tv Viewpoint With Eliot Spitzer Current December 5, 2012 2:00am-3:00am PST
racist. that's not surprising, either, rush. at least lee von belcher did not go to the caribbean with a gallon of viagra. please, spare me go get another divorce and another marriage. "young turks." [ ♪ theme ♪ ] >> good evening i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." we have become all too accustomed to gun violence. in recent years despite horrific tragedies, we have lacked the political will to do anything about it. now a suicide has brought it back into the public eye.
livan belcher murdered the mother of his daughter and shot himself. >> here wrote jason with it lock is what i believe. if he doesn't possess a gun he and sandra perkins would both be alive today. >> half time of a football game was the wrong time to bring up the issue of gun control. wane lapierre accused costas of promoting an anti second amendment agenda. media conglomerates want to ram gun control down throats. those of us who believe in gun control should bring all the pressure we can to where it might make a difference. the white house. when president obama was in tough straights he went back
and did something. i've been fighting this battle for a long time as attorney general, the governor, now for what i believe in. it's time for president obama to stand up to the bullies of the n.r.a. and gun advocates. no more excuses about protecting votes. now is the time to take a tough stand on oh the issues we believe in. marshall your forces, mr. president and bring real change. gun control is necessary and delay means more death and horror. for more on how to make mentionful change on the issue i'm joined by a colorado shooting survivor and now and outreach assistant with the mayor. thank you both for joining us. this issue comes back repeatedly and unfortunately fades into oblivion just as quickly. can you sense in your day to day advocacy, day to day since this
horrific day over the weekend what has changed? >> i really believe the momentum is in my favor. people are as fed up as bob costas is with the state of affairs, currently. people want change, and they want to see the president lead when it comes to that change. >> you were on this show a couple of months ago actually when i was out in denver, you had just come out with your ad with this unbelievably 30 second powerful ad begging and pleading at some point in the presidential debates for somebody to discuss gun control. you were in that movie theater shot. you look great your life was altered. has the white house responded called you said anything? >> no, not directly, and, you know, that's tough but we're hopeful, really, that we'll be able to reach out to them in the
next term. >> and then am i right that the argument and maybe i can say this more easily, because as somebody who is in politics, you know the calculus people would run. the penalty says i can't lose, those swing voters will cost me pennsylvania ohio, wisconsin. he got reelected had those voters, but now he doesn't need them. there is no next time. what is the possible rationale? why have they not stood up clearly and said we must deal with this issue? >> i think unfortunately there are other issues like the fiscal cliff that are predominant right now in the national debate, but you know, as i said, you mentioned swing states. legal guns polling most voters trust the president more than mitt romney on the issue of guns so you know you know, i
think people are just waiting for him to take action. >> it was interesting and when he spoke of that it galvanized. when he spoke about same-sex marriage it shifted public opinion. i for one people that this is an issue ripe for him to take and grab and to move forward on. eric fascinating thing when cob costas used one of the bigger media platforms out there sunday night football, he got a lot of eyeballs, and not necessarily eyeballs who are going to be sympathetic to a gun control issue. i give bob costas a ton of credit. fair or not? >> he said he knew he was going to get criticized. no regrets. he's not going to be run off what he said. it's interesting when you have a sportscaster, both bob costas and jason whitlock.
that's sad this is an epidemic. i think the mainstream press talk about the politics, i think the mainstream press has basically adopted the n.r.a. slogan of guns don't kill people people do. >> the voices we're hearing from are coming from not where we would expect. do you go pound on the doors of major media organizations and say please talk about this and what response do you get? >> not a particularly receptive one. i think there's a big misconception about how touchy a subject is, you know. the opponents of, you know, bob costas speaking out, they are particularly vocal but don't represent the general american public. >> did you have those numbers and can you give us them? what are the public numbers? >> i asked do you support having
a background check for every begun pressure, policy that would decrease the number of people killed every single day. 34 americans die every single day from guns. >> say that number again. >> 34 every day. >> 34? that's an amazing number. >> yeah, if nobody acts in the next four years, 48 those people will die. these are murders not suicides. so when you ask about background checks, for every gun sale 74% of the n.r.a. gun owners support that. to me, it tells me that the leadership of the n.r.a. is not in line with the meship. >> there is a middle ground here. you don't need to go all the way to where we as advocates would be. there's a middle ground. >> i think that's what freaked out the fox news and right wing about bob costas, 60 second commentary about gun violence in
our society, that's what freaked them out. they don't want a common sense discussion about violence. >> there's nothing more terrifying to the fanatic then reasoned common sense. you're the media raven why does the mainstream media to use that awful phrase, oh void it as an issue? >> i think it's intimidation. you mentioned that statistic, 34 people a day. 34,000 people a day die from gun related violence. 18,000 gun suicides. that is never included after the damagety in aurora. why are shows statistics not in almost every article about aurora or any other gun massacre. why isn't there simple context? the press has sort of shied away
from it. they don't treat it as any sort of social issue it's a crime issue, everything is a crime issue, a crime scene and 48 hours, we're on to the next one. >> when you look at the congress and you have john boehner as the speaker, is there any hope that he would even consider a gun control or is this the republican party in washington right now? >> i think you have to go about it the right way. you have to build that public support and marshall the public support that already exists and make it clear to leaders like john boehner that in the american public, even among his constituents, his party days, gun owners, that that support for example exists. >> frank luntz i guess the go to guy. the brady bill was perhaps the high point of this effort, so the attempted assassination of a president, and issuing of this press secretary to galvanize public opinion. you think of aurora, how could
that not have brought us to this point? >> the sad part of aurora is part of the long list of sort of the workplace or public shooting rampages again i, you know, the press coverage in 48 hours for a week and then they disappear. the problem with the john boehner experience again they respond to fox news. if they can't even handle bob costas having a one minute conversation or dialogue about gun violence, then the republican party sees that. they see that radical approach and realize we can't even touch it. >> bob costas is hardly the image of a wild-eyed one. >> they don't want a public debay and certainly not on prime time during the nfl and certainly not by someone like
bob costas. >> plug what you're doing with mike bloomberg. if you can get one thing done, what would it be? >> it's comprehensive criminal background checks. the system where currently 48% of gun sales are private which means under federal law not regulated. >> no background check whatsoever. >> absolutely not. it's like having two different systems at the airport where 60% go through the metal detector and 40% don't. >> i never heard it described that way. that's great. >> we might as well extend it to all gun sales. >> that's a fascinating argument and you are of course right. >> steve barton and eric fuller, thanks, both of you for coming on the program. >> what does it mean and by it, i mean the second
>> a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. what does that mean? joining me to answer is adam winkler, professor of constitutional law. explain it, those few words have sparked controversy dispute explain to us a little bit about
the history of the words and how you understand them under current legal jurisprudence in terms of the capacity to impose gun control. >> those words have doubled to americans for a long time. it's as if this wonderful thing the karma was discovered and wanted to put it in there. as a long time, people have been confused. a landmark case, district of columbia versus he willer said americans had rights to bear arms. >> now let's go back in history before heller. when the decision came down, it was considered a fundamental shift. having studied the cases the history of the second amendment the comma there the preparatory words are a well-regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state. people thought well, we'll permit you to own guns as it receipts to the militia not individual use. what would that, the early interpretation and if so, what happened? >> in truth the americans have had the right to bear articles in both state and federal constitutional law for a long time. regardless of the second amendment, virtually every state protects the right of individuals to have guns for personal protection in their state c constitution. the founding fathers wrote the second amendment in part because they were fearful of having government completely disarm the citizenry. they also had gun control laws. they didn't view the second amendment as a libertarian license for anyone to have any gun anywhere they wanted. >> there were gun control laws way back when, when our founding fathers were drafting these
words. what kind of gun limitations were there back then and from the existence of those laws, even if you were an originalist to kind of try to understand and unwrap and figure out what the original drafters meant what could you then discern about the capacity to pass current gun control laws. one thing we know is that the founding fathers regulated guns and who could own them when they thought it was necessary for public safety. the kind of things they thought was necessary we don't grow with anymore. they thought blacks shouldn't have guns and had disdiscriminatory gun laws. the founding fathers barred loyalists, people who refused to swear a loyalty to the revolution to own guns. we are talking about people exercising their freedom of conscious to think this was a bad idea to fight the strongest military in the world. they had what we know as an individual mandate the obama
health care law they required people to go out and have guns, because they relied on the minute men to go home and be ready to fight in an instant. >> we talked about a couple of months ago when the constitution at of the health care law the individual mandate itself has sort of historical antecedents way back when. one thing that has changed of course is technology. it's one thing to own a musket and another an missile. one thing that did arise in the heller case, the justice recognized that there were qualitative differences that would permit the government to say look, the fact you can bear arms doesn't mean we are going to let you bear any arms or an anti aircraft missile. does that create latitude to say we don't want you to have an
automatic weapon? >> machine guns have been banned for 30 years. not any weapon is appropriate for self defense in the home. all the supreme court said is that you have a right to have a handgun in your home for self defense. they didn't say you have a right to have any kind of gun like an assault weapon and didn't say you have any right to take that gun out on to the public street and carry it with you. there are still a lot of questions to be answered by the supreme court on the scope of the second alternate. at least today as we understand it it does not ban from limiting magazines. >> background searches, limiting sale of semiautomatics and restrictions on hidden carry you don't think would be barred by the constitution. >> i don't think any of those restrictions are likely to be struck down by the supreme court. may be the biggest is the right to carry concealed weapons on the street. the supreme court said the right to bear arms is the right to
carry arms but didn't make conditions. it's important to me the supreme court will say the government can require a license for anyone who wants to carry a gun on the street. >> license being the first step toward reasoned gun control. >> coming up, america's lopsided tax code. more and more economists are starting to admit the real problem. >
cc >> with all the hysteria over the fiscal cliffs, there was euphoria when john boehner puts fort a proposal. his proposal fails every test. let's not forget, the deficit isn't the biggest problem. it's the lack of demand and equity in our distribution of income, two little data points we shouldn't forget. 93% of the in jump added in the 2010 went to the top 1% and
wages are the lowest they've ever been. it's simply not fair. for ideas to solve the problems and the deficit at the same time, bob rob an and larry summers suggested some away raise capital gains taxes. lets stop giving capital preferences over earned income. it's only fair and right. it won't solve the problem but will go a long way. back to john boehner. he doesn't say anything about this, because he refuses to raise rates. it can only be because he refuses to see the real problem. joining me now congressman thank you for joining us as always. >> thank you. am i right about the boehner proposal and what the underlying problems are. >> you are. also it's also true with the boehner proposal is it's not specific. he makes the general claim that will put $800 billion of revenuen oh the table but doesn't say from where.
he wants to do tax code changes. that could mean it comes out of the middle class very easily. secondly, he ups the ante on cuts wants to cut mid care. boehner's in a box. he cannot sell to his caucus the idea of raising taxes when those guys ran against raising tasks and they in fact favored lowering them. what you're seeing, he knew he had to put something on the table that appeared to be a counter offer but it's not a serious proposal. it's not specific. >> dealing with john boehner and his proposal is kind of like nailing jell-o to a wall. it falls apart nothing substantive behind it. your right his tax increases can come from the middle class which goes right into the face of the largest problem in our economy, lack of equity, lack of demand. the middle class being squeezed,
get the economy going. somehow we forget that problem. that's what trouble's me. >> that's exactly right. this is where i think president obama is doing a really good job staying focused on the fact that we have got to have revenue. they've got to come from the top 2%. that's got to be part of a long term deficit reduction program. if we don't do that, the in equity that you just spoke about, the maldistribution that is going to intensify the pressure will be there if we don't get revenue to make yet more cuts on revenue unscientific research, all those things that provide some minimum safety net bottom line, the president i think is doing a good job hanging tough on the obvious, and that is if you're going to get revenues from the top 2%, we've got to go back to the clinton tax rates. down the road, maybe make adjustments, but right now hang in there. >> i think that is exactly right. certainly last year in the
fiscal deficit negotiations, we were upset when he caved in the end of the day. this time he is sticking with it drawing the line in the sand. they are saying capital and income from capital should be taxed the same way we tax earned income. that is a fundamental in equity in our tax code. >> that's right. this country in its economy he has done well when we've had policies that have promoted middle class expansion. this is good for capital. franklin roosevelt for all of understanding, he said if you don't have a middle class that works, you won't have an economy for the rich. there's a narrow mindedness that i've got mine and i want more and i'm take it from you if that's what it takes.
american economic policy works best when it's building a middle class. >> you go back to henry ford, who is no legal tarian at heart. he said if my workers can't afford to buy the cars they're building i won't be able to sell them to everybody and wanted to raise wages. you have been a proponent of going over the cliff basically saying we're not going to cave because of the threat. do you still hold that position and is there support in the democratic party for it? >> there is. we're not in favor of going over the cliff we're in favor of getting a good deal. if the republicans refuse to go forward and have to go into january to get a good deal, lets do it. our premise is that it is essential to get significant revenues. they've got to come from the top 2%. boehner can't deliver on that, but in january can. they'll put a tax bill on the floor where grover norquist's oath won't be violated, because republicans will have the easy vote of cutting taxes.
we've got to get a good deal. if it takes going into january that's better than a bad december deal. >> do you think our hand only gets stronger as we get closer and closer into january and turn the corner into 2013. >> i do. they are taking their cue from the president. he realizes that he won the election. even the romney voters by more than a majority agree on raising taxes with the rich and he is not going to cave on it. it makes no sense to do it politically and clickly. this is a litmus test going into the next four years of his material. he's going to hang in there. >> another idea out there that is particular, you know, one i really supported attack on financial transaction, we have all these shares traded every day, we have a sales tax and why not impose a tiny little tax when stocks are traded to raise a huge amount of money. any movement in that corner?
>> not yet. i'm the co sponsor on that. and it is good idea. this hyper trading that's about market speculation it has nothing to do with liquidities in the market, nothing to do with making a market. we need a strong financial sector but we need one that is in service of the productive economy. we can't have a productive economy that's in service of wall street. the hyper trading is only bad for creating those markets. i think we should have a very small fractional transaction tax that would then go into help them pay for the bailout and actually, it's not good to be doing all that hyper trading. >> i think you should be secretary treasure you are. thanks for coming on the show. >> fox news chairman flexing his political muscle, caught on then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] ...allstate safe
driving bonus check? what is that? so weird, right? my agent, tom, said... [ voice of dennis ] ...only allstate sends you a bonus check for every six months you're accident-free... ...but i'm a woman. maybe it's a misprint. does it look like a misprint? ok. what i was trying... [ voice of dennis ] silence. ♪ ♪ ask an allstate agent about the safe driving bonus check. are you in good hands? [ male announcer ] red lobster's crabfest ends soon. hurry in and try five succulent entrees like our tender snow crab paired with savory garlic shrimp. just $12.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. and introducing 7 lunch choices for just $7.99. salads, sandwiches, and more.
>> the unmasking of the murdoch machine continues. it began with bribery corruption and hacking. now it continues with the hand picking of a candidate bank rolling his campaign and put all of fox news's efforts behind it. in that sounds like a conspiracy theory out of a movie? it's not. here's a recordling of a meeting between david petraeus and mcfor land. >> tell him if i ever ran but i won't. >> ok. >> if i ever ran i'd take him up on his offer:
> it's fox news, it isn't fair and balanced. am i overstating this, or is this in the past week, we saw the huge report about bribing hacking, activity throughout their newspapers in britain now this where roger ails want petraeus to run for the presidency. >> here's the thing with fox news. the only thing that makes them unethical is that they call themselves news. if they just said fox politics, this would not even be something that we could talk about. otherwise, they really should not be called, they're an
entertainment organization that i guess very effective in politicking. they should just take the news out of their name. >> michael, they are entitled to encourage people, i suppose right? >> right. the ironic thing is that at fox news the head of c.n.n. or nbc would never have been able to do this. roger ails, here we have him trying to influence somebody to run on the republican ticket. this isn't the first time. he similarly urged chris christie to run, as well. >> i think what we're seeing here is that we understand and view and judge fox and murdoch by an entirely different metric. >> right. >> tina witness as you said, they are over they political therefore those of us who see them don't expect neutrality. if a legitimate noose organization did this, no one
would survive this sort of behavior. >> fox will call "the new york times" biased, but you will never see the editor of the new york times trying to get hillary clinton to run against barack obama. >> you might see michael bloomberg do that, but that's a separate issue. what would happen no the head of a news organization said i'm going to bank roll your political campaign and didn't tell anybody in the public about that? >> this is what roger ails would like to exploit on fox news. the bottom line is that the two parties are not opposite equals. it's not just because the republicans do it, therefore democrats do it. that's just not true. these stories really bring that home. >> we have always believed that there are two separate silos. you have politics and you have those who operate in the political arena and have a journalistic road. this complete merger of the two is somewhat astonishing.
>> roger ails has worked for three republican presidents, reagan nixon and george h.w. bush. we know his politics. he said he got out of the politics when he went into t.v. last month, there is a report about how he tried to give guidance to condoleezza rice when she was in the administration. there's a big difference between having political views and commentators and actively trying to influence the news. >> the notion that this conversation was recorded, petraeus at the time this was a senior government if i recall. you go in there and you record your conversation with him that's a little bizarre isn't it? >> the c.i.a. gets recorded, so i don't know, there's a whole dimension to that. the interesting thing is ails is not effectively making kings. as we watch the george bush, the
last republican president, was not, you know, didn't have a contract at fox news. they've been doing this stuff but haven't been effective at it. in the primary we watched people on stage. they are not in the white house right now. as they're doing it, as, you know as we're kind of disgusted by the whole notion of it, it's not effective in politicking. >> to come back to the critical point that you made earlier if they were overt and open about these conflicts and about their willingness and desire to effect the politics as they do, that would be fine, first amendment activity, i would say go off and do it. it's the fact that they hide it behind this mask and venire of neutrality that is offensive and trouble. michael, do you look at this and say how dare they? >> it's ridiculous, because nobody else could get away with this and yet fox will push back
repeatedly anytime anyone calls them conservative and right wing. they'll say we're fair and balanced, it's the rest of the media. >> this seemed bizarre unrelated to the facts. >> we're all being punked. just kidding we don't really like petraeus. he could have like stood his ground and doubled down and been like a real republican and said yes, this is what we intended to do and we'd do it again but it's we're just kidding. >> a week with the reports from the highest levels in england laying out this effort to hack, bribe, penetrate secure government files and now we have this, how do we understand the murdoch empire, this is like the bad guy in a bond movie who has
this desire to control politics. >> when you think of the ways roger ails continued doing this, he's bringing in a billion dollars a year and his boss is rupert murdoch seeing fox bring in a huge amount of money. one of the problems with the empire right now and they're breaking off the publishing side and t.v. movie side, you have a lucrative business and struggling business, newspaper publishing. roger ails is firmly a key part of the empire making a lot of money. >> ails oversees the t.v. rupert murdoch loves the print and open uses the t.v. empire to subs disease the print. all right, thank you both for your time tonight. >> filmmaker ken bushes on
>> there's nothing more horrifying to our sense of justice than a wrongful conviction. it destroys innocent lives. this was one of the worths in our city's history. in 1989, a woman was brutally attacked and raped jogging in central park. five black and lieu teen know teenagers were arrested and charged, convicted and spent years in prison. the real assailant confessed to the crime in 2002. it was a complete and total failure on the part of the justice system and media. this is the subject of a movie currently in theaters. >> i look back at the jogger case and wish i'd been more skeptical as a journalist. a lot of people didn't do their jobs. reporters, police, prosecutors defense lawyers. this was a proxy war being
fought. these young men were the proxies for all kinds of other agendas. the truth and reality and justice were not part of it. >> joining me now was one of the directors of that film and perhaps the document arian of our time, ken burrs. it's an honor to have you here. >> thank you. it's my pleasure. >> how did you find this case and dive into it and what do you hope we take away? >> i found it through my daughter sarah burns and her husband, a filmmaker that i've worked with. she had written undergraduate fees at yale about the representations of race and media portrayals of these five, so much like jim crow of the early 20th century and not a modern progressive city. she said she became outraged, we became so looking over her shoulder as she turned this into a book published this year.
as she was writing it, david mcmahon and i had the privilege of looking over her shoulder saying wow this is a film and we need to get into it. >> i hear the pride of a father as well as the calm vision of a documentarian. race runs like a threat through our history. >> i don't think the cops said there's some black guys, let's get them. in our society because of race and distinctions made on race, individuals become expendable. the story was just so outrageous the 1980's, the city was falling apart. we believed the crazy story. they had this guy, two days before the real rapist and forget to follow through. he went on oh to rape and maim a woman that summer. they still didn't try to walk over any of this evidence.
the kids were subjected to interrogation for 30 hours a round robin circular firing squad and they all imply indicated themselves and didn't mean to. they thought if they helped the cops out, they could go home. >> i want to get the presumption that prosecutors, cops, perhaps all of us jumped to at a moment and we forget what the 1980's were like. i was in the manhattan d.a.'s office when this crime was prosecuted. i know the people involved and the prosecutors. i remember that. it was at though we got them. you had to solve the crime. the pressure to solve it was enormous. >> these kids were with a bunch of others making mischief in the park and it was not unreasonable to think they might do it. you think they'd entertain some narrative. there was none of the crime scene on the boys, none of the
boys on the crime scene. you've got another guy sort of out in this parallel universe who's done it. isn't it strange that the media bought into this, we all did the cops and prosecutors, the train left of the station and they were on it, they'd solved the crime of the century and that's all they did. film has a kind of poly graphic aspect. you can see not just in the boys, now men who they are but you can see in the cops and prosecutors, something is wrong they don't believe their own story. it's so impressive as a filmmaker thing that you just say wait, why does it take the psycho pattic murderer 13 years here's a guy who has a crisis of conscience and no one yet has said we did wrong. >> at this moment where all these pressures come to bear, the terrifying thing the forces hold each other in check.
>> nobody questioned anything. you remember, george whitmore case african-american falsely accused, the press went after all the things, discovered that his alibis made sense. he was released and it led to miranda. this led to the death penalty restored in new york state. >> the death penalty restored. this had crime led to a hysteria. >> can we talk about this hysteria. donald trump takes out full page ads saying bring back the death penalty. patrick buchanan said he should be hung in central park and the rest flogged. we ought to be ashamed. this is the language of jim crow, not new york city. >> before we leave the issue of race, the role of stop and
frisk, how law enforcement manifests itself. >> of course it does. it's in every aspect of our society. we pretend that we're beyond it. we're not. we still judge people on the content, not on the content of their character but color of their skin. we have to change that. this is endemic in society. we can make up new things, now birther, muslim, code words that we used to use the n word for. it's a simple replacement of the age old fear of
the false confessions. people don't understand why they would confess if they didn't do it. explain. >> these kids were vulnerable. they'd never been in trouble. they were good kids, trying to help. they were in intense interrogations by the finest of new york city's police department for up wards of 30 hours. they're doing things like saying he's there why don't you go hole. just tell them what they want to hear. you finally think i'm not implicating myself, i'll get out of this. it becomes that circular firing squad that took place there. we don't think it would be done. nobody would confess. this is what happened. it just plowed in and there was nothing, absence of d.n.a., no other forensic evidence, the inconsists nothing, it was those confessions that got them. >> there is a movement in some states and i've talked about
this in favor to tape record all interrogations so we can see how this has happened. >> ray kelly the police commissioner has come out in favor of this. what if you started recording not after you get them to sign the statements and the cops are standing behind the prosecutor and saying you're going to say the thing you told us but from the very beginning where the jury is privy to all the tricks the cops are allowed to use saying we have this, we have your d.n.a. these kids were terrified and getting the good cop bad cop. one said they were so angry at me that i was happeningry they would take me out back and kill me. if you have the evidence, then all of a sudden, as a jury, you're suddenly armed with all the fact, not let's turn it on after 30 hours of this 14-year-old kid freaked out thinking what he is signing and saying will get him home when in fact he's going to jail for 17 years. >> it is that moment when you
present the signed confession to the jury but if the jury can't see what led up to it, they don't know how to interpret that and these false confessions mystifying to jurors. >> the process will out. >> we talked about the press not being self critical when these kids were exonerated. >> we accepted it full cloth. 13 years later oh, by wait, we vacated their convictions. at that point the press should have jump -on this and said we screwed up. they remained silent. it allowed the reactionary forces even though joined the defense in asking for a vacation of the convictions the cops and prosecutors, who's reputations are at stake because if they admitted a mistake god forbid you admit a mistake then what,
we could put a period at the end of this tragic thing heal the five and their families, but the city. right now the civil suit is almost 10 years old. they've barely gotten to depositions. they've now, the city has now subpoenaed all of our outtakes and notes from this in a cynical attempt to delay, somebody has got to wake up. the mayor has got to look up from his management and say remind me again why we're protecting the reputations of cops and prosecutors who screwed up. point, then we have an opportunity to solve this. this doesn't just help the five, it helps everyone. >> i want you to talk about dust bowl your most recent documentary about the most egregious human created ecological disaster. >> it comes down to a photograph or john steinbecks, but the
greatest ecological disaster in american history an pack limbs of hundreds and hundredses of storms that killed crops turned over grass land that never should have been turned over, but their cattle and their children to from dust pneumonia. roosevelt swiped his desk in the oval office and came up with oklahoma. we moved more dirt than excavating the panama canal. >> if we don't tend to it, disasters will occur. >> we're now faced with a drought that's almost as bad as it was back then. we mitigated with things, but if we don't pay attention, we are in deep trouble again. >> the tanker of what we always think will happen is off in the distant future. >> it's a grass hopper, the grass hopper prepares for winter