tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN May 9, 2010 2:00am-6:00am EDT
be federal regulation. that is an internal date. that is something that the u.s. and the american people have to decide, how they're going to do it. men but i believe that this shows that there can be no more weight for national immigration act of some sort -- but i believe that this shows that there can be no more wait for a national immigration act of some sort. >> is there not a significant amount of corruption in the local systems? what would you do to prevent the systemic corruption? it seems to me that there is a tremendous amount of a bribery,
infiltration, as you stated, but i have to commend the calderon governnt since he had the tremendous amount of courage, and the people under him as well, that even fedal police were being attacked. >> i want to be clear that i'm not saying the war and crime and the attack on crime shouldn't have been done.
even if it was the historic responsibility of the federal government to take this into their hands and try to solve it, there also should be moves toward professionalizing this policy through civilian groups that could be federal. i am not saying there would have to be state groups. in fact, my personal opinion is that they should be federal, but not the army. that is running. -- that is what i mean. >> how has the financial crisis impacted mexico, and do you see mexico recovering any time soon? i was talking to someone in the morning that when the u.s. cost we get pneumonia- when the
we get pneumonia. we are so linked, we export 80% of our products to the united states. we buy 80% of our imports from the united states. that has a lot of problems, of course, being so concentrated, but it gives you an idea of why, when the u.s. has a downturn, we have a much steeper downturn. last year, mexico had a 6.5% loss of its gdp. we did not grow. this year, with the partial recovery, we're probabl going
to grow more. again, you see the imbalances. if the u.s. rose 1%, we grow 4%. the u.s. falls 1%, we fall 6%. one thing we should talk about is how crime has impacted the economy. we do not have specific measures as to how organized crime and drug programs have directly impacted on the decisions to invest in mexico. i know that we can all guessed that it has an impact. but what we do have is local figures, state by state, and how they have been behaving in terms of foreign investment in the last couple of years. what we do have is that in those states where the perception of
organized crime is high, yet losses of 400 direct investments that have reached, in some of them, 50%. in states where the perception is not commonly held, for example, the state of mexico, we are not known for having a huge organized crime problem we had a rise in foreign investment. that shows you the people somehow know that mexico is strong. the drug and violence programs are somewhat localized. they affect certain areas, and they avoid those regions, but they do not avoid others.
even if i asked you here, would you go to mexico city? you would say, yes i would. you would maybe ask if there was a safety problem. if i asked if you wanted to go to juarez, you would say, why don't we go to el pasonstead? >> we have a number of years not only in the united states but in mexico as well watching our web cast. this is a viewer of the web cast pose a question. -- webcast's s
question. >> i am not an expert on security or crime. i am more of an international relations guy. my guess would be that organized crime is different from the crime that comes from not having a job. when you lose your job when most of your life you have been working, if you do decide to become a criminal, you probably steal to eat. you would not fit into higher forms of organized crime. this i know. there are studies that show that crime escalates. whoever starts by may be stealing a package of cigarettes and does not get caught, the
next time will still the mirrors of a car. if he does not get caught you will still the car. he does e get caught -- if he does not get caught he will get in to kidnapping. in other words, entrepreneurship gross if you do not get caught -- grows if you do not get caught. organized crime was there before the crisis. that is why they were fighting. they have been there for many years. what i think is that now there is a huge fight between smaller gangs for roots of distribution -- routes of distribution. that is part of the price -- that is part of the problem. do think the economic crisis might have made it worse. >> we have time for one more
question. >> and thank you. i was wondering if you could speak to social enterprise and what role there is in mexico right nowo aid economic development? >> lerally, 97% of the companies in mexico employ it from 1 to 10 people. it plays a huge role in what we are doing. we're not fully developed yet for micro financing.
it can be very expensive to create a formal job. that is something we have to change. that is something i have on e list of social reforms. we need to change the social structure of social benefits. right now, if you hire a person, you end up paying 40% on top of his wages just for social benefits. that becomes a real problem. in a way, we are subsidizing informality. that is another topic, but i do agree that micra finance has a role to play. [applause] . .
>> it lab a little over a month since i signed health care reform into law. reform is already delivering real benefits to millions of americans. we're seing a he will care system that holds insurance companies accountable and gives consumers control. two weeks ago, 4 million small business owners and organizations found a postcard in their mailbox informing them they could be eligible for a health care tax cut this year. a tax cut potentially worth 10s of thousands of dollars. it will help millions provide coverage to employees.
it will give help to retirees and senior citizen that is fall into the drug coverage gap, known as the doughnut hole will receive a $250 rebate to help them afford their medication. aside from real tangible benefits. the law has begun to end practices of insurance companies. too long we have been held hostages to insurance companies that jacks up pream -- preamuals. after our administration demanded that anthem blue cross justify a 39% premium increase on californians, the company admitted the error and backed off. and this week our health and security services wrote a letter to all insurance companies to stop insurance companies from gaining the system. to help chaffee this goal we set
up insurance oversight and will provide grants to states with the best oversight. we'll put in and place a new patient's bill of rights that will provide simple and clear information to consumers about choices and rights. it'll set up an appeals process to enforce those rights and it'll prohibit insurance companies from limiting a a patient's access to their preferred primary provider and ob-gyn or emergency room care. we're holding insurance companies accountable in other ways as well. as of september, the new health care law proibt hads insurance companies from dropping coverage when they get sick and need it most. when we found out that the insurance company was dropping the coverage of women diagnosised with breast cancer, by administration called on them to put an end to this practice immediately. and two weeks ago, the entire insurance industry announced it would comply with the new law early and stop the perverse practice of dropping coverage when they got sick. on monday we'll announce the
rule that allows young adults without insurance to stay on the parent's plan until they're 26 years old even though insurance companies have until september to comply, we asked them to do so immediately to avoid coverage gaps for new clean graduates and other young adults. and this also makes good business sense for insurance companies and we're pleased that most have agreed. now we need employers to do the same. we're willing to work with them to make this transition possible. these changes mean that starting this spring when young adults graduate from college, many who do not have health care coverage will be able to stay on their parent's insurance for a few more years. and you could check health reform.gov to find a lest of all of the insurance carriers who agreed to participate right away. i said before that implementing health insurance reform won't happen overnight and will require weeks and changes along the way. ultimately we'll have a system that provides more control for consumers, more accountability for insurance companies, and more affordable choices for uninsured americans.
but already we're seeing how reform is improving the lives of millions of americans. already we're watching small businesses learn that they will soon play less -- pay less for health care. we're seeing retirees realize they'll keep coverage and seniors rl they'll get their prescriptions and seeing consumers get a break from unfair rate hikes and patients get the care they need when they need it and young adults getting the security of knowing they could off life with one less cost to worry about. at long last, this is what health care reform is achieving. this is what change looks like and this is the promise we will keep as we continue to make this law reality in the months and years to come. thanks so much. i'm richard shelby, the ranking republican on the senate banking committee. the smat is currently debating legislation to reform our nation's financial system. the outcome will have serious consequences for our financial system and our xi for years to
come. that's why we we need to get this right. republicans believe that meaningful reform is necessary and such reform should address the causes of the financial crisis. promote economic growth and end bailouts for good. the legislation that the democrats proposed failed each of these tests. at its core, the recent financial crisis stemmed from a meltdown in the mortgage market. at the heart of this market allowed government sponsored housing agencies fannie mae and freddie mac, for decades these milt trillion dollar institutions leveraged the impolice et backing of the american taxpayer to encourage mortgage lending to people who cannot afford to repay the loans. but exph home prices collapsed, these ticking time bombs exploded, saltsing taxpayers --
payers with hundreds of billions of debt. this situation e manes unresolved today. in fact, fred gi di mack this week asked for another 10.6 billion of your dollars. for years, the democrats blocked meaningful reform of fanny and freddy and not much has changed. their legislation to reform if the financial system touches nearly every corner of the economy. and these major contributors to the crisis are left unscathed. and a recent wall street journal editorial observed, reforming the financial system without fixing fanny and freddie is like declaring a war on terror and ignoring al qaeda. well said, if the days to come, republicans will be demanding that financial reform include fanny and freddie and while the
democrats bill fails to address the central cause of the crisis, it does however dramatically expand the retch of the federal government into parts of our economy that had nothing to do with the financial crisis. if the democrats have their way, the, so called consumer and financial protection bureau could reach into every small business who provides credit and places unreasonable burden os on them. that only means higher costs and fewer choice fors consumer. moreover, the democrats new bureaucracy is complete my divorced from regulaters that are responsible for monitoring thisee the safety and soundness of our banks. separating consumer protection from safety and soundness is the same ill-conceived approach that led to the demise of fanny and freddie. and democrats are unwilling it deal with fanny and freddie but they're determined to regulate the rest of our economy under
the same model. expanding this concept is not only reckless it'll in time expose you, the american taxpayer to further losses. and this week, republicans stood with america's small business owners and offered a rational alternative that strengthens consumer protections without burdening main street with unnecessary regulations. and the democrats chose once again, to ignore the american people and unanimously rejected our amendment. the vast array of main street business groups who wrote in support of the republican alternative deserve better. although this legislation still has many flaws, there has been some improvement on one important front. after insisting that changes be made, republicans were able to close significant loopholes if the democrat's bill that would
have perpetuated taxpayer funded bailouts and these changes demonstrate our determination to protect the american taxpayer and the future of our economy. ultimately this debate is about the appropriate role of the federal government in the economy. and republicans believe that the federal g. should protect taxpayers and prom met economic growth. and we will continue to support changes to this legislation in an attempt to achieve these goals. thank you. >> the mid term elections are just six months away and could change the balance of power in washington, watch the candidate debates that have taken place in key house and senate and governor's race as cross the country online at the new c-span video library. search it and watch it and clip it and share it all free. it is caple -- cable's latest gift to america. retiring supreme court justice john paul stevens and alaina
kagan appear together at the seven the circuit judicial conference in chicago on monday after brief remarks from justice stevens kagan spoke on his life and legacy. [applause] what do you say when introducing man who has been coming to these events for more than 50 years. everything interesting has been said. likely everything that is not interesting has been said too. so i'll be brief. john paul stevens is man of chicago. he was born and raised in hyde park. and he attended the university of chicago laboratory school. he attended the 1932 world series which the cubs lost. in fact, no one in this room was
alive when the cubs won their last world series. john paul stevens attended college in chicago, law school in chicago and practiced in chicago and served for five years on the seventh circuit. even after he was dragged off it washington and -- in 195e, he remained our circuit justice. this year, he became the second justice to reach the age of 90 while in active service. the other was oliver wendell homes. his predsers in his seat on the supreme court were louie bran dice and william o douglas, for 16 years he has been the senior associate justice. you may have read about him during the last few weeks.
and members of the seventh circuit bar, and -- and the friends again. i am going to play my normal role tonight to talk to you very briefly -- while you were waiting to hear the principal speaker. i want to say on her behalf, she very kindly offered to let me go last tonight and i pulled rank on her and said no, i'm just going to do basically what i have done for many years here. just have a very few -- few comment that is are not very profound. the -- it occurs to me just out of the blue that -- that i attended a -- i think it was an illinois bar association, maybe the 100th anniversary or something like that, 25 or 30 years ago, and i remember the president of the association, i
think we're negligent in kalamazoo, i'm in the sure, in any event saying because of the anniversary, this is a occasion. i thought this is a nostological occasion in many ways too. i'm going to make two very unprofound comments. the first is about -- a moot court at -- at south bend at the notre dame law school that i attended -- intended to tell you about last year whether we had the former dean of the -- of the notre dame at annual meeting. i think it was my second or third year on court. i attended the moot court at notre dame and there were four women participants. and they gave the best oral argument that i have ever heard in a moot court. i went to great many moot courts over the years. on the panel with me was judge
cornelia kennedy. and she was then on the sixth circuit and we had become judges on -- one on the bench on the same day and were friends to many years. during the argument, the -- the advocates repeatedly addressed her as madam justice and she -- obviously wasn't responding to that very warmly. and -- toward the end of the -- i guess the third argument, one of the -- of the women lawyers addressed her as madam justice, she responded very vigorously, saying why do you call me madam justice? justice is a perfectly good, a perfectly good title. you didn't have to use a sexist term to describe a judge on the court. and so the -- the advocates responded that in a appropriate way after the argument, one of her -- when we were discussing who should win, i said corn kneelia, you peel strongly about
this that madam justice did this, do not you? she affirmed she really did. there should not be a -- a sexist term associated with term justice. so i went back to the court and the following conference i told my colleagues about this incident. and potter stewart, responded, by saying, you know we have got to get rid of this justice -- this mr. justice business. because at that time, on all of the -- of the, the brass plaque on the chambers of all of the justices, i think when diane was the law clerk, it said mr. justice blackman and mr. justice so-and-so. so after that, we then took off the term, mr. justice and just started using the term justice. and that was done a couple of years before justice o'connor joined the court. and -- i thought a lot of people assumed she was responsible for that change. i thought i would straight -- would straighten out the record.
[applause] my second major historical event that i wanted to describe -- refers to the chicago cubs. and as i know, have said many times, i wasn't -- was in fact a witness of the collier -- call your shot home run by babe ruth. last year at the sixth circuit conference, i was responding to questions in one of these sessions where you get the questions from the bench or the audience and -- get answers. somebody asked me about whether i was really there and responded yes, i was and i remembered sitting behind third base and watching babe ruth respond to guy razing from the -- from the sidelines and pointing the -- the -- to center field and
following the -- following up with a -- with a -- a famous called shot over the center field scoreboard. and -- after the discussion when everybody had left, a young man came up to me, he play have been a bankruptcy judge and maybe not as young a man as he seemed but in any event, he said he didn't want to embarrass me in front of the whole crowd but his grand four had been in the bleachers that day and the -- the home run had landed in the left field bleachers, just -- right next to where his grand four had been sitting and he, he saved the ball and they had a family souvenir out of it. and the implication of course was that i was dead wrong in suggesting that the ball had gone over the center field scoreboard. my lesson from that was it may be -- may be senior citizen's memory is not as good as they think it is. and they maybe are remembering what they thought they remembered and so forth. and earlier this year, jeffrey
toobin of the new yorker entered -- interviewed me in my chambers and asked me about this event and i told him just what i told you, that apparently he had to be careful about trusting the memory of senior citizens. because maybe they could make plist take. and so he wrote that -- that up in the article and indicated that -- that maybe what i had to say was not entirely reliable. after i read the article, a thought came to me and the thought was this. babe ruth hit two home runs on that day. so i gave one of my law clerks the assignment of finding out what happened to home run that -- that he called a shot on. and she got papers from the
contemporary -- contemporaneous newspaper account that made it perfectly clear it went right out in center field. i made a mistake in assuming i had not correctly remembered. that's what happened. well, other than congratulations -- congratulating jim and dan for their well earned trophies and -- and waiting with great interest to see whether our solicitor-general has to say, i thank you very much for your attendance and then for your very warm welcome. >> your honor, we knew you were a cub fan. and you know, now that you're retired, you'll have more time to go to cubs games. so we bought you --
circuit. she clerked for abner, a lion of chicago temporarily detailed to the district of columbia and thur good marshall and began her academic career at the university of chicago joining its faculty in 1991, and i got to know her on strols whered faculty exchanged ideas around a roundtable. she specialized in labor law and administrative law. the administrative side must have won out for in 1995, she joined the administration as one of president clinton's policy wonks then she became dean of harvard law school because that was -- that was a disaster for chicago because she knew who to recruit and what would bring them east. harvard is bigger than chicago
and it seemed she would establish it as a wholly own sud sear. but before she managed to hire the entire faculty, she returned to washington as solicitor-general. that's a move i can approve having spent five years in the s.g.'s office myself during the 1970's. i think being solicitor-general is the second best lawyer's job in the world, right after being deputy general. you play wonder what is the difference. it is because deputy solicitor-general does interesting work while the solicitor-general not only has administrative tasks but also is expected to give speeches. not as many as a dean must deliver but more than any deputy. so here she is, doing the speech thing, this audience has -- been treated to several of her
predecessors and alaina is sure to have an interesting perspective to add, i give you alaina kagan, 54th45th solicitor gem of the united states. >> well, thank you so much, thank you, everybody and thank you michael and judge easterbrook for your hospitality here and thank you all for your hospitality here. and when judge easterbrook asked me if i would come and speak at this event, i thought -- i thought of how terrific, i love chicago and i love the seventh circuit. it would be my honor to do so. and i thought that i would speak about my job as solicitor-general and tell you about what it is like to have the second best job in the
united states. but in light of -- in light of recent vents, i thought that won be right thing to talk about. the only appropriate subject tonight is justice stevens and his extraordinary career. [applause] really all you need to know about justice stevens is what he told you about -- my exchange with him earlier today, when i was coming out here & looked at the program and i saw, that the program has remarks by justice stevens and drace by kagan and i sort of thought, as the order, and i thought that does not make any sense at all. you know, said that, communicated that to his chambers and i said it again to him here. and he would have -- none of it.
and he just insisted that you know, he was just a -- humble supreme court justice retiring after 35 years and -- you know the solicitor-general should give the speech. but we're just going to try to turn the tables a bit and make sure that the focus remains on justice stevens here tonight and that -- and -- that justice stench, i think this is going to embarrass you greatly, i hope it embarrasses you greatly but that's what we will do. and now, if you -- fu read the newspapers, this last month or so, just -- justice stenches has been in the newspapers quite a lot, you may have noticed. you'll notice that not only the -- that justice-stories announced his resignation but as judge easterbrook that justice stevens turned 90. in april. and -- justice steven hass himself said, has sworn that
this is so that he was born in april 1920. and i pemply do not believe it. now it is not just that justice stevens looked so darn good, i said to somebody last year when that movie came out, it is justice stevens is storing in his own private binge pin button's movie. and -- it is still the case. it is in the just that the -- between games of tennis and rounds of golf justice stevens continues to do more work than just about any other justice and this is true. and that justice-stories drafts all of his own opinions, that he reviews thousands of cert petitions by himself and some of justice stevens clerks are good and dear friends of mine. i hope it won't annoy them to say that i never understood what they do really.
now i know. he gives them assignments about home runs. and it is not just -- it is not just that justice stevens is -- his mind continues to have all of the qualities of a steel trap which we have heard again tonight in reference to this home run story but anyone, anyone who -- watches a case at the supreme court and it could be a case about the first amendment or it could be a case about some arcane principles of law. anybody who watches the case at the -- as supreme court knows that -- that justice stevens mind could just cut through glass. the real reason for me skepticism hasing in to do with any of those things, it is something else entirely.
and it is at an age when a person could be forgiven good thinking that you know, he know what is he knows. and what he knows is enough. at an age when a person could be forgiven for thinking that, justice stevens instead approaches every single day of his life and surely approaches every case on the intrort docket with both the hope and the expectation that he will learn something from them. justice stevens said a few years ago, he said, learning on the job is essential to the process of judging. and today no less than he did 35 years ago, when he began his supreme court service, justice stevens is curious and engaged and his mind is open and questing. and his essential stance,
notwithstanding his awesome talents and intellect, his essential stance is one of genuine modesty and humility. and anyone who has had the privilege of arguing the -- before justice stevens as i have had this task -- past year, will know what i'm talking about. as to both the modesty and -- the -- and the extraordinary intellect. and i this the i would give you a bit of a sense tonight of what an advocate sees when she appears before justice stevens, what justice stevens looks like through a solicitor-generals eyes. and now, justice stenches is -- is surely the only justice on the supreme court who skgs your permission to ask a question. halfway through an argument -- sometimes more than halfway through an argument, sometimes
when a rhodalite goes on, comes from justice stevens, may i ask you a question? or could you help me on this? or i have been wondering about a basic thing. not always. i have to say looking over some transcripts of my open from this past year and justice stevens wants it to be, how can you say that? if you have gotten justice stevens to say "how can you say that ?" you must have done something terrible. but most my justice stevens is, just this -- i mean, this extraordinary courtesy emanates from him. and i want to tell you, if you ever argue before the supreme court or -- i guess you can't anymore but just stevens.
and beware, underlying justice stevens extraordinary plightness and courtesy, danger awaits. because these questions of his, well they almost invariably cut to the heart of a legal case and leave absolutely no room for evasion and in room for escape. here i'm going to quote one of the most experienced supreme court advocates of our time, carter phillips who has argued before justice stevens e probably more than 50 times. and is carter phillips said, he says from a good chicago law firm, right? i think what distinguishes justice stevens from the other justices are his hype thet cals, they really force the advocates it understand the limits of his or her theory of the case, my
favorite was at ncaa versus tarkanian, when he asked the lawyer, i'll tell you what this is, but it is not important you get this exactly when he asked the lawyer whether united airlines would be a state actor for purposes of section 1983, if it told o'hare airports a government entities manager that united would move its planes to midway airport if 0 hey did not fire the o'hare employee who was in charge of the terminal that united operated from. ed lawyer stood there for more than 30 seconds. he was saying nothing then justice scalia leaned ford and told him the answer you are looking for is no.
you could always count on justice scalia for some good lines like that. and in my judgment, carter phillips continues, justice stemps also asks the hardest hypothesisals and he did it so gently, that the effect was particularly devastating. and often these jenl gentle unassuming questions point the way toward resolution. i mentioned before that -- that justice stenches' questions very frequently come late in an argument. that he buys his -- bides his time before actively engaging council. and this is, i think, because justice stevens is, simley the best listener on the court. or said another way, the person
who most understands listening's value. he listens to learn himself, and he listens it understand what is on the minds of his colleagues. and so that when he does step in, he does so with a real sense of, a real understanding of what matters in the case of what play move -- may move his colleagues and what approaches might bridge ditch differences and attract a majority. that aspect of justice stevens' questioning may be viewed as strategic in nature and indeed, ever since justice stevens announced his resignation, we have heard a good deal about how he has served as the strategic leader of one part of the court. but this i i think misunderstands justice stevens' essential nature and qualities. if he is influential and we know
that he is, extraordinarily so, and if he has built coalitions and forged alliances, and we know that he has, ian if circumstances where none would have expected it. it is i think a cause -- because his colleagues recognize him as a person of sterling integrity and independence and constant and clear in his convictions and ever faithful it his core prince. and it is because his colleagues rightly see him as a truth-seeker. and it is because his colleagues know that each and every day he has tone the job for 35 years, he has sought to hern in it and learn from it.
so a close in good supreme court style with a question and an answer. question, may i ask, could you help me with just a simple point? how fortunate was this country to have had justice stevens service these last 35 years? and answer, justice stevens, this country was fortunate beyond all measure. thank you justice stevens. [applause]
>> presidents got on the phone and said to me, judge, i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate justice of the united states supreme court. i said to him, i caught my breath and started to cry. and said thank you, mr. president. >> learn more in the book, the supreme court court and photos and interviews with all of the justices, actiffer and retired, the supreme court available in
hard cover and also as an e-book. >> week on the communicators, a roundtable discussion often broadcast frequencies and their potential use for the expansion of broadband in the united states. our guests are michael calabrese and david dunn van and two members of a commerce department advisory committee on the matter of sprecktrum use. >> our goal this week on the communicators is two-fold, number one to learn what the spectrum is and if you have been following telecommunications at all, particularly in the last couple of months, you heard a lot about the sprecktrum. that's our first goal, the second goal is to hear some different viewpoints on how the spectrum can be managed. we have two guests to introduce to you, both members of the commerce department spectrum advisory committee. david donovan and michael calabrese. what is a spectrum? >> what we, much more commonly
known as the public airwaves, it is not a tangible thing at all, but the electromagnetic properties of the earth's atmosphere that allow the transmission of radio waves and we call it the spectrum because it is a spectrum of frequency that is could carry different, basically different waves with different propagation characteristics. so some are high frequency waves that carry a lot of information but not through walls or trees or over very long distances. and then there are low frequency bands, such as those used by television, which are considered the beach front, the very best, because those frequencies carry radio signals and through multiple walls, through trees, and in rural areas over very long distances. so it is a set of frequency that is are useful for communicating and it is all owned by the -- by the american people as a coined of public resource.
and david donovan, anything to that definition you would like to add? >> i think that's essentially correct. since the age of mark conian, it started with the sinking of the titanic of all things. wireless communications have been important in this country. and through the department of commerce and -- certainly sin the 1920's through the federal radio commission and communication commission you have a government entityy that is established to examine uses and set up a licensing structure, which will allow certain businesses to use certain parts of the spectrum for certain things and the federal government use and military use is of course still controlled through the -- by the -- the department of commerce and the -- and the independent radio advisory committee but the commercial side of the business, the television and radio, be it tell phones is regulatesed through the federal through the federal communications commission. >> when was the spectrum discovered? >> it was discovered frankly whether the first person to open
their mouth in -- and uttered the spen word. it is the ability to transmit and send information even a frequency in which -- can be heard by the human ear. as you move higher up in frequencies, we of course as human beings may not be able to hear them but you could develop device that is are capable of listening and hearing and transmitting it back into sound waves and frequencies which we can hear. it is -- it has been there and it has been commercially looked at probably since around the turn of the century. >> michael calabrese. is the spectrum fine night? >> and -- well, it is, it is -- it is an interesting question because it is fine night in terms of the -- of the number of frequencies. because when you get beyond the radio spectrum, in your own words when you get into, ultrahigh frequency, you're starting to get into other types of you know, of, of electronic
airwaves such as x-rays and gamma wharfs and lights and visible lights. that's all part of the same spectrum. what we're talking about is a very tiny part of the spectrum that is useful for -- for radio communication that can carry digital bits. >> we're talking about sound and radio here, but this also -- the spectrum also carries picture. >> absolutely. >> all spectrum, everything on the spectrum is wireless, correct? >> correct. >> we found this crazy quilt online and it is put out by the national telecommunications and information administration of the commerce department and this is a visual map of the spectrum. this large section here is devoted to a.m. road and -- radio and these sections here that you see, these blue ones are all broadcast tv. they seem to have a lot of spectrum, is that correct? >> they do although, i think as i said, that chart is log
rhythmic so it actually overstates in terms of a picture what the actual amount is. for example, in the beach front spectrum that michael referred to -- >> again, why do they call it beach front? >> that's the area of spectrum and it is actually debate about that. that. that's why you use a spectrum that has fagely good propagation to carry it over long distances. the best to carry long distances is a ray. the more you go, the longer you get out there. for video, television occurs in both. and two segments, one is v.h.f. and one is u.h.f. and in the 70's, with the reception capabilities, that band really blossomed in its ability to -- to be used for video pictures. and i guess the one thing about the chart that is somewhat deseesk only because of the way it is laid out is of that area, the 25 to 3.7 gigahertz, of, so
called beach front that everyone is talking about in washington. >> and it is on the chart. >> point to it if you will. >> like most things, i need glasses. >> it terriblely starts below channel 14 and moves up the -- it starts somewhere around here and moves further up the band up to here. >> okay. and the -- the thing is that television broadcasting actually, is on the beach front only has exclusive use of roughly 5.1% of the spectrum. and now mr. major markets, we share spectrum and you could see that onthat chart, and channels 14 through 20 with police 14 through 20 with police departments and land mobile operations. all in all, we use 8% which means about 91% of that, so called beach front spectrum is used by some other entityy. >> how is it licensed? >> how is it licensed? >> well, yeah, that -- that is an important pott point because one thing this chart indicates
is that everything is spen for. so when you look at all of these bands of frequencies, there's -- you know, as you said a crazy quilt of of different allocations. these are just allocations. behind this are 10s of thousands of licenses. and -- and -- the way that works is that a whole lot of the spectrum in fact far more than broadcasters use is reserved by the federal government for its own operations. >> so -- >> what percentage of the spectrum is reserved by the government? >> well again, the thing about spectrum is it is like real estate, location, location, location. so the federal government has i think ruffly -- roughly 40% of the beach front of the spectrum that is selling for billions of dollars at auctions. and they're using very little of that at any particular place or time. and the military is by far the largest holder of spectrum.
you know, they want to have it in case they need it for certain -- >> where on the chart would the military spectrum lie? >> they are -- >> throughout. >> throughout. >> and how would it be labeled on this chart? >> it may not even be labeled. >> or should be labeled as government use. >> and there are -- there are -- there are picks. >> they have fix add mobile and radar capabilities. and in -- in fact too michael's point, i think one of the things. . . >> we now return to "washingn
can you expand on that? guest: sure. last sunday morning, the pakistani taliban issued a video claiming credit for the times were attacked. the question is, why take credit for a flocked attack? there are a couple of things at play. there is a wer struggle inside the pakistani taliban. shortly after this the video was issued, an official spokesperson said that was not us. you have an interesting power dynamic. the second thing is largely a positive result of u.s. counter- terrorism policy, in that you have an increased splintering within these groups. brand integrity does not mean the same thing in 2010 that it did in the 2001.
you now have been taking credit for the failed underwear bombing in december. host: what does it mean in lit of this attack, particularly about their counter-terrorism efforts? guest: i think it bodes well. we have seen pakistan's cooperation with the u.s. improved dramatically over the past year. there have been a lot of questions as to why. operations have been relatively sustained. in the course of the last several months, we have seen several arrests of high-level leaders. we have the pakistani government, going aer, and clamping down on associates of faisal shahzad.
it is hard to know what triggered this. i do think that something qualitative has shifted. host: influence? guest: i think his influence is more muted than the army chief of staff. he is either in washington, or in an islamabad. i think it is much more significance. host: some of the papers this morning talk about the role of no. been a central point. would you agree? guest: it is the last remaining bastion for a military stronghold. they are certainly south, but the army has pushed him and
scattered them. these places, two years ago, or absolute taliban strongholds. absolute taliban strongholds. host: our guest is with us for the remainder of our program to talk about the taliban's presence in pakistan. you can ask questions and get some responses. host: you can also twitter and e-mail. there was a response to the efforts from the president and eric holder. could you grade the response?
guest: i think the u.s. response has been mixed. the details are emerging by the hours. at first, it was this last- minute "we know he is on the plane." the reason it was pushed to the last minute was because the fbi surveillance team had lost track of faisal shahzad. i think you have to applaud the work of the fbi investigators who are able to track the guy down in a short amount of time. immediately jumping to the tion that he was a lone wolf, and that this was an isolated incident, was obviously premature. i think the response of the administration was want to come down the public, rather than saying he was part of an al qaeda plot. host: here is eric holder. all the -- >> this w another
reminder that terrorists are still plotting to kill americans. in february, a key participa in the plot to bomb new york city plus the voice system pleaded guilty. less than two weeks ago, we received another guilty plea. three others have also been charged as a result of our charged as a result of our investigation. he's attempted attacks are stark reminders of the threats that we face as a nation, and that we must confront. must confront. for the department of justice, there is no higher priority than disrupting potential attacks and bring in those who applaud them to justice. host: how would you respond to that statement? guest: i think it does show that al qaeda and the buttons associated with al qaeda again tribal areas are still targeting
the united states the question is whether the capacity is there any more. one of the interesting things about the pakistani taliban, for instance, is since march 2009 they have been talking about their strike on the united states. this is followed by a weird mission in april of 2009. shortly after the bullets stopped, pakistani leaders said that was one of our guys. you have to scratch your head and wonder if they are taking credit for these. host: we had a response from twitter. guest: it's a great question. one of the reasons i must suggest that faisal shahzad's
threat was successful which set the training facilities have been curbed. al qaeda can not set up the kind of jungle gym and training facilities that we saw in the videos shortly after september 11. think the pakistani taliban -- i think the tiban at large, the notion of fighting in the name of a radical version of islam, against a foreign presence, whether it is the perception that the pakistani government is working for the u.s., that remains. there is significant qualitative difference between the afghan taliban and the pakistani taliban. host: you talk about t new guard and the old guard. guest: right. a former spy showed up dead.
was a startling thing. people have been showing up dead for 10 years and now on the side of the road. what was so startling of this particular guy was that i had met him several times. he described himself as a confidante of osama bin laden. he was very close with the old guard. yet, there was a new group of militants that killedim, made him read a forced confession. him read a forced confession. this does reveal that what played well with the old generation no longer works. i think that process up radicalization among the g hyde groups in pakistan is really fundamental. this signals the next geration of taliban that have emerged. host: wilmington, delawe, on
our independent line. caller: a professor who came to the delaware told the audience that he was from maryland and he thought that the main reason everyone was doing the attacks was always the israel-palestine issue. when i was in pakistan myself, i kept asking this question. i'm justondering. this was not his position. i'm wondering, myself, having been to pakistan and also hanging with a lot pakistani here, and seeing how they are -- if it is a political ploy?
guest: great question. i think there are a couple of different parts to the question. thank you for coming out to the university of delaware, a couple of months ago. israel-palestine -- like the crisis in kashmir, the fundamental grievances will be able to leverage as an indication that the united states is cooperating with non- islamic powers. i do not know that you can solve israel-palestine tomorrow, like some people think. i think it would be a huge step, in the same way that i think resolving the crisis in kashmir would be a huge step. the agreement -- grievances have led up. ther was an audio report from osama bin laden that sounded very desperate. israel-palestine used to be the
base grievance. of a sudden, he was talking about climate change, corruption on wall street. the grievances have expanded, so long as the recruitment is down a little bit. host: you mentioned the john rry-dick lugar bill. g. culp i think the cynicism and skepticism toward american policy, the bill was intended to support civilian institutions at the expense of just giving money to the army and that in the pakistani government deal with it. yet, when this bill came out, because there were elements that tried to give up the civilian government influence over the army's promotion process, the pakistani people were up in arms
that the u.s. was trying to influence the policy. host: louisville, ky. republican line. caller: i was wondering if you could differentiate between the pakistani taliban and the afghan taliban. wh binds them together? is it religious ideology or political ideology? if you hear so much about each one, and what are their relationships and their differences? guest: a fantastic question. i will try to trace the lineage. the afghan taliban are running afghanistan before september 11. most of the leadership goes to pakistan following the american invasion. over the next several years, the al qaeda leadership also takes
refuge in pakistan's tribal areas. in response, costumes -- postions are joining the taliban. the difference is the pakistani taliban have been giving refuge to al qaeda longer than the ghan taliban gave refuge to al qaa in afghanistan. i think it is a serious distinction to note. it means that the influence the al qaeda has had over the pakistani taliban has been more profound because it has been a long bear. long bear. the tactics, and objectives, i think are much more an arctic. there are much more destructive than the afghan taliban, what thinare more nationalistic.
hostcollege park, maryland. caller:, i was hoping the speaker would be able to comment on the general outlook of the pakistani people on the role of the united states since president obama has become president against our previous administration. guest: it is hard forrme to coent too much on the public temperament. i live there in 2006 and 2007. in january 20008, i was deported for writing a story. the next time i came back, i was chased out. my information about what the street is thinking at this point, it is a little distant. reading newspapers and talking to pakistani friends, there was
a great amount of optimism that something would be different about the obama administration. in home, something has been different. in substance, in cooperation with the civil institutions, there has been a difference. they will melt, that the drum the strikes have increased. if therowned strikes were a force of radicalization, that argument is now stronger. drone strikes have increased. itlso shows that even though obama has not articulated -- even though he does not talk about the r against al qaeda and terrorism in the way president bush used to do, i think he takes the threat very
seriously. this is a top priority for him. host: one of the stories about the bomber himself is that the investigors havetill not pieced together the complete picture of faisal shahzad's finances . guest: there was a piece talking about how fbi agents are try to follow the money trail. the money trail is a huge question. it will be difficult to trace. the associations and affiliations that faisal shahzad has up until now, there are some loose associations with the pakistani taliban, but the strongest affiliatioo comes with an organization called mohammad's army. this illustrates the witch's
brew, if you will, of militar groups that are taking place in tribal areas. host: baltimoremaryland. you are next, keith, on our independent line. caller: i would like to ask the question about the whole problem of the middle east and how it might stem from theact that the united states backs up all of the dictators. they do it in the name of oil. that is the real problem. every time there is a leader that wants to share resources, the cia and the united states for oil all the plans for that. guest: it is a great question. pakistan does not have oil. what some of the military
leaders ve offered, and that have been an influencing factor has been the perception of stability. the army chief that took power in 1999, and only recourse power in the summer of 2008, he held power for so long largely because of u.s. support. toward the end of his rege was when the pakistani taliban emerged, and when the society began to turn against the united states. that was largely the result of the bush administration's support despite the fact that he was so deeply unpopular. i think it has less do with oil. the u.s. will always look for its own self interesand its own self-interest is stability. many times, that does override democratic principle.
host: ohio. republican line, robert. caller: thank you for c-span. my question is, the intelligence service for pakistan -- how involved are they with taliban. i remember reading several years ago that they are very much involved and you cannot really trust the pakistani intelligence service. i want to know your perception of how involved they are? thank you. guest: that is a fundamental question in trying to figure out counter-terrorism cooperation -- how it has gone and how it will conttnue to go. let's keep in mind that the chief of army staff, who is
seen as independent, honest, natural warrior. the pentagon sees him as trustworthy. yet, in his past job, he was ahead of the pakistani intelligence agency. officers are temporarily stationed there. then, they go back to the regular army. it has definitely supported elements of the taliban fighting in afghanistan and based in pakistan since september 11. the recent death of the individual that i mentioned was killed last friday, here is a former officer who was seen as a nexus between the intelligence agencies and the military. yet, this guy was just wacked by
the pakistani taliban. even the hard-core militants see a isi as doing the bidding of the united states. the dynamic that existed there is beginning to fray. host: florida. kelly on our independent line -- caller: yu said the new generation is chaing, which means that we cannot control the middle east and what they are doing. our main purpose was to get osama bin laden. if we wanted him, we would that had him. anwhile, our borders are open for what ever, and every day we have to worry about a lunch box under a bench in new york city. we are wasting money and lives. these people have not changed
clothes for t thousand years, and we are going to change their attitudes? i do not get it. guest: i understand your position, and i understand your anger. u.s. policy will not change the pakistan late taliban or the culture of pakistan, or the culture of the middle east. it has to evolve and change on its own. host: did it mean anything when president karzai talked about forming alliances with the taliban? did it have significance in pakistan? guest: i think present karzai is feeling beleaguered, and feeling that if the u.s. is going to doubt my legitimacy, that i might make sure that i have a peace at home. i will throw something out for the local people, see if i can
rile up the united stas i think the alliance, in karzai's confidence has also significantly frayed since president obama came to power. the car blohes that was given to him from the bush administration is no longer there. i think it was me of a domestic gesture. host: there is a store at about improving relations. what is afghanistan's ro then, in pakistan, as far as the taliban? guest: i think it is much less significant than the pakistan's role in afghanistan. i think the afghan intelligence agencies are nowhere near as sophisticated as the pakistan agencies. i think it is a misnomer to think they can influence them. host: new jersey.
our democrat's line. guest: i have a difficult question for you -- caller: i have a difficult question for you. how is the united states military, with all of its sophisticated training, going to chart out a strategy to capture osama bin laden? the president once admitted in front of "newsweek" that he and his intelligence did not have the knowledge as to where president obama -- to where osama bin laden is hiding. can you comment on that guest: it is a great question. your guess is as good as mine, and i think anyone put the gas is as good as anyone's.
u.s. intelligence officials admit that the trail has gone completely cold. i happen to believe that he is somewhere. it is a vast region. there are thousands of caves where he could be hiding. in october, 2007, i spent several days in what was then taliban-occupied swapped valley. one particular evening, we were dining. military commander decided to start showing off some of his al qaeda paraphernalia. he was showing me weapons that he had recover from american soldiers in afghanistan. he pointed to a bag. we're talking about osama bin laden's political philosophy.
he said to me that a book was in that bag. we were in the middle of thi dense pine forest, really far from civilization. i asked him, whose back is that? he mentioned that the bag had been left by a top official. i quickly grabbed my translator, and said we should head back to town. the guy's credibility was unquestionable. it did communicate that he was in these areas, and i think osama bin laden is, too. host: portland, ore.. janet, and our republican line. caller: i was wearing what the effect of the opium trade is on
our policy in the middle east, and is there any news on osama bin laden being linked to the opium trade? guest: the opium trade is a great question. it is undoubtedly supporting the afghan taliban fight against american soldiers. i do not know the extent to which the opium trade -- the proceeds of the opium trade are making their way up to the pakistani taliban, and ultimately, to al qaeda. i do not think that osama bin laden, keeping a low prole, i do not think he is the elbow- deep ithe opium trade. host: jacksonville, florida.
caller: good morning. i am puzzled. faisal shahzad, and the black fellow from africa on christmas time, there were both naturalized americans. is it a new connection with folks that are naturalized american citizens? al, are they getting some kind of help? how can they just coming in and go back overseas? is no one watching? it is like the lady who mentioned our borders being opened. though -- those that are ready here -- is it like a trial run? do you see what i am saying?
guest: definitely, william. it is a squeak -- it is a scary thought that there are sleepers sells the united states just waiting for the call. faisal shahzad was a naturalized faisal shahzad was a naturalized citizen. it follows a similar path from a group of somali-american men in minneapolis who have been disappearing from their homes, going home to somalia to train, and there are instances of it least two of them blowing themselves up in a suicide bombs. i spent several weeks in minneapolis reported the story. the question of home-grown terrorism is a new one for experts to wrestle with. in the years after september 11, we saw home-grown radicalization in europe. i think there was a lot of complacency on the part of
american counter-terrorism fos, saying that we do not suffer from these sorts of problems. now, we are starting to see it. whether it is the tip of the iceberg -- i do not think these two are the only ones we will see. host: from twitter -- guest: that is a fantastic question. everyone is thinking about non- military means. i have been attempts to try to use a moderate cleric's against the taliban. the problem is this generational gap is changing the culture faster than and nato or any moderate cleric could change the culture. if a moderate cleric or a hardline cleric emerges tomorrow and denounces the taliban and suicide attacks, all
of a sudden that guy is killed the next day. it is sending a message that you do not speak out against these guys. we have seen a race by the military to out-flanked anyone that tries to speak against the taliban. it puts nato, the pakistani government, pakistani society, afghan society -- all of the middle east in quite a bind. host: texas, democrats line. caller: how come no one has ever gone after george w. bush ever since he called all the -- caused all this? why is it everyone is looking at the united states like we are the bad people, but it is not us? guest: um.
host: we will on. who was on the front line as far as our operation in pakistan and what did they bring to the relationship? guest: the embassy to the public fromine. right now, there are fbi agents there temporarily investigating the faisal shahzad case. there are small members of the military cooperation with the army. the military presence is not openly admitted. the cia drones are not openly admitted, and i would suggest they are the most from line you could get. host: idaho, ahead. we will go to rick, cherokee, north carolina."
caller: i want to know why we can always discussed muslim terrorism, but one we have sites that turn out to be jewish, we cannot freely discussed this. we pretend we have a free media, and it is really disgusting. th is all i have to sa guest: the caller raises a good point in that radicalization, religious fundamentalism, it is not the sole party of it as long. there are christian fund -- fundamentalist groups. lo at the rise and enrollment in domestic militias. jewish fundamentalism is there. religious fundamentalism is not the sole domain of islam, however, we are talking about this man because of the frequency d the numbers and the fact that jewish
fundamentalists did not try to blow up times square last week. there is a quantitative difference between the two, and it is not so much a qualitative difference. host: idaho, again. caller: thank you veryuch. i do not think the situations hopeless in afghanistan. i think the fellow that wrote the book "two cups of tea." -- i think he would be a key in establishing a good country. those pele have been isolated, and they are not allowed to be educated. the other question i have is why is saudi arabia allowed to build mosques in america, but we are not allowed to have any christian schools were churches in saudi arabia? thank you, very much.
i think the key is education. guest: a great cple of points. i think the education is fundamental. one of the characters that i had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with and that i've profiled in my books -- that profiled in my book, is a hard court militant who was killed in july, 2007. he is to say to me, you educate a man, and you educate one. he said that if you educate a woman, and you can educate and entire family. entire family. that is actually the nefarious side of your concept of education. it is fundamental, like you said. the reason why we allow saudi arabia and other investors to build mosques in the united states, and saudi arabia does
not allow us to do it there, is simply because we are a country that prides ourselves on religious pluralism. a viewer asks what we are doing to train -- to train and arm -- host: what are we doing to train an arm the women in afghanistan? guest: there is nn doubt that they are significantly oppressed. we are setting up women's schools, but you can only do them in certain areas. it is almost the kind of ink blot counter-and surgeons say strategy that the -- counter- insurgency strategy that the u.s. has employed. you cannot go into tend heart, which a taliban controls, and set a women's school, and think
it will go off without a hitch. host: our next caller. caller: i would like to ask the guest about u.s involvement, specifically, cia involvement in the opium trade. how is this playing into the overall strategy? overall strategy? guest: the fact thatpium production and cultivation went up so dramatically after american presence in afghanistan, there is no doubt that it is there. whether that reflects -- i am was convinced that that reflects some sort of under-the-table, nefarious role in the opium production. morceau reflectcts the taliban views with all
of the justices, active and retired. "the supreme court" is available now in hard cover. [applause] >> first ladd michelle obama talked about raising her daughters and paid trite to her mother during a mother's day celebration at the white hou on friday. her remarks are just over 10 minutes. >> m. carter, you have been a wonderful support and a source of knowledge for me during my time here. you have been so generous. we tried to have lunch together whenever you come into the city,
and i st have to say that the time we spend together means a great deal. i cannot tell you how much i appreciate your support. as many of you know, mrs. carter is an advocate for mental health worker. she has just written a book, and we are going to be doing more work together on post-traumatic stress disorder. she has not stopped moving yet. you cann get her down. yes? [inaudible] thank you. thk you. mrs. carter is also joined by her granddaughter, sarah. we thought we were going to hav her great granddaughter, josephine. we were going to have four generations of carter women, but she got a little fussy and mom had to take her home. maybe next time.
i am also pleased that tricia nixon cox is here and, president nixon's daughter. please stand [applause] susan and eisenhower, president eisenhower -- susan and anne eisenhower, president eisenhower's granddaughters are here as well. russ is all for being here. we have the girls and i -- and thank you all for being here. the girls favorite pictur is your wedding picture. we stand and think about the wedding. they are not thinking of marriage, by the way. do not write that on your blog. they just right -- they just like the pictures.
there is a photo of president eisenhower meeting with civil rights leaders in 1958 that is in the oval office. there is mh history in this room today, and i am is so pleased to welcome this new generation of women back to the white house. it is an honor to have you all. if you look around the room, that is the theme here toda we have many generations here this afternoon. we have teenagers and retirees. we have family members and friends. we have cabinet secretaries and students and everything else in between. many of you came with the woman who means a great deal to your life. yes, oh, really. mothers, daughters, granddaughters, mentors, sisters, best friends.
it is a wonderful combination of women who are important to us. the people here today showcase just how crucial women are in guiding our families,nd in our neighborhoods, and in our country as well. they are the shoulder that we lean on as individuals, but collectively, these are the shoulders that form the foundation of our community. they are our friends, teachers, mentors, bosses. they find time to drive community projects and car pools. they lead our businesses and our birthday parties. they- our lives and our communities are blessed by everything big and small that mothers and mega -- mothers and mother figures give us every single day. that is really what mother's day is all about, showing our gratitude for all that they do. is about attempting to give back
just some of the love and the care that these women have given us. that is a big ticket to fill in just single day. when you think about it and try to do the math, do 15r 20 sleepless nights during high schoolqual a bouquet of flowers, maybe some chocolates or a branch? i do not know. [laughter] the mothers with teenags really laughed at that one. i do not quite know that yet. the answer is, there is no way to quantify just how important these mothers, these women are in our lives. there is no way that i could ever fully measure all that my own ney has done for me. -- my own mommy has done it for me. [applause] this woman, who tries to take
absolutely no credit for who i am for some . . run on, talked a little too much, snapped me up. she really does pushe to be the best woman that i can be. truly. as a professional and as a mother ands a friend, and she has always, always, always been there for me. as our family has grown, she has managed to expand her love for all of us. raising our girls in the white house with my mom -- is not going to do this. it is a beautiful experience. the opportunity to have three generations living in the white house is beautiful. i am pretty sure the president is happy about it too. [laughter]
in this world there is so much going on. we know that we are blessed, the obama. even though we live in the white house, our day-to-day interaction is not that different from families living in atlanta or tucson, because everyone is busy. ours is just televise everyone is doing the best job that they can to raise their kids. everyone is looking for support. in his mother's day proclamation in 1979, president carter wrote, "in this time when family is subjected to many newressures, the job of nurturing future generations is often most difficult and more important than ever. " that proclamation is as true today as it was 31 years ago. one person cannot do it alone. for anyone who thinks we can or
should, we should just get over it. we all need the support of someone in our lives. it is as it singularly important -- as a singularly important as my mother has been, there are other women who have been equally important. it perspectives of teachers and co-workers has really helped to changee. it does not have to always be a mother or grandmother. we each have those people who have given us a sense of ourselves by giving us a piece of themselves. that is one of the reasons why we started the white house leadership and mentoring initiative here. even with our busy schedules, and the women who work here are busy, we believe in the important in giving young people a piece of ourselves, and we have some of the people we e mentoring here today. i would like you to stand.
[applause] you all look so pretty. they do not usually get this dressed up when they come here. i barely recognize you. you c sit down. these promising young women have beenith us for the past few months, and we have had our share of fun with stuff we have done. we have gone to events together. a few of them have gotten to ride in a motorcade with me that is kind of cool, right? we have goen to eat the deserts from the last state dinner before anybody else. we have done some community service together. i was very impressed by you
focus. we met with supreme court justices. was that not amazing? justices ginsburg and sotomayor spent a long time with us and it was pretty powerful. but this program is not just about doing fun stuff together. it is also about ensuring that these women really see their possibilities, right? it is about helping them to realize that they can be the leaders of tomorrow, and that that is what we expect, and showing them that they can create their own opportunities. that is wh we talk about, right? we want them to imagine the possibility that they could one day be a cabinet secretary, or an officer in the military who mentors a young girl once a week. we want them to imagine being business lders who balance their kids and their professional lives, and there are so many of these stories right here in this room. they may have different
characters and soundtracks, but whether you grew up on bing crosby, aretha franklin or beyond saying -- or beyonce, each story here is important. we have each received advice from friends who help us clear hurdles that we thought were too high. we remember the way our mother looked at us when we made her proud or when we made her not so proud. you all know the look. [laughter] today is really a day to enjoy one another. incourage you all to share some of those stories. i always say to the girls i mentor, talk, ask questions, polk, broad, open your mth - poke, prod, open your mouth. thank you all for taking the time to come. thank you, mommy.
campaigns and journalism. among those taking pa, obama campaign strategist and the strategist for the mccain campaign. this is about 90 minutes. >> good evening, everyone, welcome to the university's first global symposium and sponsored by the institute of global studies and i'm ralph beg heighter. it is hard to believe that -- but it was six years ago in 2004 that using the internet to create interesting campaign rallies and canvassing of the public was a envelopeity. we marveled at a candidate nam dean scoring big donations and audiences at something he called at the time meet-ins that were organized almost completely by high-tech knowledge e-mail. and youtube had not yet been created and facebook had just been born but was not yet a political communication factor.
and twitter wasn'tven a twinkle in the ideas and the minds of its young developers. just four years later in 2008 social networking technologies became proven communication tools for fund raising and campaign rallies a distribution of political documents and position papers and speeches and other campaign information. grass roots advocacy and much more. and in 2008, the obama campaign bypassed legacy news organizations and used cell one text messages for the first time to announce its candidate's choice for vice president, the university of delaware's own joe biden. that's an applause line. [applause] just 0 two years ago, a single internet advertisement called obama-girl was viewed on youtube by 10s of millions of potential voters, even before the democratic party had chosen its nominee.
the video was created and posted, completely outside traditional campaign operations. by amateurs and in the by campaign professionals. twitter born during the closing weeks of the 2008 campaign has proliferated dramatically since then and is now poised to play a central role in this year's elections, not to mention the fact that we have two twitter feed operating in this room tonight. at least two, shall we say. maybe you're tweeting on your own. but this is a -- a global phenomena. it is not just in the united states as we'll see tonight. arab students in my video conference class in dubai this smessster discussed politician and other touchy top picks on facebook. in iran, last year's election was marked by extensive use of social networking tools by opposition forces. and by the iranian government itself and by exiled iranians and others to shape the election environment. often from thousandsf miles
away. and my colleagues here at u.d. said there was better information about the election campaign in botswana last year on facebook than in the traditional media. in china, social networking is used by the government to shape public opinion. in burma, the military regime literally shut down the internet during a natural disaster last creer that prevents social networking citizens from disseminating images embarrassing to the government. our guests are well equiped to help us understand this political communication revolution. and we'll hear from them and then we'll take your questions. >> we need to welcome back two engineers of the 2008 u.s. presidential campaig david pluff who was barack obama's campaign manager and accept o that famous joe biden text message. some of you may have it on your
phone. david was a polical science student here at u.d. in the late 1980's and steve schmitt who was john mccain east top campaign strategist in 2008 was also a political science major here at u.d. in the late 80's and early 90's. please welcome david and steve back to the university of delaware. also with us tonight is mona. mona was born in egypt and reported from cairo for the reuters news agency for the guardian newspaper and if "u.s. news and world report." reuters sent her to jerusalem where she became the first egyptian journalist to live and work for a western news agency in israel. she's lived in saudi arabia and britain. she moved to the u.s. in 2000, mona's middle east commentaries have appeared in the "washington post" and the herald tribune and the jerusalem report as well as a number of arab newspapersnd websites.
she calls herself a proud, liberal muslim. she was award the -- awarded the cutting edge prize because her writing had broken molds in reporting about the arab and muslim world. she's a graduate of american university cairo. and joining us through social networking technology, live from malaysia is jacqueline ann suran. she's founder of a website called the nut graph in malaysia and the motto is the point of he story in a nutshell. and jacqueline cofounded malaysia votes.com a website that plays a genuinely revolutionary role in malaysia's 2008 national elections as we'll hear. she studied journalism in the united states and written for two newspapers. i guess we'll say here, we hope the networking technology works fine tonight but if something
fails, we'll plow on and hope we could recover. and first i like to ask -- ask for ening remarks and ask the panel i haves to comment on the -- comment on the network revolution. >> it is great to be here. obviously the 2008 campaign is probably the first one where we saw social networking specifically, not just talking about this but it playing an instrumental role and i think it'll seem prehistoric compared to how future elections will be impacted as more and mare people spend a lot of their time sharing information with each other, and using social networking as their primary source of information. in 2008, social networks was the way a lot of people got involved in the campaign and so someone uld say, we have -- we have our own social networking site and that was the place where most people involved in our
campaign on the volunteer level and contributor level spent their time. so while there's plenty of people on facebook and myspace and other sites that were talking about that campaign and trying to lift people, most of them -- that was great from our perspective. we could see it all. it was transparent. we could see what work was being done and what states and what precincts and what level of success. and it became a home for people. and it was a place where they could find out any information they needed and had tools they needed to help the campaign. it was a place whereeople gathered to share information. it is how a lot of people asked other people to contribute to the campaign. and it is how local -- our local organizers would be on our social networking site to ask everybody -- let's say you were in akron, ohio. our local field organizer would ask everybody who was signed up in the area and say we got a special weekend on saturday where we're trying to knock on 20,000 doors in the area. we need you to come on. when i grew up in politician, if
you were trying to get people to give mon or -- volunteer you called them on the phone. and in -- then you got into the last decade more andore often you would e-mail them. so much of that happened through social networking sites. and it is a way, even in 2008 but it is more pronounced now. tre were huge segments of the electorate that got information about current events and politician exclusively through social networking un they will -- what is interesting is a lots of information that is shared with them or they share with others could be mainstream news. it could be i saw this article that rebuts the fallacy about health care and saw this interesting em speech that a potician did. this is interesting. this is not just people's opinion on social networking sites, they're referencing what we consider more third party and authoritative sources. if you're engaged in politician and i could only speak about this country and not others, where it is more pronounced
elsewhere. if you're trying to reach people, you're increasingly going to have to occupy this space in a forceful way. this can't be well, there's an old adage in politician, particularly if you're being attacked or there's a negative story, it was well, if it is not on -- the front page of the newspaper or doesn't lead the newscast, let'not worry about it. let's not elevate it. it may not -- may not be in the newspaper but there could be millions of people discussing it on facebook and other sites. the old rulse rules don't apply. i think going forward, you have to understand that first of all, sort of nonpartisan voters, just an average swing voter, you're going to have to reach more and more of them through social networking and less and less are going to be available exclusively through connections. secondly, this is a big part of the obama campaign. if you're trying to build a powerful grassroots campaign and you have people living their lives of the campaign and sharing youressage and being ambassadors and organizing, and giving money, more of tt will
be done on social networking especially with re and more people fwravetating to mobile devices. more and more of us are using cell phones to check the internetnd to e-mail and to be on facebook. and this is going to increase extraordinarily fast in the next few years. what we get in 2008 where almost everybody on facebook was on a computer and tethered for to their desk or their home office -- people are going to be untethered. they'll walk down the street and walk to an event like this and be able to share information, get information and i think that -- it is going to really put a premium out there. it is great for democracy i think because it is going to be easier to get information to people and people are going to be -- able to share that more information more readily and find out anything they need to know. one of the great barriers and the last thing i'll say, for young voters and first-time voters, 15 million to 20 million
people voted for the first time in the 2008 election. and truth is, among the people that voted in the 2004 bush election, mccain and obama roughly tied, it was the 15 to 20 million new voters that caused obama to win. these were not all young but young and not politically attuned people. and it is so imptant to be ableo get them basic information about how to participate and they're very digitally sensitive. they're not going to call an 800 number. if they can't find out an answer right away on the computer or internet or the cell phone, u'll lose them. they want to know in five seconds, how do i register to vote and can i vote early? and the basic information about participation in addition to information about the candidate's position. think about that. that's going to open up the process for people. what i still see and research is, is people thinng about the 2010 election, even those that voted in 2008, they say i'm not
sure when the election is or i'm not sure what offis are on the ballot. do i vote in the same place? i voted by mail in 2008, can i do that in 2010. these people will want that information instantaneously walking down the street and if they can't, you'll lose them. i think this has already revolutionized so many aspts of our society, consumed our chi, and the way people get information and -- it made huge impacts on the politician and i think over the coming decade, it is just going to be a more profound sense that will be the case. >> let's experiment here. how many of you. -- raise your hands if you know there's primary elections in the united states today? >> what state? >> and anybody know what state? >> indiana? and north carolina that? what is the other one?
>> okay. what is the other one? >> ohio. >> and sounds good. >> there are primary elections today. this is a very informed audience. you taed about -- you talked about old rules don't apply. are there any rules? >> sure. >> with these n tecologies? >> i think -- listen, i think that -- you -- your message whether in a 60-second television ad or nworking post needs to be authentic and it out to be true, partilarly now, because plist people police it. we got citizen sheriffs out there and the candidate made another sertion and they're frustrated this news stream media may n -- may not check it but they'll share it with friends and family members. here's what i think. if you're interested in reaching people, whether a political campaign or institution, a company. you better be in every space where people are. people still watch television, and they still read the newspaper and still on radio. but increasingly, you have huge
segments of the population spending their consumption online and in social networking sites. you better be there. if you're a political campaign and you say, well, i gotnie television strategy and my free press strategy and my radio strategy and i'll figure out the digital piece last, you're completely missing the boat. you got to be at the center of your operation. >> on tt note, let's turn 0 jacqueline. jacqueline, -- at the same moment that steve schmitt and david pluff were engaged in the campaign, you were in a dramatic election in malaysia. tell us about your experience. >> sure. and thanks. and first, some background. malaysia is south of thailand and -- [unintelligible] as journalist i would say, there's
no doubt it has changed the way it appears. and in malaysia. and as -- also -- [unintelligible] [unintelligible] [inaudible] >> let me interrupt you. toif interralmt you. let's try lowering theolume in this room a bit and particularly on this speaker maybe. i think it may be -- may be feeding back. let's try again. jacqueline, would you start again, please? >> sure. is this better? >> just go ahead and talk and we'll get a feel for it. >> okay. first [unintelligible] some of you may be familiar with. >> go ahead. >> and malaysia.
it ends with malaysia and truly asia and as journalist and citizen, i wonr what [unintelligible] the malaysia here and government can be strong -- [unintelligible]ed government action can't be contested. and in 1987 three newspapers were shut down under a government crackdown and that same law that allows the government to do that sll exists today. inkeyed it -- indeed ther are 13 laws that oppress freedom and newspapers and tv and radio stations constantly receive instructions from government. and becae their continued istence depends on the government, sensorship is common -- indeed according to steven howe [unintelligible] when it comes to press freedom.
we have a media that is categorized as not free and in my ownxperience, in the press i know -- received instructions by code or fact or -- and yes, i have had my fair share of stories. and which for me means i was doing a good job as a journalist. and what -- until three years ago, the prime minister was trying to get foreign companys to invest in -- invest. th envisioned that communication technology would be the next engine of growth for the country. in order to get the investments he needed he had promised there would be no sense e-censorship of the internet. this is in the guarantees that the citizens ned to be thapingful for. and the garld has a host of law it is can use against online media and bloggers. these include a whole range from the acts and the official secret
acts to the communication and mark media act. so because one doesn't need a rmit, before publishing online and because censoring the internet could be futile, there has been a stredy growth of online participation by citizens. because the internet is free and gadgets cheaper, and it is easier to publish. and so the online news in asia. and purely the power has shifted from the institution to the vid july and from government to citizen because of the internet. and one of the things that struck me the most is how there was constitutional support i needed in order to publish an online news site. before we started the politics, a couple of us covered the last general election a few years ago to anoer online site called malaysia vote.com.
we had no publishing permit. and all we needed was -- this is for cameras and -- and internet connection and -- in order to start writing and publishing. so what happens when -- a state like malaysia suddenly experiences anpening up of public space tt is sfaths less susceptible to government control. the center cannot -- and things fall apart. in late 2007 for example there was two street rallies that the media could not report on. the media were told they could only report what the government said. and as a result, the media, quoting the police reported that in one of these rallies only 4,000 people had turned out. and on the internet showed a number that was 10 times more. anddditionally, a tv report by
sal al jazeera was noted on you tube and circulated. this made the government claims that was trying -- that the government was not trying to stop demonstrators a big fat lie. the way the media reported on them were critical in creatin the additional momentum that was needed from the -- fm the people to vote for the ruling party. what the internet did was show traditional immediate a the government to be untrustworthy and both suffered serious losss in credibility and as a result, our general election was historic in that it denied the ruling coalition two thirds majority. and only the second time in our 15-year-old history was there any nation that that could happen. and in -- and one aspect, it was example of -- assistance and several first-time ploggers were
elected into parliament. at the same time, the -- the power of information minister who had publicly denigrated bloggers lost his seat by a huge margin. and the power to determine what messages are inserted into the public domain has clearly shifted to the individual. indeed the more technology and politicians recognized this. and several facebook and -- connected to different things and maintain a topic that is independent of the media. and in one such recent example late last year, the youth chief of the dom tkphant party in the ruling coalition cleverly suspected that this traditional media was not supporting his radical messa of repainting malaysiaith leadership. he released his speech ahead of time to the online media so we could headline a-treat the
speech as it was being delivered. and now true enough, the next day the traditional media completely ignored his message but itidt matter because his message which was calling for a less sfaths satisfy state in malaysia had been disseminate ooned line. the internet is possible to cause it to be possible for a [unintelligible] as a journalist and citizen, i say that's a good thing for democracy but the pressure from you remains rg how exactly was the immediate ya citizens embrace the shift in power so that the public interest is constantly served and perhaps this is the route we could tackle during the question and answer session. . .
traditnal media, because the internet is so difficult to sensor. -- censor. the nut graph is not censod. there is a much larger site that has profits -- that has had its office raided. lycoris said, it is really hard to shut them down. -- like i said, it is really hard to shut them down. you could shut them down for a day and then politics is 10 minutes for them to set up somewhere else. it is an exercise in futility. i think the government is tryg to learn how to manage the shift, but it is not learning quickly enough. >> ok. i am going to turn to steve schmidt.
i want to come back. you started your presentation with the description about malaysia. i am not sure everyone in the auence heard it. try to remind me about this later. athat level of access do many countries outside the u.s. have to this media? steve and david make the assption that virtually every target of your infmation has access. let me introduce steve now. talk about your experiences. >> i will respond to something you just said, which i think is going to become a more and more important political issue. there's a technological divide in this country between the haves and have-nots. there are a few country -- a few sections of the country which lack high-speed broadband, which is necessary in order to enable these technologies. as you look ahead, over the next decade, parts of the country are
ft behind -- are going to be left behind, n just in terms of the access to things like the ipod or blaberries or social media. it will be increasingly left behind with regard to education, economic opportunity, and this is a very important public policy challenge. it is aublic policy challenge th should be able to transcend the right-left debate that takes place in this country today. a lack of access to these technologies is going to turn entire parts of this country into second-class regions. that is an important part of this. when the television show "m.a.s.h." went off the air, 100 million americans watched that final episode. it was an era when a television
series could bring together a huge part of the country for common purpose. that era is passed. it is never coming back. a comedian had a late-night show in the late-1980's, widely considered to be a disaster on the basis that the only attracted an audience of, if i recall correctly, approximately 8 million people. if that were today, he would be the king of cable tv. [laughter] the top-rated shows are edging close to 3 million on some nights. what is transformative about social media in a media era, where the media is fragmenting, and people are turning into media through niche markets. they are finding on a 400-
television channel universe the shows that they like. where there used to be one cooking channel, there are now five different cooking channels. the mediterranean, the italian -- people want more. they will be in self-actualizing cocoons of information. there is no need to be exposed to anything that you do not want to hear or you do not want to learn abou it used to be, and remember when you were making the sets in the late-1980's, of your favorite music. it would require hours of diligent listening to the radio to hit play when you wanted to capture your song. [laughter] today, on an ipod, you never have to listen or hear anything that you do not want to be exposed to, whether that is political or economic opion, or your taste in food shows. the great equalizer about social media and what is
transformative about it is that what matters as much now about what an stitution says about itself is what actual people say about that institution or that candidate. for instance, british petroleum tonight could release of $300 basilian advertising budget -- gazillion advertising budget talking about they're responsibl corporate stewardship and other issues come in 20 years ago, it would have had a positive impact. 10 years ago, it would he had a positive impact. five years ago, it would have had a positive impact. now, what it would do, is set ofan insurgency, if you will, and social media sites all across this country and all across the world that would mock british petroleum for their advertisement. if you put out advertisements,
if you make statements that are materially wrong, materially false, easy to be lampooned, then you will be exposed by a social media that democratizes everybody's ability to be their own broadcast network. it used to be when there were three networks and three anchors that the news you got, the news yolened about, is the news that you were fed. you did not have much say about it. it was very small. in a lot of instances today, if you cover politics or follow politics, you can follow the coverage of politics -- in many instances, the trends that are being reported in the major newspapers are first revealed on social media sites. they are covering the actual live discussion and discourse that is happening out in the
country. when you look at social media in the context of the 2008 campaign, one of the things that wa just objectively true about the race was that there was huge interest and huge enthusiasm for senator obama. it was organic. it was real. it manifested itself through people connecting together in rsuit of that common interest, through the hub that david talked about. the genius of the obama campaign was not that it created a social media phenomenon. the genius of the obama campaign was that it harnessed it. the enthusiasm, though, was real and it was organic. it could not be created. the moment i knew we were in real trouble on the mccain campaign was actually the obama girl video that you referenced.
the obama girl video got a huge amount of attention. it was out all over the place. everyone watched the obama girl video in the mccain world. what the obama girl video did -- begat was a parody video called the mccain girl," which was a bunch of elderly women whoere singing about their affection for john mccain. it was just devastating in an existential way. [laughter] you understood this was now being driven totally by forces outside of the control of the campaign. one of the impacts of this, as we go forward into the future, is the campaigns and the candidates themselves will control an increasingly smaller and smaller and smaller territory of their message.
and more and more area of the campaign, more and more of the campaign's message is going to be shaped by outside forces in this social media. all of the social media, in the next twitter, the next facebook, these next generations are going to be a profoundly important part of that. >> steve, i have this wonderful image of all the mccain staffers looking at computer monitors watching the obama girl video, fast forwarding, going back and forth. would it be fair to say that it is possible that consumers of traditional media, the major newspapers, the standard television channels, maybe even the cable channels, you were just watching those traditional media and the the u.s. during that time of the campaign, y might never have seen the obama girl video?
you might have heard a reference to et. >> no. it absolutely was a phenomenon that cross-pollinated, if you will, and migrated into what was mainstream -- what was considered to be mainstream journalism. the mccain campaign was a bit different in this regard. when the mccain campaign collapsed in july, 2007, and it was bankrupt, and john mccain was flying to-hampshire -- to new hampshire on a southst flight. the issue in the campaign was about -- who has a gas credit card we can fill the tank up with? as opposed -- when he won the primary, there were 38 people working in the headquarters. it was $2 million. -- it was $2 million in debt. as someone whos a protection -- as someone who is a
practitioner of " strategic communication, -- who is a practitioner of strategic communication, you just knew you did not have the resources to try to scale it up. there was a general lack of enthusiasm. for republicans, 2008 just was not ur year for a lot of reasons. you watch all of this developing in 2008. you see in 2010,,the political cycl there is some catch-up on the republican side, because the incense and the -- the intensity has risen and there is more activity on the social media side. the point that david made is very important. whether you are a corporation or a nonprofit institution, whether you are a political candidate, you cannot hide. there cannot be to it -- there cannot be dissonance between who you are and what to say about
yourself. it is going to be exposed by this medium, which is fundamentally democratic. it is small "d" democractic. >> i am going to introduce mona, and asked her to speak. mona eltahawy has been here at the university of delaware before. i am happy to have you here with us. thank you for coming back. pplause] when you speak about social networking media in the middle east, you will actually be able to draw together some of the things that you have heard from our previous three speakers. take it away. >> thank you. good evening. i am delighted to be back. i was here last year. i promise i will not speak for an hour as i did last year. i will speak for 10 minutes. it is a great pleasure to speak
mohamad al-baradei, who is back in egypt at the behest of thousands of young people who went on facebook and published a letter to ask him to come back and run for president. they were sick and tired of the president they have had for their entire lifetime. the iaea -- he went back to egypt and said, i want reform and democracy. i cannot run for president. the egyptian constitution bars candidates for raising money. i will work to end the state of emergency under which egypt has been living for the 29 years that hosni mubarak has been in
power. we heard about the media and to controls the media. -- and who controls the media. the egyptian media was even more controlled than the malaysian media, up until a few years ago. because the state-owned media tried to discredit baradei, sayi he was just an upper- class aristocrat who was out of touch, he appealed to the internet kids. we had a bizarre situation where he was campaigning for reform. he was campaigning for this program of reform and urged the ending of emergency -- the state of emergency he collected thousands of petitions for that reform. he was on a campan outside a cairo. of cairo. as was addressing thousands of
people, he said, some people say we're only popular online, but the thousands that have come out today show we are popular in the real world as well. >> sorry. [laughter] >> i thought that was an earthquake at first. >> you never know what will happen. >> i got stranded in london because of that bloody vcano. any sound scared me. -- sound scares me. one thing that was being held against him was that was only existing on the internet. here he was, saying, im in the real world as well. it speaks to this wonderful interaction that young people in the arab world, especially in egypt -- what else is happening on facebook? if you think about baradei as a candidate was greeted by young
people -- created by yng people, there was also a political party created by young people on facebook. what happened on april 5, 2008, was a huge strike byextile workers. egypt has seen at least 2000 strikes in the past two years. it is unprecedented labor unrest in ept. it is part of the overall political and social upheaval in egypt. youngeoe went on facebook and said, let's support this strike by going on strike and not going out to work on april 5. within two days, they had 70,000 members of their facebook group. today, they organized strikes. the organized political protests. in my new york apartment, i can follow what is happening on these pres through twitter. they agonized least the zero
protests in april, -- they organized at least two protest in april. this week about the people who were detained and arrested. -- they tweet about the people who were detained and arrested. i could see pictures of students who were beaten by police. this is all part of the cross pollination it is between facebook, youtube, and wate-- this is all part of a cross- pollinationetween facebook, youtube, and twitter. the muslim brotherhood in egypt is the largest political party. they hold the largest number of opposition seats in the egyptian parliament. i know several young members of the muslim brotherhood whose politics are completely opposite to mind. we have become friends because i follow their blogs and tweets. as testimony and proof of how
potent their work is online, they were given the option by the government of either stop blogging, or leave the muslim brotherhood, because they were criticizing the leadership on blogs, facebook, and twitter. to date at full circle to what is happening with mohamed elbaradei and, he does not want to stop -- to take this full circle to what is happening with mohamed elbaradei, he said, i was really impressed. the young man is 29 or 30 -- a generation which has grown up under hosni mubarak. i was seriously considering following him because he has created this national coalition for change. his facebook group has to wonder
thousand people in egypt. i kept -- has 200,000 people in egypt. he is running himself by faces that do not deserve attention ght now. whee he comes back to egypt, i'm goin to tell them this. if he does not get rid of these old faces, i'm just not going to support him anymore. some people say, this is a 29- year-old egyptian who is saying, this nobel peace prize laureate, but we hope is our new hope in egypt, he does not cut it with me, because he is doing politics as usual. this is what facebook and twitter are doing for young people in countries around the world, where we do not havthe kind of arguments you have on tv. in this country, people from the mainstream media it -- and i consider myself one of them -- always look back on the good old days when we were in control and we told people how to think. there were no good old days when it came to the media in our
world. the golden age is now. the golden age is being created. the more we remember how it was the government and not the mainstream media that controlled everything. facebook and twitter are pricking those chains -- breaking those chains. this is a direct challenge. for a while, one of the most popular tweets was of a song made by an opposition poet a few years ago. it became so popular that people thought he really was dead. they're all of these urgent tweets saying, "is this true? is he dead?" it was justaking the rounds on twitter.
it was a program by the international surplus -- center for journalists organized by the state department. they recognize the power of social networking in countries like egypt and others were the government has controlled the message. -- where the government has controlled the message. they engaged in the most amazing discussions over who is controlling their message. saying to the mainstream media, you guys do not count any more. i went on my blogger because i'm sick and tired. they are saying, who trusted you and believe you anyway? many of their newsbreaks come from the citizens. one of them, a 20-year-old, has been expelled from two universities because he has taken pictures of things that the state-owned media denies happens. he takes the pictures with his mobile pne and sells them to cn and reuters -- to cnn and
reuters. he has been told he cannot study at universities anymore. he is 21. hosni mubarak is 81. whose side would you take? [applause] >> alright. mona, just a follow-up question. is hosni mubarak's administration engaging in this through social media are they just attempting to ignore it? >> they are intimidating and torturing blotters and citizen journalists. for awhile, president hosni mubarak started to go on line and tried to have things like news conferences and facebook groups, but people just locked him out. this ithe beauty of this -- these cat and mouse games that young people always win. busey people like the queen of jordan -- you see people like
the queen of jordan. she is beautiful and sexy and good-looking and all that. the other guys just are not. they're definitely losing that one. [laughter] >> i saw you laughing about that question of the government using the technology. is the government in malaysia anyway -- in any way attempting to fight fire with fire? >> absolutely. they are trying to employ the same social networking technology to fight fire with fire, to quote you. this is something steve mentioned earlier. you need to be true and authentic in your messaging, just because the technology is there and you know how to use it does not mean that people are going to buy into your message. what we saw after the last general election in malaysia was a ruling coalition suddenly
employing a lot of these social technologies. they set up their own blog. they started going on facebook and twitter. there was such a lack of authticity to the messaging that people would not follow them. there is a huge gap between knowing how to be authentic online and just having the ability to be online. >> we're on to take yo questions in a momt. if you have a question, -- we are going to take your questions in a moment. if you have a question,ome up to the front, please. perhaps you could comment on the question of governments' usage of the technologies. you talked about from the point of view of being on the outside, if you will. is it as easy, or is it more difficult, when you're in power?
i know you are not in the government, but is this something that is easier for oppositions to use than it is for institutions? >> there is always a lot of energy when you are the insurgcy. in the government, in our campaign, i think we had 90 or 95 people in our new media debarment. -- department. the white house is trying to reach people where they live, essentially, which is why you see a vastly improved white house website. the president has done some online exclusives and town halls. he communicates to a lot of his political supporters through videos. you have to understand that there is a lot of progress in
transparency, where american taxpayercan now go on line and have a lot more information about how their tax dollars are being spent, about how many jobs are being created. that is where people demand. -- what people demand. people arexpecting transparency in more avenues of life. it was not too long ago in this country -- a couple generations ago that politics were bags of money. anre on an ink -- we're on inexorable path towards maximum transparency. we do not want to get steamrolled by it. there is a lack trust in institutions across america. one of the ways you rebuild that trust is to provide more transparency. there is more of that happening. i think that is good. people expect -- should i go to this restaurant? let me see what people ve said about it.
should i go to this movie? should i vote for this candidate? they want informati right away. if they go to try and find out information about the recovery act and it is just a series of press releases and not just the real story, they will be very disappointed and angry. >> can you comment on the government versus opposition? >> correct me if i am wrong, but i think -- having worked in the white house, there are a lot of roles in the white house of what the white house can and cannot do - rules in the white house of what the white house can and cannot do. it makes it difficult to get clearance through the white house counsel. the white house is a little bit of a dferent case. correct me if i am wrong, there has been some controversy on the part of the press being angry with the white house press secretary, robert gibbs, because he releases information on twitter, not going through
the traditional avenue, which is, i, the white house secretary, will make an announcement, and then the wires will then announcement. -- will then announce it. it is now its own broadcast platform. they have the technology and ability to communicate directly. it drives a lot of mainstream news oanizations in st.. -- in sane. it is like being the last guy who made buggy whips and next to the ford plant. they are just out of luck. [laughter] you will see government, whether it is the white house or the democrat or republican minorities or majorities, they are able to be their own broadcast platforms and to communicate directly -- not even going around the filter.
there is no more filter. for a long time, politics was how do you communicate over, under, around the media filter? it just es not exist anymore. >> why cannot the hosni mubarak regime continue to use the same formula and say, never mind the traditional media, we will go directly to the public? what cannot the government exercise the power that you described -- ascred to the opposition? >> they already do through their state-owned media and television channels. no one will believe them. >> it is not just technology. his credibility. it is a vital fact. >> people turn away quickly. this is why paul jazeera was so huge. -- al jazeera was so huge.
there are infinite blog and facebook and twitter -- blogs and facebook and twitter. >> we're ready for our first question. keepour questions concise. we want to hear mostly from our panelists and leased from y. -- least from you. how about that for beg blunt? [laughter] >> i am a proud graduate of the university of delaware and i aactually attended an earlier series. world-class of political communication research by world- class faculty. if i go out and buy a book these days on social networks, i go to a library and read it to see if i want to buy it. i went to the library and asked if i get a copy of david's book, "the audacity to win."
they said, we do not carry it. why do the famous, honorable graduates -- why did they not have your book in their library? is that an oversight in this high-tech innovation world? >> my sister actually works there. my father teaches of there. [laughter] >> i d not know if you wanted to reveal that. there are copies of his book out in the lobby. you are all set on this score. there are copies of other books in the lobby. please, come on up. >> i, freshmen here. -- i am a freshman here. i have worked on a couple of state and nicipal camigns. this is a question about logging. how should campaigns to treat lobbers -- bloggers? the ste campaigns may matter
little bit less. how do you treat bloggers? treat blogger >> you need to have your own campaigns blogging strategy -- campaign blogging strategy. we still have 13 e-mail addresses, 9 million facebook fans, and 4.5 million people falling as otwitter. we still blog -- following us on twitter. we still blog. there is a degree a propaganda associated with it. --f propaganda associated with it. there was a yes, we can video that will.i.am put together
that took off like wildfire. sarah silverman did a video that was wildly effective. we had a great relationship wh our supporters. the fact that it did not come from the campaign helped. there are professionals bloggers out there that need to being treated no differently than mainstream journalists at a cnn. because oa lack of trust out there but in government, at -- academic institutions, what people trust is each other. there are people from your towns who are blogging. you may not know the person and they may not be an expert on energy picy, butou trust what they are saying because you do not thinkhey have an agenda. that is so powerful, whether it is a blog, facebook, e-mail. in this digital world, the lack
of trust combines with that, so the power of the individual voice is so very, very effective. lots of african americans were registered to vote for the very first time in 2008. why did that happen? they had some interest in barack obama. it was almost always because someone in their circle said, i am going to register to vote for the firstime, why do you not, too? some of that was impersonal -- some of that was in person, some of it was visual -- digital. some people said, that is just an attack on a blog. before you know, that can consume the campaign. you need to treat it seriously, even if it is not an established person. in politics, you need to put out all sorts of fires. if something is percolating out there, you better deal with it. >> do you want to comment?
>> i agree. >> do you consider yourself what david referred to as a professional blogger? does the government in malaysia refer to you -- how does t government in malaysia erfurt to you? are you treated specially -- in malaysia and refrefer to you? are you treated specially? >> we consider ourselves insiders. we are able to self-publish without any editorial investing. the nut graph as a few sets of eyes -- has a few sets of eyes that looked at things bore they are published. we have a clear correction's policy as well. we put out our policies about
ethical behavior to the public. we do not necessarily have to do that. that would be how i would differentiate myself from a blogger. there are so many levels. in terms of whether the government response to us, the government has been slow in responding to the online media. the online media was seen as theg in support of, the o opposition, so the government refused to abolish the power of the internet until the last general let -- refused to a knowledge -- acknowledge the power of the internet until the last general election. you'll see individuals in the government who may be more tax ech savvy and more in tune
with what young people want, engaging with that onle media. you also have the older ministers to refuse to have anything to do with it. ther is a change happening, but it is slow in government. the government has been in power for more than 50 years. it's hard for them to imagine they can do anything else. >> mona, how you interact with the egyptian government? do they respond to you when you write something? do you get any response from somebody in the government, trying to argue their way out of it or respond to you? are you considered a professional at what you do by the government? >> if i were to go back to it egypt now, i would not be able to get a press pass, because i do not work for are recognized news outlet. we have a ministry of censorship that controls who gets a press card and who has access to the
president as well. you have to go through very rigorous security checks to get a presidential press card. where i get feedback from the egyptian government is -- i published an opinion piece last year against the nomination of the egyptian csulate for t head of unesco. he lost, and i was very happy. one of them actually asked him, did you read mona eltahawy's piece? and he said, to show you how they respond, yes, i read it. the fact that she published it where she published it shows that she does not have an egyptian bone in her. he was accusinme of treason basically. that is how the government deals with opposition. >> the white house press corps members also have to get a press card. >> do you have a ministry of censorship, too? [laughter]
>> the point was that they consistently put it on twitter and never mind the people. >> i would not say they skip it. it is important in our democracy and government -- we have a lot of people who consume it mainstream media. --consume mainstream media. you mentioned vice president biden. >> did i mention that? >> you did. released first to our supporters. that is a big group of people. we did not do that sily because we wanted to and with the news media or to get the message out -- we wanted to an media or to get the mesge out first. we wanted them to hear it from us first. it is a small thing, but it matters.
i think that -- it is not an either or necessarily. as steve pointed out, it is going to increase -- the ability to get your message out directly to a growing number of people without the first media filter is going to increase. >> let's take anher question. please step forward. >> thank you for taking my question. i am a marketing and communications professional here in the area. i'm curious about president obama's popularity numbers, as ey currently stand. it seems that his campaign ran on a certain level of transparency authenticity. unfortunely, the office itself prevents a lot of that from actually following through. social media seems to be an obvious tool to help rebuild those numbers, but i can see the
problem with clear in every tweet. there is probably a huge backlog. with his popularity ratings as they are, i am curious as to how he would rebuild -- you would rebuild that stands ithe public eye. what strategies would you use? how would you do that with a social media? >> would it be perverseor me to direct that question to you? [laughter] >> yes. look, i think that -- i disagree with certain parts of the president's agenda. what i would say is that, one way, for sure, that you did not
rebuild or grow a president's approval rating -- look at poll numbers. a great predictor of your chances to be reelected or where you are on your gallup approval, and the president, despite all the narrative that his numbers have tanked, the last poll num ber is at around 50. it is not as i his numbers have gone into the 30% or 40%, he is still in a structurally stable position, heading into a mid term where i believe the democrats will do poorly because of trends in a bad economy and other things. if you're the president of the united states, the way that you united states, the way that you impact your