Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML


Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.

older | 1 | .... | 879 | 880 | (Page 881) | 882 | 883 | .... | 1175 | newer

    0 0

    Gwen Ifill sat down with Lonnie Bunch, the director of the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and culture, which is due to open this weekend. Bunch says that leading the museum has been a humbling experience, and that he’s often stopped by people on the street who are excited about the museum’s opening. “Once you have this museum on the mall, it’s going to be there as long as there’s an America,” Bunch said.

    Watch our full report on the opening of the museum tonight on PBS NewsHour.

    The post Full interview: Lonnie Bunch, director of Smithsonian African American History Museum appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Smart phone

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    JUDY WOODRUFF: We all realize we are inundated by electronic data, whether we are at work, school, home or play, but how to make sense of it all?

    That is the focus of the latest addition to the “NewsHour” Bookshelf.

    Jeffrey Brown leads the way.

    JEFFREY BROWN: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain said that.

    And imagine what he would make of the Internet, when everything is available and we’re sure we know so much. But do we?

    The Twain quote appears at the beginning of a new book titled “A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age.”

    Our guide is Daniel Levitin, a neuroscientist and bestselling author of books, including “This Is Your Brain on Music” and “The Organized Mind.”

    And, Dan, welcome to you.

    Your starting point, we’re bombarded with information, but it’s harder than ever to know what’s true.

    DANIEL LEVITIN, Author, “A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age”: We’re making more and more decisions every day. I think a lot of us feel overloaded by the process.

    And, as you say, it’s getting harder and harder to know, when you find things on the Internet, what you can believe and what you can’t. And there isn’t really anybody doing it for us.

    JEFFREY BROWN: And you see this everywhere. You go through both data, numbers, and — and, well, everything, right?


    I mean, it’s in Facebook and in statistics and in things that politicians say. And it’s in headlines. It’s in representations that a salesman might make to you. It’s everywhere.

    JEFFREY BROWN: It’s clearly annoying you, right, as a scientist. You don’t — you just don’t like this world.


    DANIEL LEVITIN: Well, I like a world where each of us has the tools to be able to make able to make our own decisions.

    I don’t think I’m always right, but I would like to empower people to come to sound conclusions using a systematic way of looking at things.

    JEFFREY BROWN: All right, so a very simple — you give a bunch of examples in your book.

    A very simple one is the pie chart, right, of polling that we’re hit with a lot of the time.


    JEFFREY BROWN: This is from — this happens to be FOX News, but it could — in 2012 — and it could be probably from any time and any network.


    JEFFREY BROWN: So, look at this. Tell us what we’re seeing here.

    DANIEL LEVITIN: Well, the first rule of pie charts, Jeff, is that you’re taking a pie, you’re dividing it up into pieces. The pieces have to add up to 100 percent.

    JEFFREY BROWN: Right. That’s the idea.

    DANIEL LEVITIN: And, as you see here, they don’t.

    Now, you can imagine how this happens. The kind of people who become graphic artists may not be mathematically inclined. They’re artists, artistically inclined. And so you end up with things like this.

    JEFFREY BROWN: But the missing information — you could also look at that and say — I’m trying to imagine what — maybe people were asked — they were told they could they could favor several candidates, right?

    DANIEL LEVITIN: Well, that’s right.

    JEFFREY BROWN: But, somehow, that’s not shown in what we’re looking at.

    DANIEL LEVITIN: Right. Who would you support for the upcoming election? And you’re allowed to name more than one. And so you get something like this that adds up to 100.

    But, in that case, you shouldn’t use a pie chart. It’s really visually deceptive, which might lead you to conclude the wrong thing.

    JEFFREY BROWN: All right, another example you give, sometimes one truth hiding another, a less favorable truth. And this is showing Apple, right, and Tim Cook, the CEO, talking about sales that actually went down, right?


    JEFFREY BROWN: But he didn’t want us to know that. Right?

    DANIEL LEVITIN: This is one of my favorite.

    So, what do you do when you have got something, a case like this, where the sales have gone down, and a graph would clearly show it? Well, you create a cumulative sales graph, where, as long as you sold only one unit, the graph is going to appear to go up. But if your sales for the quarter are down, you can hide it this way. And that’s what he did.

    JEFFREY BROWN: Now, the biggest source of information, of course, for all of — in our own lives now is the Internet, right?

    And you write about a — I think you call it an anti-skepticism bias. We believe so much of what comes to us on the Internet. Now, I wonder why. You’re a neuroscientist. I mean, what’s going on to make us not skeptical enough?

    DANIEL LEVITIN: You know, I don’t really know.


    DANIEL LEVITIN: I mean, part of it is that, when we have learned something, there’s this thing called belief perseverance. Having learned something, we tend to cling to that belief, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    New information comes in all time, and the thing we ought to be thinking about doing is changing our beliefs as that new information comes in.

    JEFFREY BROWN: That’s what critical thinking means.

    DANIEL LEVITIN: I think so.

    We need to take a step back, and realize that not everything we encounter is true. You don’t want to be gullibly accepting everything as true, but you don’t want to be cynically rejecting everything as false. You want to take your time to evaluate the information.

    JEFFREY BROWN: In the end of the day, don’t people — don’t we have to trust institutions or trust somebody?

    DANIEL LEVITIN: Well, we do.

    Of course, science is based on this. I have never seen a proton or electron spinning around it. I have never actually seen a chromosome. I trust that they exist because people who I trust tell me they do.


    DANIEL LEVITIN: It does come down to that.

    But we can be skeptical, suitably skeptical, and we can trust news outlets, some more than others.


    DANIEL LEVITIN: We — I mean, society functions because we trust one another. I trust that my plumber knows what he’s doing, right?

    I think, though, that we need to be armed with the critical thinking skills that lawyers and scientists and journalists such as yourself have. We all need to have those as we make our way through the day. And they’re not that hard to acquire.

    I think they can be acquired in a couple hours.

    JEFFREY BROWN: All right, before I let you go, we have to go back to that Mark Twain quote. I want to put that back up, because I read it. I started it — our segment. You start your book with it.

    And then you tell us in the end of your book — and I’m going to tell our audience — that wasn’t said by Mark Twain.

    DANIEL LEVITIN: Right. The quote ain’t so.

    And it’s a wonderful example of how we believe things that aren’t so. And, in fact, I agree with the sentiment that it’s probably more dangerous to believe some things that aren’t so than to not believe something — you know, to believe in a lie.

    And, in the fact-checking for the book, I went to find — as you do, I went to find the original source. But it was nowhere to be found in any of Twain’s writings.

    JEFFREY BROWN: So, Mark Twain didn’t say it. Daniel Levitin lied. The “NewsHour” lied. But we have now set the record straight.

    DANIEL LEVITIN: Which is how things move forward.

    JEFFREY BROWN: All right. The book is “A Field Guide to Lies.”

    Daniel Levitin, thanks very much..

    DANIEL LEVITIN: Thanks for having me.

    The post Why we believe what we read on the internet appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    A Cleveland police bomb squad technician loads a Remotec F5A explosive ordnance device robot during a demonstration of police capabilities near the site of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S. July 14, 2016.  REUTERS/Rick Wilking - RTSHXME

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    GWEN IFILL: But first: In the aftermath of this week’s bombings in New York and New Jersey, science correspondent Miles O’Brien looks at the ways police departments are coming to rely on bomb-disarming robots.

    It’s part of our weekly Leading Edge series.

    MAN: Everybody, get off the street!

    MILES O’BRIEN: As the pipe and pressure cooker bomb plot unfolded and unraveled in New York and New Jersey, police deployed some remotely operated tools aimed at saving the lives of civilians and bomb squad technicians alike.

    In New Jersey, a reminder of the hair-trigger risk they face in harm’s way.

    At NYPD bomb squad headquarters on City Island a few years ago, Lieutenant Mark Torre gave me a demo using the same robot, the Remotec ANDROS F6A, built by Northrop Grumman.

    LT. MARK TORRE, NYPD Bomb Squad: Its primary mission is to put distance between our technicians and something of a hazardous nature, because distance in this business is always your friend.

    MILES O’BRIEN: In this scenario, it is believed there may be an explosive in this car. And it is much more than a hypothetical. It’s what happened in Times Square on May 1 of 2010.

    A street vendor discovered a smoldering, abandoned car filled with propane tanks, fertilizer, gasoline and firecrackers. It was a Saturday evening, the busiest time of the week, in one of the busiest, and most iconic, intersections in the world.

    MITCH SILBER, Terrorism Analyst: Between the scenery, the symbolism, the congestion and it being be just media central for New York City, you can’t get much better of a background for terrorists.

    MILES O’BRIEN: Mitch Silber was NYPD’s director of intelligence analysis at the time. He shudders to think what would have happened if the car bomb, built by Pakistani American Faisal Shahzad, had not been a dud.

    MITCH SILBER: It would ripped the car in half, and this is a very busy intersection. Depending on the congestion of people right around the car, it would certainly kill people, injured and maimed many others. And it would have been the first big terrorist attack in New York City since 9/11, since 2001, nine years earlier.

    MILES O’BRIEN: So, if he had just been a better bomb-maker, it would have been a horrible event?

    MITCH SILBER: Absolutely.

    MILES O’BRIEN: In fact, a few months later, the FBI built an identical car bomb and detonated it to see what could have happened, a scary thought.

    Instead, in Times Square, the NYPD bomb squad deployed its ANDROS robot and did pretty much what you are about to see.

    DET. JAMES SCHUTTA, New York Police Department: Bomb squad is called. A perimeter is set up, and we are now going to use this robot to approach this vehicle and take a look at what’s inside.

    MILES O’BRIEN: Detective James Schutta operated the robot from a safe distance.

    DET. JAMES SCHUTTA: We are not in sight of the vehicle.

    The key to successful robot operation is that he can do the entire job without ever seeing what the robot is actually doing. It’s all done remotely via the cameras.

    MILES O’BRIEN: But this robot is more than just a remote-controlled eye. It is able to get inside the car to take a closer look. The robot fired a .12-gauge blast through both windows.

    DET. JAMES SCHUTTA: And that’s what we call a perfect shot. It is sort of just a game of manipulation now, where he’s going to maneuver the robot until we get a better view of what’s inside. He took out both windows. Now we have an opportunity to look in both sides.

    MILES O’BRIEN: In this scenario, the robot discovered there is indeed a bomb inside the car.

    DET. JAMES SCHUTTA: We always try to put ourselves in the mind of the bomber. We want to stay one step ahead of them. The bomb itself really has sort of remained the same throughout the years. It’s what sets them off that sets them apart. The more sophisticated triggering systems, they’re difficult to defeat, and that’s a concern to us, but, again, we always try to stay one step ahead.

    MILES O’BRIEN: Remotec robots are also used by the military to defuse bombs, but also to kill insurgents hiding in alleys.

    In Dallas in July, that same tactic was used by police. A robot blew up a cornered sniper who had taken aim at white police officers, killing five of them. It was unprecedented in U.S. law enforcement history.

    But Dallas Police Chief David Brown said he had no regrets.

    DAVID BROWN, Chief , Dallas Police Department: I would do it again. I would do it again to save our officers’ lives.

    MILES O’BRIEN: But experts who track the evolution of technology used by the military and law enforcement worry an important threshold has been crossed, without a national debate on the ethical issues.

    PETER W. SINGER, New America: The question is, is it going to be viewed as an anomaly, or is it a precedent that will be followed more widely?

    MILES O’BRIEN: Peter W. Singer is an expert on unmanned and robotic weapons systems. He says it is inevitable local police will increase their use of robots.

    PETER W. SINGER: The question is not, are police going to be using robotic systems? It’s, how? In what manner? How will they be trained to use them? How will they be regulated? Will they be armed or not? If they’re armed, will they be lethally armed or with non-lethal weapons?

    The issue has to involve not just the police, but also the populace, the people that are to be protected and served by the police and the tools, including the robotic ones, that they use.

    MILES O’BRIEN: The devices used in New York, New Jersey and Dallas all still have human beings in the loop driving the robot, making the decisions.

    But as robots become more autonomous, defining some clear rules of engagement will become a more urgent concern for law enforcement and the public.

    Miles O’Brien, the “PBS NewsHour,” New York.

    The post How robots are joining the police force appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a news conference, as he is watched by two pipers in front of the lighthouse, at his Turnberry golf course, in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain June 24, 2016.      REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne - RTX2HZU0

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Turning to the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump, he highlights his business record as an important reason to vote for him.

    But a number of his dealings reach beyond the borders of the United States, and questions have been raised about whether any would present conflicts of interest if he becomes president.

    I’m joined now by “Newsweek”‘s Kurt Eichenwald, whose recent cover story details Trump’s extensive global business connections.

    Kurt Eichenwald, welcome.

    First of all, tell us, how exactly did you gain access to information about Donald Trump’s business holdings, because we know he hasn’t released his tax returns?

    KURT EICHENWALD, Newsweek: It’s not easy.

    I mean, a lot of it came down to calling businesspeople, financiers all over the world, tracking down people who had done business with Donald Trump, finding the names of entities disclosed in his financial disclosure, but that have no description of what they are, and, from that, figuring out who the partners were, what their entities were, who the people who were in charge, and then linking everybody together.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you write that never before has an American candidate for president had so many financial ties with America’s allies and enemies. How extensive is it?

    KURT EICHENWALD: It’s huge.

    I mean, it basically traces into virtually every major non-European area of the world. And when you have someone who has conflicts of interest in India and Azerbaijan, in Russia, in China, in Turkey, in — you know, the list just keeps going on and on and on — in the Philippines.

    I mean, there was a point where I just had to stop, because I couldn’t keep — you know, I only had 5,000 words to tell this story, and the number of conflicts would go on — fill an a entire issue of “Newsweek.”

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what’s an example of a conflict? Because, among other things, you say Donald Trump is not a builder. You call him a licenser.

    What does that mean?

    KURT EICHENWALD: Well, for the last decade or so, Donald Trump hasn’t been building anything. He’s been on “The Apprentice” and he’s been selling his name, sort of like Hilton Hotels sells its name.

    And so he’s been basically selling his name out to people who will pay him, without, apparently, a lot of due diligence into who these people are. I mean, a great example is, he has a deal right now with a fellow in Azerbaijan whose father is a major government official who has been identified by American intelligence as money laundering for the Iranian military.

    So, you have now Donald Trump, if he’s president of the United States, he’s got conflicts in Azerbaijan, and he is somebody who his business partner’s father is linked to some pretty bad things.

    What does he do? What’s his interest? How does he approach it?

    JUDY WOODRUFF: You also write about a businessman in Turkey who is very close to Turkey’s president, Erdogan.

    KURT EICHENWALD: Yes, and that created a serious problem, because that developer was able to bring Erdogan out for a dedication of the Trump building. Trump was there. And then Donald Trump got up and insulted Muslims around the world.

    There was basically protests in Turkey. The Turkish president, who was already on the verge of facing a coup, was getting pressured. He came out, condemned Donald Trump. He condemned the person who was doing business with him. That individual has been indicted.

    And what I have been told is that the Turkish president is saying that, if Donald Trump is president, the United States, because of this whole episode, the United States will not be allowed to have access to a Turkish air base that’s a major staging area for the bombings of ISIS.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, the Trump campaign says — and you make note of this in your updated story — they say, if he becomes president, he’s going to cut all ties with the Trump Organization.

    Why doesn’t that alleviate any concern about a conflict of interest?

    KURT EICHENWALD: Trump’s too smart a businessman not to know that he’s lying on this one.

    You know, you start off, he’s had three explanations. One is that he’s going to put the company in a blind trust. A blind trust is something where you take a portfolio of investments, give it to an independent person, who then handles your trading and your transactions, and you never know what’s in it.

    Well, Trump is saying: I will put this one company in a blind trust.

    He knows what’s in it. It’s that one company. There’s nobody independent managing it. It’s his children. When he says he will sever all ties to it, you can’t have a company where you’re getting financial benefits, your children are getting financial benefits, and your children are running the company and say, I have severed my ties on it.

    Third, Trump is going into this — he’s not going to suddenly lose all his memory. Trump knows who his business partners are. The rest of the world doesn’t, but Trump knows who all his business partners are. And he knows what the conflicts are.

    And when — if he gets into office, he will be sitting there fully aware of every conflict that exists and what decision will lead to profits for his family, even to the detriment of the United States’ national security.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, assuming all this still exists, if he’s elected, what would he have to do then to eliminate a conflict of interest?

    KURT EICHENWALD: The only option is, you have to sell the Trump Organization.

    If he sells — if he is truly dedicated to what he’s saying, he can sell the Trump Organization. His family can take the money and start a new real estate empire, should they choose, and all the conflicts are gone.

    But they have made it very clear that they are not going to do that. In fact, Trump’s daughter, who is now going to be a major official there, has said, you know, we will decide not to make deals that might present national security or foreign policy problems, which, of course, raises the question, how are they going to know? Is Donald Trump going to share classified information with his family? Is he going to share foreign policy plans?

    And, even worse, are they saying they could have figured out that their business partner in Azerbaijan was connected through family to money laundering for Iran? Of course they couldn’t. They’re not going to know where they’re having problems and where they aren’t.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it is a significant piece of reporting.

    Kurt Eichenwald from “Newsweek,” we thank you.

    KURT EICHENWALD: Thanks for having me.

    The post How Trump’s foreign dealings could pose conflicts of interest appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0


    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    GWEN IFILL: Only five days until the first presidential debate, but Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson won’t be on that stage, after saying it was his only path to victory.

    That’s where Governor Johnson and I began our conversation earlier today.

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON, Libertarian Presidential Nominee: Interestingly, something that I didn’t know is that I am polling higher than Ross Perot was polling before he was admitted into those debates.

    GWEN IFILL: The rules were different.

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON The rules were different. And, of course, the rules were really adopted to make sure that a third party would never be on the stage again.

    GWEN IFILL: So, what do you do?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Well, you just keep plugging away.

    I mean, I’m representing, I think, the majority of voters in this country. The majority of voters in this country don’t know that, but, you know, that’s my task, and, speaking broadly, fiscally conservative, socially inclusive, skeptical when it comes to our military interventions, regime change, and free market, devoid of crony capitalism, devoid of pay-to-play.

    GWEN IFILL: But you have just described for me a rock and a hard place, classic. If you don’t get known, you can’t get on the debate stage.


    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: It’s a catch-22, yes. No, it’s totally a catch-22.

    GWEN IFILL: So, there is, as we have seen in lots of polls, evidence that there are a lot of voters out there who don’t much like Donald Trump, don’t much like Hillary Clinton, who are curious about you.

    How do you get them to find out?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Well, I have never had an issue with 15 percent.

    GWEN IFILL: Which is the barrier to get on the debate stage.


    But here it is, is that my name has never appeared in one national poll as the first question, Johnson, Trump, or Clinton, not one.

    GWEN IFILL: Why should it?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Well, that I’m on the ballot in all 50 states. And I’m the only third party on the the ballot in all 50 states.

    I have maintained, tongue in cheek, that if Mickey Mouse were the third name on that top line, Mickey would be at 30 percent. Mickey is a known commodity. But Mickey is not on the ballot in all 50 states either.

    GWEN IFILL: How do you capitalize on the unpopularity of the other candidates, and maybe make the support that you have, which might be soft, if it doesn’t look like you’re going to be on the debate stage? How do you harden that up?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Well, actually, I think the support is really hard.

    Last night, there was a poll released that I’m number one among independents right now. And that’s something I would want to point out also, is, is that the largest group of the voting population is independents at about 45 percent now of the population.

    Where’s their representation? Well, as of last night, I’m leading in that group, which I think speaks volumes.

    GWEN IFILL: I’m going to now give you an opportunity to get past polls and talk about governing and leadership.


    GWEN IFILL: So, this week, we have seen a series of attacks in New York and New Jersey, attempted attacks in Minnesota. It never seems to go away.

    You have advocated eliminating the Department of Homeland Security. Is that something you would still do, giving what we are facing?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Yes. No, I just think that it’s an added layer of bureaucracy that really hasn’t accomplished anything.

    But talking about governing, this was what I really enjoyed being — what I really enjoyed being governor of New Mexico, is really being at the center, in this case, if I were president of the United States.

    Clearly, what we’re doing is working up to a certain point, but, clearly, right now, there’s a breakdown. And I’m talking about the shooter in Orlando, the fact that they did know about this guy in New York. At least, you know, he was on the radar screen.

    Is it an issue of more resources? I have found that those in law enforcement, you know, they really do know their jobs.

    GWEN IFILL: But you would break apart the Department of Homeland Security. That wouldn’t make our ability to fight these people or track those people weaker?


    Keep in mind, these are 22 agencies that were brought together under the Department of Homeland Security. In my opinion, they left their homes that they had existed in for a long time, and that right now we just have an added layer of bureaucracy that really isn’t accomplishing anything.

    I don’t know what armed homeland security officers, uniformed officers armed walking the streets are doing in this country. I have no idea what they’re doing.

    GWEN IFILL: How about the unarmed people who actually track these terrorists?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: The unarmed people.

    GWEN IFILL: The unarmed people, the regular…

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Well, these are agencies that, like I say, were doing this prior. So, nothing new was created with the Department of Homeland Security.

    I just think that this should be a function of the FBI. I mean, this should be the FBI.

    GWEN IFILL: Let’s talk a little bit about leadership again, as we have seen this week in Charlotte and Tulsa and around the country unrest, racial unrest. How would you lead on that issue?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Well, in this case, black lives do matter, blacks getting shot at six times the rate of whites.

    I have been more outspoken than any politician in the country on the war on drugs, recognizing that, if you are of color and you are arrested on a drug-related crime, there’s a four times more likelihood that you will go to prison than have not. We have the highest…

    GWEN IFILL: I want to ask you to focus on police — what is alleged to be police misconduct, though. What does that have to do with the war on drugs?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: I think it has its roots in the war on drugs.

    I think the roots of discrimination does exist in the war on drugs, when it comes to police recognizing that this is happening, that, when I’m pulled over, I’m not — I’m not pulled out of the car. I am not provoked to point that I get angry, and I have cuffs put on me because I’m white.

    GWEN IFILL: What does a president do?

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: That the president, number one, recognizes it, and is able to engage in the dialogue.

    Secondly, the president controls the Department of Justice. What are the threads that exist in communities where there is the least amount of discrimination? What are the threads that exist in communities where there’s thee least amount of police violence, conversely, the worst?

    The president of the United States being to articulate this, being able to bring about change. High-profile shootings in Albuquerque, my state, my Albuquerque, my — where I grew up, Department of Justice came in, made recommendations. They were good recommendations. They’re being followed.

    Look, that’s a role that the federal government can and should play in all of this.

    GWEN IFILL: Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for president, thank you very much.

    FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON: Gwen, thank you very much.

    GWEN IFILL: Why do third-party candidates do better in certain election cycles? We take a look at history to explain America’s on-again/off-again love affair. Find it on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour.

    The post Gary Johnson on the rules keeping him off the debate stage appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign event at the Frontline Outreach and Youth Center in Orlando, U.S. September 21, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Barria - RTSOUGM

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    GWEN IFILL: Issues of race and justice were also the candidates’ focus on the campaign trail today.

    John Yang reports.

    And a warning: It includes language that may be offensive.

    JOHN YANG: Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed law and order candidate, raised questions today about the actions of a white police officer whose shooting of an unarmed black man last week is being investigated by the Justice Department.

    DONALD TRUMP (R), Presidential Nominee: I watched the shooting, in particular, in Tulsa, and that man was hands up. That man went to the car, hands up, put his hand on the car. I mean, to me, it looked like he did everything you’re supposed to do.

    And this young officer, I don’t know what she was thinking. I don’t know what she was thinking. But I’m very, very troubled by that.

    JOHN YANG: Trump was speaking during a conference of pastors at a black church in a Cleveland suburb. He was introduced by boxing promoter Don King. King recalled counseling Michael Jackson about the realities of how blacks are viewed in America, and appeared to accidentally use the N-word.

    DON KING, Boxing Promoter: if you are rich, you are a rich Negro. If you are intelligent, intellectual, you’re an intellectual Negro. If you are a dancing and sliding and gliding n—– I mean Negro.


    DON KING: You are a dancing and sliding and gliding Negro. So dare not alienate because you cannot assimilate.

    JOHN YANG: In a town hall airing tonight on FOX News, Trump said he wants to see more use of stop and frisk, a practice a federal judge has called unconstitutional.

    HILLARY CLINTON (D), Presidential Nominee: Hello, Orlando!

    JOHN YANG: In Orlando, Hillary Clinton also weighed in on race and policing.

    HILLARY CLINTON: We have two more names to add to a list of African-Americans killed by police officers in these encounters. It’s unbearable. And it needs to become intolerable.

    We need to come together, work together, white, black, Latino, Asian, all of us, to turn the tide, stop the violence, build the trust.


    JOHN YANG: As the campaign heads into the homestretch, Clinton has a big financial advantage over Trump. In August, she raised $60 million, her biggest one-month haul yet.

    Trump raised just over $40 million. Much of Clinton’s money has been going into TV ads. Since mid-August, according to one analysis, Clinton has outspent Trump on TV by more than 2-1.

    For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m John Yang.

    The post Candidates weigh in on race and policing after new shootings appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Charlotte's Mayor Jennifer Roberts speaks to reporters the morning after protests against the police shooting of Keith Scott, in Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S. September 21, 2016. REUTERS/Jason Miczek - RTSOT28

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    JUDY WOODRUFF: We return now to the fatal police shooting in Charlotte, North Carolina late yesterday and the violent street protests that followed.

    Here with me now is the city’s mayor, Jennifer Roberts.

    Welcome, Mayor Roberts. Thank you.

    We’re hearing two different versions upon what happened. Is there any new information to come forward late today that lends credence to either version?

    MAYOR JENNIFER ROBERTS (D), Charlotte, North Carolina: Well, we have heard from our police chief that we do have video footage of the incident.

    They are still analyzing it. It’s from different angles. We have heard that a gun was found on the scene, that there was no book found on the scene, and that we are corroborating different witness views as well to make sure that we have all the facts in hand. But we are hearing a very different story from within the city.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: You mean from within the community, from the relative, or apparently the daughter of the victim, and from an eyewitness who said she saw a book fall out of his lap when he got out of the car.

    JENNIFER ROBERTS: We want to make sure that we have a thorough investigation.

    We have a history in Charlotte of being very transparent, and we absolutely want the community to know that this investigation will have the highest integrity. We want the community to be patient as we put together all the facts. We know there are different versions of the story out there. And we are calling for a peaceful protest while we put everything together, while we get the evidence clear.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Will the gun that was found be publicly released? Will it be shown to the public? And will that video that we understand that’s available be shown?

    JENNIFER ROBERTS: Well, I have asked to see the video footage as soon as possible.

    The chief, at his discretion, can show it to leaders in the community. We are working with our officers to help get that information to some key people. And absolutely, evidence, once the investigation is completed and that we are sure we have all of it, and it is accurate, I want us to be as transparent as possible.

    We absolutely need to show folks that this is an investigation that is transparent with the highest integrity.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: So, does that mean that all of this material will ultimately be made available?

    JENNIFER ROBERTS: Well, there are some legal issues around that. Our policy has been that while the investigation is still active, that that is not made public. But once the investigation is concluded, whatever that conclusion is, then it will be accessible.

    In terms of what extent, again, there are some legal procedures to go through. But my goal is to make it as clear as possible as soon as possible.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you have any more information, Mayor Roberts, about who the victim was? We know that the woman who said she was his daughter said that he had a disability. Do we know any more about that?

    JENNIFER ROBERTS: I have not been able to confirm any more information about the victim.

    I know that there are many folks in the community who are stepping up, our faith leaders, our community leaders, who are calling for peace, who are calling for patience. Absolutely want people to express their views, express their frustration, perhaps, with the slowness of information coming out. But we are calling for peace and hoping that people will wait until it all becomes clear and we can get that information out.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: We reported just a few moments ago that there appeared to be demonstrations forming this afternoon in Charlotte.

    What is the state of what’s going on in the community right now?

    JENNIFER ROBERTS: We have had some gatherings. We had a small gathering of people in our uptown area of people very peacefully, very quietly holding up signs, Black Lives Matter.

    We have a gathering of the faith community and some faith leaders who are gathering in a park who have made it very clear this is peaceful. They want to express their concern with a story that, again, has played out all around the country. And folks are very skeptical, to be honest, of some of the investigations that have happened.

    But we want people to express that frustration. We want to work with our community. We have a long tradition of our faith leaders, of our business and community leaders coming together to work through these things.

    And we have had numerous dialogues. We have a community relations committee that the city has that has a process where we can have these constructive dialogues.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And finally, just quickly, we understand President Obama telephoned you today. Is that right? What did he say?

    JENNIFER ROBERTS: Absolutely.

    I have spoken to President Obama, and he certainly offered any help the federal government could provide. There are folks in the Justice Department, others who have worked with community policing strategies who know how to work with communities.

    And I was grateful for the call. Clearly, this is something our country is facing, and we absolutely do need to know that there are racial disparities still in our country. And it is in our best interests and in our community’s best interest to work together, to continue to be a country that is more equal and where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. And we pledge to do that here in Charlotte.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Mayor Jennifer Roberts, the mayor of the city of Charlotte, thank you very much.

    JENNIFER ROBERTS: Thanks for having me.

    The post Charlotte mayor promises police shooting investigation of ‘highest integrity’ appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    United States Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen holds a news conference following the two-day Federal Open Market Committee meeting in Washington, U.S., September 21, 2016.          REUTERS/Gary Cameron     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RTSOU1R

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    JUDY WOODRUFF:  In the day’s other news:  The Federal Reserve held fast on keeping a key short-term interest rate near record lows.  Fed Chair Janet Yellen said economic activity has picked up, but there’s no need yet to put on the brakes.

    JANET YELLEN, Chair, Federal Reserve:  We’re not seeing strong pressures on utilization, suggesting overheating, and my assessment would be, based on this evidence, that the economy has a little more room to run Than might have been previously thought.  That’s good news.

    JUDY WOODRUFF:  Yellen did suggest an interest rate increase is likely before year’s end.

    GWEN IFILL:  The Fed’s action sent Wall Street higher.  The Dow Jones industrial average gained 163 points to close at 18293.  The Nasdaq rose nearly 54 points, and the S&P 500 added 23.

    JUDY WOODRUFF:  The crisis in Syria took center stage today at the U.N. Security Council.

    The U.S. and Russia clashed over the failure of the latest cease-fire, and Monday’s deadly attack on an aid convoy.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denied responsibility and offered other explanations.  But Secretary of State John Kerry shot back, “This is not a joke,” and he condemned what he called word games.

    JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State:  Now, this attack has dealt a very heavy blow to our efforts to bring peace to Syria, and it raises a profound doubt about whether Russia and the Assad regime can or will live up to the obligations that they agreed to in Geneva.

    JUDY WOODRUFF:  Kerry called for grounding all aircraft flying over routes for humanitarian deliveries.  Meanwhile, another airstrike hit a mobile medical unit outside Aleppo overnight.  Activists reported at least 13 people died.

    GWEN IFILL:  President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a final meeting today at the U.N., after years of testy relations.

    This time, the two leaders were all smiles.  The president said a new $38 billion military aid package will let Israel cope with — quote — “enormous uncertainty in the region.”

    JUDY WOODRUFF:  The cost of the emergency allergy shot EpiPen and the company that makes it drew bipartisan scorn today from Congress.  At a House hearing, Heather Bresch, CEO of drugmaker Mylan, defended raising the price more than 500 percent since 2007.  It now costs $608 for a two-pack.  She said Mylan will soon introduce a generic version at half the cost, but lawmakers were unimpressed.

    REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS (R-Tenn.):  A mother would cut off her right arm to get that dose of drug.  You decided to charge $600, instead of cutting off her arm, and now you’re saying you’re dropping it to $300 and that should make us all feel better, when, in fact, that’s probably about 10 times what the drug should cost.

    HEATHER BRESCH, CEO, Mylan:  Congressman, we want everyone who needs an EpiPen to have an EpiPen.  All the programs that we put in place, from the generic, to the higher patient assistant program, to the co-pay card, so trying to address every facet of patient to make sure they can have access to EpiPen is what we will remain focused on.

    JUDY WOODRUFF:  Bresch went on to say the company makes $50 profit from each EpiPen.

    GWEN IFILL:  And outside the Capitol today, construction crews started work on the platform for January’s inauguration of the 45th president of the United States.  Republican and Democratic leaders hammered in the ceremonial first nails for the massive 10,000-square-foot structure; 1,600 people will have to fit on the stage.

    The post News Wrap: Fed will keep key interest rate near record lows appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Police officers wearing riot gear block a road during protests after police fatally shot Keith Lamont Scott in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S. September 20, 2016. REUTERS/Adam Rhew/Charlotte Magazine   MANDATORY CREDIT. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NO RESALES. NO ARCHIVES. - RTSOP7L

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    GWEN IFILL:  It’s an all-too- familiar story, in a new setting.  This time, the city of Charlotte is on edge, awaiting a second night of protests over the police killing of a black man.

    The drama began with a Tuesday confrontation that sparked a night of trouble.

    William Brangham begins our coverage.

    WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  Within hours of the fatal shooting, protests boiled over in North Carolina’s largest city.  The victim was 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott.

    And his sister, who didn’t give her name, said he was unarmed.

    WOMAN:  They said, hands up, he got a gun, he got a gun.  Pow, pow, pow, pow.  That’s it.  He had no gun.

    WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  Another woman, claiming to be Scott’s daughter, went on Facebook, saying he’d had a book, not a gun, and also had an unspecified disability.

    In short order, a crowd blocked traffic on Interstate 85, throwing rocks, and destroying police cars.  Some looted a tractor-trailer and set it on fire.  Others broke into a nearby Wal-Mart.  Police eventually used tear gas to quell the violence, but 16 officers were injured.

    This morning, police chief Kerr Putney urged people to step back and be calm.

    KERR PUTNEY, Charlotte Police Chief:  It’s time to change the narrative, because I can tell you from the facts that the story is a little bit different as to how it’s been portrayed so far, especially through social media.

    WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  As Putney told it, officers had been at an apartment complex, searching for a suspect, when they saw Scott get out of a car.  They say he did have a gun, and refused to put it down.

    KERR PUTNEY:  In spite of the verbal commands, Mr. Scott, as I said, exited his vehicle armed with a handgun, as the officers continued to yell at him to drop it.  He stepped out, posing a threat to the officers, and officer Brentley Vinson subsequently fired his weapon, striking the subject.

    WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  The officer, who is also black, was placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure in such cases.

    Meanwhile, local activists and ministers called for an economic boycott of Charlotte.

    JOHN BARNETT, Civil Rights Activist:  Across the country, we are being shot down, shot down.  Very few cops go to jail for that.

    WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  And by late this afternoon, protests were starting up again.  This incident came just a day after graphic video from Tulsa, Oklahoma, that showed an officer shooting an unarmed black man.

    The post In Charlotte, protests and call for a boycott after a police shooting appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Officers watch as demonstrators calling for social, economic and racial justice march in New York. The city’s controversial stop-and-frisk program was ruled unconstitutional in 2013.

    Donald Trump, on Wednesday, proposed instituting a nationwide version of New York City’s controversial stop-and-frisk policing tactics, sparking immediate outrage.

    The Republican presidential nominee’s remarks came during a taped interview on Fox News’ Hannity after being asked how he would decrease violence in African-American communities. The policing strategy allowed officers to briefly detain an individual based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but was ruled unconstitutional in 2013.

    “It worked incredibly well [in New York City] and you have to be proactive,” Trump said in the town hall meeting.

    30: The percentage of illegal or questionable police stops from 2004 to 2010 in New York City

    But according to a study by the Urban Institute, the application of stop-and-frisk in New York City was concentrated on communities of color and not particularly effective. Researchers found that nearly 30 percent of all stops conducted in New York City between 2004 and 2010 were made on either an illegal or questionable basis.

    The study highlighted a survey of 500 young New Yorkers living in heavily patrolled areas. Less than a third of respondents were ever notified of the reason for why they were stopped. Nearly half of the respondents reported being threatened or having force used against them during a stop. More than half say they were treated worse because of their race or ethnicity.

    In 2014, a federal judge struck down New York’s stop-and-frisk policy ruling that the tactic violated constitutional rights of minorities.

    “No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life,” the Judge Shira A. Scheindlin wrote in her decision.

    Trump has referred to himself as the “law and order candidate” and has made law enforcement a top priority in his platform. His comments on stop-and-frisk drew quick backlash, including from New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

    “He literally does not understand what he’s talking about,” de Blasio said. De Blasio cited the city’s dropping crime numbers since stop-and-frisk shut down. He has also pledged to reform policing in New York by pursuing a strong anti-racial profiling bill.

    Trump has since attempted to clarify his statements, saying he wants stop-and-frisk policies focused just on Chicago, where violent acts — including homicides — have reached record levels.

    The post Donald Trump’s stop-and-frisk proposal raises questions appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer speaks during her keynote address at the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada January 7, 2014.  Photo by/Robert Galbraith

    Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer speaks during her keynote address at the annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada January 7, 2014. Photo by/Robert Galbraith

    Yahoo confirmed Thursday that hackers accessed the account information of at least 500 million users’ in late 2014.

    The Silicon Valley tech company, in a press release, accused “a state-sponsored actor” of perpetrating the data breach and stated the hacker was no longer inside Yahoo’s network.

    The stolen information may include names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and passwords, Yahoo stated. So far, the company doesn’t believe the hacked information includes credit card data or bank account numbers.

    Last month, a hacker — who goes by the moniker “Peace” — said they were selling 200 million Yahoo users credentials online. At the time, Yahoo said it was “aware of a claim” but did not confirm a hack had occurred.

    Yahoo is notifying the affected users and advising them to review their online accounts for suspicious activity. Hacked users may also want to change the passwords and security questions on other accounts that use access codes similar to their Yahoo account.

    Yahoo has initiated programs to detect and notify users when a company suspects that a state-sponsored actor has hacked into an account. Since Yahoo launched the program in December 2015, approximately 10,000 users have received notices, not including the most recent hack.

    The post 500 million Yahoo accounts hit by hackers, company confirms appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    A woman is seen bundled up from the cold in Times Square, NewYork February 12, 2016. The National Weather Service says a cold front sweeping across the Great Lakes could usher in temperatures as much as 30 degrees below normal across portions of the Ohio Valley, the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz - RTX26PJ0

    A woman is seen bundled up from the cold in Times Square, NewYork February 12, 2016. Photo by Eduardo Munoz/Reuters

    Editor’s Note: For the latest Making Sen$e segment, economics correspondent Paul Solman spoke with psychology professor Robert Cialdini about his new book “Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade.” Below, Cialdini discusses how marketers make you more receptive to an ad before you even realize it. For more on the topic, tune in to tonight’s Making Sen$e report, which airs every Thursday on the PBS NewsHour. The following conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

    — Kristen Doerer, Making Sen$e Editor

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Here is what I would say is the big picture of my book: The factor that frequently determines whether people are going to make a particular choice is not the factor that counsels wisely or the one that leads to the greatest economic benefit. It’s the one that’s top of the consciousness in the moment.

    “Pre-suasion is the practice of getting people sympathetic to your message before they experience it.”

    Pre-suasion is the practice of getting people sympathetic to your message before they experience it. It’s the ability to cause people to have something at the top of their consciousness that makes them receptive to your message that’s yet to come.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Now, the first book you wrote, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” you wrote in order to arm normal readers and consumers against the influence that others were trying to manipulate us with, right?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Precisely.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And who responded most to that book?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Almost never consumers. The people who responded were people who were interested in harnessing the psychological principles of influence. And it wasn’t just commercial influencers. The people who wrote to me said, “Well, how can I influence my family members, how can I influence my friends, how can I influence my colleagues at work?”

    PAUL SOLMAN: So it wasn’t just people trying to make a buck off the book or the book’s insights, it was people with good intentions as well?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: That’s right. Charity solicitors, who have good intentions for good causes, were ravenously interested in how to more effectively move people in their direction.

    READ MORE: The bait-and-switch strategy of app development is doomed to fail

    PAUL SOLMAN: But is “Pre-Suasion” written for the influencers or the influenced?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: This book is written for all of us who want to be more influential in our lives. Of course, we have to take an ethical approach, but there is an under-recognized component of being successful. It is what you say immediately before you deliver your message that leverages your success tremendously.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Give me some of your favorite examples.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: So here is an example of a study that was done by my research team. We showed people clips from a movie, either a scary movie, “The Shining,” or a romantic comedy, “Before Sunset.”

    We then showed them an ad for the San Francisco Museum of Art. One ad said, “Be one of the many who has visited.” The other ad said, “Be one of the few who have experienced the wonders of this museum.” If they had seen the scary movie and were feeling threatened and needed safety, they went for the ad that said, “Be one of the many.” If they were seeing a romantic comedy, they were in a romantic state of mind, where you don’t want to be with a lot of people, you want to be individualized. In that case, they went for the ad that said, “Be one of the few.”

    “It is what you say immediately before you deliver your message that leverages your success tremendously.”

    PAUL SOLMAN: And by “went for,” what do you mean?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: They were more likely, they were significantly more likely to want to visit the museum in the future.

    Here’s another example. A few years ago, the Bose Acoustics Corporation had a new product, the Bose Wave Music System. And their ad campaign for it was not successful until they changed one thing. At the top of the ad they said, “Hear what you’ve been missing.” And that caused the skyrocketing of the interest in purchasing of the product. Why? Because with something new, people are uncertain, and when they are uncertain, they want to avoid losses. So what the Bose marketers did, they put it at the top of the ad: “Something you will lose, something you will miss.” They put them in the mindset of loss, and people decided to buy this equipment, so they wouldn’t lose the benefits.

    READ MORE: The science behind why power corrupts and what can be done to mitigate it

    PAUL SOLMAN: And this is the great insight of behavioral economics, as learned through psychology, which is prospect theory: “A loss hurts more than a gain gives you.”

    ROBERT CIALDINI: And that is especially true when people are unsure or uncertain, which is the case for a new product. So that’s why saying, “Hear what you’ve missing,” worked so well for a product that people were unfamiliar with. Because under the conditions of uncertainty, you want to avoid loss, or you want to tell them what they’re missing, and they want it more now.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And this is maybe the greatest insight of behavioral economics, as learned through your field of psychology, “Loss aversion.”

    ROBERT CIALDINI: All of this becomes powerful and influential when people don’t recognize that there is an influence attempt. So if something is behind the scene, something that’s in the background –

    PAUL SOLMAN: An old trick is product placement, right?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Yes. So if Jerry Seinfeld, back in those days reached for a Pepsi that would cause people to want Pepsi more after they viewed the program. But if you saw him do that three times, now instead of a background piece of information, it became clearly a push. And that caused the people to be less likely to want to purchase Pepsi. Because they were being pushed into it, as opposed to simply influence by legendary Seinfeld.

    PAUL SOLMAN: It was no longer pre-suasion, it was obvious persuasion.

    The post What’s ‘Pre-Suasion?’ How marketers make us receptive to an ad appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Officer Betty Shelby of the City of Tulsa Police Department in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is shown in this undated photo provided on Sept. 21, 2016. Photo courtesy of City of Tulsa Police Dept/Handout via Reuters

    Officer Betty Shelby of the City of Tulsa Police Department in Oklahoma, is shown in this undated photo provided on Sept. 21, 2016. Photo courtesy of City of Tulsa Police Dept/Handout via Reuters

    The Oklahoma police officer who shot and killed Terence Crutcher in Tulsa on Sept. 16 has been charged with first-degree manslaughter, prosecutors announced Thursday.

    According to the Associated Press, District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler filed the charges against officer Betty Shelby who fatally shot the 40-year-old black man. Tulsa’s police chief, Chuck Jordan, said earlier this week that Crutcher was unarmed and a weapon wasn’t found in his vehicle. Shelby is white.

    After reviewing the evidence, Kunzweiler said he felt the manslaughter charge against Shelby was “warranted.”

    “Officer Shelby, although now charged, is presumed to be innocent under the law until a judge or jury determines otherwise,” he added.

    Shelby faces at least four years in prison, if convicted, Tulsa World reported.

    The Tulsa Police Department released dash cam and helicopter footage on Monday that captured the shooting, after first showing the encounter to the Crutcher’s family and select community members over the weekend.

    Officers had discovered Crutcher and his stalled SUV in the middle of a road, police spokeswoman Jeanne MacKenzie said on Saturday. Crutcher failed to comply with officers orders as they approached him, she added. Footage showed Crutcher raising his hands and then placing them on the SUV as officers encircled him.

    A Taser was deployed, followed by a single shot by Shelby when Crutcher reached inside his vehicle, police officials said. Views of these crucial moments are obscured in the footage released by police.

    “The videos don’t show what happened when Shelby first encountered Crutcher and the roughly two minutes that follow before other officers arrived,” Tulsa World reported.

    Crutcher was later pronounced dead the same day at a local hospital.

    Dash cam footage shows the fatal police shooting of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WARNING: Video contains graphic footage. Viewer discretion is advised. Video by Tulsa World

    READ MORE: Tulsa police release graphic footage of fatal shooting of Terence Crutcher

    The post Tulsa officer charged with first-degree manslaugher in death of Terence Crutcher appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    The $1.1 billion to battle the Zika virus is long overdue and has been held up by a series of battles and setbacks. Photo by Kevin P. Coughlin/Office of the Governor/Handout via REUTERS

    The $1.1 billion to battle the Zika virus is long overdue and has been held up by a series of battles and setbacks. Photo by Kevin P. Coughlin/Office of the Governor/Handout via REUTERS

    WASHINGTON — The Senate’s top Republican on Thursday unveiled legislation to prevent a government shutdown next weekend and provide more than $1 billion to battle the Zika virus. It also would provide $500 million to help Louisiana rebuild from last month’s devastating floods.

    Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the stopgap measure was “clean” of controversies and he left out internet-related language demanded by Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

    But Democrats immediately blasted the proposal for failing to fund one of their top priorities: money to help Flint, Michigan, repair its lead-tainted water system.

    McConnell’s move could set up a showdown vote next week. Democrats said they would likely filibuster the measure since it omits a bipartisan plan to provide $220 million to help Flint and other cities with lead emergencies replace pipes and take other steps to clean their water.

    “To see the (stopgap funding bill) come to the floor with help for Louisiana and not for the families of Flint is outrageous,” said Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. “And I will do everything in my power to make sure that this does not happen.” She noted that the Flint aid has been many months in the making and is financed by spending cuts, while funding for flood aid in Louisiana is added directly to the national debt.

    McConnell said the measure is “the result of many, many hours of bipartisan work across the aisle,” noting that it would also allow stepped up spending to combat opioid abuse — a priority of several Senate Republicans who are up for re-election, such as Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman of Ohio. It also contains the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    McConnell’s bill is drawn from weeks of negotiations. Those talks, however, failed to produce an agreement as the sides wrangled over campaign finance disclosures, Flint, and an administration proposal to allow the Export-Import Bank to finance larger transactions and help overseas customers of companies like Boeing and General Electric purchase U.S. products.

    The internet provision was an unusual instance where the Trump campaign inserted itself directly into the nitty-gritty of legislative negotiations under way on Capitol Hill. But Trump’s intervention, in the form of a statement from a senior adviser on Wednesday, apparently carried no weight with McConnell, who left out the language Trump wanted without ever even mentioning anything about it in public.

    Cruz, with Trump’s backing, wanted to block the government from going ahead with a transition of the U.S. Commerce Department’s role in governing the internet’s domain name addressing systems that would transfer responsibility to a nonprofit consortium known as ICANN.

    Cruz said foreign governments such as China would potentially gain influence over content on the internet. Experts in the field, however, said his concerns were mostly groundless.

    The stopgap spending bill needs to pass to prevent the government from shutting down next Friday at midnight. Republicans control Congress and have taken the blame for previous shutdowns, such as one that shuttered the government for 16 days in 2013.

    But McConnell drafted the measure in hopes of making it as difficult as possible for Democrats to filibuster. For instance, it retains a top McConnell priority, to block the SEC from requiring corporations to disclose political spending permitted under the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision allowing unlimited political spending by businesses. That would extend a current ban that McConnell won last December — but that Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats were eager to reverse.

    “They’re all about protecting big, dark money donors,” said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.

    The $1.1 billion to battle the Zika virus is long overdue and has been held up by a series of battles and setbacks. In the end, however, McConnell dropped controversial provisions that would have blocked Planned Parenthood’s affiliates in Puerto Rico from being eligible for new Zika treatment and prevention funds. He also dropped a House bill to ease Clean Water Act rules on pesticide spraying.

    Top Democratic negotiator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland urged further talks on the bill, which she said was a “Republican-only bill.”

    “We Democrats cannot vote for that substitute and urge others to vote against it,” she said on the floor. “What we want to be sure is we avoid a government shutdown and a government showdown, and continue the constructive talks that we’ve had. But the substitute offered by the Republican majority leader falls short.”

    Democrats supported flood aid for Louisiana but hoped to pair that money with overdue funding to help Flint clean up its water. GOP leaders in both House and Senate, however, promised that Flint funding would be handled in a separate water projects measure that would be finalized in the lame duck session.

    “This is a very good first step” on Louisiana flood aid,”said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La. “It can be used to help people with housing, help get people back to work, and rebuild communities.”

    The administration’s proposal on the Export-Import Bank was dropped. The bank will continue to be hobbled without enough board members to produce a quorum and will continue to be blocked from approving transactions exceeding $10 million.

    The post McConnell releases stopgap spending bill, anti-Zika funds appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Businessmen shaking hands in corridor

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Now: the power of persuasion and how there are ways to influence the thinking of potential consumers.

    Paul Solman bring us his latest Making Sense, which airs Thursdays.

    PAUL SOLMAN: I have heard it said that the most valuable thing in today’s world, postindustrial world, is the human being’s attention and how to get it.

    Is that true?

    ROBERT CIALDINI, Author, “Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade”: I believe that.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Psychology professor Robert Cialdini, marketing maven, art enthusiast, palm reader.

    ROBERT CIALDINI, I used to be a palm reader, and I learned the trick that they use to make people say they’re right almost always.

    PAUL SOLMAN: So, what was the trick?

    In the ’80s, Cialdini wrote an attention-getting classic, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion,” intended to arm consumers against manipulative marketers. But those who made the book famous were the persuaders themselves, who make a living beckoning us every step we take.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Those ads, those signs, that’s old-school persuasion, directing people’s minds to the content.

    PAUL SOLMAN: In recent years, however, Cialdini has made a new discovery about how to spin friends and influence people.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: What I’m talking about is pre-suasion, directing their minds to the moment before they experience the content.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Yes, pre-suasion, the title of his new book.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Pre-suasion is the practice of getting people sympathetic to your message before they experience it.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Before they even hear it even.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: It is what you say immediately before you deliver your message that leverages your success tremendously.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Or, if you are the message, that plays you like a puppet.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: The best salesman I ever saw told people, I left something in the car. Can I get your key to let myself back in?

    I have an acquaintance who claims he got three great jobs by saying something before he began the job interview in each instance. And I have a friend who’s a consultant who says, he never gets pushback on the price he offers for his services if he says one thing first.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And pre-suasion demonstrably works, as we will try to demonstrate throughout this story, by prepping the mind for the message subliminally.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: There’s this interesting study. A guy goes to a shopping mall in France. And he tries to get women’s phone numbers as they pass various shops, so he could call for a date. One of them is at a shoe store. And another was a bakery.

    But in neither of those cases was he very successful. He only got a number 13 percent of the time. But there was one kind of shop that doubled his success rate when women were passing it, a flower shop. Why? Because flowers put women in the mind-set of romance.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Not consciously, pre-suasively by exploiting a rule of thumb passed down to us by evolution.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: If we are paying attention to something, it’s important. That’s how we decide to pay attention. But a communicator can reroute our attention to something that isn’t important, but make it seem important as a consequence.

    PAUL SOLMAN: As a consequence of the very fact that we’re subconsciously paying attention to it.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: There is a study that shows that people who were asked their political opinions, when there was a picture of the American flag in the corner of the questionnaire, reported more favorable attitudes toward Republican Party positions, because the flag is typically associated in people’s minds with a Republican belief set.

    PAUL SOLMAN: As are churches. And studies show that pre-suasive cues can subconsciously affect actual voting.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: If people vote at a polling place inside a church, they vote more Republican. If they vote at a polling place inside a school, they vote more Democrat.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Now, marketers, or at least some of them, have studied pre-suasion’s potency. One online furniture store tested images of fluffy clouds vs. cold hard cash on its home page.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Those who saw the background depiction of clouds searched the site for more comfortable furniture. Those who went to the site that had money in the background became cost-conscious and preferred to purchase less expensive furniture.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Isn’t it obvious that our consciousness is being affected by, what, our perceptive apparatus?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Almost no one recognizes that the clouds or the coins had any impact on their behavior, and yet it did at significant levels.

    It’s the cue that drives you in the direction of what seems more important now because you’re focused on it.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Which is why we flashed the thinker at the top of this story, to pre-suade you to ponder the puzzles we posed at the outset, but never answered.

    What was the trick of salesman, the job seeker, the pricey consultant?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: In each instance, they did something first.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Starting with the salesman who claimed he’d forgotten something in his car.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: He created a sense of trust, because who do you let back into your house by giving them your key, except someone you trust?

    PAUL SOLMAN: And that made people more likely to buy what he was selling?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Yes, because he had created a mind-set in them that they were dealing with a trustworthy character.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And the guy who got the jobs?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Before every interview, he asked the interviewers, why did you bring me in today? What was it about my qualifications that made you attracted to my candidacy?

    PAUL SOLMAN: And what does that do?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: It caused people to start focusing on the positive aspects of his case before they even began discussing it.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And the consultant who never got pushback on his fees?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: He would show prospects his proposal and his $75,000 fee. And he would say, as you can tell, I won’t be able to charge you $1 million for this.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And what does that do?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Compared to $1 million, $75,000 now seems trivial.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And why did Cialdini urge us to lead this story with puzzles?

    ROBERT CIALDINI: One way to get pre-suasive attention to your case is to begin with a mystery story. Mysteries cause people to want to understand, to get closure, which caused them, I hope, to want to stay with the programming and listen until the end.

    PAUL SOLMAN: So, read my palm.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: Paul, I can see that you are a stubborn man.

    PAUL SOLMAN: I’m somewhat stubborn.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: What I have done is to send you down a memory track where you would encounter times where you were stubborn. And you would look at me and say, that’s right.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And that’s the whole deal?


    Suppose I looked at your palm and saw the same thing, but said, you’re a very flexible man. Now I have sent you down a memory track where you would encounter times where you were flexible, and you would say to me, that’s right. That’s who I am.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Well, I might not be quite that histrionic, but I think I would say, yes, I’m flexible.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: And I have even done that with a person at a party, read his palm, told him he was stubborn at the beginning, told him that he was a flexible guy at the end, and he said “You’re right” both times.

    PAUL SOLMAN: But, hey, Making Sense is supposed to be the “NewsHour”‘s weekly economics segment.

    So, economics, as it’s taught and practiced, is based on the notion of rational maximization.


    PAUL SOLMAN: This is not rational maximization.

    ROBERT CIALDINI: No. What new psychology suggests, it’s the factor that is top of consciousness at the moment before you make that economic decision that will win the day.

    PAUL SOLMAN: And so, from Midtown Manhattan, reporting stubbornly, yet flexibly, this is economics correspondent Paul Solman.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Now we know.

    The post The psychological trick behind getting people to say yes appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    The federal government forms for applying for health coverage are seen at a rally held by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, widely referred to as "Obamacare", outside the Jackson-Hinds Comprehensive Health Center in Jackson, Mississippi, U.S. on October 4, 2013.  REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman/File Photo - RTSO349

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    GWEN IFILL: And now we continue our coverage of the issues of this campaign. Tonight: health care, and specifically what’s at stake for President Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare.

    It’s turned into a significant issue in some states, like Arizona, where polls show Hillary Clinton in a tight contest with Donald Trump.

    Special correspondent Sarah Varney looks at those concerns and the candidates’ plans. This story was produced in collaboration with our partner Kaiser Health News.

    SARAH VARNEY: Just weeks before the presidential election, Tempe, Arizona resident Josephine has spent nearly every morning driving, waiting, and back at home worrying.

    Once uninsured, she was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and gets health coverage through Obamacare. The 61-year-old, who goes by Jo, says she trusts just one candidate to keep her covered.

    HILLARY CLINTON (D), Presidential Nominee: I will continue to improve the Affordable Care Act. I will work to get the costs down, premiums, co-pays, deductibles, prescription drug costs.


    SARAH VARNEY: Hillary Clinton has offered detailed plans to preserve and expand the law, even pushing for a public option, a type of government-run insurance plan. She also wants to expand tax subsidies to reduce health care costs and allow people 55 and older to buy into Medicare.

    DONALD TRUMP (R), Presidential Nominee: We’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare so quickly.


    SARAH VARNEY: Meanwhile, Donald Trump wants to replace the health law with a handful of smaller measures, like allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and tax deductions for premiums.

    Health policy experts say these approaches would cover far fewer people than the Affordable Care Act.

    WOMAN: I hope you will consider voting Donald Trump for president. He’s a businessman who will really shake things up in Washington.

    MAN: I’m just calling Democrats like you to ask if you’re going to join me in supporting Hillary Clinton this year in Arizona.

    SARAH VARNEY: As both campaigns ramp up their ground game here, this longtime red state is in play.

    Six years after the health law was signed, Arizona stands out as a good example of what’s at stake this election. This staunchly conservative state expanded Medicaid to low-income adults. But in the health insurance marketplace, private insurance companies are pulling out, and Arizonans are facing steep premium increases, leaving many to wonder: What’s next for the Affordable Care Act?

    At trivia night at Carly’s Bistro in downtown Phoenix, which draws a younger crowd, many here have been able to get health coverage because of the law, and they say they will vote to protect it.

    VANESSA CASTILLO: Trump would so severely limit the care that many people could get that are in positions like me that have severe illnesses that would — that affect their lives.

    SARAH VARNEY: But there’s plenty of criticism too.

    SAM BLANKENSHIP: I think there’s a lot of work that could be done, but it’s still definitely better than how it used to be.

    SCOTT ENGLISH: My take is really less government is better. It seems like everything that the government decides to manage, they don’t manage effectively or efficiently.

    SARAH VARNEY: In Phoenix’s sprawling subdivisions, some of that frustration arises from the turbulent individual insurance market in Arizona, which has caused headaches for Joanne Ouellette and her insurance broker, Michael Malasnik.

    MICHAEL MALASNIK, Insurance Broker: Joanne!

    JOANNE OUELLETTE: Hey, Mike. How are you?

    I wanted to know some information about, what am I going to do? My insurance company with the Affordable Care Act, Aetna, I hear they’re pulling out of Arizona.

    SARAH VARNEY: When the marketplace for individual insurance coverage in Arizona first opened, eight companies vied for consumers. After three years of low enrollment and higher-than-expected medical claims, only one insurer remains in about half the counties.

    Malasnik says he’s already getting calls for the upcoming enrollment period.

    MICHAEL MALASNIK: Frustration and anger at this point. And then you also have a lot of people that are just getting worn down. It’s like, it’s more of the same to them.

    SARAH VARNEY: In her wood shop in Mesa, the exodus has raised questions for Leah Sondergeld about adequate access to medical care, the potential for price-gouging, and the durability of the marketplace.

    LEAH SONDERGELD: This is an example of one of the forms to fill out for Kate’s medication.

    SARAH VARNEY: Sondergeld, who is self-employed, has been forced to switch plans each year as insurers have come and gone. Her eldest daughter, Kate, was diagnosed with epilepsy last year. And with each switch comes frantic questions.

    LEAH SONDERGELD: What if they won’t cover her current medication? What if they won’t keep her neurologist? What are we going to do? With one of the doctors, during that first transition with UnitedHealthcare, she was four days without medications. She was four days — I had to watch her have seizures.

    SARAH VARNEY: After a medical leave, Kate Sondergeld, age 25, is back to her astronomy classes at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Finding a medication that worked was no small matter.

    KATE SONDERGELD: My first one, I was severely allergic to. I had a bad reaction to it, and then the second one was kind of when things started going downhill even more. I was blanking out. I have absent seizures.

    SARAH VARNEY: Kate doesn’t want the health law repealed. She remembers when she was a child and was denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. Her mother, Leah, says Congress should prevent insurers from quitting the marketplace.

    LEAH SONDERGELD: I don’t care about what the Republicans think. I don’t care what the Democrats want to do to change. Just tell Blue Cross/Blue Shield, hey, guess what? You’re going to keep this person.

    SARAH VARNEY: The drop in competition isn’t just in Arizona, says Caroline Pearson from the Washington-based consulting firm Avalere Health.

    Pearson says more than a third of regions across the country may end up with only one insurer available, especially in rural areas. She says Congress will need to pass some fixes to the law in 2017.

    CAROLINE PEARSON, Avalere Health: Improvements to risk adjustment and potentially other programs to help stabilize the market, and then some very creative solutions to figure out, how do we actually get younger, healthier people, middle-income people into the exchanges? How do we make these plans that they want to buy, that they think are valuable?

    SARAH VARNEY: Despite the problems with the law, those who need insurance coverage like Jo are doing better because of it. After years without seeing a doctor, Jo was able to get a checkup, which led to her cancer diagnosis and treatment.

    Studies suggest that because of the law, patients are more likely to have a regular doctor and get preventive health care, including vaccines and cancer screenings. And they’re less likely to postpone treatment because they can’t afford it.

    JO: I got a primary care doctor, which I hadn’t had a primary care doctor for a decade. And from the primary care, it just went from there, the tests and the mammograms and the ultrasounds and the MRIs and all that stuff.

    SARAH VARNEY: Jo felt so strongly about being one of the 20 million people who’ve gained coverage since President Obama signed the health law, she wrote a letter to the White House.

    JO: But then I got this in the mail. “Thank you for writing.” He was encouraged to hear about people who had benefited from the Affordable Care Act, signed Barack Obama.

    SARAH VARNEY: She said, without the law’s consumer protections that require insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions, she would be bankrupt or dead.

    But Trump volunteer Diana Brest thinks the law has caused more harm than good and supports Trump’s vow to repeal it. At 66 and on Medicare, she blames the law for driving up premiums for others.

    DIANA BREST: Some people said it was going to help, but I knew right away it wasn’t. I spoke to Donald Trump about that two rallies ago. And he indicated that he was going to address those that are having problems with insurance. And I know, knowing Donald Trump, that he will address it.

    SARAH VARNEY: But the debate over the health law has often ignored a group that has seen widespread improvements from Obamacare, low-income adults, like 45-year-old Alfred Mendoza of Phoenix, who are now eligible for Medicaid.

    More people have gained coverage in this way than in all of the exchanges combined. A new study suggests that people living in the 31 states that expanded Medicaid, like Arizona, were more likely to report being in better health.

    ALFRED MENDOZA: My gastroenterologist, she advised me to go ahead and get the C.T. scan. So, we got the C.T. scan.

    SARAH VARNEY: Mendoza, a truck driver who suffered a head injury from a crash, went years without health insurance. Now, with Medicaid, he’s finally getting treated.

    ALFRED MENDOZA: I don’t have the funds, the means to pay for a C.T. scan, for an MRI. It’s a lot of money. But to go see a specialist, you know, that’s a lot of money. So, for me, it’s a 10.

    SARAH VARNEY: A flood of new Medicaid patients have been arriving at community clinics around Arizona with a backlog of untreated conditions, like high blood pressure and uncontrolled diabetes. Medical providers say getting this population healthier will take time, but they’re making progress.

    Back in Phoenix, at Carly’s Bistro, the next question will be how much any of this will weigh on a divided electorate as voters head to the polls. Early voting in Arizona begins October 12.

    For the “PBS NewsHour” and Kaiser Health News, I’m Sarah Varney.

    The post What Election Could Mean for Obamacare’s Fate appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    NASA astronaut Kate Rubins will end up voting for president from the International Space Station, if her homecoming is delayed. Photo by NASA

    NASA astronaut Kate Rubins will end up voting for president from the International Space Station, if her homecoming is delayed. Photo by NASA

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — The lone American in orbit will end up voting for president from the International Space Station, if her homecoming is delayed.

    NASA astronaut Kate Rubins said Thursday that she doesn’t know yet whether she’ll return to Earth in late October as planned. The Russians have delayed the next crew launch for technical reasons. It was supposed to take place Friday, but it’s off for at least a month.

    Rubins and her two crewmates — a Russian and Japanese — can’t come home until the next three-person crew arrives. NASA likes to have an overlap of several days, if not more.

    Rubins told The Associated Press she got an absentee ballot before she rocketed away in July, just in case. When she’s not in space, home is Houston, Texas, but in this case, the absentee ballot lists her address as “low-Earth orbit.”

    “It’s very incredible that we’re able to vote from up here,” she said, “and I think it’s incredibly important for us to vote in all of the elections.”

    American astronaut Shane Kimbrough is waiting in Russia to join her at the space station, along with two Russians.

    Rubins said she’s got plenty to keep busy, regardless of when she returns.

    Kate Rubins is a professional virus hunter turned NASA astronaut. Photo by GCTC/Andrei Shelepin

    Kate Rubins is a professional virus hunter turned NASA astronaut. Photo by GCTC/Andrei Shelepin

    There is so much science work up there, “Nobody would mind too much if we got extended a little bit. We would be able to get a lot of research done.”

    A professional virus hunter before becoming an astronaut, Rubins, 37, last month became the first person to perform full-blown DNA decoding, or sequencing, in space. She’s already racked up more than 1 billion base pairs, which are the building blocks of DNA. The pocket-size sequencing device was launched over the summer by SpaceX, currently grounded by a launch pad accident on Sept. 1.

    Rubins said the biomolecule sequencer has worked surprisingly well in space, despite the different way bubbles and fluids behave in weightlessness.

    All of the sequencing data are beamed down immediately to scientists on the ground, so any potential delays in SpaceX deliveries and return shipments won’t hamper the experiment. This real-time processing will prove beneficial for diagnosing astronaut illnesses in the future, Rubins said, as well as ascertaining any potential bacterial outbreak in the orbiting outpost itself.

    The space station, meanwhile, is well-stocked with both supplies and research materials, Rubins said. In fact, she has “more work than I have hours to do in the day.”

    Orbital ATK, NASA’s other station supplier, is targeting Oct. 9 or soon thereafter for its next shipment, after being grounded for two years by a launch explosion.

    “Spaceflight is a tricky business,” Rubins told the AP. “It is definitely difficult, and I think we forget that sometime.”

    The post If this U.S. astronaut can vote from space, you can too appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivers remarks at the Shale Insight energy conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S. September 22, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst - RTSOZRV

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    JUDY WOODRUFF: There’s been no shortage of attention paid to who might win the presidential election this November, but what promises can they deliver once in office?

    Tonight, we examine what the early days of a Trump presidency might look like, and whether the next Congress would be an ally or a thorn in his side.

    For that, we turn to Evan Osnos, a staff writer for “The New Yorker” magazine, and Seung Min Kim. She’s a congressional reporter for Politico.

    And welcome to both of you.

    Evan, I’m going to start with you. You did write a sort a story for the latest “New Yorker” about what Trump would do in his early days in office. Let’s go down the list. You start with suggesting he would renounce this global agreement on climate change. How would that work? What could he do?

    EVAN OSNOS, The New Yorker: Well, the campaign is preparing what’s been described as the first day project, which would be an effort to try to do a large number of things right away using the powers of the executive office, using the powers of the presidency.

    They’re planning on 25 things. So, if they started, for instance, one of the ones that they are weighing is to renounce the Paris climate change. That — the president has legal authority to do it. It’s much the way that George W. Bush when he came into office in 2001 was able to, for instance, remove the United States from an agreement on the International Criminal Court.

    There is nothing that stops a president from doing that. And they could also do other things. For instance, he could roll back some environmental regulations that have been imposed by the Obama administration, and he could also redirect the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to say you no longer need to deliver background — to do background checks on gun purchases the way that you were directed to do so under Obama.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: So he could take some substantive steps in the early days that wouldn’t require any congressional action.

    Seung Min, let me return to you.

    I think the assumption has been, if Donald Trump wins, he is probably going to keep a Republican Senate and a Republican House. So if he makes moves like this, the presumption is, there is not going to be much pushback from the Hill.

    SEUNG MIN KIM, Politico: It depends on the form of his proposals make.

    The executive order action part of this is really interesting, because what you have heard from Republicans and here in Congress for the last several years is, they’re basically calling President Obama the imperial president, that he has acted too much on his own without the will of the Congress to accomplish his agenda.

    So, a lot of these goals perhaps on climate, environmental issues, a President Donald Trump may share with Republicans in Congress. But if they don’t, it will be interesting to see what they — what their response is to how a President Trump deals with kind of the executive powers — or the powers of the executive branch.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Evan, one other thing we know, one of the many things Donald Trump has talked about is suspending the Syrian refugee program.

    The president has been talking about increasing that number to over 100,000. What is it that Trump is looking at doing?

    EVAN OSNOS: Trump is — Trump’s advisers have told me that they’re considering on day one suspending the program.

    And they can do that under presidential authority, because they can say that refugees from a specific part of the world represent a threat to American security. That’s the sort of legal basis.

    And then more broadly, of course, he’s talking about a major change in American immigration. And he would also have the legal power to say we’re going to vastly expand and accelerate the pace of deportations.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about the wall?

    EVAN OSNOS: The wall, which has been the central promise of his candidacy, would take a little bit of footwork legislatively.

    So, for instance, you have — if it’s estimated to cost $25 billion, you’re either going to have to get somebody in Congress to appropriate that for you or, more likely, whatever everybody is telling me, after negotiations, after the horse-trading, he would probably end up with a small symbolic extension of the border fence which has already been in place since 2006. That has been in place since 2006.

    Newt Gingrich, who is Trump’s political adviser, tells me, look, he has to do something on the wall for political reasons. If he doesn’t, he has no credibility.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Because it’s been one of the central pieces of his — of everything that he has talked about.

    Seung Min, so what about from Congress? If Donald Trump starts to completely get rid of the Syrian refugee intake, if he starts to make moves on the wall and immigration, what’s the reaction likely to be on the Hill?

    SEUNG MIN KIM: The reaction is going to be — it depends.

    You have seen obviously how Donald Trump has made waves in his campaign with his positions on immigration. Now, in terms of the broader immigration proposals, he is really going to need Congress to appropriate the money, if he does want to ramp up the pace of deportations to build the wall.

    But we have also seen — you have to remember dynamics particularly in the Senate next year. Under a Trump presidency, clearly very, very likely that Republicans will have retained control. However, very unlikely that they Will have the 60 votes necessary to advance basically any legislation in the Senate.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Evan, let me turn you quickly to foreign policy, but to trade. Donald Trump has talked a lot about doing away with TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and that leads to questions about U.S. relations with China.

    EVAN OSNOS: He could renounce TPP. He could renegotiate NAFTA.

    And, by the way, he could also impose tariffs on specific categories of goods from China. He can do that on day one. He can direct the Commerce Department to bring cases under the WTO.

    What’s interesting too — and I think people don’t — underestimate this from outside — is that if the WTO said, well, your actions are illegal, he could actually withdraw the United States from the WTO.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: This is the World Trade Organization.

    EVAN OSNOS: The World Trade Organization, exactly, which has been the basis of sort of the rules of fair trade for decades.

    If they objected, he could say we’re pulling out, the same way that George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Seung Min, if that’s what happens, what’s the reaction on the Hill?

    SEUNG MIN KIM: I think, on trade, it’s actually a bit interesting.

    Donald Trump on trade, specifically the Trans-Pacific Partnership, has been the one area where he really has had an influence on members of Congress. You see the reaction from Republican senators who are up for reelection next year, people such as Ohio’s Rob Portman, who’s a former U.S. trade representative, and Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey, who has voted for a multitude of free trade deals in Congress.


    SEUNG MIN KIM: They’re now all running away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying, this has provisions in it that I cannot support, it’s bad for Ohio, it’s bad for Pennsylvania.

    So, you could actually see them, obviously, if those senators are reelected, to go along with Donald Trump on ripping up the TPP and starting over. And you would actually have a lot of support from Democrats as well, because, obviously, backed by the unions, Democrats have really disliked the TPP.


    Just one final quick question to you, Evan. And that is on the Iran nuclear deal. What would Donald Trump do, we expect?

    EVAN OSNOS: Donald Trump has said that he would renegotiate the deal.

    Now, it’s worth noting that if he says — if he does that, that could constitute a violation of the terms of the deal from Iran’s perspective, which would then give Iran permission to restart its nuclear plant.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: There’s a lot to consider here. Much more to go, but this certainly gives us a sense of what the early days could look like.

    Evan Osnos and Seung Min Kim, we thank you both.

    SEUNG MIN KIM: Thanks for having me.

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow, we will explore what the early days of a Clinton presidency might entail.

    The post What President Donald Trump would do on Day 1 appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivers remarks at the Shale Insight energy conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S. September 22, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst - RTSOZT1

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    JUDY WOODRUFF: In the race to the White House, the candidates are taking different approaches in the final days leading up to the first debate.

    John Yang reports.

    JOHN YANG: This morning, Donald Trump offered his take on the unrest that has gripped Charlotte the past two nights.

    DONALD TRUMP (R), Presidential Nominee: The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots are law-abiding African-American residents who live in these communities where the crime is so rampant.

    Drugs are a very, very big factor in what you’re watching on television at night.

    JOHN YANG: He said his tough law and order agenda, which now includes backing stop and frisk, a practice a federal judge said discriminated against minorities, would benefit black Americans.

    DONALD TRUMP: Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the violent disrupter, but to make life more comfortable for the African- American parent trying to raise their kids in peace.

    JOHN YANG: World peace with was the topic of a letter from 75 retired career diplomats slamming Trump as entirely unqualified to serve as president. Most of the diplomats who signed the letter haven’t been publicly associated with politics.

    Meanwhile, a Politico analysis of campaign finance reports found that the Trump campaign has paid Trump’s businesses $8.2 million. That’s about 7 percent of the campaign’s total spending.

    Hillary Clinton spent the day behind closed doors preparing for Monday night’s debate. That left running mate Tim Kaine as the campaign’s top messenger.

    SEN. TIM KAINE (D-Va), Vice Presidential Nominee: Where we see challenges all over the country, challenges of gulfs and gaps that exist between communities and law enforcement, we have got to put them on the table. They’re not easy, but we can do that with a calm and peaceful spirit.

    JOHN YANG: Clinton also reached out to millennial voters, appearing on the new installment of comic Zach Galifianakis’ Web series “Between Two Ferns” that went online this morning.

    For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m John Yang.

    The post Trump offers take on Charlotte protests as retired diplomats slam him as ‘entirely unqualified’ appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

    0 0

    Eight year-old Angelo Estes Jr. calls for the arrest of Officer Betty Shelby, who shot dead unarmed motorist Terence Crutcher, with other protesters outside the Tulsa Police headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S. September 20, 2016. REUTERS/Nick Oxford     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY      - RTSOOX5

    Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

    GWEN IFILL: Charlotte and Tulsa are the latest communities grappling with an ongoing, enormous debate over police shootings, protest violence and social justice.

    It’s become a long list, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Oakland, Baton Rouge, Ferguson. Each incident sparks a renewed and wrenching conversation within communities of color.

    We explore some of that now with Rashad Robinson, executive director of the racial justice organization Color of Change, Vanessa De Luca, editor in chief of “Essence,”a magazine for and about black women, and Andre Perry, an author, activist and educator.

    Welcome to you all.

    This has been a week. We reported about it last night on the “NewsHour,” where we were talking about this brand-new museum that is opening in the Mall, lots of rejoicing, lots of excitement about that, upbeat, and, at the same time, the same conversations turn to what’s happening in Charlotte, what’s happening in Tulsa.

    Rashad Robinson, there is a dichotomy at work here. What do you see?

    RASHAD ROBINSON, Executive Director, Color of Change: I think there absolutely is a dichotomy.

    And it speaks to this idea of that not mistaking presence for power, that just because we are seeing progress, progress for black folks in this country has never been on a linear sort of line. We have seen, you know, steps ahead and then steps backwards.

    And while we see huge steps forward — I got to see a sneak peek of that museum last night, and it’s beautiful. It speaks to sort of all our hopes and aspirations and also shows all of the struggles — while, at the same time, the presence of a black president, the presence of black billionaires doesn’t necessarily change the rules, the rules of policy, the rules of culture, the written and unwritten rules that govern us.

    And so we’re seeing so much of that bubble up, that that alone doesn’t change structural…


    GWEN IFILL: Well, let me just move on, because we have a lot of people to — lot of things to talk about here.

    Vanessa De Luca, are we moving forward? Are we stalled? Are we moving backward?

    VANESSA DE LUCA, Editor in Chief, Essence: I mean, I think we’re at a tipping point, right?

    There is so much to be celebrated, certainly with the museum, but if you look at our day to day, there is so much more that needs to be done in terms of accountability, in terms of seeking justice, that we can’t ignore.

    So there needs to be — we’re parallel-pathing our way through this time in our history. And we cannot afford to erase anything. Certainly, the museum is about not erasing our history, and certainly we want to make sure, in all of our protests and all of our questions that are raised about what’s going on in our community right now, that that history is also not erased.

    GWEN IFILL: Andre Perry, eight years of a black president, did it change anything or did it set us back in some ways?

    ANDRE PERRY, Author/Activist: No, it certainly, in the sense that when he was elected, the day after, the country, at least many people of it, felt that they had to take the country back, it was a marker in which we heard to — that people felt they had to regain a foothold, that they lost their America.

    But we clearly understand that having a black president doesn’t equate to progress for black people. I just want to throw out just a few statistics.

    The U.S. is the only developed country in which maternal mortality is on the rise. Three to four times the rate of black women die at the rate of white women. Funding for schools has actually widened between rich and poor districts in at least half of the states in the country.

    In my state and home city of New Orleans, one in seven black people are on prison and parole. So I would never quibble with anyone if someone said desegregation did me no favors.

    GWEN IFILL: Well, except that, when you listen to Donald Trump, he’s saying the black community is in its worst position ever, ever, ever, Rashad Robinson.

    RASHAD ROBINSON: Well, we can have a conversation about the challenges without including sort of Donald Trump, who is not really talking to black folks at all, but talking to white folks in sort of this way of trying to speak down to and speak at black Americans.

    There is a deep challenge. But I come from a family where I have a father in his Marine uniform who was turned away from using bathrooms in the South while he was stationed heading off to Vietnam, a grandfather who was a sharecropper and couldn’t read or write.

    So there are deep ways in which this country experienced progress, but, once again, it speaks to ways in which that we have to constantly evaluate the rules, the rules that govern all of our lives, and constantly challenge systems that hold people back.

    And when black people win, when black people succeed in this country, it’s oftentimes been a symbol of everyone succeeding. And so, as there’s been challenges, black folks have oftentimes been the canary in the mine.

    So what we’re seeing in the streets, this struggles, the issues around sort of generational poverty, they’re not just impacting black folks, but there is this idea that we oftentimes say is that, when America gets the cold, black people oftentimes get the flu.

    GWEN IFILL: Vanessa De Luca, on the cover of your magazine this month, there is a striking photograph of Barack and Michelle Obama which looks kind of like a farewell from the black community to the first black president and first lady.

    But I wonder if — do your readers respond to you with hope or kind of despair?

    VANESSA DE LUCA: Well, certainly, there is this kind of longing and wanting for the Obama administration and the Obama era to last longer, without a doubt.

    But there is hope that, in the next — whoever that next administration is, that they will be cognizant of what is important to us, that they will try to address some of the issues. And we will hear more about that at the presidential debate on Monday.

    Really, what do they stand for and what don’t they not stand for in terms of what resonates with our black community? And that’s what I think people are kind of hopeful for. We just want to hear a word, and a word that makes sense for everything that’s going on around us that speaks to how we’re going to move forward.

    GWEN IFILL: Andre Perry, what’s a leader’s responsibility in this, whether it’s a president or a county commissioner like who we talked to earlier, Trevor Fuller, or — and why should it matter at all to the broader community?

    ANDRE PERRY: Well, it’s not too much to demand that we’re not shot dead in the street. It’s not too much for us to demand that we get clean water in Michigan.

    Some of the things that we are asking for are basic human rights. And so when I look out at the presidential landscape, it’s not our job just to anoint Hillary or Trump, just because one is a Democrat or Republican. We really have to charge them with having an explicit agenda for black people.

    And so it’s not about hope for me. It’s about who’s going to deliver the political goods that we have yet to see thus far, and certainly since the Obama administration and beyond.

    GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask you all to take a huge step backward and talk about perception.

    We saw in the helicopter footage of what happened in Tulsa this week one of the police officers very far off the ground look at the man, Terence Crutcher, who was later killed and call him a bad dude. Clearly, there were some preconceptions, Rashad Robinson, some idea, even from a distance, that this person must be a criminal.

    Are perceptions as much a part of the problem here as reality?

    RASHAD ROBINSON: It absolutely is.

    It’s absolutely about the culture, the sort of daily hostile environment. And it’s not just simply about getting a job, right, or being treated fairly in a hospital, but it’s about being able to rent a room.

    And I also want to put on the table that it just wasn’t what the helicopter — what they said in the helicopter about him being a bad guy, but it was after he was shot and laying on the ground, and no one rushed to give him medical attention.

    It speaks to this hostile world that black people have to live in, the lack of humanity. So, first of all, the lack of benefit of a doubt of who he was, and then the lack of humanity as he laid on the ground bleeding, and medical help to save his life wasn’t sort of a first thing that someone wanted to do, speaks to a way in which black people have to — the things that black people have to contend with every day when we show up to a hospital, when we show up to a courtroom.


    GWEN IFILL: Let me ask you Vanessa De Luca, so maybe we can end on something of a hopeful note, if there is such a thing, which is, what do we do about this, other than have another national dialogue, another conversation?

    VANESSA DE LUCA: Well, I mean, I think, certainly, people need to use their vote as their voice, right, that we fought so hard for that.

    And the idea that there are some camps that are saying that they’re not going to vote at all is just unconscionable. We fought too hard to get this right, and it really does have an impact. I know there is the popular vote vs. the electoral vote, but people actually need to exercise their right to vote and to make sure they are voting for people who are serving their best interests.

    So, I would say let’s still — let’s not pass that off as something that is just kind of like a throwaway, but let’s really embrace and not fritter away what so many generations fought so hard for us to be able to do.

    GWEN IFILL: Vanessa De Luca, editor in chief of “Essence” magazine, Andre Perry, a writer from New Orleans, Rashad Robinson of Color of Change, thank you all.

    RASHAD ROBINSON: Thank you.

    VANESSA DE LUCA: Thank you.

    ANDRE PERRY: You’re welcome.

    The post The state of safety and civil rights progress for black Americans today appeared first on PBS NewsHour.


older | 1 | .... | 879 | 880 | (Page 881) | 882 | 883 | .... | 1175 | newer