tv Breaking the Set RT January 15, 2014 9:30pm-10:01pm EST
gooden tog i'm happy martin this is breaking the set you know at this point pretty much nothing surprises me when it comes to the overly curious government entity known as the national security agency but i guess i still thought that you're at least protected from n.s.a. snoops if you want to play offline solitaire in the privacy of your own home what's not see according to new york times report the agency has planted software in almost one hundred thousand computers around the world that don't have to be connected to the internet this data in use then see it works there's something called radio frequency technology which allows the n.s.a. to use a covert radio channel to access the microchips in the machines and deliver the data to a listening post up to eight miles away but don't worry according to the n.s.a.
the only computers that are called my use of those are the enemy targets but now world war everyone's presumed guilty before proven innocent aren't we all considered enemies now let's break this. the key please please take and leave very hard to tell the truth. i never had to act with the terror threat there really. was. the. little. oh oh. please. please. please.
with the us sitting just behind china iran iraq and saudi arabia and the number of state sponsored executions death penalty opponents have plenty of motivation to end capital punishment in this country and while many of these prisoners are indeed guilty of heinous crimes consider this since nine hundred eighty nine three hundred twelve people have been exonerated by d.n.a. evidence alone and of those prisoners eighteen were facing death sentences of course hundreds if not thousands of convicted prisoners have no access to d.n.a. evidence virtually ensuring that they will never be able to prove their innocence which is why the decades old case of fourteen year old george stinney is so important one hundred forty four said he became the youngest american citizen to be executed in the twentieth century for killing two white girls in south carolina this being the jim crow era self the justice system completely failed stinney the moment he told officers that had talked to the girls on the day of their deaths
without his parents or a lawyer present said he was taken into a room interrogated and according to police confessed to the crime within an hour however no written confession exists and reports at the time said that the officers offered stinney ice cream. an exchange for the confession the subsequent trial was similarly a complete farce said he was represented by a tax commissioner named charles plowden who according to mark jones an author who has written extensively about the case had political aspirations and didn't want to anger the local whites if he ran for office during the trial plot and not only refused to cross-examine any of the witnesses but he also didn't bring any anyone to testify anthony's behalf the trial was over in two hours and it took only ten minutes for the jury to deliberate and sentence the fourteen year old to die fast forward to today or a group of lawyers are trying to clear his name and force the state of south carolina to admit this grave injustice attorneys steve mackenzie kent george.
have successfully won the right to the appeals hearing on january twenty first and thinks about publicity of the case has generated several new witnesses including the man who originally found the bodies of the two girls have now come forward to offer their testimony so big shout out to mackenzie kent for sin and chandler for having the courage and determination to not let a seventeen year old atrocity be swept under the rug but of course for every person trying to create a more just society in this country there are those who want nothing more than a return to the middle ages and particular wyoming state senator who just introduced a bill that would bring back firing squads for state executions because of the money it would save the state no this is not an onion article i may repeat that firing squads public and state senator bruce burns told the associated press that he introduced the bill because lethal injection drugs are becoming harder and harder to come by but in case you're wondering why you didn't want to bring back
the gas chamber instead don't worry he's got that answer covered saying quote the state of wyoming doesn't have a gas chamber currently so the procedure and expense to build one would be impractical to me i consider frankly the gas chamber to be cruel and. usual so i want the firing squads because they also have a minute or woah whoa i'm not sure which part of that statement is more shocking they actually took the time to consider gas chamber execution or that utah still allows inmates to choose firing squads when to face an execution in fact as recent as two thousand and ten death row inmate ronnie lead gardner was executed in just this manner now you did ban the practice in two thousand and four but it was not red traffic with it retroactively excuse me applied hopefully mean that gardner will be the last person to die at the hands in this brutal manner so thanks to state senator bruce burns for making a complete mockery of the justice system and introducing medieval legislation in the name of fiscal responsibility isn't it reassuring to know that legislators
aren't wasting their time addressing this country's addiction to capital punishment but instead are focusing their efforts on how to kill people more efficiently. and of the internet as we know it that's what some tech writers are calling yesterday's decision by the d.c. court of appeals in the case of arisan versus the federal communications commission or f.c.c. the court's decision to end what is commonly known as net neutrality abolishes f.c.c. regulations over and in that giants like verizon and comcast the ruling came as a huge blow for advocates of a free and open internet c. net neutrality proponents believe internet service providers will be able to manipulate broadband speeds based on which sites pony up the most cash so to discuss what this ruling means for the general public and if the free internet that
we've come to love is truly dead for good i'm joined now by mouth board policy director of free press thanks so much for coming out of it to be here so can you explain what exactly the f.c.c. regulations that were just looked at with this or willing. the f.c.c. regulations were designed to prevent exactly that certain websites being blocked some of them being sped up you having to pay more to get to certain sites like our t.v. is suddenly more expensive to reach than c.n.n. or m s n b c or fox news court struck those down and we don't think it's dead for good sound a lot like you to bring something back to life right the f.c.c. has a chance to chance to fix this but it going to be politically difficult and we are trying to do anything we can to get them to do that you know clearly i as pieces have a lot to gain with this recent ruling how much they have to influence the ruling they have spent a ton of time and money both on capitol hill and in these legal challenges and at the f.c.c. as well seeking less and less rules fewer and fewer protections for internet users so they say trust us we won't actually do that stuff we won't block anybody we won't really try to speed anybody up but they're starting to try to find ways to
get more money out of the internet for themselves and their shareholders and trying to make sure you and i have less freedom online and you know that brings me to this this article that i just read first z.d. net larry seltzer a tech writer writes the f.c.c. acted illegally when they imposed anti discrimination rules on broadband internet service providers and doing so they struck down the open internet rules which were attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist or rampant discrimination by as peace against various forms of content how do you respond to that claim that content discrimination is never a problem you just mention that they promise that it won't be in the future but has it ever been while sure it has been and it's they're trying to turn up the temperature ever so slightly and slowly boil the frog you know they've tried to be on their best behavior in some ways and not do the most flagrant things like blocking websites although that has happened across the border in canada a big guy is being blocked at the union's website when it didn't like the fact that they were striking in this country we've seen eighteen t. either block or make you pay more to use something like a video chat application like apple's face time just because they have a legacy business they say we like it when you pay us for voice minutes maybe we
don't like it so much when you use a free and better alternative so it hasn't been rampant not necessarily but that's because we've had these rules in place on the f.c.c. is looking to make them last unfortunately there's this temporary heck up and they're not in place right now but we're hoping to get them. back in place before we see the internet change for good absolutely let's talk specifically about how this will affect regular users other than the fact that you just mentioned it might be more pricey i mean will the broader throttle the traffic be slower and if you like that it could yeah i mean that's the that's the fear is that once they make more money by selling you priority rather than just giving you access where you want to go and when you want to get there then they have every incentive not to build out you know they monetize that scarcity they say oh we have a fast lane so sorry your service was slow if you pay up a little extra if you pay an extra five dollars a month you'll get faster access and that's exactly it wrong for the internet up till now it's been a pretty level playing field and we're afraid this could change that unless the f.c.c. fixes it really soon what do you say to those who say this is a free market issue the government should not be involved with regulating the internet well how many broadband providers do we have the government has already
been involved in giving those companies rights of way to build their systems and we don't have many choices for these critical infrastructure utilities really as what they are so it's a free market issue for the services that right on top of that you know there's lots of competition among web sites among apps there's very little for broadband providers and so if they say we're going to block you and then you can maybe switch to somebody else a lot of people can't make that choice plus it's not really like we would allow this in other settings you know think of your phone just because you have a wireless phone option you wouldn't say well it's ok if box my calls to certain numbers i can always switch to a variety more i can always switch to another to another carrier we think that was crazy because the communications network is supposed to be open to you and me to decide where we want to go and how we want to use it and this ruling threatens that because of these technicalities the f.c.c. has gotten wrong for the last decade i really like that analogy it makes it very clear about why this is so wrong and really quickly i think for people who totally do not trust they have to see because like every other oversight committee they've kind of messed up i mean how why should we trust them to really set this in stone
the way it needs to be when i have to get it right but the balance here is we don't want to trust the government completely and we also don't trust corporations completely because so often especially at places like the f.c.c. or congress the corporations have all. too loud a voice and an outsized say and what those and what those entities do with those agencies do so it's not about the government controlling the internet or regulating what we say online it's about making sure that nobody neither the government nor the internet service provider can censor speech or decide what we can reach when we go onto our internet connection keep it in the hands of the people just as it should be you said it wasn't dead as we know it how can we resurrect it not well it is technicality here the f.c.c. made this mistake they said we're going to not treat broadband like a communication service we'll kind of think of it as something like an internet site and they really confuse the two sides what we want the f.c.c. to do is treat content as it should be leave it unregulated on line but get back to protecting people when they try to get on the network in the first place and if the f.c.c. can classify as we say down in the weeds here in d.c.
and if they can make the broadband network act like a communications network again then they can restore a lot of this authority and get back to making sure people have internet freedom not censorship handed down by horizon and people who want to at the internet for their own devices and going back to the f.c.c. you know kind of the inability to trust them and actually doing this is anything that we can do any tools that free press offers that the people can take to run yeah i think i trust dot net we have an action up in the e-mail that we sent out to more than two hundred thousand of our members and people responding quickly and saying yes we think the f.c.c. should do this and basically clean up its own mistake here and clean up its own mess there might be fights on capitol hill where we'll have to activate people to call their members of congress there might be fights in the court a lot of different things to come all sort of still breaking as that decision just came down yesterday but definitely not free press dot net and lots of other great sites where you can tell the f.c.c. clean this up and make sure that we're protected when we get onto the internet and we're not just at the mercy of some corporation and we have about thirty seconds left but what can we expect right now i mean are we going to see them kind of taking charge of this in really seizing the power or what has to happen next i
think they want to keep their options open for now it's a new chairman mr wheeler who is a distinguished career in the industry and now he used it in the public service and we hope they'll do the right thing we have some indications that he will but there's a lot of decisions on his plate right now and basically. they said so far as we will act to protect the internet we're not sure yet if that means it will do everything we think they need to do to get this right tough decisions indeed important decisions that you so much for staying on top of that now would policy director for the president say that thanks so much coming up you guys will tackle the corporate media's newest distraction bieber gate.
it sucks but. we're going to do the job did you know the price is the only industry specifically mentioning the constitution and the concept that's because a free and open press is critical to our democracy which threaten all those. role. in fact the single biggest threat facing our nation today is the corporate takeover of our government and oppressive a girl we've been a hydrogen right hand full powerful transnational corporations that will profit by destroying what our founding fathers once will just i'm tom are going to get on this show we reveal the big picture of what's actually going on in the world if we go beyond identifying the problem trucks and rational debate and a real discussion of critical issues facing america have done for job ready to join the movement then welcome to the big picture.
i would bet that. a society that i think corporation kind of can do it can do and the bank trying to put all that all about money and i'm a vastly fit for a politician write the laws and regulations that. coming up. here is just too much rat today's. that. i agree there's so much going on in the world right now it's hard to even know where to start that neutrality might be dead andy kaufman might be alive and scientists are now one step closer using the sun's energy at night but out of all this madness the media has had a singular focus over the last twenty four hours. whether the young man with too
much money and too much time or a pop prince looking for street cred are all of the above justin bieber is found himself in trouble yet again it all started when bieber was accused of taking his neighbor's house on thursday of these times is not great however we should point out i just speak you know there's a history for some time he's been driving his car fast through the neighborhood he's had a couple of buddies with the neighbors they've accused the boyfriend singer of driving around recklessly just like in his music video. yes the corporate press seems to have come down would be able to favor and really can you blame him i mean just look at that face because of course in a country where talentless musicians are treated like gods it's easy to sidestep the issues that actually matter like for example the fact that yesterday at the same time the helicopters were circling bieber's mansion the family of kelly thomas was grieving over the one of the biggest injustices in recent history their sons
and murderers getting off scot free or the fact that a group of fifty nine senators are currently pushing to do you rail the peace process between washington and tehran in case you forgot for the first time in over thirty five years the presidents of both iran and the u.s. are on speaking terms and they're in the process of negotiating a historic agreement on their one condition now the u.s. will lift the harsh economic sanctions that isolated iran for years and in return iran will stop its high level enrichment of uranium and be more transparent and its nuclear. missions but nobody got time for peace especially senators robert menendez and mark kirk of the senate foreign relations committee who are sponsoring a bill seeking to add a fresh new round of crippling sanctions mendez calls it an insurance policy in an op ed he wrote for the washington post he describes the bill as a necessary contingency in case the negotiations fail. does anyone else notice how a logical this is unless of course menendez means an insurance policy for failure
lest we forget that sanctions don't work and have time and again proven to not only not hurt the regime but hurt the people instead they you wouldn't know any of this if you're watching the corporate media because they've had justin bieber music videos on loop for the last twenty four hours and you know it's bad when even t m z is back paging the bieber scandal to cover real news about us foreign policy not just covering it but breaking it yes you heard me right just this morning t.m. broke open another huge scandal involving u.s. troops obsessed with desecrated dead bodies now i must warn you the following images are disturbing t.m.c. only published a handful of forty one images they were given citing that the rest were simply too graphic as you can see they depict u.s. marines burning the bodies of dead iraqis seemingly in the back yard of average homes in the city of fallujah in two thousand and four others show marines posing with human remains or rifling through the pockets of the dead colonel steve warren
director of operations for the department of justice i'm sorry defense told him that quote the pictures appear to show us soldiers in violation of the uniform code of military justice which makes it a crime to mishandle remains not only is this completely criminal and despicable some of the true legacy of the us is a brutal decade long occupation of the country but don't hold your breath on these soldiers being held accountable after all the soldiers who were found guilty of the urinating on afghan corpses and trophy photographs. walked away with nothing more than a mark on their record i mean absolutely nothing no jail no discharge but i guess bieber breaking a few waves is just too important a story to fit in a segment about war crimes while world this is professional journalists are the ones covering celebrity gossip while celebrity gossip sites are the ones doing the muckraking.
on the heels of a poor vortex record breaking heat waves and super typhoons climate change has never been more apparent don't believe me according to a search of peer reviewed articles on the research database web of science out of thirteen thousand nine hundred fifty articles on climate change only four reject the notion i'm sorry twenty four but there is still a very vocal minority that disagree who say that not only climate change is not manmade but they deny that it's happening at all unfortunately that minority opinion is also expressed by powerful corporations and wealthy individuals who have used their influence to stall any progress in curbing global carbon emissions because of the inaction to address the serious problem many climate change scientists are now proposing a drastic solution known as geo engineering or the altering of the natural world by artificial means but what hazardous effects could result in the modifying of the
laws of nature and how ethical is it to politicize the environment for profit to discuss this i'm joined by clive hamilton public ethics professor. university and author of the book earth masters the dodgy age of climate engineering thank you so much for coming on i mean so last time you were you were on before we didn't anything else i have to ask you again. i'm not the expert but you are comfortable is there any reason to suspect that the government is sponsoring spring going on right now because i can't tell you how many people reached out to me about this thing we have to take science seriously that's why we hate talking about climate change and if you talk to any reputable or even disreputable cloud physicist or atmospheric camera store atmospheric scientists that would tell you that there is no evidence whatsoever for these chemical trials conspiracy there are no calls in the professional journals there's no peer reviewed science it's just a conspiracy theory which is proliferated on the internet and we shouldn't take it
seriously at all and let's move on to climate change because another obviously big issue is deniers and you know it's fresh in the wake of the polar vortex i mean how do you respond to people saying that is proof that global warming isn't happening i mean look we have to listen to the scientists these are the people who are experts and yet you have politicians the senators on the hill who suddenly become ph d.'s that that's very physics and believe they can reject the mountain of scientific evidence and make their own personal judgment i mean do they ever ject quantum gravity because they just don't like it or it's inconsistent with their ideology climate scientists have a good explanation for the polar vortex warming doesn't mean that you know every year it's going to go up by half a degree consistently it means we're transforming the operation of a very complex atmospheric system and sometimes we've got to get freak event like the polar vortex which itself is explained by global warming because the because
sophie is warming up this these are cold air that constantly goes around the big tongue being pushed out so you get these great white eaves of sweeping across the united states and yet you know one snowstorm in washington d.c. for some people is enough to obliterate decades of painstaking sont. if you were according to reasons that drexel university seventy five percent of all funding behind climate change and i was actually on it for life we cannot trace where this is coming from how we sort of fight back against the propaganda we don't even know where it's coming from live well we've got not specifically where it's coming from but we do know it is a huge amount of money that is being channeled through obscure sources and then being fed into the conservative think tanks here in washington and elsewhere in the world to try to undermine the legitimacy and believability of this body of evidence on climate science and also to attack personally and also often in very vicious
terms the climate scientists themselves. the truth is that this is just like the the tobacco company funded campaign against against bans on smoking in fact it's the same people often the think tanks people who campaigned against legislation to restrict smoking but now shifted over to work for the fossil fuel corporations to try to undermine the credibility of climate science and to sway lawmakers that they should not do what the science says they must do i was speaking enough is a man who's a guardian journalist who writes extensively about climate change and he was saying you know people like al gore other prominent politicians who are pushing a lot of the global warming rhetoric also are kind of pushing for money making schemes as a solution the carbon credits he says you know it's just kind of a money making scheme do you think that's a responsible way to fight climate change the carbon credits climate change the
ultimate collective problem and asking the individuals calling on companies to you know get behind that in itself is not going to so i mean we have to shop the greenhouse gas emissions which means that we have to shop the consumption of fossil fuels end of story how do we reduce consumption of fossil fuels we need. policies that basically my fossil fuels more expensive than the alternatives to renewable energy energy efficiency and so we must have some kind of price on carbon where that takes a form of carbon tax or whether it takes the form of an emissions trading system in a sense it doesn't matter as long as we impose a cost on polluting the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels that's a fundamental thing on which ninety nine point nine percent of economists will agree sure but i think consumers are looking and saying why is the burden pushed on me when you have no giant meat packing industry you have twenty percent methane
emissions that are heavily contributing. to the meat packing beef producers like coal fired power plants that are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions but just as you know you eat beef when you go and buy a hamburger you consume. fossil fuels when you turn the switch on in your home and in the end it's got to where you have got to pay more for using fossil fuels in our homes our business is in now offices that's just the bottom line i mean if people are making a lot of money out of it illegitimately then we need the policies to to work on that but that in the end we have to pay more for our pollution and that will encourage us to use less polluting forms of energy and less polluting forms of food and i agree with you and i also just think that corporate america and also you know world government should really take the lead and then you know hopefully will influence the people to follow let's talk about the solutions here is geo
engineering at the coal. well it's a big question because of what you mean by geo engineering that the prominence gave the most one attracting most attention and most research is called sulfite parasols sprang and the idea is to cut the earth in the atmosphere with the so-called sulfate aerosols time. particles and it's kind of. pollution which. reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the earth and that by cools it now a lot of people would say there's something fundamentally wrong in installing a conduit so. that will allow somebody somewhere to have a handle on the global thermostat to reduce the temperature and of the earth and therefore affect in talk of the u.s. so different with profound problems particularly if you have one country the united states or china which would invest in geo engineering for russia which is pushing
quite odd for work on geo engineering and getting international except ability if you have one nation study to control the climate system. then you really do have a profoundly because situation which is why many nations of the south many poor nations a study say hey we worried about if we want to have a say in what's going on that is a really interesting question indeed i never even thought about you know world governments actually having more control over the other of the world's temperature environment thank you so much clive hamilton for breaking down the misconceptions about geo engineering professor of public ethics at charles sturt university really appreciate your time thanks and. thanks for watching you guys join me again tomorrow when to break the sound all over again. well. it's technology innovations all the latest developments from
i suspect all. over the place to go to the press is the only industry specifically mentioning the geysers. that's because a free and open prize is critical to our democracy schreck all books. are. going to go on i'm sorry and i'm a show we reveal the picture of what's actually going on we go beyond identifying a problem to try to rational debate a real discussion critical issues facing america have a number ready to join the movement then welcome to the big. dog target of washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture.