tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN November 19, 2010 5:00am-6:00am EST
>> we have to have arnold in his last days as the governor of california. has a little bit of a deficit he's leaving jerry brown. you have arnold and hamilton. imagine them having dinner. >> thanks for being with us. earmarks, pork-barrel spending, those pet projects that politicians slip into bills to please voters back home. lawmakers in both parties are now making a big deal out of banning them. but is this political gamesmanship to avoid the tough decisions needed to fix the nation's finances? the hard numbers, the political realities of a big deficit. we're keeping them honest tonight. tests are being done on a jawbone on the island where natalee holloway was last seen in 2005. is it natalee? we'll put that question to a forensic scientist. and natalee's mother face to face with the prime suspect in the case, joran van der sloot, tonight's crime and punishment. and man's best friend,
smarter than you think. our report might make you question who is the master in your relationship with your four-legged friend. dog behavior expert cesar milan joins us. we begin as we always do, keeping them honest. promises, grand standing and a political stunt. we'll start with the prom promises and the grand standing. you might have heard the noise from the gop calling for a ban on earmarks. you know, those pet projects that your senator or representative can add on to bills. listen to this. >> today i want to talk to you about banning earmarks. >> i am philosophically opposed to earmarks. >> one of the first things we'll do in the house and the senate is ban earmarks. >> i will join the republican leadership in the house in support of a moratorium on earmarks. >> moratorium on any earmark request. >> earmarks are the gate way to corruption. >> earmarks are absolutely a problem and we must end earmarks. >> earmarks have become emblematic of everything wrong with spending. >> the next senator from florida will be a yes vote to banning
all earmark spending in the united states congress. >> okay. banning earmarks. that sounds perfectly reasonable. the gop gained seats in this month's midterm elections on the promise of fiscal responsibility. so they come out of the gate swinging, promising to ban these earmarks. and it's not just the gop. democrats are in on it too. heck, even the top democrat, president obama himself, is all for it. listen. >> i agree with those republicans and democratic members of congress who have recently said that in these challenging days we can't afford what are called earmarks. >> okay. so the president is behind it and so are several republicans. in fact, today house republicans agreed to continue their ban on earmarks in the upcoming session of congress. and earlier this week, senate republicans did the same thing. so you might be thinking they're on to something here. this will make a difference. keeping them honest, for all the talk of taking a stand against earmarks, nearly $16 billion in the 2010 budget is related to earmarks.
that is less than 1%, 1% of the total budget. in the big scheme of things, eliminating earmarks will barely make a dent. for all the talk about savings, that money doesn't actually get cut out of the budget if the earmarks go away. you see, getting rid of the earmarks changes how the money gets spent, but without more action from congress it won't really change how much gets spent. but some members do concede that but also note it's a powerful symbol of what some lawmakers call wasteful spending. fair enough. but there's something else. the ban. ban is a strong word, isn't it? the ban is nonbinding for now. at least until the gop makes it part of the house rules. anyways, if it's just a tiny fraction of the overall budget, why do it at all? why? because it looks good. remember, when i mentioned political stunts at the top of the show? this is where the stunt part comes in. you see, by taking a stand against earmarks, you don't
actually have to stand against any one type of spending. any one program. any one constituency. like if you say you're for cutting social security, seniors might not be too inclined to vote for you next time around. it's easy to stand against earmarks that are just a tiny fraction of the budget. it's a lot harder for republicans to name any big-ticket items that might need to be cut to really shrink the budget. watch this. >> your first priority is going to be, you've said, is going to be deficit reduction, trying to keep the debt under control. what's the first thing that you would cut? >> well, i think what we need to do is put everything on the table and have discussions about it. >> i understand that you need to look at everything, but is there one particular thing that drives you crazy that you think if you had the opportunity you'd cut it tomorrow? >> well, i think that we've got a lot of those situations out there and what we need to do as a freshman class and as a leadership team is to sit down and identify those we're going to go after first. >> reporter: can you be specific, what in the government, what programs, what
agencies are you going to cut to get back to those levels? >> well, it's not rocket science. let's start with all of the t.a.r.p. funds. let's get the t.a.r.p. money back and use it to pay our debt. let's get the unspent stimulus back. >> reporter: you're talking about unspent money but there is money that has been spent. >> name a painful choice republicans are prepared to say we have to make. >> first of all we need to make sure that as we look at all that we're spending in washington, d.c., with not only the entitlement spending but also the bigger government, we cannot afford anymore, we have to empower the free enter prize system. >> congressmen, those are not specific. voters get tired of that. >> why not make a single proposal to cut social security, medicare and medicaid? >> chris, this is what happens here in washington. when you start down that path, you just invite all kinds of problems. >> republican paul ryan has suggested sharp cuts in medicare and social security. are you willing to make cutts there? >> i think we know that just
within a day or so the president of the united states will be taking a trip over to india that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. he's taking 2,000 people with him. he'll be renting out over 870 rooms in india, and these are five-star hotel rooms at the taj mahal palace hotel. this is the kind of over the top spending, it's a very small example. >> a lot of politicians just can't name their cut. and by the way, what congresswoman bachmann said there about the president's trip to asia costing $200 million a day? that was a lie. it didn't cost anywhere near that. not all republicans are for this earmark ban. here's what senator jim inhofe said this week on the senate floor. >> they said earmarks are a gate way drug that needs to be eliminated in order to demonstrate we are serious about fiscal restraint. there's just one problem with that. it's not true. instead of putting money back in the pockets of the american people by reducing spending or shrinking the deficit, these
efforts to eliminate earmarks would put money into the hand of president obama, by allowing his administration to spend the money as he saw fit. at the end of the day, none would have saved money, president obama is the winner, the american people the loser. >> ouch. the american people are the losers. joining me now, david gergen and roland martin along with dana loesch, editor of bigjournalism.com and radio host, 97.1 fm. david, is it really such a big idea, this idea of cutting earmarks, particularly when you look at how small a percentage of the budget they really represent and the fact that this money's probably not going to get saved, it will just get spent elsewhere. >> $15 billion is less than 1% of the budget but it's a big deal. the money has been used as a piggy bank by a lot of members. they go off and do their favorite project in their home states and then seek voter credit for doing that and they
get into the habit of loose spending. undisciplined spending. i think it's very wise in time, particularly when we're so tight on the budget, to cut this stuff out. yes, there are going to be some good things lost in the process but we've got to get back to essentials. if they don't need the $15 billion, cut it out of the budget. we've got to start somewhere. >> dana, how much of this is about earmarks are about idea and how much is simply getting on a bandwagon? >> this whole debate has really fascinated me simply because i think that those who are arguing in favor of earmarks i think is sort of a smoke and mirrors situation. because what they're essentially arguing for, john, is the opaque process that has been going on in washington, d.c., for so unbelievably long. earmarks as they're being argued for right now, they're talking about tacking on spending requests, unvetted spending requests on to appropriations bill that bypass the traditional typical two-committee approval process that earmarks are supposed to go through.
so i think these people, these congressmen advocating for this, they're trying to shore up their political capital. this is how they trade powers, through this process. >> roland martin, mitch mcconnell in supporting the ban on earmarks said, look, i don't really believe in this, because, three weeks ago he was against it, but gave to tea party pressure, but he said i'm worried about just giving more budgetary discretion to the white house and putting it in the hands of the president. is he right to be concerned about that? >> no, that's utter nonsense. first of all, i disagree when we categorize this as, well, it's just less than 1%, because if you ask anybody when it comes to their own personal budget, when you need to make cuts, every little bit helps. but it is clear that senator mcconnell and republicans want to, to the american people, try to make it all about obama, he's going to somehow spend the money. when you have republicans and democrats who want to spend, spend, spend. but in your opening, john, you're absolutely right.
where are they going to cut? are they willing to touch defense? you see john mccain in a constant battle with fellow republicans, tom coburn when it comes to defense spending, when it comes to rand paul. that's going to be the real test of the political will. will they touch medicare, social security, and defense. that's where most of our budget comes from. >> can i have something on to the point? mitch mcconnell until recently was against earmarks, the idea that they are ceding power, they are letting go of the purse strings is a lie. when you write appropriations bills, unless they specifically say it is up to president obama how this money is spent, he doesn't get to decide. that is congress's responsibility. >> right. >> they're playing upon the ignorance of the american people and that's not going to fly anymore. >> another point people make, perhaps supporting are the ban on earmark it's will obscure the really tough choices lawmakers have to make if they really want
to take a whack at the deficit and the overall debt. they can say, hey, look, we took action on earmarks. how much more do you want us to do? >> i think this will help create momentum for more spending cuts. if you couldn't do a deal with earmarks how in the world are you going to deal with the really tough issues like medicare and medicare and defense. listen, this money is basically incumbent protection money. it's -- you know, it's to help them back home. sometimes it goes for good causes but it's often to increase the popularity of the incumbent. we all know that. and they've got to start somewhere. and i -- you know, i think the argument about it's a phony one, if they get the 1%,let goes to the 3%, the next 5%, and they've got to go after medicare, social security and defense, put those on the table and let's thresh it out in a serious national debate. >> here's the next battle, when it comes to medicare, social security and defense, you're going to hear members of congress, democrats and
republicans say, oh, this will cause us to lose jobs. losing jobs is always congress's way of preventing any kinds of cuts from being made. watch that language. you will hear it from both sides. >> there's one other point i'd like to get dana to ring in on and michele bachmann is hedging her bets a little, saying we need to redefine what an earmark is. for example, transportation prikts, perhaps they shouldn't be considered ire earmarks. because it's a transportation project, that bridge to nowhere was an earmark. does she have a fair point? >> yes and no. i think there's a million things we need to do. first of all, let's have things go through the authorization and appropriation committees as they're supposed to do in order to be vetted. let's bring a competitive grant process in, and let's vet these earmarks before we just tack them on. the point i think she's making is that the way that the earmark process stands right now is that we have a lot of pork going
towards things like bike paths, yay, bicycles are fantastic but we have bridges across the country that are falling into disrepair. so a lot of the super important stuff that needs attention is getting overlooked. if we want to spend defense money wisely, we can start by reflecting upon the appropriations bill from 2009 that was loaded with earmarks that our president did approve. >> we've got a lot more to talk about, so please stay with us. we want to know what you think as well. join the live chat going on right now at ac360.com. coming up next, more from our panel, we're going to get their take on congressman charlie rangel's possible punishment for breaking house ethics rules. does the punishment fit? and see how it compares to other members of congress who have gotten in trouble in the past. plus our special series, amazing animals, smarter than you think. inside the science of how dogs think. >> we don't want to look at cute pet tricks. what we want to know is what does the dog understand about its world?
sadly, no. oh. but i did pick up your dry cleaning and had your shoes shined. well, i made you a reservation at the sushi place around the corner. well, in that case, i better get back to these invoices... which i'll do right after making your favorite pancakes. you know what? i'm going to tidy up your side of the office. i can't hear you because i'm also making you a smoothie. [ male announcer ] marriott hotels & resorts knows it's better for xerox to automate their global invoice process so they can focus on serving their customers. with xerox, you're ready for real business. a house ethics panel is recommending recommending censure for charlie rangel after a committee found rangel guilty on 11 counts, including failing to pay taxes for 17 years on a rental home in the dominican republic, misuse of a rent controlled partner in the bronx for political purposes and improper use of government letterhead and government mail.
the 20-year congressman pleaded for mercy today before learning his potential punishment. >> there's no excuse for my behavior, and there was no intent for me every to go beyond what has been given to me as a salary. i never attempted to enrich myself, and that i walk away no matter what your decision, grateful that i had this opportunity to serve. >> 20-term congressman we should say. 40 years in congress. you might recall monday rangel walked out of the trial when the committee rejected his request to hire a new defense team. his original team left him in september. this whole case has been full of drama. tonight a lot of people are questioning whether the suggested punishment fits. we want to show you how it stacks up against other politicians found guilty. the last two censured were in 1983, found guilty of sexual
misconduct with a female house page, and another found guilty of sexual misconduct with a male page. another reprimand, only eight house members have faced that, newt gingrich in 1997 when he was speaker of the house. he was slapped with an unprecedented $300,000 fine for allowing a tax exempt organization to be used for political purposes. he also gave false information to the committee investigating the charges. the harshest punishment is expulsion, just five house members have been forced out of office. the most recent you may recall is ohio democrat james traf can't. he was kicked out of the house in 2002 after he was found guilty in a federal corruption trial on conspiracy to commit bribery and racketeering among other things.
he had quite a message for the ethics committee back then. look at this. >> i want to say to this committee, i love america but hate the government. i love the elected members. i've met many of you and love you all and i mean that. that's not patronizing to get your vote. i don't expect your vote. but we have an aristocracy that is afraid of the fbi and the irs. they're scared to death of them. and they trampled all over my rights and i'll be damned if they're going to do it to me. so i will take an upward departure and i will die in jail, because i did not commit these crimes. >> of course he didn't die in jail. he's out. now for more perspective, you might be wondering what happened to congressman joe wilson. he made headlines for this. >> the reforms -- the reforms i'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. >> you lie.
>> it's not true. >> that was in 2009 when president obama addressed a joint session of congress on health care reform. he dodged serious punishment. house members issued a resolution expressing disapproval of wilson's actions. so did rangel get the right punishment in back to our panel, roland martin, david gergen and dana loesch. 9-1 in favor of censure, first time since 1983. is it the right punishment? >> i thought it was. censure is usually for people who have done unethical things. expulsion, the highest punishment is for people who have been found to do unlawful things. and there's been no finding so far that congressman rangel has done unlawful things. and a censure is a pretty powerful tool. we've reviewed the house history, you remember one of the most famous incidences in the senate was joe mccarthy and it
broke his power and i dare say in this case charlie rangel has basically seen his best days. >> dana, you think he should be expelled from the house. you're in favor of expulsion. what did he do to rise to that level. >> i think that the level of hypocrisy with charlie rangel is one of legendary proportions. and i don't think that it -- i don't think that comparing it to joe wilson, the censure and that situation sh it's unbelievably different. this is a guy who is on the committee that helped write our tax code that didn't go by the law himself but yet he would write it for other people. this is a guy who, if they decide to investigate further and they think that it warrants criminal penalties or what have you, then i just think that censure seems to be a super light way to go, considering all of the charges that were against him. >> you know, i think first of all that analysis is absolutely nonsense. okay? it is nonsense. first of all, the lead attorney
on this committee stated there was a corruption. the lead attorney on this committee said he did not believe there was personal benefit. i do believe that first of all he should have followed the rules. >> yes. >> i do believe there should be some penalty. but to sit here and suggest remove him from congress when you just read a list of individuals who committed sexual acts with a house page and received censure and then you saw what newt gingrich did as speaker of the house, utilizing a committee for political purposes and -- >> what, charlie rangel. >> no, no, no, excuse me. i didn't interrupt you. you did not have censure in that case. so when you judge it based upon the history of the house, i believe it is ridiculous to say expulsion. i do not believe it has risen to the level of censure. i think the same level of rebuke that gingrich got rangel should get as well. >> this is charlie rangel the same man who i believe did put pressure upon businesses that had, or corporations that had business before congress in order to raise funds for the
charlie rangel policies -- >> corruption? no. >> roland, are you saying he shouldn't be censured, he should only be reprimanded? >> what i'm saying is based upon what john just laid out, when you compare other members of congress in terms of what they did, compared to rangel, what i'm saying is if a member of congress was having sex with a house page and that person had censure and then if you saw what the speaker of the house gingrich what he did using the committee and he didn't -- that did not rise to the level of censure -- >> roland, two wrongs don't make a right. >> i didn't say it's a right. >> the tax code and then not even follow it himself? >> i'm making a comparison. >> it's an invalid comparison. >> david, i wanted to ask you this. charlie rangel stood before the committee and he basically begged for mercy. he said i'm 80 years old, i don't know how much longer i'm going to live, and then he said this. let's listen. >> and i recognize that you
cannot deal with issues that's not before this committee. but what the press has done to me and my community and my family is just totally unfair. counsel knows it. all of you know it. and it's not your responsibility to correct them. but they will continue to call me a crook and charge me being corrupt. >> david, blaming the press, it's a tried and true tradition. is it applicable in this case? >> the press actually did uncover some of this. now, let's be clear about this. we didn't know about this housing business and 17 years of unpaid taxes, had the press not gotten into it. that's the role of the press, play the watchdog. charlie -- he can make that argument and it's fine, but i don't think that's the real issue. the real issue is he had these violations and there's no evidence to kontvert it. it's a clear cut case.
it's a series of violations. i think they did the right thing. >> david gergen, roland martin, dana loesch, thanks very much for being with us. >> thank you. still ahead, could there finally be a break in the case of natalee holloway? she disappeared in aruba five years ago. forensic tests now being conducted could provide some much-needed answers. we'll explain ahead. plus, why tiger woods says he is infinitely happier now. (announcer) everything you need to stay balanced on long trips. residence inn. [ male announcer ] at ge capital, we're out there every day with clients like jetblue -- financing their fleet, sharing our expertise, and working with people who are changing the face of business in america. after 25 years in the aviation business,
i kind of feel like if you're not having fun at what you do, then you've got the wrong job. my landing was better than yours. no, it wasn't. yes, it was. was not. yes, it was. what do you think? take one of the big ones out? nah. >> ( creature inhaling ) >> ( branches breaking ) >> ( creature growling ) >> ( horse hoofs beating ) >> ( horse nickering ) >> ( train whistle blowing ) >> ( engine revving )
susan hendricks is here with the 360 news and business bulletin. after a week-long search the bodies of an ohio mom, her 10-year-old son and a family friend have been found in a wooded area about 20 miles from the herrmann home. the boy's 13-year-old sister was found alive sunday in the house of 30-year-old matthew hoffman. he has been charged with kidnapping. police say hoffman told them where the three bodies were hidden. colton harris-moore who earned the nickname barefoot bandit, he has pleaded not guilty to federal charges in washington state. he allegedly stole planes, boats and cars often while shoeless in a two-year crime spree. general motors went public today raising more than $20 billion. president obama said the successful offer proves the bailout was a good idea. tiger woods says he is infinitely happier than he was a year ago just before his personal and professional life imploded in scandal, telling espn radio his numerous infidelities went against his,
quote, core values. he also said he will tell his kids the truth when they're old enough to understand. john? >> i'm sure he'll be happier as his golf game gets better. >> good point. >> susan, thanks so much. coming up next, there have been few leads since natalee holloway vanished in aruba more than five years ago, but could there soon be a big break in the case? and our series, amazing animals, smarter than you think, tonight, dogs see the world. how they see the world, and why their long and close link to humans shapes how they think. ♪ [ male announcer ] they've been tested, built and driven like no other. and now they're being offered like no other. come to the winter event and get an exceptional offer on the mercedes-benz of your dreams.
but hurry -- exchange traded funds.soon. some firms offer them "commission free." problem is they limit the choice of etfs to what makes financial sense to them. td ameritrade doesn't limit you to one brand of etfs... they offer more than 100... each selected by investment experts at morningstar associates. only at the etf market center at td ameritrade. before investing, carefully consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. contact td ameritrade for a prospectus containing this and other information. read it carefully before investing.
crime and punishment tonight, we are awaiting the results of frepzic testing to see if a jawbone found on a beach in aruba could belong to natalee holloway. initial testing found the bone to be from a young woman but it was sent to a lab in holland for more testing. natalee holloway was 18 when she disappeared in aruba in 2005. the alabama teenager was celebrating high school graduation with her classmates. holloway left a nightclub with joran van der sloot with two other men and was never seen again. van der sloot was questioned and never charged, although he remains the prime suspect. right now he's in jail in peru, accused of murdering a young woman there. two months ago, holloway's mother met with van der sloot and pleaded with him to tell what he knows. >> you can sit here for the rest of your life. and i can sit here for the rest of my life.
it's -- you can make some choices here, and you can make the right decisions. you have your whole life ahead of you. i want to know what happened, and i want to move on, joran. i want to move on. i want to move on in my life. and i cannot close the book. and i feel as if we've lost your father, we've lost another young girl, joran, you don't need to lose your life here in prison and be sitting here when you're 60 years of age. and insisting to me that you don't know what happened. if it was an accident, tell me. you know, i don't know. i don't know. but i am -- i'm here. >> i hope you can understand also it's very hard for me to talk to you. this is really not easy. i'm really doing my best to -- i know you have a very good heart. i know that for a fact, and i don't know if you would mind
just giving me some -- i really have been thinking a lot and just giving me some time to think and i promise you even if you give me your address, i will write you. >> wow. almost difficult to watch. let's get some perspective on what it could mean if the jawbone belongs to natalee holloway. joining us, jean kaz ambassador , what are you learning tonight about this jawbone? >> first of all, everybody here on the island knows what's happening. everybody is waiting to see what will be happening. there's a couple of thing that's give this some credibility. first of all, the fact that aruban authorities, forensic authorities do believe that it is a partial jawbone of a young woman, a caucasian woman, and secondly aruban officials got it
to the netherlands very quickly and they personally transport it'd from aruba there for further forensic testing. so that lends to some credibility. >> lawrence, if indeed this is natalee holloway, this could be a huge break in the case. >> oh, absolutely. i think this is the first piece of real evidence we have, and what it means is that we now have something that says she's deceased, number one, and number two, we have a crime scene. there may be other valuable information that we could get from the area where that partial jawbone was found. but the bone itself and the molar attached to it could reveal the information we're looking for, namely whether or not it is natalie. we will look at that bone and determine why it fragmented. it's kind of unusual to have a fragment of a jaw. there may be marks on it that might lead to some information about how she died. certainly dental records will be examined and, of course, dna is
the ultimate way to determine if it is hers. >> would the dna still be measurable? >> the dna in the molar would probably be very well protected in the pulp cavity in the center of the tooth. although that kind of environment, environmental impacts will certainly occur, but the chances are fairly good that the dna will be intact, certainly sufficiently in good enough shape so that they can get a full genetic profile. they'll do a paternity-type test. they have the dna from the biological parents and they'll be able to say with absolute certainty as to whether or not it's her or not. >> we saw some of that videotape of natalee holloway's mother talking with joran van der sloot and it's so unusual to watch. we want to play a little bit more of that tape. let's listen to this, and then we'll get your thoughts on the back side.
>> i've made so many decisions and all for the wrong reasons, i hope you know that, i'm a very addicted person, especially to gambling. that's why i've told so many lies, because so i'd have money to go gamble with. >> he's talking about his addiction to gambling and how he needed money. some people might read that as an admission of guilt either for the murder of natalee holloway or at least extortion to try to feed his habit. is any of this admissible in court? >> it sure is. and that's exactly what i was thinking. it'd be a statement, he appears to admit to the extortion although i think he already did that in some of the tach pes they made. but a lot of this could be showing his state of mind. >> lawrence, it's so unusual to
watch the mother of natalee holloway talking with joran van der sloot that way. >> it's fascinating. >> we got information from a couple of divers who said when they were under the water they saw what looked like a human skeleton and skull, the authorities went down there and looked, all they found was coral and rocks. but how would a single piece of a jawbone get on a beach? >> very good question. it's possible something floated ashore. bones don't float. perhaps part of a body. it's also interesting that there was no skull, just a partial jawbone. so we really don't know. perhaps it was buried there. perhaps there's other information there at that site. i think at this point once they know it's her they're going to go through that site with a fine-tooth comb and dig everything up and see if they can find the rest of the skeleton. >> raising a lot more intrigue in this ongoing case. great to talk to you, we'll be seeing you in the next few days there from aruba.
still ahead, our series on animal intelligence. for many of us our dogs are family, an intimate part of our lives. but what's really going on inside their furry little heads. what new research tells us about the way dogs think, coming up next. (announcer) everything you need to stretch out on long trips. residence inn. you don't decide when vegetables reach the peak of perfection. the vegetables do. at green giant, we pick vegetables only when they're perfect. then freeze them fast so they're are as nutritious as fresh. [ green giant ] ho ho ho. ♪ green giant [ male announcer ] it's luxury with fire in its veins. bold. daring. capable of moving your soul. ♪
dogs and humans have been living together for some 15,000 years and researchers say this long partnership has actually shaped the way dogs see the world. randi kaye shows us how tonight. >> reporter: if you've ever wondered what's really going on behind those puppy dog eyes, this may be the guy to tell you. >> good boy. good boy. >> >> reporter: professor brian hare, director of duke university's canine cognitive center is one of the few people in the country who study how dogs think. professor hare and his team put the pups through a series of games, similar to those you might play with young children. >> we don't want to look at cute pet tricks. what we want to know is what does the dog understand about its world. >> reporter: for years, researchers didn't even stoids dogs. they thought they were too domesticated. brian says that's exactly why dogs do need to be studied. for 15 years, he's been analyzing how dogs think. what surprised him most, he says, is that dogs have figured out how to read human behavior better than any other species,
even chimpanzees. >> the way they think about their world is that people are super important and they can solve almost any problem if they rely on people. >> reporter: how do dogs think compared to children? >> probably around 12 months. young children start using -- relying on adults' gestures and start making gestures themselves and that's about the point where it looks like dogs have that sort of a similar level of flexibility. >> reporter: watch this. i just met tazzie, professor hare's dog, a few minutes before the test. when we both point to a cup that may hold a treat, will she trust me or her owner? >> i'm crushed. >> that's my boy! >> reporter: over and over tazzie chooses her owner's gestures. >> he's grown up with me, we do lots of stuff together. he's never met you before, so he says if they're both telling me where to go i'm going to trust the guy i'm with all the time.
>> reporter: dogs are complex, social animals who understand they have different relationships with different people. >> they really narrow in and pay attention to and you want to know what is it about the world that you can help them with. >> reporter: let's face it, dogs can't solve every problem. when a treat is hidden inside an opaque tube, this gordon setter can't see it but figures out right away she can reach the treat by going around to the side. but watch what happens when the tube is switched. and the dog can see the treat. she forgets how easy it was to get just moments before. you might call it a doggy meltdown. >> okay, you got it. >> reporter: we tried the same test on napoleon, a yorkshire terrier. >> reporter: let's see how you do.
here's your treat. put it in a clear cylinder. okay. >> wow. >> reporter: you are impressive, my little friend. >> a lot of times the best solution requires a bit of a detour, so what this says is that they're able to take a mental detour, say, wait a second, even though that looks like the short cut, easy answer, it's the wrong thing to do. >> reporter: researchers here are studying dogs to better understand their limitations by identifying why they make mistakes. they believe they can make them better at working with people with disabilities or working with the military. professor hare says dough messty case has made dogs smarter. so smart in fact they're even able to understand the principle of connectivity. >> they know they're connected on a leach, well, now i have to listen because if i don't do what you say you can stop me. whereas if i'm not on a leach, i know the command but i don't have to listen to you now. >> reporter: how do you know that? >> from studying to them -- it's from owning a dog.
>> reporter: just like children, he says, dogs also understand they can misbehave when you turn your back. even after you've told them not to do something. >> and you're really upset because your dog disobeyed you and you think the dog is not obedient obedient. no, he was obedient but realized he could get away with it. >> reporter: researchers have figured out dogs use their skills to manipulate the world and those of us in it. so next time you catch yourself thinking, you are the master, look your dog straight in the eye. chances are he is thinking the same thing. randi kaye, cnn, durham, north carolina. >> cesar milan is a dog behavior expert, many people know him as the dog whisperer from his series on national geographic. his latest book is "your way to train a well behaved dog" and joins us from los angeles. we saw that dogs rely on people to get what they want, they also seem to use people to get what they want. who's the real master here?
>> well, it's funny, but due to dogs controlling the families of humans, that's why i have a tv show. >> so you would say that the dog is the true master here? >> well, i really have to appreciate that from dogs and thank dogs for that. they took over america. >> when you take a look at a study that was reported, animal planet not too long ago, dogs aren't even in the top ten of intelligent animals, number one is chimpanzees, pigs are ahead of them, crows, pigeons, even rats. how smart do you think dogs really are? >> well, there is no knowledge behind instincts, it's all reaction, so it's about which human is behind that dog. you know? the dog's biggest challenge is a human that is misinformed. and so it has to deal with, you know, who's around him. who is his family? are they fulfilling their needs? exercise, discipline, affection. if he's getting that, he's going to become an amazing member to that family.
>> so are you suggesting that dogs are only as smart as their owners? >> well, as much as you challenge them. if you just put a dog in the backyard, it's only choice is just to practice frustration. and people call it destructive behavior, he's just frustrated. so it's like a human being. if you challenge a human being, if you allow him to experiment and practice his, you know, his creativity, then you get to see, well, what we observe in society. but if a dog is just put in the backyard, it's never allowed to do anything, he can't do a lot of great things. >> it brings me back to my original question. if you leave a chimpanzee in the wild, if you leave a crow in the wild or pig in the wild, they will demonstrate intelligent behavior. does that mean a dog is further down in the scale that it has to learn this behavior? >> it serves the purpose of what they can do as a crow as a chimpanzee, they can only do whatever the species allows them to do.
you know? and so in the dog world, animals can create harmony, can create balance. they don't need humans. in my opinion, we need them more than they need us. so they know how to survive. they know how to maintain the social aspects of a relationship. and one thing about a dog is he will never choose an unstable pack leader. >> is there any one breed of dog smarter than another? national geographic reported on a border collie who had a vocabulary of 359 words. >> they're easy to train because they're looking into you. most of the breeds are looking away from you. so when you have a dog that is looking into you, it's easier for them to get feedback from us. >> all right. cesar milan for us tonight. cesar, still got to get you over here to train my dog. thanks so much, really appreciate it. great to see you. >> thank you. thank you. the latest edition to our rediculist, a man who says we have feminized the medal of honor, making the comments on the same day salvatore giunta
♪ but i really love my bank ♪ i hate-- didn't quite catch that last bit. i said i really love my bank. right... is there a problem ? it's not really raging, man. uh, we were hoping for more raging ? well, you said write from the heart. yeah... don't do that. at ally, you'll love our online savings account. named the best of 2010 by money magazine. ally. do you love your bank ? now our newest segment of the program, a nightly effort to point out hypocrisy. we call it the relick diculistrediculist, now bryan fisher is on it for claiming the medal of honor has been femme n inized feminized.
on tuesday, president obama awarded the medal to army staff sergeant salvatore giunta. under heavy enemy fire, he pulled one soldier to safety, then after getting shot twice, rescued another being dragged away by two members of the taliban. according to bryan fisher, soldiers shouldn't just get the medal of honor for just saving another soldier's life. and i quote, we now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them. when are we going to start awarding the medal of honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our family can sleep safely at night? he goes after the other seven medal of honor recipients. every medal of honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. not one. well, fisher is just being ridiculous. he's also just plain wrong on
the facts. staff sergeant giunta shot and killed a member of the taliban while rescuing one of his comrades. as for the other recipients, the congressional medal of honor society says at least three of them were responsible for the deaths of numerous enemy combatants. last week in pensacola, i met a medal of honor recipient, 88-year-old thomas hudner, recognized for heroism during the korean war. he crashed his aircraft in hostile territory in an attempt to save a squadron mate, the first african-american aviator, who had been shot down. he didn't kill anyone and couldn't even save jesse brown, who perished in the wreck. but he showed extraordinary valor in his attempt to rescue him. and after all, that's what it's all about, isn't it? extraordinary valor.
happy friday to you. thanks so much for joining us on "american morning." >> glad you're with us. i want to get you caught up this morning. the natalee holloway case heating up yet again. there's a new exclusive tape of her mother face-to-face with the long-time suspect in her disappearance, joran van der sloot, pleading with him once and for all for the truth saying i can't close th