Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 06222019  CSPAN  June 22, 2019 7:00am-10:02am EDT

7:00 am
artificial intelligence as the use of the technology increases. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. host: it is saturday, june 22, 2019. welcome to "washington journal." the supreme court will finish its current term. this past thursday, the court made a notable ruling in the area of religious freedom, allowing a christian cross war memorial in maryland to remain in place. in the next hour, we will talk about the issues involved, when the justices had to say. we would like to hear what you have to say and your thoughts on the decision. if you support the supreme court decision, the number to call is (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the decision, that number is (202) 748-8001.
7:01 am
we also welcome your comments on twitter. tweet us @cspanwj. down thursday, one of a number of final rulings for the court as they wrap up their current term. this is from the wall street journal on that case, the headline, justices let cross stay on public land. int is the piece cross maryland, dedicated to 49 servicemen who died during world war i. the wall street journal writes that the supreme court voted 7-2 ,o allow a cross to remain claiming that it holds a secular meaning that comports with the constitutional separation of church and state. justices in the majority issued six separate opinions, offering different views on the intersection of government and
7:02 am
religion following an impassioned dissent from the court's two most liberal members been it drove home the divide between conservatives and liberals and within the court's ideological wings. the point of our question this morning, whether you support or oppose the decision, here is what the usa today writes. they are saying the question before the court was simple, does the 93-year-old piece cross violet the first amendment, which prohibits government establishment of religion. even if the answer is yes, few of the justices who heard the case in february wanted to see it moved, altered, or demolished, conceived in 1919 and established six years later, it has become part of the town's landscape.
7:03 am
we will get to the words of the justices in the decision. your thoughts on the piece cross decision and religious freedom. if you support that decision, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose, (202) 748-8001. here are some of the reactions from both sides. reporting from baltimore, maryland. [video clip] >> the military is made up of diverse faith groups. favors one faith over another diminishes the sacrifices made by people from all faiths. >> the supreme court has made religious items constitutional. people who object have to prove they are not constitutional. host: here is part of the ruling written by justice samuel alito in that case. therote in the decision,
7:04 am
image of a simple wooden cross that originally marked the graves of american soldiers alled in world war i became symbol of their sacrifice, and the design of the cross must be understood in light of that background. that the cross originated as a christian symbol does not change the fact that this symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in world war i memorials. to hear your thoughts, we hear from clarissa from minneapolis. good morning. jack in virginia. hello there. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: how are you? host: i'm doing fine. thank you. by there have passed ago, ands a few years
7:05 am
i do not see it really is a aligious symbol -- as religious symbol. for that reason i support the thing. symbolsre looking for that is going to affect people, if you look on the congress's eagle, thep of the configuration of the stars is the star of david. why don't you remove that one? robert, hear from kentucky, who opposes the decision. caller: good morning. it isason i oppose because it caters to one type of
7:06 am
religion. if it does not limit it to the opposed tould not be it. since it does, i would limit it. host: do you think justice alito was correct when he said the cross has taken on a secular meaning since it was erected in 1925? caller: my great uncle served in world war i. he was over in france. they erected across in central park in kentucky every year to the veterans. you cannot say the cross itself because that points to christianity. i could understand what he is saying, but i would not limit it to that. host: one of the justices in the minority in this decision, ruth bader ginsburg, wrote in her
7:07 am
decision that by maintaining the peace process on a public highway, the commission elevates christianity over other faiths and religion over non-religion. memorializing the service of u.s. soldiers is an admirable and unfortunately secular objective, but the commission bys not serve that objective choosing a symbol that serves a starkly sectarian message. here is gary, indiana. caller: hello. i support that decision because let me tell you something, man. this crapnited uses that money is speech. they get away with it.
7:08 am
why can't these people use the same thing to support their cause? the cross was a symbol of where christ died. i am not the most religious guy in the world, but i respect that. alito guy had a really good point in terms of what he said. the ones that got voted down, too bad for you, chumps. host: you support the decision. tell us why. caller: i do, indeed. i support the decision on a very specific reason. this cap clause is very specific -- the establishment clause is very specific. the congress shall make no law establishing religion. i do not believe where that
7:09 am
is making amaryland lot. no law was made. the establishment clause is very specific. unless those who oppose that cross, who do not want it there, they have to prove, show where congress is making a law. , theey cannot do that com establishment clause is not being violated. richard, whoo to opposes the decision. tell us why. because ioppose it think you have to look at what it would look like if you had a star of david or muslim crescent in the same position. would people take issue with that?
7:10 am
by having a cross there, you are imposing your philosophy on somebody else. it overlooks the other people who may have been another persuasion. we just watched the ceremony in normandy, recognizing the d-day invasion. the cemetery in normandy are individual. the stars of david and crosses over individual gravesites. that is appropriate. to have one symbol that speaks to all the people that died i think is an injustice. 1925 the cross erected in by the mothers of 45 fallen soldiers in world war i. one of the organizations that brought the case is the american humanist association, a nonreligious organization. just some background from the
7:11 am
wall street journal, this was not about a single cross. about the right of a community to honor its fallen heroes, in the face of today's decision, we must all pursue new avenues to bolster the first amendment. the american humanist association challenged the cross's placement on public land. he said the organization would seek legislation to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state. if that twitter saying, cross was a statue of mohammed, you would bet religious freedom fanatics would be singing a different team. this matter is indicative of a problem in our society. tople need to stop blaming be offended by everything. just because you do not like something, does not mean it is
7:12 am
bad. religions have no place in politics or government structures. the establishment of religion only applies to write to practice. let's hear from luther. he is in massachusetts. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a christian. been a practicing christian since i was five years old. i objected to the decision because what the leader does is remove the religious significance from the item. he refers to it as having secular meaning. once you say that, and no longer becomes a christian cross. it becomes a cross. it is dishonest to say that. represents cross what we all understand should be
7:13 am
a symbol of christianity. if the cross was standing on private land and being maintained by a private group, then, of course, it should stand. the people who object because it was standing on public land have a point. it is time for us to be adults about these things, to recognize the true meaning, and to be honest with ourselves. we have trouble doing that because we are not very honest about anything. have a monument to someone who fought a war, you might want to look for a monument that celebrated what they are fighting for, to maintain peace and justice. justice. scales of the christian cross means something. host: let me ask you since you
7:14 am
brought up justice alito's comments regarding the secular meaning of that cross, would you agree that some christian christmas hasas taken on, in many ways, a secular element recognized by all of society? caller: i do agree with that. i find that somewhat objectionable. christmas is a christian holiday. it means something in terms of the birth of christ and god coming to us as a way of redeeming us. if you make it into a celebration of the winter solstice, it dilutes that christian meaning.
7:15 am
some christian churches that celebrate christmas in july because they do not want to be part of that madness of greed that goes on at the end of december. host: i appreciate you weighing in. next we go to gary in springfield. caller: i think people ought to grow up. people died to protect this country, and in god we trust. leave the cross alone. if you don't like it, leave. next, supporting the decision. either. hi there. caller: good morning. i support the decision to leave the cross alone because it is not necessarily a religious symbol. is in medical shortcut
7:16 am
language the symbol for death, just like a circle with an arrow is a symbol for maile. deathoss is a symbol for and medical shortcut language. furthermore, i believe a lot of people in this country don't --erstand the check version the separation of church and state. in great britain, the church of england could dictate to the king what was acceptable and what was not acceptable. ifng's soul was at stake he defied the church. in the u.s., we have freedom of religion. the government doesn't tell the church up to run their business, and the church does not tell the government how to run their business. that is how it works.
7:17 am
host: we are talking about the piece cross case decided by the court on thursday. hi there. caller: hi. where should we start? 1920's, we had people coming from other countries. in order for the people to -- they said it was their country. youaid, we will have pledged allegiance to the flag. somebody decided to add under god. oppose the movement of anything that has no real relevance to somebody's religion. as aion is always used weapon against other people.
7:18 am
when you say religion, what you are saying is not what you believe in. what should we do? start removing everything that has got god on it. go in your pocket and get your money out. host: on this particular one, regarding the establishment of religion, do you think this the state of maryland, the establishment of or favorsian faith the christian view by allowing the cross to remain? caller: no. it is what a few people put up. they wanted something to support en thatpinion about the m died. just because it is out there on a highway.
7:19 am
you go to georgia, you'll see a big peanut over 95. when you have any kind of symbol that means nothing. when you get into the subject of religion, you had better know what you are talking about actually at religion favors god. host: let me get into one view of the decision in particular from the wall street journal and their lead editorial yesterday, justices liberate the public cross. a right to the original meaning of the first amendment is making a comeback in the supreme court. the latest evidence is onrsday's 7-2 ruling religious pluralism in the public square. crossurt held that the erected in 1925 to commemorate soldiers who died in world war i can continue to stand.
7:20 am
all justices except sonia sotomayor andriy bader ginsburg agreed. ginsburgth bader agreed. the controlling plurality opinion, justice samuel alito noted that crosses appear in many secular contexts, including the red cross and blue shield trademark. even if the original purpose of the monument was infused with religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment. some similar thoughts on twitter tweets this,ho at do we do about the red cross? what about the federal cemeteries?
7:21 am
jodi says it is a christian symbol. what if it was a satanic statue? would it get the same respect? robert says that cross has been there over 100 years, get a life. to wisconsin, supporting the decision is june. caller: good morning. i would like to say that we as americans need to stop being so afraid of symbols. it around people wear neck.r it was good that it was used to honor the fallen in war so we
7:22 am
would have the right to have religious freedom that we have. they did not establish a religion. it was a memorial. america have so much freedom to do pretty much anything, people have started objecting to everything. a y open the congress with prayer. they say the pledge of allegiance. the children cannot even pray in school. ouy open up sessions of r congress with a prayer. i am glad the supreme court, the highest court in the land said it is ok. host: here is how marilyn governor larry hogan reacted, this is a great victory after we fought to keep the peace process
7:23 am
standing in recognition of the valor and devotion of our world war i veterans. carl is next in illinois, opposing the decision. hi there. caller: good morning. vietnamvout atheist and vet. actually, i could not care less about this. ist sets my hair on fire politicians when they want more sinners.ey always tax taxes on to raise alcohol and tobacco well these mega-churches don't pay taxes at all. i think they should start taxing churches. that would be a more important discussion for you people at c-span to have. in new jersey.
7:24 am
hi there. caller: hi. this is barbara. briefly ised to say if we go back to the days of the omans, the crosses were planted outside the city, and people saw all the dead hanging on them. there was not any kind of christian symbol. it was a reminder of death. i think we should remember that. born, wemoment we are are on a slow march towards death. the cross reminds us to live our life in service of others. i think it is a beautiful symbol. it represents all of mankind in that sense, that we are on the road to death. we live that way.
7:25 am
honor others who have given and the wayor us, way.ould live crickethat matt, as a bladensburg resident, you support the decision. tell us your thoughts. i have beene, and here about three years now, but house, and ihite protest every weekend. about sixdown there, blocks or the equivalent, there was a bunch of people, religious people -- i am a christian myself. it is not my issue with it.
7:26 am
my grandfather lost his leg in world war i. i had an interest in it. noticedame time i also it is very relevant for 1920. it is not a grave, and the soldiers are not buried there. if you look at the cross, there is no reference to religion on it. in thethe names of th bottom in bronze. it is not a grave site. it is a memorial. it is not religious. 1920,nt about that is in that is a very early point in time. the soldiers that are buried there, there are five african-american soldiers buried there.
7:27 am
families are still alive. unfairlyt has been construed as a religious group. you, you livesk in bladensburg. a sight of protest in recent years? caller: from what i read, it goes back at least 50 years on and off. forink it is very relevant a few reasons. i cannot tell you for sure. some of the families are still here.
7:28 am
the what i heard, this is project of a protest group out of town. taken a poll on this before. this is a very diverse area. people in the area agree this marks a different point in time. it was there to honor people who gave their lives. in that sense, i think it is important. host: do you think your neighbors are happy that the whole thing is settled? caller: from what i had read, it sounds like the people, there is probably more other ethnic whitehere than citizens.
7:29 am
that whole protest group was white citizens. host: if you support the decision, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose that supreme court decision, (202) 748-8001. we will get to your tweets as well. keeping an eye on the story on iran. we will look into this more at 8:00 with our guest. the front page of the financial times this morning, trump insists u.s. still ready to go on iran. a u.k. defense official told the financial times the decision to abort was communicated to british defense officials at 3:00 a.m. british time. haverump's comments exacerbated a feeling of chaotic decision-making in the white house. times, at the new york the front page, their headline,
7:30 am
trump confirms aborting plan for airstrikes on iran. byut from all over, going instinct. he heard from his generals and diplomats. lawmakers weighed in. so did his advisors. among the voices that way powerfully for president trump was tucker carlson. national security advisor's were urging him alter strike against iran. mr. carlson in recent days have told mr. trump that responding to tehran's provocations with force was crazy. the hawks did not have the president's best interests at heart. however much weight that advice may or may not have had, the sentiment certainly reinforced the doubts mr. trump himself harbored as he navigated himself through one of the most controversial foreign-policy
7:31 am
decisions of his presidency. he called off the strike with only 10 minutes to spare to avoid the estimated deaths of as many as 150 people. let's hear from kay next. hi there. go ahead. caller: i hope i will be able to complete my call because the last three or four times i have called, i have been cut off in mid-comment. things toew different say. with many ofally the previous colors. ers,e not completely -- call maybe not completely. cross i want to say the is a torture device that was used by the romans. little disc tasteful istasteful actually to
7:32 am
see this used and worn. the u.s. in many ways does subsidize christianity. the way we have churches be tax exempt. has just posted a republican get together. i don't know the last time that church paid to support road construction or bridge reconstruction or anything else for this society. i also feel that the abortion issue is a religious issue affects when the opinion of life and whether humans have souls. just an to think we are
7:33 am
further evolved species along line.olutionary i am supposed to be free to think that. i do believe that the united country in the world at this time has any time or money to be concerning , butelves with anything becoming self-sufficient and dry,g plans for safe, sustainable places for everyone to live. host: we will let you go. we will hear from stephen next in the nation's capital, opposing the decision.
7:34 am
stephen in washington, d.c., go ahead. caller: good morning. i wanted to bring up a couple of issues the callers have been making about this case. it wasup that opposed not opposed to there being a memorial for the veterans. no one is opposed to memorializing veterans. a think a flag would be better memorial. issue is we are not opposed to crosses. by appearing to endorse one religion over others, that is the offense. host: appreciate that. congress, steve scalise and senator ted cruz joined in the lawsuit as an
7:35 am
amicus brief, friend of the court brief. here is what house minority whip said on the decision. he said today's supreme court ruling is an unambiguous win for religious liberty. the establishment clause should not be used as a weapon against religion. religious freedom is nothing less than the bedrock on which our nation was founded. ruling is a victory for all americans. go ahead. gary, just make sure you knew your television. caller: the humanist society thing, the court decision, they are a religious organization themselves. it is a religion.
7:36 am
i feel they have no right to .ring this lawsuit michigan, gidel supporting the ruling in the case. caller: good morning. what a wonderful country we have . we have free religion. we have do. we have islam. we have christianity. we have the jews. we have atheists. all kinds of different religions. i think we should have freedom of religion in the u.s.. we appreciate all people. thank you and have a great day. host: this is an opinion piece from slate magazine.
7:37 am
they write, the separation of church and state survive a close brush with death on thursday, emerging skate but alive -- s cathed but alive. seven justices voted to allow a cross to remain on public land. the lopsided vote conceals deep fractures among the justices over the government's authority to honor and promote religion. they write the majority opinion portends more radical decisions to come while doing real damage to the establishment clause today, diminishing the state's obligation to respect all faiths by endorsing him. thursday's ruling in the american legion v. the american humanist association, the majority transmogrified the from a religious symbol into a monument with a secular meaning.
7:38 am
the cross at question rests at the center of a busy intersection in bladensburg, maryland. it was designated as a tribute to 49 area soldiers who died in world war i. at its dedication sermon, a catholic priest gave an indication. state representatives encouraged the community to view the monument as symbolic of cavalry. the ceremony ended with a benedict by a baptist pastor. bladensburg cross is undisputedly a symbol of christianity. here is austin in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. go ahead. caller: i support the cross decision. i believe when the cross was correct, is something that cemetery for fallen soldiers. i have yet to hear from anybody who work in grave registration.
7:39 am
i know in many situations, the crosses were the symbols. they were easy to spot as opposed to a peg in the dirt where they might have a mass burial or something else. i believe that is what the cross represents. it is not necessarily a religious symbol. it marks the grave where a soldier fell or soldiers fell. if you go to europe and view the they ares there, covered in crosses. at some point, they were able to put various religious symbols on the grave markers, but originally, it was just a marker, nothing more. someone i would like to hear from on your program today is the people who work in grave couldration and maybe explain why crosses were used throughout all war theaters from the 1900s on.
7:40 am
if the cross upsets people, maybe they would be happier with an upturned rifle in the dirt with a helmet of the particular conflict of the time as a marker. to me the cross only represents a cemetery where we know fallen comrades have gone. that is it. i support it. i don't see anything wrong with that. people who look at the cross and put their own evaluation on it, that is on them. caller fromk our bladensburg mentioned this was not a cemetery. this was a monument to the soldiers. their graves are not at the peace cross. caller: i think that is true. i think the cross as originally stated was to represent so many people from the community that fell in the war.
7:41 am
what is the gripe? i don't understand it. basically means soldiers died here. this represents our salute to them. the cross may have taken on a deal as time passed that represents the resurrection. i have heard that said many is the death and resurrection to come. note, bladensburg, maryland, the site of an early revolutionary war skirmish on the outskirts of washington. you can find out more about that if you check our video library. a couple reactions on twitter. this is from joe, every supreme court justice knows the cross is the symbol of christianity. steve says the founders would be outraged that we changed the motto of the usa from e plurbus
7:42 am
into a deity we trust. liberals are the divisive ones. the court ruling on a number of cases. the front page of the washington post this morning, justices toss out murder conviction. the supreme court on friday reversed the most recent conviction of a mississippi man who has been tried six time for a quadruple murder in 1996, finding a white prosecutor had improperly kept african-americans off the jury could the decision was 7-2, with brett kavanaugh writing the opinion. they broke no new legal round
7:43 am
but reinforced prior rulings inut how prosecutorial bias jury selection violates the constitution. the state wanted to try flowers before a jury with as few black jurors as possible and ideally before an all-white jury. justice kavanagh wrote, we cannot ignore that history. thoughts more of your and comments on the court ruling this week on the peace cross case, if you support the decision, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . julie next in texas. caller: i totally support letting the cross stand. it a star of is david of any size was exposed in
7:44 am
public what would happen with the uprising of anti-semitism in our country. host: what do you think would happen? caller: it would be attacked, just like synagogues are being attacked. the synagogues are now having police support the synagogues to protect the jews. host: let me ask you about the ruling itself in terms of the cross as a more and more secular symbol. do you think some of those religious symbols, including the star of david, there are proper places where they are viewed as more secular symbols? i don't want to get into the political situation of it. jew, inow is that as a am not wearing my star of david
7:45 am
in public because of what is going on in our country. host: appreciate you calling in this morning. we go to marianne next. caller: thank you very much. i support c-span. cross.posed to the across but anot star of david or another religious symbol, would people, with the court has said it was have said itcourts was constitutional? i doubt it. christ died on the cross. to put a cross, put it on private property. why on public land? the taxpayers, regardless of
7:46 am
their religion, have had to support the upkeep of that. like $120,000 to keep it up. it comes from all religions. definitely a christian symbol. property be on private , not on public land. it is going to encourage people to try to do the same thing. i think it is unconstitutional. congress should not make an establishment of religion. other religious symbols on public land? cora we will hear from next opposing the decision. caller: there was something that was mentioned briefly, the right
7:47 am
to not be religious, to be educated. this is an outrage. i believe one of the callers contradicted himself by claiming it was secular and then mentioning the resurrection. it is an outrage. courts, where we see signs inn god we -- god we trust. we should trust our laws. host: u.s. cities brace for immigration raids. u.s. cities are expecting to be hit by a wave of immigration raids intended to deport recently arrived families that are in the u.s. illegally. reporters earlier this week, mark morgan, the acting director of u.s.
7:48 am
immigration and customs for smit said the agency would target -- for customs enforcement said the familiesuld target that have received a removal order from the u.s. immigration court. the cities include houston, chicago, miami, and los angeles. virginia is next in new jersey. caller: good morning. on public land it is not a religious symbol per se. of a human being, a person who died 2000 years ago who died because he laid down his life for his friends. those soldiers died for the same reason. they died because they lay down their lives for their friends.
7:49 am
the cross does not symbolize christianity. it symbolizes laying down your life for your friends. land that ison public where soldiers are being honored. all soldiers are living down their lives. and doingot killing these things because they want to. they are doing down to defend our freedoms, our rights as human beings in this world. i support that the supreme court has recognized the philosophy of christianity, not just the religion of virginity. host: we hear from renee opposing the court's decision. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. go ahead. caller: i believe we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. i think if jesus were to see
7:50 am
that, he would be scared of it he got nailed to the cross. host: one of the organizations supporting the lawsuit is the liberty institute. from that institute, kelly shackleford says americans need no longer fear reprisals against the display of the 10 commandments or the national motto on government property. this decision sets students and teachers free to prey on public school grounds during their free time. it allows speeches mentioning religious themes to continue without hecklers trying to shut them down with the threat of a lawsuit. we go next to madison heights, michigan. this is david. forer: thank you very much
7:51 am
taking my call. i definitely support the supreme .ourt's decision it sounds to me like a bunch of crybaby republicans want it removed. you made a comment that there was actually no soldiers, military buried there. if would they have a cross there is no military buried there. in athat woman that called couple of phone calls before me, evidently you people have never been to arlington cemetery. ,very one of the soldiers there whether there is a body buried .here were not has a cross that cross has been standing over 100 years. calling, it cost $120,000 a year to maintain it. no, it doesn't. that doesn't mean anything that
7:52 am
it is standing there. if it is on public land, so be it. it has been there 100 years. one woman said, there are no crosses on public land. evidently, she has never been to arlington cemetery because it is full of crosses. reaction on twitter, it is my understanding this was originally privately funded. i think it is fine that it remains even though it is publicly maintained because it honors the memory's those who came before. that being said, we should not build new ones. i have no objection to that cross for those who died in service to this nation. i also believe there should be a jewish star and a muslim symbol as well. soldiers is for all religions. carroll is in oregon calling us this morning. opposing the decision, tell us why? caller: i would like to mention
7:53 am
the fact that there has been a cross controversy in eugene since 1969. the solution for that was to put it on private property. city. erected above the i would like to thank charles porter for all of his work for finally getting it to the supreme court of oregon. it was finally taken down. i agree with the previous caller saying, just put the cross on private property. in this case, it is in the middle of a major intersection in bladensburg. it has been since 1925. well, that's fine.
7:54 am
host: here is how vice president pence reacted to the supreme court decision, tweeting, the peace cross will continue to stand as a reminder of the bravery and devotion of those who fought in world war i. symbols of faith commemorate their sacrifice. here is david in flint, michigan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. one thing we are forgetting is the men and women who gave their lives for us to be having this conversation. in other countries where you have dictators, they are not afforded the same luxury we are. i really think whether you are a democrat or republican or whatever the case might be politically, it is these people that came before us that is the
7:55 am
reason i am able to make this call right now. i think the cross is important. religion is there, but it is not the main issue. i think we really need to thank the people who came before us so we can be having this conversation. host: thank you for taking my call. thank you. next, joel on the support line. i support allowing the cross on state land. youhis particular case, if asked the people that are buried there, i think they would support having a cross. thank you. a number of people mentioned arlington national cemetery. the senator from arkansas has a at book about his service
7:56 am
arlington national cemetery. he was part of the old guard. he tweeted this, the supreme court ruled today that there is nothing unconstitutional about the bladensburg peace cross. this win is an important rebuke to those who want to remove any semblance of faith in american life. ,herry is next in new york city supporting the decision. go ahead. caller: good morning. people don't have anything else to do. there is nothing wrong with the cross. this land is founded on christianity. people have the right to have their own religion. what this land was founded on was in god we trust. time, talking about religion they took it out of the schools. what happened to the schools?
7:57 am
they went berserk. you had more killings and fights in the school. believe whatever you want to believe in. that is the freedom of this land. if we don't like it, go to another country. host: we will have more campaign coverage from south carolina this weekend with senator barry onrnie sanders sunday. buttigieg leaving the campaign trail, the headline in the new york times this morning, after the fatal police shooting. while his rivals mingled with friendly crowds in south carolina on friday, mayor pugh buttigieg found ighing into crowds of
7:58 am
protesters after a fatal police shooting in south bend, indiana. he immediately pulled himself from the campaign trail after a south bend police officer fatally shot a black man last weekend. in's hear from robert pennsylvania. the head. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i truly believe that cross should stay exactly where it is. the people who are complaining about that cross were not even crosshaat the time that was put up. they should have to accept it. if they don't like it, they can pack their bags and get out of the u.s. host: more washington journal ahead this morning. a will talk to seth jones of the -- next, we will talk to seth
7:59 am
jones about rising tensions between iran and the u.s. later, we will talk to nina farah. congressman mike rogers, ranking member of the homeland security committee. here is part of what congressman rogers had to say. [video clip] >> members of congress have said that the president should come before congress and request an authorization for military use of force. you sound like you are opposed to that. do you believe the president has the authority to launch military attacks against iran? >> correct. i think he does. he did take the time to consult with congress yesterday. he had the leaders of both chambers over >> he did consult with congress
8:00 am
as he tried to decide what action to take. when iran shoots down an american drone, i don't think we need to have three months of argument in the congress to decide what needs to be done. we have a commander-in-chief to make decisions like that. i felt the same way about barack obama when he was president. if we are going to get in a long-term war, that's a different story. he needs to take action in a quick manner. , he needs's sanctions to make that call. there has to be a response. you are going to see north korea, china, and russia be more provocative.
8:01 am
we will be unable to respond. >> washington journal continues. host: seth jones is with the center for gigi can international studies. worked for special operations in afghanistan. tensions rise between the u.s. and iran. u.s.eadline frames it, backs away from the brink. iran tensions are high. tell us what you thought about the president's thinking and stopping the airstrike. guest: the president explained on tryingcision based to save lives. the concern he said he had was the strike that had been ordered would've killed roughly 150 individuals.
8:02 am
werethe various options presented to the president, how they were debated. give us an idea of how those plans would be presented to a commanding officer. as with any use of military force, most commanders in chief would be presented with a series of from strikesons, against facilities to the boarding of vessels. options, one the of the costs and benefits of those options? how do they serve a broader political objective? the use of military force is not a tool that should be designed for a broader clinical objective area i hope there was a broader discussion about how the use of
8:03 am
force would survey broader objective. host: you are just back from the middle east. what was the purpose of your trip? you were there during a very tense week. the middle hear from east partners you talked to about the u.s. iran relationship. guest: there is a broader competition with iran right now. people talk about coming close to the brink of war. war is already in the middle east. againstelis have struck iranian locations in syria. the saudi's are with the primary partner in saudi arabia. is aparticular incident much broader context. that's of people reminded me.
8:04 am
drone is ant of the much broader campaign, the u.s. nonemergency its personnel. off from striking against iran. there has been a constant back and forth. drone in the the wall street journal. it's a very big aircraft. what are those? shot down. where they looking for? do surveillance and reconnaissance. they are able to capture pictures and video of various locations. i'm sure it was taking pictures and video of activity in the
8:05 am
gulf and iranian territory. it depends on where was into iran. tensions, the rising the iranians saying they would andease uranium production , theyootdown of the drone seek leverage, not war. guest: i think there already is war to some degree. we have seen cyber activity on each other. already are a strikes between the iranians and others. they have shot missiles into saudi arabia. there is a low-level war. we are talking about further escalation. troopso the additional increased tensions there? do they help reduce the
8:06 am
likelihood? i'm not convinced they are going to do either. the primary focus of iranian activity is unconventional. putting 1000 troops is not the do something that is being fought covertly. i take this as more of a symbolic step then giving the u.s. war capabilities. host: there is a diplomatic avenue with the administration seeking some consideration from the united nations on monday. has that been sealed off by all of this activity in the past week? think what is not entirely clear is what the primary objectives are. the u.s. is concerned about iran getting a nuclear weapon.
8:07 am
guard is thenary paramilitary arm of the government could expand its reach. it's concerned about the missile program. if all of those areas are concerning, how do steps reduce thebehavior we see, reduce missile programs and prevent iran from going nuclear. it's unclear what the approaches. host: was it safe to withdraw from the nuclear deal? guest: what it did was it kept iran from doing one of those things for the moment, going nuclear. anything about the rgc activity or the missile activity. the challenge i see with the nuclear deal is any efforts had to do with more significant threats in the region. host: do you think the next step
8:08 am
on that is direct negotiations? it seems like he would like to have negotiations with iranian leaders. negotiations are a positive thing. the u.s. is pretty far apart right now, levels of trust are low. i think the possibility of any kind of bargain right now is pretty small. at least worthe trying. host: we are taking your calls on the situation in iran. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. four democrats. independents2 four . you are first up. go ahead.
8:09 am
caller: i just want to ask a quick question. would iran be able to fly surveillance drones or planes up and down the east coast? am i on? guest: the answer to the question is yes, they could fly drones, they could put ships or submarines off the coast of the united states in international water. during the cold war, the russians did this regularly with submarines. they were in and around eastern ports. it is certainly possible. i think it would be a provocative step. about iranian activity within its own borders. caller: good morning.
8:10 am
i would like to start by thanking you and your guests. with all the other men and women that brings us this program, you are doing us a great service. , i was a negotiator. i sat across from people and negotiated. our president blinked. he blinked. now how do we do it? you can't pull the gun out and caught the trigger and put it away. if we step back and we look at the activity over the last couple of months, the u.s. shutdown its consulate. personnelum did most from the embassy in baghdad because of iranian threats. it did not respond to the tanker crisis.
8:11 am
now it doesn't respond to a shootdown of a drone. my view is the signal this sends iran is we are not going to respond to their activity. that sounds like appeasement. play theant to interview it's going to be on sunday's meet the press about not going on strike. >> to jew greenlight something? what was the order? >> thinks change. ready to gohing subject to my approval. they came about half an hour before. definition.ter they would have been pretty soon.
8:12 am
things would've happened to appoint where you couldn't turn back. they came and said we are ready to go. i want to know something before you go. how many people will be killed? great people, these generals. approximately 150. i thought about it for a second. they shot down an unmanned drone. are, sending 150 dead people that would have taken place. i didn't like it. i didn't think it was proportionate. interview willat air on meet the press sunday. what do you hear from the president? says the shootdown of
8:13 am
the drone, there been other activities. attack decided was an that kills 100 50 iranians was not proportionate to the takedown of a drone. i would push back a little bit and say put together a proportionate response. there are things, they've been shipping weapons into yemen. something that signals a iranian activity that is proportionate to what they've been doing. that is my concern with where the u.s. is at right now. you exclude a strike that escalates a situation, we should've responded proportionally. have sanctions had a real
8:14 am
effect on the iranian economy. guest: there's no question sanctions have impacted the iranian economy. most of the assessment coming from the world bank and the imf have said the same thing. they are still pretty active in the region. impacted, the behavior is not been significantly impacted. host: eric is in rhode island. good morning. caller: good morning. with president trump cost decision to fall back. there wasn't any loss of life. if you look at president trump,
8:15 am
he does not like war. endlessook at these wars in afghanistan started by the neocons, they are still going. these wealthy kids don't go. i believe if he gets a second term and they don't do much of anything, he is going to turn on them. this is not talked about at all. anniversary ofh the biggest invasion of all time. about because of the political correctness of the
8:16 am
media. he is right in the sense that when the president called off would've had significantly situation,he particularly if it killed 150 iranians or something close to that. analogy of the bully on the playground who gets away with pushing kids around. point, you have to draw a line. i'm not talking about war per se. this is not iraq or afghanistan. i'm not talking about deploying large numbers of forces. i'm talking about sending a signal that it has to stop conducting the activity it has in the region. this is paul in pennsylvania. caller: thank you.
8:17 am
how much do you think this has trying to drive up oil prices and trying to bait us into responding but not get into a full out war. sanctions,out the how they are hitting the iranians hard. it's all about money and all trying to drive up oil prices. know if it'st entirely just about driving up oil prices. i think your broader point is important. iran feels backed into a corner. it agreed to a nuclear deal that the current administration for
8:18 am
reasons it outlined stepped away from. the u.s. raised the economic sanctions against iran that had been hurting the economy. iran has been looking for a way to respond. one of the things it's done is start to push back a little bit against saudi arabia. in yemen struck an oil pipeline in saudi arabia a couple of months ago. what we are seeing is iranian action at the saudi's, the israelis, the mri's. it feels backed into a corner. i think there is a broader issue people need to be aware of. the president is without a
8:19 am
defense secretary. he will nominate the army secretary to that position. issue, advisers on this mike pompeo and john bolton. do you think the president is getting a wide array of choices? the ability to get a wide array of input. the other individual providing input and has been a mainstay for the administration is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he is the most important military commander. he has been in that job for quite some time. his advice on this issue would have been very important. what not entirely clear right now is who else the president is listening to outside that circle, how much of this was based on his view about the
8:20 am
election next year, what other considerations came from this decision. the: this is joseph on democrat line. caller: thank you very much. thank you for taking my call. is as a comment democrat, i can tell you i am pleased he held back. not a time to be talking about war. the world is already upside down, with all the refugee flows here and in other parts of the world. a good administration should be theing at what to do about problems that lead to war.
8:21 am
the reason i think we are about of a war iseginning the kind of people the president has around him, pushing him to attacking. he should not be listening to people like john bolton and those people. they are the one to push them to that extent. he did not begin by refusing. he decided they should go and then took it back. i definitely support what he did. he should look to the people around him. . host: do you have any thoughts? briefly, i do think people talk about the military instrument of u.s. power.
8:22 am
i think it's worth reminding everybody that's one instrument in addition to economic tools, the black tools. as i stepped back and look at iran. in 1979, you get the islamic revolution that gives a theocracy. today, it has ambitions in the region. if you are the u.s. trying to expansion, you have multiple tools. the i am looking for is broader strategy of the u.s. in the region right now. the most important question to ask the administration. host: this is reaction from the foreign minister. boycotts.about the
8:23 am
we don't seek war, we will defend our skies, land, and water. towill take this aggression the u.n.. how much do you think the u.s. can reveal on that in terms of the plight -- flight pattern of the drone. they recovered wreckage in iran. how much can the usa without revealing classified information. reveal quite ald bit, including the location of the drone. the issue, the challenge is how to do it in a way that makes people believe it. if ato important here is drone was operating in international waters, the key
8:24 am
aspect is going to be convincing some allies, including the un security council, that the u.s. is telling the truth. geographyttle reminder. this is where iran says the drone was shot down on the eastern shore. in the it was shot down middle. carol is in maryland. thank you for waiting. now that donald trump has pulled out of the deal, iran doesn't trust us. i don't think they can note negotiate anything. now that he has pulled out of the deal, is the deal still in effect?
8:25 am
do they still abide by the deal? will the deal be done away with to enrich uranium ? does that kill the deal. is it still in effect? guest: good question. the deal is partially in effect. haveuropean participants been trying to get the u.s. to repurchase of fate in the nuclear deal. they want to renegotiate the terms of the deal, particularly to include other aspects of iranian activity. the deal at the moment is still technically in place. the u.s. backed out.
8:26 am
the u.s. can certainly go back in. we could see a renegotiation. this point, it's a move point. it doesn't really matter if something on paper exist or not. u.s. and bbc reports iran airlines reroute. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to ask you what is the root cause of her visceral hatred for israel? to 1979, we go back when the ayatollah overthrows h, it was a revolution in the country.
8:27 am
a path ofran on revolutionary ideology. part of what iranian leaders have argued is the establishment of the state of israel has been illegitimate and they have talked about regaining palestine. the israelisputs and the iranians on a collision course since 1979. , orink people often forget is in the region. it's not like the u.s. is starting something. the israelis and iranians have been involved in notable conflict. i talked to israeli officials about their campaign in syria. they have had hundreds of strikes.
8:28 am
host: this is the 40th anniversary of the revolution. these are pictures of the hostages taken. is there pressure inside the regime? is there pressure for change inside the regime western mark guest: there has been pressure inside the country. we see hundreds of strikes per months over the past year and a half. students, others. they are localized right now. iran, weok at a map of see protests across much of the country. they are disorganized. we don't see a large mobilized movement like we saw in 1979. ,he closest we've come to that
8:29 am
this was mostly middle-class. in iran lot of protests right now, no large-scale movement to overthrow the regime did -- regime. host: nate is in tallahassee, florida. caller: is it possible -- i believe try is a rational person. drone was in airspace. knew he wastime, he involved in mining those ships. why kill people based on a lie? think heyou say you was responsible for the israeli
8:30 am
intelligence agency? caller: yes. guest: i honestly believe trump said why should i have people killed based on a lie. i'm not going to vote for him. i think he did something i can support. that ispeople based on over the line. in 1953.invaded iran seth, our hands are not clean in this region. i don't think there is a fair fight here. we've done a lot of bad things. u.s. army in 1979 when the crisis happened there. i was in germany. we were afraid we would be deployed to iran at the time. clean and ae not
8:31 am
lot of things going on around the world. guest: nobody's hands in the region are clean. the u.s. is certainly made mistakes historically. the regime during the carter administration took hostages and the u.s. had to retrieve them. i think it's important to note two things. moment, we have a dispute about where the drone of was that has been adjudicated yet. the u.s. claims it was in international waters. overranians claim was iranian airspace. hopefully, we will get more over the next couple of days. planted,nds that were that evidence has become clearer, that it was likely the revolutionary guard fear --
8:32 am
guard. countries are technology that they have assessed the same thing. the german chancellor is no friend of president trump's, the germans of said it was their activity. there is no evidence that length other than the group was involved in that. the way they've been behaving in that area over the last couple of months. host: seth jones is with us. that's a great update. thank you for coming by. byt up, we will be joined niina farah, talking about the decision by the administration on the repeal of the clean power plan. our spotlight on magazines looks at the congressional role and
8:33 am
regulating artificial intelligence. washington journal continues. >> join american history tv sunday when we mark the 50th anniversary of the stonewall riots, a key turning point of the gay-rights movement. we are live with the story of mark steyn, a documentary history. we will answer your calls and tweets. 4:00, to gay-rights films by an activist. the film the second largest minority. >> followed by the 1970 film,
8:34 am
gay and proud. >> it feels beautiful. it feels fantastic. i was born homosexual. >> has this giving you an added incentive? a think they should've made point to be here today. >> what the 50th anniversary of the stonewall riot, on american history tv. >> sunday, senator bernie sanders hosts a town hall in rock hill, south carolina. watch it on c-span.
8:35 am
listen on the free c-span radio app. washington journal continues. host: niina farah joins us. she covers federal agencies and is here to talk about the repeal this week of the clean power plan. let's back up a little bit and tell us what the plan was all about. >> the plan was aimed at controlling greenhouse gas emissions from the power sectors. it's the second largest source of greenhouse gases in the u.s.. it took a systemic approach. power plants had a range of options. they could use strategies like increasing efficiency or switch the fuel they were using from coal to natural gas. they could do in missions trading.
8:36 am
tothey could get credits contract coal consumption. host: the plan was well underway. it was announced in 2015. the administration announced a the poweroverriding plant. tell us about that. this is a much more narrow rule. optionsof this menu of or how they can cut emissions, it focuses on them. power plants can make improvements at the facility level and that's it. the law that governs environmental air standards is the 1970 clear air act, passed in 1970. revisions were made in 1990. it requires the epa to establish
8:37 am
the air quality standards for certain pollutants. administration and now in the trump administration, they have made these rulings. what can congress do? does congress have to take a role in terms of codifying these rules? now that the rule is finalized, the next step will be litigation. we will see how the courts decide to handle this. that would be an alternative pathway. host: in terms of the 2015 ruling the obama administration announced, how far along are they at adapting to that rule? guest: it depended on where you
8:38 am
were in the country. how far along the plans were. i'm a little fuzzy on the details of where the inflation was for different areas. the rule never went into effect. there are limits to what had already happened. host: what was the most notable change with the new trump administration rule? was the most notable change power plant operators will make? guest: this focus only on efficiency. that is something environmental groups are concerned about. creatingt see this as emissions reductions, which is
8:39 am
necessary when it's such a large source of the missions. how the epa should interpret this section it was written under. offer options to states on how they should comply with the specific role. states, with their own plans. to what theontrast plan did, to take a more broad reading of the clean air act and . regulations and the issue of clean power plan and the changes made by the trump administration this week. we welcome your comments.
8:40 am
(202) 784-8001 four republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8002 four independents. the epa administrator roles out the carbon rule. you write in their that the industry groups are praising the epa for finalizing the rule that keeps in missions inside the fence line and give states flexibility. what does that mean? guest: inside the fence line is a technical name for focusing on it changes that can happen at the power plant facility. -- instead switching of doing emissions trading. emissionsrade credits. host: we have calls waiting
8:41 am
period go ahead. since: i believe president trump has been in office, it's been horrible for the environment. there been so many rollbacks. a decrease in funding. parise got out of the i believe wed, need to bring back some of the obama policies. we need a carbon tax placed on large corporations. we need clean-air stronger than others. it's had unprecedented levels of rainfall.
8:42 am
it's a disgrace with their doing, rolling back regulations. they don't really have a big concern about the environment. aggressive and that will make a difference. that's my comment. good point,s a very the trump administration has been making a lot of rollbacks. there is a clean car standard, rules for oil and gas. if you consider the rules being statesback, the united is not yet out of the paris agreement. the trump administration noted its intent to exit. that won't go into effect until the day after the 2020
8:43 am
presidential election. are not working toward meeting the obligations. that's a concern for environmental groups. landmark legislation they were hoping to use to meet targets under the paris agreement. taking that away is limiting the approach. host: just to look at the growth of carbon emissions world wide, global emissions hit another record high in 2018. growing 2% over the previous year. germantown, we hear from roddy next. caller: hello.
8:44 am
i would just like to say the clean power plan is a good situation. for the wholeea economy as well as the world. plan, itclean power makes it safer for the universe. it reduces fossil fuels. better withrything the economy, the world, it makes everything great. ash and cleanl power. don't have to worry about smog. the plan is to be something to work on it. if it's worked on enough, maybe we can make the world as it used ande before all of the smog coal ash and spills, the
8:45 am
drilling. host: we will get a response. guest: i will touch on the point you made about holding the new power plan. if you look at the emissions targets, it reduced greenhouse gas omissions by 32% by 2030. the power sector has gotten down to reducing 28%. we are on track for meeting the target. hammering home the rollout of this. what supporters of the clean power plan want is to see a new rule that comes in and is much more ambitious. this would not really changed the trajectory of the missions. some 50 coal powered
8:46 am
plants have shut down. that continues to forecast to continue. clean energyrdable plan reversed that trend? guest: no. it's possible it may slow it down a little bit. we were looking at some of the numbers. electricityd with generation. theared to data from administration, electricity production was down 23%. even more reduction for coal mining. the trans-are still continuing. planta been switching to natural gas because it's cheaper? guest: yes. also, it's a renewable energy as
8:47 am
well. drake's calling from pennsylvania. welcome. thank you. you are on the air. caller: my question is simple. regulations, my biggest concern is the impact on kids and the increase in asthma. the increase in asthma? repealing the regulation increase the impact of asthma in kids? anticipatederall health effects of this change? guest: it's a little hard to tell from the final rule what
8:48 am
the impact will the. proposal, at the there were stories in the new york times which projected there would be 1400 additional premature deaths from air pollution. when the trump administration finalized rule, they changed the baseline from where it was measuring the effects. the deaths go down significantly. there's a question about what's going on with how the epa is calculating these figures and if there is of steering of the effects. host: we are talking about the change in the air standards and emissions standards from power plants that changed this week. (202) 748-8000 is the number for democrats. (202) 784-8001 is for
8:49 am
republicans. , (202)dependents 748-8002. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wondering, could she speak believe is the big juggernaut in terms of what's behind, who is behind these changes. the koch brothers are huge energy force in the country. as a voter and person who lives i'm state like michigan, concerned about asthma for children in detroit. we as voters and
8:50 am
consumers who are concerned about this issue, how do we have an impact on this issue when you thatsuch a huge industry is in washington and has the ability to influence the epa and our legislature. host: we will ask niina farah who was involved in crafting the legislation. guest: there are a lot of supporters in the industry. the power sector what is the a change and have less stringent requirements on them. a lot of republicans in congress from energyed this rich states like montana and west virginia.
8:51 am
after what can be done, pressure politicianscan sway to support different policies. initiativeseparate among shareholder groups. this isn't something necessarily with the coal sector. there has been a big push to have them. host: this is reaction from twitter. this is from of your news pieces, a photo of that epa
8:52 am
administrator. attend an event at the epa where they unveiled the rule. richard it in austin, texas. caller: there are two things. for a thousand years, it's about greed. my lungs fromin agent orange in 1970. the same clowns told to ancient -- agent orange had no effect. all because you sprayed me with 1970 andwarfare in you've been lying about it for 30 years. caller: why hasn't nuclear
8:53 am
power been more embrace in addressing climate change? gases,e rise in methane can that be attributed to fracking or natural gas reduction? peace ise nuclear incredibly controversial. i can't speak to that this -- specifically. the second question about , you can certainly pen some of the methane emissions on fracking. if you look at methane from the global perspective, it's a big contributor. field,n the green energy
8:54 am
it's getting close to being competitive with natural gas and coal. solar power would be number one. guest: there is interest from states on developing clean energy. that's important to note in the face of this rule, states can continue to take stricter action. host: nothing prohibits that or would block any of those efforts. guest: they can't use those efforts toward compliance. if they want to switch for others, they can do that. brad, go ahead. i wondered if the tailpipe of the nation where
8:55 am
they are allowing individual write their own rules to some degree means indiana can burn a lot of coal and put it up in the air and i end up breathing it. there are a certain number of deaths associate with this change in policy. is that the forecast? we talked a little bit about the health. forecasts ofare mortality effects with this rule. the power plan, 1400 additional deaths. this also controls other emissions of other pollutants. this helps promote air quality.
8:56 am
some conservative groups of changed the way the epa considers these additional benefits. that has made environmental the levelvous about of protections that epa will have going forward. host: we showed the photo of the coal miners attending the ceremony. it targeted coal plants. what do we know about the role of the industry? guest: that's a good question. there is a big question about the relationship of andrew wheeler. he used to be a coal lobbyists. about howquestions much his relationship affected
8:57 am
the rule. host: let's go to arizona. high there. i was going to revert to that article that indicated the was there would be 1400 more deaths as result of the regulation. andrew wheeler is a coal lobbyists. one of the things that we are agenciesnizing is the are being dismantled from the inside out. our government is being taken down. hhs has a pharmaceutical lobbyist. the secretary of interior is an oil lobbyists. the acting defense secretary ran the pentagon. by.usta is run
8:58 am
he's wanting to fire all the scientists. i think this is a bigger conversation than just this one regulation. we need to make sure we make a change in 2020. host: let circle back to the litigation. as that started already? guest: it hasn't started yet. published on is the federal register, we expect to start filing claims in the d.c. circuit. be didstion is going to epa meet the requirements of the clean air act? no, they didgue not take strong enough steps. there are procedural questions about how quickly epa one about the rule and if they have
8:59 am
supporting evidence. we will keep watching for your reporting on this. niina farah, thanks for being with us. we change our attention to south carolina politics. washington journal continues. fryook at some of the fish in columbia. all of the speeches are at, 20 candidates spoke. they are all wearing one t-shirt. we have more washington journal ahead. >> is like advertising on television. you have five seconds to capture attention, another to deliver
9:00 am
the point or sell the product. the main difference with television as you are selling an idea. sunday on "q&a," political cartoonist michael ramirez on his career. michael: i have to say the clintons are probably my favorite political family. pulitzer on the back of that administration. of are changing the dynamic their features not only to make them into cartoons but to show sort of the dynamics of the personality as well. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." mugs arengton journal" available on c-span's new online store. go to check out the "washington journal" mugs and see all the
9:01 am
c-span products. "washington journal" continues. ,ost: lots of activity political presidential activity in south carolina this week, and c-span is covering some of the. we will tell you that in just a bit. phone lines up the in order to talk about campaign 2020. here is how to be part of that conversation. for republicans, call guest:. (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and for independents and others, that is (202) 748-8002. if you are in an early primary or caucus state, a special line for you, that line is (202) 748-8003. and we will get to your calls momentarily. headline in the "palmetto posed," spotlight turns to south carolina for democratic primary events. fish fryned the and columbia last night.
9:02 am
"race yourself," the right, "2020 candidates are coming. over the next seven days, the activity here and set to rip off to an unprecedented level with a series of high-profile events to attract national attention o." .gain, a look at this we covered all of that, as you can find that at looking at the presidential dates, some of the dates coming up, the most important in terms of the democratic side, the first democratic primary events are coming up next week in miami, june 26 and june 27, and , and ourmore details coverage coming your reaction to those debates next week on the c-span networks.
9:03 am
joining us from south carolina, political reporter jamie lovegrove with the "post and willer" of south carolina be joining us momentarily. we will get to your calls, too. let's go to john and liverpool, new york. john, your thoughts on the campaign so far. caller: well, so far, it is just there's not much to talk about as far as 2020, but my opinion is that i am a democrat -- the republicans have a winning issue on immigration, without question. it controlled. with the democrats certainly have a winning position on abortion. if this election is a referendum we'll know that it is down to about 70/30. women are not going to go back into the stoning. it is not going to happen. and if it becomes a referendum on abortion -- was i can't believe.
9:04 am
what,vernment has been, 50 years or whatever, generations have grown up thinking they have this right. remember, there is no right to life party anymore. they have gone to the republican party. if it becomes a referendum on the i think the democrats are going to wind up winning the election. host: all right, john in new york. we're joined jamie lovegrove, who is with the "post and courier" from charleston, south carolina, the political reporter with that organization. jamie lovegrove, thanks for hanging on there for a moment. why is south carolina the focus of attention the past week or so? guest: yeah, well, i am speaking to you all from a very loud convention center where the democratic convention is right about to get started. 21 presidential candidates. obviously when you get that much attention from the candidates,
9:05 am
it gets a lot of attention from national, international media, thousands of folks defendant here. and of course, this is a very important early primary state. opportunity for the candidates, the electorate, iowa, new hampshire are fairly white in terms of the democratic. demographic. electoratedemocratic in 2016 was african-american. it is much more reflective than some of the other democratic come out to south carolina, so everyone is trying to make inroads here. host: so the south carolina democratic primary comes at the end of february next year, correct? guest: yes, that is right. host: last night a fish fry, jim clyburn's event in columbia with all of -- well not all of them, many of the candidates. what is the format?
9:06 am
at today's convention? guest: well, they will get seven minutes each today. i am told as they try to go much will getan that, mics cut off. politicians, particularly presidential candidates, are not the shortest speakers. it will be a test for them to convince the message in a short times and, and it will be a bit of a pregame in some ways for the debates that are coming up next week. it will be a chance for them to really think about what it is that is most important that they really want to convey in a shorter period of time to a very active time here. -- : "the poster carrier" "the post and courier" has a new poll out your joe biden leading , elizabeth warren, pete buttigieg -- he is not at this weekend's events because of a
9:07 am
shooting in south bend. they on here, it is beginning of the weekend, but activities are happening all week. in your reporting, who do you think is getting the most buzz? guest: well, i do want to say mayor buttigieg, i understand, is coming today. he didn't miss last night. he will join the rest of the field here. certainly joe biden opened here with a big head start. he has decades of relationships and south carolina. president obama remains extremely popular among , andrats in south carolina his connection to the former president, which he reminds people often about, is a helpful tool for him. there are quite a few candidates, spending an awful lot of time here, gaining momentum. kamala harris, cory booker probably have the most amount of
9:08 am
stops. elizabeth warren has always got big crowds. theave seen her surgeo in polls a little bit. everyone feels like they have got a shot. i expect, while this is certainly the biggest weekend of moreear, we will have many over the next few months leading up to february. host: jamie lovegrove is calling us this morning from the convention in south carolina. i want to let our viewers know that we were not allowed to cover the convention. the south carolina democratic party made in its list of that ofvention, and a number national news organizations made note of that, and protests about that. as the democratic party south carolina made any fo further statement about the arrangement with msnbc? guest: not much. thingave trying to -- one i have noticed is that putting out communications about how -- i think they had 151 press credentials.
9:09 am
every single media outlet that requested press credentials got them, but of course, there were quite a few tv networks that are upset that, while they can be here, they cannot livestream the event. so that has continued to be the case. want to note they didn't did get exception to -- one exception to a local affiliate in south carolina, who has been covering since day one, and they will be able to livestream online. but joy read and reverend al sharpton are here and will be anchoring the msnbc coverage throughout the day. lastly, some history and looking ahead, presidential results in south carolina, president trump when a merely 55% of the vote, hillary clinton nearly 41% of the vote. has anything come of the
9:10 am
economy, the ground in south carolina that you think could 2020? those results in guest: you know, there is certainly a renewed energy on do democratic side that i not think we have seen here in a very long time, but it is certainly the case that president trump remains overwhelmingly popular among republicans here, to a degree that i do not think we have ever seen with any republican politician, to receive the kind of universal support he is. that party still make that a majority of voters here, so for democrats to become competitive in south carolina, for example, jamie harrison is looking to run against lindsey graham in a statewide race here next year. or any democrats to win in south carolina, the formula, you have got to not only turn out all democrats, but you have got to win over some swing voters, maybe moderate republicans. host: as we mentioned, jamie
9:11 am
lovegrove is at the convention. c-span will not be. so if you want to follow his reporting, it is posta, and he is also on twitter @jslovegrove. thank you for the update. guest: absolutely. thanks for having me. host: among our covers, including last night's fish fry, which is on our website,,, we will be bernie sanders live on sunday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. taking your calls and comments about campaign 2020, not just about south carolina, but more broadly, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. and for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. and if you are an early caucus or primary state, that line is (202) 748-8003. south carolina among those.
9:12 am
there is the look, looking at pretoria 2020, the list from the "new york times." the iowa caucus is monday, february 3. the south carolina republican saturday, 15, the nevada republican caucus is on the 25th, and the south carolina democratic primary is saturday, or a 29, 2020. calls in here from melvin in north carolina. he is in asheville. independent line. melvin on the air, go ahead. caller: yes. i just wanted to make mention of the fact that they label some of a party ofts as, uh, the socialists, socialist
9:13 am
democrats, and the word to me," -- tolist" man's sharing sharing,alist" means and that is fine to me kurdish negative spin on what -- to me. they try to put a negative spin on it. and sometimes success is not set in what is going on with the country and the people that are involved is sometimes meddling and trying to keep the nation from making any progress by putting things in motion affect the country and put into a negative spin, so i cannot agree with them trying to put a negative spin if they want to label the democrats and
9:14 am
socialists, "socialist" just means sharing, and sharing is not something that is country really, really wants to do. host: all right, here is jenny, republican, texas. caller: yes. i have been watching the campaign this morning. who pays for all of the democratic candidates running around the country? who is paying for all of that? i mean, it looks like to me that there has got to be a cutoff point somewhere. these people are running all over the country, and our taxpayers paying for it? thank you. host: ok, great is up next. we're talking campaign 2020. he is an florida. caller: now to follow that question -- host: greg, make sure you mute your television. go ahead with your comments. caller: ok. my question is, to follow that one, who pays for trump to run round and campaign?
9:15 am
do i pay for his security, or does he pay for his security? that is all i have got to say. and: guest: ok, here is cj richfield, republican line. caller: morning, c-span. you have had some really good topics all week long. this one is a good one, too. now, when you are talking socialism, when you have a congress and a senate that is not fully represent the people, but they get paid an enormous amount of money, and i mean compared to the blue-collar people who have to work two jobs , and theyke ends meet are productive, and these people, they are not productive, but they are making a lot of money, and the job they have comes with a lot of perks. that is another form of socialism, and they are not even producing, you know. so some of the things that congress needs to step up to the plate and start acting on, no
9:16 am
matter who the president is in office, because they block everything obama tried to do. and then trump comes in and dismantles everything that the mandate, that right there is an operation in jealousy. is jealous of obama big-time, and everyone can see that. host: ok, cj. appreciate that. we go to john next in silver spring. john, go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. about theangry convention, because i do not see why they do not want c-span to cover. what are they hiding? what is the big deal that c-span covering the convention? c-span covers every election, every important issue. that is number one. number two, i am very upset about cory booker and young people who are attacking joe biden. if you are a politician, no matter how different the other person, i understand we have a race issue in this country, but
9:17 am
we need to win the election, and the only way we can win the election is to have the best person to run as president. are really staffing -- again, what happened last election, when people say i am for standard, and i will not vote hillary clinton -- this is exactly where we are going right now. we need to get the best and the brightest, and i think jill biden can do best for us, and we need to focus on how to win the white house. thank you, sir. host: ok. story on the "washington post" front page this morning about the i.c.e. raids happening. "mass i.c.e. raids beginning soon. " they write --
9:18 am
host: president trump tweeting on that. c.e. people that i. apprehended, will be imported. these are people that are supposed to go back to their home country. they broke the law by coming into the country and now by
9:19 am
saying." that is from president trump. floyd is on our republican line in seymour, tennessee. go ahead. caller: yeah. if this country wants to help race,, instead of doing look at the property of all people. you have got huge numbers of whites that live in poverty, just like the blacks. that is all i have got to say. floyd, is that your experience in your community? oh, we lost him. we go to annie, joining us from fairfax, california. independent line. caller: hi. i keep changing my designation as a republican, independent. i would go to the democrats, but i guess i am a one issue voter, because i really believe that life begins at conception, and none of these 20 democrats will come out and say anything about
9:20 am
what they believe. i guess they all believe what it seems like the democratic party believes. so i just wonder why, you know, why do they all have to believe the same? not seem tohey do have any can of independence of their own. host: how are you registered in california, annie? as an independent? caller: well, to be honest with you, i called the line thinking it was the republican line. i am registered as a republican. my boyfriend voted for trump last time, and i told him i could not do that, i guess because of his, um, attitude it seems towards women that i did not like at the time, but at this point, because of this issue, i am probably going to vote for him. i am leaning toward it. i am not completely there. my neighbors and friends would hat, because hear t they all think he is a big buffoon. host: so you are leaning toward
9:21 am
it for 2020? i am lay in a toward it, because i really care about this issue, and i do not see anybody else that seems to care about it whatsoever. and he has already put on two supreme court justices that, you know, at least they could have an effect on the millions of, you know, i hate to say the word "abortion" -- it is so loaded, but there are millions of these going on in our country every year, and i just think it is abhorrent. host: annie from california raising her concerns. in 2016', the presidents reported treatment of women. morning, "a new york-based columnist wrote that the president assaulted her in a manhattan dress room.
9:22 am
" trump denies and said "i never met this person in my life. " it is included in her upcoming book about the "hideous men" that the "elle" magazine columnist has encountered in her life. wrote that after what started as a friendly encounter with trump at bergdorf goodman in 1995 or 1996, the real estate mogul pushed her up against a dressing room wall, unzipped his pants, and forced himself on her. said that in a colossal struggle, she pushed him off and then ran from the store." i am a democrat and am conservative. like, bernie sanders
9:23 am
and everything, free tuition and health care for all, under andie sanders' policy elizabeth warren, they have proven that our taxes will go up , and also, all these democrats, they have left my views. i am pro-life. i would just like to read , in jeremiah, chapter one, verse five, it says "before i formed you in the belly, i knew you, and before you came forth out of the womb, i sanctified you." in kentucky talking about bernie sanders. his wife makes the front page of the "new york times" this morning. "wife'sy headline -- failure to say colleges still looming over sanders."they write " way, thed had her
9:24 am
stretch along burlington on lake champlain what have become a college campus to instead, and become a cloud lingering over her reputation and her husband's presidential campaign. as president and would-be savior of burlington college, a tiny and alternative school in this small, offbeat city, ms. sanders championed a deal to buy a from the localad roman diocese. within a year, she was ousted, and the college limped toward obsolescence, buried under debt.
9:25 am
host: read more here is the in maryland. good morning. [no audio] good morning -- caller: good morning. trumpot going to vote for this year because of all of his policies, especially with climate change, but i'm looking at the democrats side come with joe biden, you are kind of going backward. but he has the most experience. with, butnot agree the other candidates, they are really focusing on each other. other, not each really -- this is my opinion, giving out their platform.
9:26 am
what are you for, what can you do, and what have you done? life,believe in right to but then i know democrats are not. so it is really just like every other year campaign. beth, do you think the abortion issue or efforts by some states to limit abortion access will become a bigger issue in the 2020 presidential campaign? caller: i think it will become a bigger issue, and it has always been an issue. lifes always that right to , but i think it might be, um, covered up by all the other things going on, especially with the middle east right now, thanks in the middle east, climate change, but it is just one of the many factors that people look at, and it is important. it really is.
9:27 am
host: there is a story about life expectancy on the front page of the "wall street journal" this morning. people and"young women are more often stricken by obesity. where death rates are rising. " a chart is accompanying the "wall street journal" this morning. "heart disease death rates from the place 55 to 64 are especially increasing in the south, where they are already high, and in rural and smaller metro areas. gary, who is in orchard park, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, as a democrat, i decided my for trump -- and let
9:28 am
me try to be briefed him and let me give you just one example of why. -- as much as i ever had governor cuomo's ear would be what is next, scholarships to attend locksmith schools, for convicted burglars, or free viagra for convicted sex offenders? this guy come in as governor, and the democrats that surround him have got to go, and they are pushing me over. this november 2020, to vote for donald trump. phone callsf your ahead your switching topics a little bit here, we will talk about efforts to regulate artificial intelligence. gopal ratnamll be of cq "roll call" with a piece on that very thing topic and more of your comments and topics on this morning's
9:29 am
"washington journal." ♪ >> today on booktv at 7:30 p.m. eastern, we are at the societysetts historical in boston to talk to historians james trop and peter drummond, contributors to c-span's "the presidents" book. >> john adams is not a president. that is absolutely -- a democrat. that is absolutely the truth. in the spectrum of the founders, let's say if they believe what they said, that all men really are created equal, and jefferson, who i do not really that reallyeved said that, so we see him as our pole of democracy in the sense of our pole of equality. adamson believe that, and he had a fear of the mob that was overwhelming and deeply undemocratic, and that is why he game the closest -- he
9:30 am
became the closest to advocating the monarchy. that is absolutely true. >> and then at 9:00 in his book "the myth of russian collusion," roger stone delivers his account of the mueller investigation and the 2016 election. roger: 2016 was the year in which the mainstream 80 a, abc, to a lessern, and degree, fox, lost their monopoly on the political discourse in america. of athrough the rise vibrant, robust, alternative media, based in the internet, was donald trump able to win, because it gave him a platform for him to mount his counter attack, and donald trump is the greatest counterpunch or in american political history. was booktv all weekend on c-span two. >> "washington journal"
9:31 am
continues. host: it is our spotlight on magazine segment here on "washington journal." gopal ratnam,by senior staff writer with cq "roll call." he has a visa in the june edition of the cq weekly. as artificial intelligence takes hold, the government struggles for the upper hand. in this substantive piece of yours, you have a description of what is ai, but let's start there. when we talk about artificial intelligence, what are we talking about? guest:. well, thanks for having me. about, like i explained, the two basic things that go to making an artificial intelligence system is large amounts of data and then a software program that can look at patterns in that data and or makeher extrapolate on that data,d
9:32 am
similar to what human beings might do. host: your piece looks at several different areas, data, algorithms, machine learning, and deep learning. what do the terms "machine learning" and "deep learning" mean? where machine learning is computer scientists and engineers training computer to understand what is in the data. thatne of the examples in is there are two kinds of learning. what is where these computer scientists are actively showing image, forr and hi example, and helping you learn whether what they are showing could be a cat or a dog and make that decision. learning, the computer tries to find it had on its own. i offer an example of that,
9:33 am
where if you feed the computer with millions of images, bits and pieces, for example, are cat, over 7 million pieces of that data, the computer will figure out ok, so that is a cat, and this is how i can distinguish it from, let's say, some other animal. these things happen to human beings, a small child will learn by being pointed out a cat a couple of times, but we have not gotten to that point in computers, so we have to show a computer million of pieces of images before it can understand what is a cap. host: your piece in cq weekly with your colleagues, kate ackley, has the headline "bringing in the machines." you write that significant advances in a computer's ability to recognize visual patterns that human negligence, including voice and text recognition, and to learn without supervision had promised machines closer to achieving cognitive tasks once
9:34 am
humans. for vast quantities of data are the necessary food that computers must digest to learn new skills. in your reporting on this, is the amount the rate at which this is happening happening even faster than experts had predicted? guest: i would say it is happening at a pace that is slower than experts had predicted, because as far back as the 1960's and 1970's, the timeline that i offer in the story, have been predicting that type of intelligent machines were on the cusp, but it has taken a lot longer for engineers and computer scientists to get to this point, and that is because of various factors. one, you need a very height as machine that can do combinations at a great rate of speed, but also you needed a lot of data, which was not available 20, 30 years ago. and now we have both of those. so that is why you are seeing a
9:35 am
little bit of an acceleration in the last, i would say, five years to six years. host: technology concerns we have seen recently in congress over facebook and google, but what are they doing in terms of the area of artificial intelligence? what sort of legislation is being proposed? guest: there are multiple aspects of legislation. one of the things that i went out in the story is facial recognition. anyone who uses facebook knows that if you post a picture of, and they, your aunt, first time you tag it as your aunt, the next time you post a picture, the software will say "is this your aunt?" so the software recognizes the picture from different angles. now you have facial recognition embedded in all kinds of devices for mobile cyber and public, and law enforcement agencies are trying to use that to identify potential suspects. there is even a possibility that commercial enterprises, companies could use your face,
9:36 am
you're ready have an iphone x, your i.d. is your face. the next development index could use your face as you are walking around to send you advertisements and so on. so there is some concern about whether that is getting out of control, so there is some legislation to address that. how can your face be used as ,ata who can send you messages and civil rights and privacy advocates are also asking for legislation to control how law-enforcement agencies use that kind of information. host: gopal ratnam is our guest. the piece in cq weekly looking at artificial intelligence. we want to hear your thoughts, particularly the federal role, the regulation of artificial intelligence, ai. republicans, use (202) 748-8001 to:. democrats, (202) 748-8000. and for independents and all others, (202) 748-8002. technology in
9:37 am
general, how prepared is congress for artificial intelligence? -- how to speed orare up to speed are their staffs and members themselves?they were criticized recently for not knowing all facebook functions, for example. guest: i would say they are still c ranked, i would imagine, in terms of understanding the complexities. at the same time, i will point out there is an artificial intelligence caucus in congress, and more knowledgeable members are trying to educate the less knowledgeable members on the technology and the application. ,ostbut it is still a steep clib and as i point out in the article, the congress kind of did not get its arms around the internet era, all the things we know in times of google searches, twitter, facebook, and now on top of it, we are now overlaying all of these advanced
9:38 am
technologies that can do decision-making on its own. so i think members of congress are kind of grappling with both at the same time. they are trying to get up to speed on the last set of technologies while at the same time trying to stay on top of what is emerging right now. host: back to facial recognition for a second. one of the states, and i think it is california, has beaten the federal government to the punch in banning the use of it entirely? guest: san francisco, as i point out in the article, is the one -- is the onehe that has banned the use of facial recognition software for police department. for example, they would take a video of a client in which there is an end wishful' -- an individual's face that i think is a suspect, then they would run it through the database to see if there is a match. civil rights advocates are saying that is being done
9:39 am
without a warrant. it is almost like getting your fingerprint without your permission and doing a search based on that. host: have we, as consumers, kind of given that up in terms of not just facial but fingerprints? you use your thumb to open some asones and other technology, you pointed out, facial recognition in the latest version of iphones. already as consumers, sort of ok'd that technology? guest: that is the heart of the debate. markse executives like zuckerberg, the ceo and founder of facebook, have argued that the old policy is a relic of the old era. ussumers are willing to give some of the privacy for greater security, so that is the argument of the other side. whereat is kind of members of congress and lawmakers are trying to draw a line on -- have we crossed the line too far? do we need to scale it back a little bit? host: we are talking artificial intelligence.
9:40 am
let's hear what our viewers have to say. we go to hot springs national park in arkansas. j.d., good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i am not a religious person, but i hear these christian people talking about the antichrist, the antichrist. i do not know if there is such a thing, but i think if there is, it must certainly be the internet. i mean, there is more crime more on the internet than anything i could ever imagine, and i am an old man, and my lifetime. citiesr about these being held for random. you are an expert on this. these people how can hold a city for ransom, like atlanta, georgia, make them pay millions of dollars together internet files back. can you explain that? host: in the city of baltimore, and maryland. guest: thanks for that question. is talking about
9:41 am
instances, atlanta, and more recently baltimore, where hackers have taken over control of the city's computers system and have encrypted all the data on that computer system and have demanded a ransom from the city give theto, you know, date of that, and is happening now, it seems, with some frequency. of course that is not quite what we are talking about in the article, but it is a concern in terms of this happening. and a couple of reasons why. i think cities are not as well as bigger agencies are in terms of protecting their computer systems from that kind of an attack. and number two, there has been some debate on whether the tools that the united states government is developing to essentially attacked adversaries outside the country are somehow leaking and then getting into the hands of the bad guys, and
9:42 am
attack being used to american cities, so it is as if we develop a master key to unlock, you know, the bad guy's door, and now the copies of those keys are around, and the bad guys are now coming around to attack and open our door. that is kind of the analogy. host: let me give you a piece of the legislation reporting on, specifically the algorithmic accountability act. what could that do in terms of technology and ai? what are they proposing? guest: we talked about the importance of data in developing artificial intelligence systems. look atexample, you housing data and loans being made for housing, if you look at 50 years of data, you would find there is a lot of bias. there is a history of the country of redlining and declining loans to minorities and african-americans in particular. if you now overlaying a system artificial intelligence making decisions based on this data, it is likely to continue
9:43 am
those biases. human biases will get transferred to machines. if a machine skin starts doing very rapid decision-making, we might not be able to find those discrepancies. so what we are trying to do is make sure the underlying machine is free of bias. let's hear from jack in salem, oregon. republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, america. are,estions and comments that, my comment would be can you expand upon -- well, i guess it is a question that but how markexpand upon zuckerberg became so involved
9:44 am
with the google project? and what is happening with china massiveecting massiv amounts of medical data from us? i just read about that recently, that they have been collecting massive amounts of our medical data, so that it can be used in their, um, i don't know what it is called, where they have a system of, uh -- we willl right, jack, let you go, if you get the first part, in terms of the medical data issue with china, mark zuckerberg. guest: i am not sure about china getting american medical data. may be referring to the mass amount of data that china is collecting on his owns this is due mass amounts of surveillance, and that is something lawmakers in his country and privacy advocates are worried about,
9:45 am
china is doing this mass surveillance of his citizens to make sure there is no movement in that country, and they are using things like facial recognition, artificial intelligence. and that is, again, from a lot of data that has on its own citizens, and so people here are worried that if we do not address those issues, we could in a situation somewhat similar to that where law enforcement agents use the technology for those purposes. host: are there other law enforcement agencies or other entities? guest: they are pushing to make sure that her hands are not tied in terms of being able to use the data. but at the same time, i think there is concern that, you know, as some of the studies have pointed out, there is a
9:46 am
potential -- one or two americans of potentially being scanned by the police department for one situation or another. host: and your piece points out the rise of all sorts of interested parties in terms of legislation, artificial intelligence, the influencing the future artificial intelligence outside official service as more industry-lobbying players seem to shape the federal debate over at ai. you can graphically see the rise in that. we go to sue next in syracuse, new york. independent line. caller: yes, sir, frankly, i tend to think of artificial intelligence as one of the major existential threats to the human species, basically because what has beenone is, as pointed out, the machines are learning themselves, ok?they are teaching themselves rapid do things at a rate, and the things that they
9:47 am
are teaching themselves to do, again, increasingly, are going to be out of the purview or the ability of human beings to control, and the problem is the chargeat we put a i in of so many things, the more we are taking human beings out of the equation, and as the gentleman pointed out, the algorithms that are being introduced into the process, again, the people who formed these out rhythms have an enormous amount of power, ok, and the ability to, as he already pointed out, the ability to really alter so many aspects of our life. i really think it is an existential threat, along with climate change, and it is ofething that, instead cheering on, we should be limiting severely. host: a number of technology leaders have used that very same phrase. guest: that is right. for example, even the founder of microsoft, bill gates, has said
9:48 am
that the technology needs to be controlled, and so as the founder of tesla, elon musk, has said the same thing. so that is kind of the heart of the debate. aam not sure if we are at point where we are losing control of the technology, and the machines are taking over. that is kind of like the fear. but we're not at that point yet. the other point she is making is making it the people writing the algorithms have a lot of power. talked toving technologists for this story, it is not a they are seeking this type of power, i mean, these are technologists that are just trying to enhance their capacity if theability, and outcome of that is large powered machines, that is seen as an unintended consequence. host: you write in the piece that in the absence of federal law, microsoft has offered six voluntary principles in developing facial recognition technologies.
9:49 am
our other technology companies following suit? not just on facial recognition from other ai practices? is not there is a broad, sort of industrywide movement to do that , self-regulation, self policing, but microsoft is kind of an outlier on that score. they realize, for example, that facial recognition technology, the algorithm, is written on faces that are mostly caucasian faces, that system may not be able to recognize a doctor, a minority person's face, and also the same thing with gender, too, so that is one of the things they are trying to fight. host: do you think u.s. officials are learning a lot from the chinese experience, however much we may disagree with it? guest: i am not sure they are from percent accounts, but by media reporting, yes. california,go to
9:50 am
democrats line. good morning. i do not have a whole but itsay about ai, makes a lot of guesses about things. there was a book written by kaifu lee talking about the superpowers in at ai. they said it was going to eliminate about the one million jobs over the next 20 years or so, in addition to all of the information, the massive amounts of information that is being collated and elected and ,anaged, and use in ways that it is more like something you would read out of a george orwell novel or something. in machines truly are charge, whether we would like to believe it or not, and it is an unfortunate thing, because there are a lot of people that need to work. and the smarter we get,
9:51 am
seemingly, the fewer people were. so i thank you very much for listening. host: thanks. guest: lots of interesting points there. as far as making a lot of guesses, that is perhaps true, because, if you are doing a google search today, the moment you start typing in the first couple letters or words, the machine is already guessing what it might be based on the kinds of things to have been searching along those lines. so you can actually see weather is specific news breaking out, the computer is able to guess what people might be potentially searching for. the caller also mentioned the superpowers. obviously there is a global race to be, like, the world leader in artificial intelligence. china has said it wants to be and they are 2-- leading the effort, and that is why there is a push in the united states to get ahead of
9:52 am
these advanced technologies through regulation. you also mentioned jobs, and this is also a concern. i would point out that lednological advances have to losses in manufacturing jobs, it is likely that artificial intelligence advancements loss ofead to white-collar jobs, loan officers, insurance specialists, legal analysts, because it could have a heck of a lot more cases a lot faster, so those are obviously concerns. host: let's hear from pittsburgh. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have is we learn nature versus nurture and such, and algorithm presented to these computers, ai, at what
9:53 am
point do we actually consider it to be sentient, a mind of its own? and i will hang up and listen. guest: um, that is a great question. again, like i point out in the article right at the beginning, when computers were just kind of making their appearance on the world stage, scientists and technologists have been looking and hoping that there would be that kind of a senstient machine, but i think we are very far from that, because, for example, we are still -- computers are at a point, while they're still trying to recognize a cat from a wolf or a dog from a wolf, and so i think the capacity, although it is potentially possible, i think we are far from the time where a as ane is as sentient normal human being is, although that is the fear. host: we talked about this a
9:54 am
little bit. in september, ai now issued a report documenting technologies where governments are decision-making, such as teacher assessments, andinal risk assessments, eligibility for medicaid and other government benefits. in detroit, this is james. you are on the air. caller: is this me? host: i'm sorry, william, you are on the air. questions or want a specific, and one is general. i am spitting in a website -- i am participating in a website called cola. i guess it is social media. there is no reason people know who i am or want my opinion, so doing assumed that i was a lot of communications with ai, and then there was evidence that
9:55 am
they were original people, like me, so my question is how much of this interaction is with artificial intelligence and this ol icular website, and the other question, the general question, i get you noticed -- what is your opinion about this, what is your opinion on this? host: i am going to let you go, because you are coming in and out. did you catch most of that. guest: he talked about posting questions on a site called cora, and are they coming from ai -- ost: war machine, yeah. guest: i think today it is possibleguest: that if you are on any commercial website and a little box pops up that said we the right thing for you, tell us what you are buying, and you have a system with a box
9:56 am
that pops up and there is somebody typing, that does not have to be a human being. it can be a machine. both in terms of being able to respond in a text fashion and in an oral fashion, select with a voice, we have gotten to a point where it is hard to tell if you are talking to a machine or a human. tweet in preparation for our this morning, this man tweets, "it is a big day today. i had a scientific manuscript rejected by a robot. levelread detected a high of overlap with previous literature." guest: that is one of the cases some machines are doing decision-making, and also, you are seeing on social media where companies are trying to remove objectionable content, they , they'ree out, i mean machine might flag or respond to objectionable content.
9:57 am
host: the and of some of your timeline of ai, you put face theare now, fac fraser recognition, amazon and engine, giving a certain amount of leeway to these pieces of technology to make those decisions for us or at least guide us along to making the decision. guest: this has been a struggle not just with this piece of technology but as with any other piece of technology, we will always want more convenience, and in order to get convenience, we have to trade some amount of freedom and privacy in salon, so we are at the point where we are evaluating how much of privacy and what we are trading away, how much for convenience. host: the question i guess for you is -- are lawmakers hearing from their constituents saying, "no, we want more privacy. ease of want more
9:58 am
access, information, etc."? we were talking about teacher evaluations, law enforcement, so one, lawmakers are heard from advocacy groups and say if you are doing this in order to create efficiency for government agencies, that could cause harm for certain communities of people. so we are hearing that. host: does your article get into productive technology? in terms of likelihood, because reportedly the chinese get into that as well, in terms of the likelihood of individuals to be up to nefarious activities. guest: yes, we do. story, when in the the criminal justice system now, certain kinds of artificial intelligence systems are being used to decide whether someone should be granted a bail, based on certain characteristics that system has developed. out that are pointing that unfairly targets minorities and african-americans who do not spendingand end up
9:59 am
time behind bars, and they do not have a way to respond to it, because the decision has been a by a machine, which is seen somehow as something that cannot be challenged. host: appropriately, we are receiving a call from fort meade, james in for me, maryland, independent line. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. when thing i wanted to ask your guest is where do you think this whole thing where self driving, autonomous vehicles have become the holy grail? my question is -- it is not a societal need. it is not an economic need. where did this thing where everyone wants to do this -- where did it come from? where was the drive for this? so that is the question. i would really appreciate your best's insights on this. host: thank you. an interesting question. i would agree that there is probably not an economic need, but i think people would argue
10:00 am
that there is a social need, eecause it is part of, likk further along the line of, convenience if you think about the effort involved in driving a one can imagine a situation where a group of elderly senior citizens who cannot drive and you have the capacity for a car to drive itself, that could be of huge benefit to the community of senior citizens, for example. i think it is debatable whether there is no social or economic need. >> autonomous vehicles have to be the subject of another washington journal. thanks so much. more on rollcal >> thank you for having me. >> we appreciate you joining us this morning. we are back tomorrow at 7 a.m.
10:01 am
eastern and hope you are too. have a great weekend. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> c-span is live today in south carolina where democratic candidates will be speaking at the event hosted by planned parenthood.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on