatives it is an easy target. kentucky senator rand paul wants a senate vote to defund planned parenthood, louisiana governor bobby jindal has launched a state investigation, texas senator ted cruz wants a congressional investigation. and half a dozen others from scott walker to jeb bush have tweeted, facebook-posted and released words of outrage and alarm. as republicans dig in, so does planned parenthood. >> we know the real agenda of organizations behind videos like this, and they have never been concerned with protecting the health and safety of women. their mission is to ban abortion completely and cut women off from care at planned parenthood and other health centers. we will never let that happen.
6:30 pm
an undercover video opened a very public next round in the nation's apportion debate. for the pbs "newshour", i'm lisa desjardins in washington. >> woodruff: next, to the analysis of shields and brooks. that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. welcome to you, gentlemen. a lot to talk about this friday. let's start with iran. mark we just heard the secretary of state john kerry, what he had to say about this nuclear deal. what do you make of it? i think the president summarized it very well. he said don't let the unattainable perfect be the enemy of the obtainable food. i think this is the obtainable good. the object being a non-nuclear iran and i think this guarantees at least for ten years that there will be a nonnuclear iran.
6:31 pm
it does not change iran's conduct and what it does as the secretary pointed out, and we hope that does change but this is about dealing with nuclear arms in a troubled area and this is a positive step and one that i think the president is at the top of his game, quite frankly from charleston to the press conference this week, i thought he was compelling in both cases. >> woodruff: saved, what's your take? >> i'm extremely skeptical. i start much more than secretary kerry that i believe this is a theo contract regime that wants to be the dominant power in the region and spread a radical version of religious ideology. so i think to give that regime $150 billion to up funding for hezbollah and other terrorist armies around the region is dangerous, to legitimize their nuclear enrichment program is dangerous, to lift the ban on
6:32 pm
conventional weapons is dangerous, and to have a regime that, you know the inspection regime, people are getting lost in the details, it is not a bad regime. i suspect it will probably delay the nuclear program, but it's their country and if they're motivated to build this weapon and they have every incentive to do so, i assume they will find a way to keep the centrifuges going and get a breakout after the sanctions are lifted. i'm skeptical. >> woodruff: secretary kerry pushed back on the idea that iran will use the money to great mischief in the region, mark. but do the critics -- you know, david's point do they have a point that it is after all, iran's to do with this money it's going to get. >> sure, it's inaction to chance action. this is a bold action on the part of the president in my judgment. you have vice president cheney saying we don't negotiate with
6:33 pm
evil, we defeat it and, judy quite frankly, i think the reality is that, after the experience of the past 12 years of the united states and the middle east, 4500 americans did, 3500 severely wounded and $2 trillion spent, i think americans have lost confidence in the one size fits all, let's get tough, powerful and kick tail. that is not the answer, and it is not the solution and quite bluntly, the reality of fracking in this country and the production of oil in this country has relieved some of the urgency of the united states projecting further force in that area. so i think this is the best alternative by, far. >> woodruff: so, david, you don't think the president's arguments help the administration. do you have a sense of what's going to happen on the hill and whether they're going to either
6:34 pm
back this or reject it? >> i would be shocked if they rejected it. there are some senators, a lot of democratic senators, chuck schumer from new york, dick durbin from illinois and others are sitting on the fence till they read it that seems appropriate, and some are making skeptical noises. it would be a major setback from the democrats but i would be stunned if it happened. possible, but surprising if it happened. >> i think david is more bullish. i think the senate is now very much in doubt as to what would happen, sustaining the presidential veto. i think the best chance the democrats have and the president has is in the house where you've got the most effective democratic vote of the past generation, nancy pelosi on your side and i think that may
6:35 pm
very well be the key to this. >> woodruff: i want to turn to the 2016 race for president. before i do that, mark and david, i want to ask about the story lisa desjardins just reported for us this planned parenthood controversy, the videotaped interview out there about selling fetal tissue and whether or not planned parenthood is profiting from that. a lot of republicans david, jumping on this story. is this kind of a bonanza for republicans? so many of the candidates for president are deploring it and calling for planned parenthood to be defunded. >> republicans have been sort of deemphasizing this issue. i guess when you go to the iowa caucuses, you increase discussion of it but they have been deemphasizing this issue because it hasn't been a great general election issue. but this particular video gives them a chance to talk about it in a way that is not going to be offending to a lot of people in the middle. i think the idea of selling parts is not very good to anybody.
6:36 pm
and the part of the video that offended me is whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, the state of the fetus late term is a mystery, and to talk about the body parts in such a cavalier way showed a corrosiveness in this issue, and the polarization of this issue tends to corrode people. this is a good and easy shot for republicans because it's not engaging the issue that's sort of unpopular and allows them to defend the rights of the unborn unborn. >> woodruff: mark. i think abortion remains a painful and difficult issue in this country. america, i think it's fair to say, is pro-choice. they don't want to criminalize a woman who in consultation with her conscience or confessor or physician decides on the painful process of ending a preeing sivment at the same time, america's anti-abortion. the the idea this is somehow a
6:37 pm
virtuous act is objectionable and unacceptable to americans. i think what you have here is admittedly, i give lisa desjardins credit for going through the three hours of it, an edit version. but still, you have the doctor from planned parenthood in a very cavalier and callous fashioned talking about we're going to go in in a way -- not that this is some surgical procedure being performed on women and ending a life or potential life, but in a way that we're going to preserve the organs for use. i mean, i think cecile richards had no alternative the president of planned parenthood, except to apologize for that tone and the way it was done. >> woodruff: let's broaden out and talk about the 2016 race. one more name has formally joined david this week, governor scott walker, we talked about him on this program before.
6:38 pm
now that he's in, what does it do to the race? does it shake things up? what do you see? >> well, politically he's got a reasonably straight shot. his strategy is clear he's got to win iowa in first caucuses. not expected to do super well in new hampshire, but pretty well in south carolina. if he does that he will be sitting pretty. he's definitely in the top three, i think now, but he will be riding high just from the media exposure. his advantages are he has a genuine working class voice. he's not the greatest orator but is a good explainer a good retail politician, and for conservatives, people like ted cruz who haven't achieved much, scott walker can point to legislative accomplishments as governor. so he has a reasonably strong story to tell, will be a reasonably strong candidate. in the last two months a caveat, he hasn't been setting the world on fire. he's led jeb bush and marco rubio take momentum in the
6:39 pm
campaign, but he will be strong, i think. >> woodruff: setting the world on fire, mark? >> i think setting the world on fire is a euphemism. the fact is wisconsin is a blue state. no democrat has lost -- presidential nominee has lost wisconsin since ronald reagan won it for the republicans in 1984. it's the only state that elected an openly lesbian united states senator, tammy baldwin. three times in four years scott walker has won close elections in wisconsin. he's a favorite of a lot of conservatives because he did take on public employee unions. he has delivered. he's a social, cultural as well as economic conservative. he has a story to tell. he's a for formidable candidate. he's going to have serious financial backing. the problem is, there's a lingering i can see alaska from my front porch, of governor palin. he said, for example, that
6:40 pm
dealing with i.s.i.s. he had dealt with public employees unions and couldn't say whether the president himself was a christian and he got on evolution. it's a rick perry problem, is he really ready for prime time, didn't happen when he was quoted saying "smart" is not in the lexicon of voters when they talked about him, but they were working on that. so i think scott walker has a great story to tell but there is a question, is he going to be able to hit big league pitching. >> woodruff: we can't talk about this week in the republican contest david, without bringing up the name of billionaire donald trump because he's moved up in some of the national polls. a lot of conversation about it. but is it having a material effect, david, on what this contest is all about? >> i don't think so. i think he's the circus act of
6:41 pm
the week. he does well in the polls among people who like the show, who like the thumb in the eye of the establishment but huge numbers of the republican primary voters said they would never vote for him. but there is a low ceiling. he sucks up oxygen embarrasses the party. he's not getting elected. the the only way potentially is he loves the attention and decides he wants to run third party in the general election or be a stunt candidate out there, then he would really take votes from the republicans. that's the only way i can see it effecting electoral outcome. >> in may, he was at 65% unfavorable among republicans that dropped 25 points between may and july. what happened between may and july? he announced and he presented himself as the most vie momently
6:42 pm
an -- vehemently anti-immigration campaign. the one republican who took him on jeb bush and marco rubio pussy footed around. lindseylindsey graham said this is a moral question. if we do this, we deserve to lose. he raised the stakes of the first debate august 6 and it's guaranteed it's going to be a question of who stands up to donald trump and stands up on immigration. >> woodruff: it's become a question in the primaries. mark shields david brooks we thank you both. thanks. >> woodruff: aviation technology continues to evolve, and in recent years there's been a big push, by both private companies and the military, to make more sophisticated autonomous aircraft or drones.
6:43 pm
a new research project led by the university of washington is part of that effort and aims to uncover the aeronautical secrets of some of nature's best designed flyers-- insects. hari sreenivasan has our report. it's part of our breakthroughs series on invention and innovation. >> sreenivasan: have you ever watched a bee fly? really watched them closely? or studied a butterfly or dragonfly darting around your garden? with the naked eye, its often hard to see how they are flying. with tiny wings that can flap hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of times a minute. but when you watch in slow motion with the help of a high- speed camera, you get a whole new perspective on the mysterious, and incredibly complex world, of insect flight. so how does a bee with such a giant body and such tiny wings actually fly? >> it beats its wings really fast and you can't even see
6:44 pm
that. >> sreenivasan: tom daniel is a biology professor at the university of washington, who has long studied bees, and all sorts of flying insects. he says there's a lot scientists have learned about bees over hundreds of years of study, but there is much more to learn about how exactly they fly. >> the sensory information coming off the wings is probably providing gyroscopic data. the interesting thing is the wings are moving so fast they are probably exquisitely sensitive to the rotations. >> sreenivasan: whether bees and other insects have built-in gyroscopes in their wings is one of the questions tom daniel is now trying to answer as director of a new collaborative research project-- funded by the united states air force-- called the center for excellence on nature- inspired flight technologies and ideas. daniel says the scientists on the team and the military have a shared goal: to better
6:45 pm
understand how insects and animals fly so that humans can build smarter, more efficient aircraft. >> we look to nature. are there ideas and principles that nature is using to solve hard flight control problems? can we use those ideas to inspire new technologies, and can we use technology to deepen our understanding of how nature solves its problems? >> sreenivasan: research is now underway at several universities around the country and in europe. among the test subjects: bats at johns hopkins and crane flies at case western reserve university. and at tom daniels lab at the university of washington, these hawk moths. this is a video slowed down of one of those moths that's feeding from a flower. like a hummingbird, the moth has to make hundreds of tiny corrections every second with a passing breeze, in order to stay perfectly aligned with the flower-- a natural feat science
6:46 pm
and technology cannot come close to replicating. and that's part of what fascinates researchers like daniel. >> i pop this down on top. >> sreenivasan: on the day we visited, daniel was prepping one of the moths for an experiment by carefully gluing a tiny metal rod to its back. >> and off you go. >> sreenivasan: he then attached the moth to a piece of equipment that allows him to track how it navigates this virtual forest projected in front of it. >> what i have here is a moth that's attached to effectively a joystick. so if the moth tries to turn right or turn left we'll measure it. >> sreenivasan: the moth thinks it's flying. >> it thinks it's flying. what we're trying to ask is how does it process information and accomplish tight maneuvers in a complex habitat? with a tiny brain they're accomplishing maneuvers that we can't get any aircraft to do. as we look to various devices to help us guide airplanes and aircraft, how could you build
6:47 pm
systems that could actually navigate in cluttered environments, navigate safely? how could you build a little quad rotor to move around in a forest? >> sreenivasan: daniel's lab is often literally buzzing. his team of graduate and postdoctoral students run a variety of experiments aimed at understanding how insects process information around them and use that information to control their flight. >> we know how to make things fly, but how things fly i think is a much grander question. >> sreenivasan: elischa sanders is a neurobiology graduate who is studying how moths nervous system react to external stimuli. sanders says what he and his colleagues are learning about the moth's nervous system applies to much more. >> i like to think of it kind of as learning a different language. we know the wing is talking to the brain to talk back to the wing so that it can maintain flight, but we don't know what they're saying. and much in the same way that it goes on in the moth, it goes on in humans as well.
6:48 pm
we're trying to crack that code or understand the language of the nervous system, so that we can, you know, better the technologies for humanity. one of the students built a robotic insect wing called the flapper. >> insect wings are very complex. we can use simple models in order to understand the underlying principles that govern insect flight. >> there are so many things that even for the smallest of simplest insects we don't know about. we don't know how they sense pretty much anything. we don't know how they sense velocity orientation. >> sreenivasan: while the scientists here are focused on advancing basic science, their research could one day lead to a future with smarter, and more
6:49 pm
drones, above us. a concerning prospect for some. the u.s. air force, which is providing up to $9 million for daniels project over the next six years, has said their primary goals are to develop better control systems for drones and make aircraft more efficient. but through its own research program, the air force has in the past explored the use of robots that mimic insects and birds for surveillance and targeting. while the air force is not currently pursuing the development of those robots similar technology could eventually one day play a role in the battlefield. tom daniel, has not been involved with the military's program. but he acknowledges the technology that may stem from his team's research will have a variety of uses. >> just like any technology, there are uses that are for more offensive, there are uses for defensive, and there are uses for exploration.
6:50 pm
so you can imagine a scenario of an earthquake in a building completely mostly destroyed. and you can't get any normal robotic system or any human in there. how can you build something that is capable of looking for survivors, looking for sights of danger? so i look at technology generally as they're great uses, they're socially wonderful uses and there are some more technically challenging uses. >> sreenivasan: for the pbs newshour, i'm hari sreenivasan in seattle, washington. >> woodruff: earlier this month, 18 middle and high school students from around the country traveled here to the newshour for the inaugural student reporting labs academy. as part of their training
6:51 pm
students profiled a parkour artist who learns how to overcome life's obstacles by running and leaping through washington d.c.'s concrete jungle. our story was produced by eighth graders from philips academy in newark, new jersey, and a 2015 graduate of royal oak high school in michigan. >> i started parkour in middle school and it was because i was introduced to parkour through a news article. however, i had always been somebody who moved around and jumped and climbed on things, so i fell into it really naturally. basically, after i heard about it i was just like, "oh, great this has a name."
6:52 pm
parkour is a training method designed to help somebody become more useful in their everyday environment. it was never designed to be a daredevil sport, extreme sport or anything like that. i'd say the majority of what parkour practitioners do is they only practice safe progressions they build their bodies up, they make sure they're strong and safe before they go out and try anything and they never try anything that's above their limit. if there's something you have to second guess, you don't try it. you don't force yourself to do it. >> i would say the parkour and freerunning community is filled with people who are more likely to be learners and explorers-- that type of personality. my philosophy behind parkour is just to be useful and to overcome obstacles in your life and physically and using that energy, not only moving forward but moving in all directions.
6:53 pm
i've learned a lot through parkour, just because the want and the need to do parkour drove me to learn these things so i could practice what i love. >> woodruff: you won't find me trying that. but congratulations to all the students participating. on the newshour online right now: a scream is the first sound most humans make. so what is about that noise that makes our skin crawl? a new study helps explain the unique properties of the blood- curdling sound. read about that on our home page. all that and more is on our website: and a reminder about some upcoming programs from our pbs colleagues. gwen ifill is preparing for washington week, which airs later this evening. here's a preview: >> ifill: unpacking the historic nuclear deal with ierp. so many questions -- will it
6:54 pm
hold? what did we gain? what did we give up? can the president win the battle he's decided to wage for congressional approval? plus we'll show you how political money is shaping your choices for the 2016 presidential campaign. that's later tonight on "washington week." judy? >> woodruff: on pbs newshour weekend saturday: millions in the struggling east african nation of somalia rely on money sent from relatives in the united states. but now, strict financial rules threaten to cut-off their lifeline. >> according to community leaders in minneapolis/st. paul 80% of somalian-americans send money back to east africa. 40% of somalia's population relies on the dollars known as remittenses to survive. but now the $215 million that flow from the somali dias pray in the u.s. each year may be in jeopardy. the u.s. government is increasingly concerned some of those remittenses are going to
6:55 pm
terror groups. >> woodruff: that's tomorrow night on pbs newshour weekend. and we'll be back, right here, on monday: with a look at the rising gun violence of chicago-- a weekend on that city's hot deadly streets. we hope you tune in for exciting new changes here on the "newshour". you will have to wait till monday to see what i mean. deadly streets. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a great weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions
6:56 pm
and... and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathson and sue herera. is the builder sign a sign that the federal reserve is looking for. big gains. new construction surged in june but it isn't all good news. market monitor. now is the time to invest in a sector that is seeing massive activity. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for friday july 17th. good evening. happy friday. the economic picture may be coming into focus. inflation pressures appear to be building and that is something the federal reserve appears to be waiting for for a long time.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on