Evening Exchange; 2207; Economy and Upcoming Election, Weekly News Analysis, Nanotechnology

The upcoming election the economy and African-American voters. The Secretary of Defense Forces the Pentagon then nanotechnology. It's probably in your future. All next and evening next. Hi I'm. As the midterm election draws closer it seems as if the momentum of political conversation is beginning to swing toward domestic issues most importantly the economy. Democrats and Republicans will routinely blame each other for the nation's economic woes but ultimately the voters will decide whom they hold responsible for what. Our responsibility

here is to try to separate fact from fiction and to distinguish debate from demagoguery. So joining us to provide some insight on the economic issues facing voters Margaret Simms vice president for research at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and Robert Greenstein executive director of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Welcome to you both. Margaret allow me to start with you. This is not the same economy that the nation was looking at during the last election in the year 2000 has it. No it isn't not at all. The Joint Center does polling periodically we have a poll in the field so I don't know exactly what to expect. But in the year 2000 African-Americans were doing quite well. It was the third year to row in which they said they were majority of them said they were better off than they had been the previous year. And that was certainly supported by. Income and poverty figures while there still are differences racial differences

where African-Americans were not doing as well as whites. They were doing a lot better than they had been doing in prior years. I don't expect that to be the case. We can do some speculation there has been the collapse of the dot coms. There has been the downturn in the stock market the significant downturn in the stock market along with all of the corporate scandals we've had to endure. And there's been 9/11. So one can predict that African-Americans this time around are going to be saying we're not doing better than we were two years ago. I think that that's a safe assumption. Certainly after September 11th when we began to see more of the effects of the recession that actually started before September 11. And African-Americans were certainly heavily affected by the downturn in tourism and other occupation other industries where they were disproportionately occupied particularly in cities like Washington D.C. the cities

in Florida which is heavily dependent on tourism. Those are all places where African-Americans are prominent in the voting population. Allow me to ask you to make another prediction before the poll even comes in. Do you think that the situation with Iraq is likely to be at the top of the agenda of the African-American respondents to your poll. It's hard to tell. Usually the things at the top of the poll for African-Americans are employment education health care the things closest to home. Certainly it's been the case in the past that African-Americans have again felt disproportionately affected in wartime. The army is disproportionately African-American they're twice as likely to find them in the military as in the population. And so they see themselves and their cousins and their children and their nieces and nephews being sent off to war if there is one. Robert Greenstein the reason I raise the issue of Iraq is because wiser heads than me

feel that the Democrats in the Congress of the United States essentially made a political calculation that if they gave President Bush the authority to attack Iraq unilaterally it would take that issue off the table and before this mid-term election came around then domestic issues would be front and foremost in the minds of the voters. Do you think does it appear that that calculation was correct. Well I actually think the Democratic thinking on Congress was somewhat more complex you really had three at least three groups of Democrats. You did have a significant number of House Democrats and some Senate Democrats who voted against the resolution. If I remember and I may not have it exactly right something like 130 I think a majority of the House Democrats voted against the resolution. You have a second group of Democrats who I think did make the calculation. You're talking about they personally are troubled by the war or by the president's policies I should say. But

either concluded that it was better politically to get it off the table or concluded that it was a great risk to them at home that would be attack ads against them if they voted against the resolution. When you have some Democrats who agree with the president it wasn't a calculation. They think his policies are right they were going to support him regardless do you think the domestic issues are likely to dominate the upcoming The Turner election. And if so what are the economic issues or what are the domestic issues that you think will so dominate are they likely to be economic issues given what's happened to the economy. The big drop in the stock market. Significant increase in unemployment warred numbers of people who've exhausted their unemployment benefits drops in median income you would have expected the economy if someone had said to you two years ago here's all the things that will happen. You would have said this so far and away be the number one issue in the election. And so it's been striking that the economy has not emerged emerged as more of an issue until now. The question and I I don't know the answer to it. The question is in the

why I asked two and a half weeks before the election with Congress home. We're not debating Iraq it's unlikely something dramatic going to happen in Iraq between now and the election. The United Nations is still working things out on a resolution. Will the economy take office the big issue in the last two and a half weeks of the election. I don't think we know yet. I will say I. Even with Iraq I continue to be puzzled that it hasn't emerged as a stronger issue yet. I mean if you look at the figures let's start with unemployment 5.6 percent is the official rate. And of course among African-Americans it's usually about double of that. This is not good. This is not good. Based on the latest figures it's likely the unemployment rate for October that actually comes out Friday November 1st right before the election will go up a bit above the five six. And then if you go behind that what you find is there's been a significant increase in long term unemployment. That's the most severe

type that's people who have been out of work at least six months and are still looking for a job. After a long debate Congress and the president finally agreed in March on a stimulus package that provided 13 weeks of additional unemployment benefits to people whose regular benefits had run out before they could find work. Here we are in the middle of October we have nearly 1 million workers. Whose extra 13 weeks of run out who continue to look for work and can't find it. There have been proposals on Capitol Hill to provide these people some additional weeks beyond those 13. That's what we did in the last recession when the president's father was president. But we haven't done it now the White House opposes it. And beyond that this whole program in the stimulus bill of extra weeks of benefits expires at the end of December. So if somebody Tom Morrow runs out of their initial unemployment benefits and begins to

collect the additional benefits from the stimulus package they will get 13 weeks. They only get as many weeks remain as between now and the end of December. I shouldn't that this would be viewed as such a politically vulnerable problem for members that they would make sure to do something about it before they went home for the election and they did it. We will have to see whether that turns out to be a significant issue in the election but once we're talking about unemployment and under-employment it's a situation in which people would have to be taking jobs that they would not under normal circumstances stick. And a lot of the jobs that they're being forced to take may not provide health insurance. Is health insurance likely to be an issue in general in this election and certainly among African-Americans. Certainly health care is on the minds not only of African-Americans but the public in general. We saw again this year that along with. Income dropping and poverty rising health insurance coverage or lack thereof

is another problem a growing problem. First time after two years that it went in the wrong direction. But there are people who have or have access to health insurance coverage who are not taking it up because employers as part of their attempts to cut. Their costs are asking employees to take up a bigger share of it. A recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation says that on average about four hundred fifty four dollars in additional health premium expense that is being borne by employees. And many are just dropping the coverage because they can't afford to even though in the long run they probably will be a lot worse off if they get sick and don't have the coverage. But you know you have to do what you can do from paycheck to paycheck. The other thing that's coming on health care and becoming more of a problem and I would. I guess it would be an increasing concern to African-Americans is that

growing numbers of states that are facing big budget deficits because of the downturn are instituting cuts in the Medicaid program. And even in the Children's Health Insurance Program. And these are programs that help low income families parents children of all races but because African-Americans on average have lower incomes than whites they're particularly beneficial to them and they're particularly hurt by these cuts. Oklahoma a few weeks ago voted to institute some cuts this winter that will cut coverage for children the eligibility level for children from nearly twice the poverty line down to the poverty line cut eligibility for Medicaid for seniors and disabled people down to 80 percent of the poverty line take away insurance from 80000 people in more states I think will follow suit. Now there's another issue that may not have a crystallized war in terms of the election. There were some bipartisan proposals on Capitol Hill one passed the Senate in July for the federal

government to provide fiscal relief to states and in particular to increase during the downturn the federal government's share of Medicaid costs of states wouldn't feel so compelled to institute these drastic cuts in health insurance programs especially for low income working families. Those are the people hurt most by these cuts. The house never brought it up. The administration was not in favor of it. Nothing happened. And states continue to institute more of these cuts as there are budgetary situations deteriorate further. Speaking of low income working families statistics released in the District of Columbia during the course of this past week indicates an increasing disappearance if you will of the availability of rental housing for families you can get any fish NC or a one bedroom apartment but anything beyond that seems to be declining in number. Given the fact that the Democrats generally thrive in elections in urban areas especially where there are large numbers of minorities those are the

precise areas in which the housing crunch is being felt the greatest. Is this likely to be an issue in the election. Well I think actually the big question is going to be whether any of these issues are sufficiently important to pull people out to the polls. If you look at the primaries the. Turnout was very low I think the second lowest on record in terms of a midterm election and African-Americans will look at some of their recent disasters so to speak where they made the effort to get out and vote and for whatever reasons their vote didn't count. So there may be some lack of interest in participating in is Bob says a lot of the issues that are really important haven't crystallized yet. The president is not running in this election and it's a question of whether. Individual voters look at the people on the ballot and can associate them

with the issues that face them collectively they should be because after all the Congress has the power to either go along with the administration's program change the administration's program or initiate their own ideas and the Congress is very much in balance right now. It could go either way although when it looks right now that it's unlikely that the House will change. But there are many vote many states many senatorial races that are in contention. There are House races that are in contention and these are places where people's votes could make a difference and could make a difference in the composition of the Congress. I mentioned the Democrats because they are the ones who are saying that if the domestic agenda dominates this electoral cycle then their chances of regaining control of the house and maintaining control of the Senate will be increased. But as Margaret said the question of turnout becomes crucial. I saw a comment by a

Democratic official Donna Brazil in which she said so many of the traditional supporters of the Democratic Party women liberals and African-Americans are turned off by the party's essential support of the president. But then not likely to come out in large numbers. Is the economy likely to bring them out. That's a question I don't know the answer to I mean I think I can presume with no firm knowledge of this that part of the calculation of Karl Rove and people in the White House in pushing the Iraq debate in the Iraq vote in Congress right now was precisely to have those Democrats who voted with the president alienated some of the liberal or turned off some of the liberal part of their base and depress turnout. Now I actually think if you look at what people like Senator Daschle the Senate majority leader has been saying all year long he and others have been taking the president President on pretty strongly on a number of issues of domestic policy the economy in recent weeks they've been trying day after day to

raise unemployment insurance registration on the Senate floor and Republicans have been blocking it. But. Instead I think the focus as you say for some of the liberal wing or the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party of late may be to focus less on the differences on economic and domestic policy and more on what may appear to be acquiescence on the war policy and I think that's what the White House is hoping that Democratic voters don't turn out. MARGARET Some as well as the Joint Center poll expect that we will be releasing our findings on October 29. Then we will probably be reading them and talking about them immediately after that. Thank you very much for joining us. Joining us also you Robert Greenstein the bombing in Indonesia and attacks on U.S. military personnel and Coate the continuing threat of terrorism and with our analysts. When we come back.

And. Welcome back an article in The Washington Post this past week alleges a less than amicable relationship between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the top brass at the

Pentagon. We will discuss the implications of that story with our analyst Todd Limburg of the Hoover Institution and policy review. Freelance journalist Jonetta Rose Barras Joyce Davis deputy foreign editor with the D.C. bureau of Knight Ridder Newspapers. And Paul Delaney of Jene media forum. But first the sniper attacks. We now hear that the most recent stories about an eyewitness who happened to have seen the sniper in this described the sniper in this crime. The way the snipers shot and drove off turns out to be completely fabricated. The individual it appeared was in the mall at the time. So it looks as if we're back to square one where we know fortunately nothing about the sniper yet. The FBI testifying on the Hill told lawmakers good progress is being made in this investigation what are we supposed to believe. I think they do know something and we just don't know it and. And I think it's good that they're withholding some of the information from the media and from the public I mean you can't catch a criminal with telling everybody everything and knowing that the criminal was possibly

watching television and getting all of its in from his information or their information from television I think it's good that they aren't telling us a lot of things and in fact I would really try to encourage the media from you know from covering the case so closely the way that they are covering it. I for one like to know as much as possible. Well you know I find myself flipping on the television first thing in the morning I find myself checking in on the radio throughout the course of the day. I don't think this you know and I why I want the end I just want to tell you that actually that is right and I should have mentioned that. But but but you know I mean I think it's you know it's what you and I don't want to sort of an impossible thing. Well I think I think you know we always want to want to know about this and. I think we should. Factoring in that instant I think was that it threw off the police and the police at Waste Time for a day or two. Chasing that those false leads. And I was

surprised that they fell for it in the first place and I think that because of the pressure that they're under and also the demand for some for a solution that this thing took all the indications so far was that this or these were not individuals who were revealing themselves from very close range. So yeah I got it you know totally and that threw it up it was totally against the grain. That's the way it was described by the so called eye witness and I think this is true through the investigation. And again I'm surprised the police fell forward. First please join us are we getting used to living with us. I don't think we'll ever get used to living with something like this this is truly a nightmare. I think I have seen some analysts who say this is even worse than September 11th in many ways because you really do feel personally involved in this you're protecting your children everywhere you go you're watching around even though we all know there's nothing you can do if someone's two three blocks away. But I have to agree with you that I do think the media need to

kind of use some discretion especially with some of those eyewitness reports allegedly eyewitness reports on the scene. It's very dangerous and we're all living through times that I think we this is above and beyond what we've ever experienced. I'm certainly happy that they decided to bring the military use of the military satellite surveillance equipment I'm just surprised that it has taken them so long to get up to speed to use that equipment I mean we have enough technology available to us that we should have used shortly after the first five people were killed quite frankly. So I am happy that at least that is occurring and maybe we will get better results as a result as as a result we are going to see those results. You know it's the same technology that we've employed to find bin Laden. There you go. To encourage you to move these skepticism into the OK from what this report is I think you eventually show itself moving to another topic. The Washington Post story this week on the as I said already a less than amicable relationship

between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon comes at a particularly sensitive time when the U.S. is contemplating war against Iraq. Is this a story that you think has legs is this going to continue. Now this is an ongoing story it's about the internal struggles within the Pentagon bureaucracy the relationship of those struggles with other interests throughout the government. And one of this is really all about is the direction of defense transformation so-called Not so much about the current war plans in Iraq or even the immediate plans for other operations in the and the anti-terrorism but rather you know the really multi multi billion dollar decisions that are going to be made really and just in the few short years ahead about what kind of a force structure we're going to field later on in the 20th and 21st century. You know careers are at stake in addition to the obviously lives and and people want to people have particular visions of what they want the outcome to be. Rumsfeld who was thought

year ago before September 11th to be in a weak position and perhaps not up to the task has obviously hugely benefited from the increase and stature that he has gotten nationally as a result of his. Performance on September 11th but I find it and that and that frankly there were some people I think who were counting on it on him being fluxed of US effort who are now looking at the possibility is not going to be. Well it's fine to look at this in an inside Washington kind of way to look at the careers of the 21st century planning but when the public reads it as it appears in the newspaper doesn't this have the potential to undermine public confidence in our military and defense leadership. Well it certainly does. I mean the public sees that kind of. Whether true or not. And again I agree with Tom's analysis of the of the of the of the what's going on but it's kind of like inside baseball in that regard. So the public the public sees to the personality fights etc. and and we have more to that than to the. More fundamental

direction of the military with huge huge sums of money is in bold. I think the public also sees Rumsfeld and Cheney sort of a lock step in and heavy handed and get the same sort of underscoring the impression that the public opted for that these guys are really running the show and running roughshod over some of the experienced military personnel. It is not I think it does not paint a good portrait of Rumsfeld but it does paint what I think some people in communities see as a consistent portrait of Rahm so and Cheney as guys who had an agenda when they came in and they are going to drive that agenda regardless of what anyone else says. And it does it really does seem like there are some serious divisions within the military between the Pentagon and between Rumsfeld's office. We have seen people go on the road we've seen leaks come out of places and I think the thing for the American public

that if we're headed into war we want everybody on the same page with this at least to be able to hash out their differences and move on. That does not seem to be happening especially with the reports that some of the chief people in the military are considering resigning. Will so far the public has been supporting President Bush in his decisions on Iraq in large measure even though polls also say they would like to see us participate as a part of a coalition if we do not do that. If there was a unilateral attack do you think the public would have the same level of confidence in the wake of an article like this as we had before. Well in the first place I must say I think that a unilateral attack is a very very unlikely possibility and I think also that the American people sort of stated preference for multilateral action is something that you can satisfy a lot of a lot far shorter of what it would take to satisfy maybe European leaders on the question of what's multilateral and for Americans I think a you know Great Britain Turkey and Kuwait would do the

trick. On the multilateral angle Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was in Washington this week meeting with President Bush and he received assurances that if Israel came under attack that it would not need to retaliate that the United States would retaliate on its behalf. It's one thing to say that Israel is an ally of the United States. Does that send out a different kind of message to potential allies in the war against terrorism in the Arab world. Well I think the one thing that was of some concern was President Bush's statement also that of course Israel would retaliate. That statement actually had lots of repercussions now. One would hope that things are really being worked out behind the scenes but to actually make a statement that we would expect that Israel would retaliate. Is there not a little on Israel raising a little a little different from what you would have expected and totally different from the last time where you're right the message was we would expect that they would the Israelis would not.

Well no I don't think that was a massive last time a message last time actually I think it was very similar to this which was to say there's nothing you Israel can do militarily that we the United States other military partners the coalition can't do and if you do engage you know this will complicate matters for us and not necessarily to our mutual benefit I think that's I think that's pretty much the same. A message for the George H.W. Bush to what I think but. But the environment is kind of different now because you've got this sense that the United States is in fact protecting Israel and that this is really a fight too. In one respect it is a fight on Israel behalf. So that is not a target for Iraq but you also have this general perception that that Muslims are under attack Muslim nations and and so I think it's a bit different than what it was back when George H was was around so I do think that there is some concern that Iraq had occupied Kuwait. Right. And I so I do think that there is some real concern about what will happen in the Arab world if in fact Israel does get into the

fight. The reason that all of this is taking place of course is that Iraq is in violation of several United Nations resolutions and has been accused of developing weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons. But at least at that point it is still informed if you will speculation there is no need for speculation in the case of North Korea because that nation has come forward and said yes we follow it. And in the ongoing mystique that surrounds this nation the question is Well why would North Korea do that at this point when they're trying to improve relations with the West. But the Bush administration seems to be responding in the exact opposite way than it has with Iraq and say no we think that this one can be that can be handled with negotiation rather than a military strike. Yeah well this too has a history and the history actually looks a lot like this. North Korea makes some threatening gesture. North Korea does six planes the terms on which it will pretend to be addressing the threat that it has made. North Korea pockets the money they could get from the United

States other governments and North Korea keeps on keeping on whatever it was doing in the first place. Now I don't mean to make light of this this is again this is serious business I mean as Rumsfeld was talking about the possibly they've actually got nuclear weapons in hand now etc. but I think you know the Bush administration's made a pretty concerted effort. You know this is something that administration found out about a couple of weeks ago of an extensive consultation with Congress. Our allies in the region our European allies and so forth so this is this is going to be the multilateral approach and there's hope that Russia and China in particular which by the way probably are constitutes a source for at least some of the capabilities that North Korea has developed will be willing in this context to put some serious leverage on the government there. But this does this not complicate our foreign policy or our lives really. Have a look you have to to for example medicine has and others. It shows inconsistency of the policy and and the administration acknowledges as much something some officials say that

yes it seems inconsistent but it's not inconsistent because it's a it's a different ball game as Todd mentioned the the the background is different. The issue the issues are different even though it was the North Korea was called You know one of the three they act as evil. Yeah it does make me wonder though what would happen if the DOM Hussein came out tomorrow and said I have the nuclear bomb now I wonder what our policy change I mean if he hasn't already or because there is a difference in dealing with a country that perhaps already has the potential to cause it to wreck havoc in the region and one that's right at the brink of developing that. But the truth is both these countries are led by men that are unpredictable and if not absolutely insane Well I just you know my my problem with all of this is that if you're going to have a consistent policy where you want to disarm. A country because of nuclear weapons then you've got to go. Disarm India Pakistan Israel Russia you. I

mean let's just. Army and the United States France but and so you have an inconsistent policy throughout. Are we worried about the use of our arms the danger of on arms the possible mass destruction. Are we really worried about Iraqi oil and what does North Korea have for us that we can get frozen brings me to this question Are we really having here a new wants discussion because if we simply talking about consistency then you employ the same policy that you employed for Iraq against North Korea. But I'll be talking about a more nuanced policy as Joyce Joyce pointed out in the one case with the nation that you think is developing them it's not there yet another nation that already has them. And as she pointed out the possibility of wreaking havoc. Yeah well I mean a more nuanced I think that's right this is not a necessarily a one size fits all kind of time. You know there's a difference between India having the bomb and Saddam getting the bomb or North Korea having the bomb and the difference is that indeed it is a risky move by a large tree of a peaceable democracy and

with a leadership that's accountable to them. I don't think of the visit. But I could argue it was really hot and heavy by the way that's why I would say that the Nuclear Weapons of Pakistan possesses are a bigger problem for us than those idea of the one that Saddam is working on is probably the biggest problem of all. And North Korea frankly ranks farther down the line. It's not not Terry want to put everything into other areas for the bar out there. Well Stalin This is a Stalin This is a Stalinist And if you're going to call him you going to call Saddam Hussein a Stalinist and that's the reason you're worried about it then what is the reason why aren't you why are you not worried about my career knowing that the truth is some of these items are used for with the benefit of Saddam kind of anyway but because the role of the regime in the rogue regime with nuclear capabilities is a danger to the world. It's a danger to me personally I will learn as we want to look at the United States because it's clearly a roguish way that war is like a fat president and President Bush and left with a resolute another wrestler but many in the rest of the world looks at us as

well. Well I will know then I am assuming that your reference to the regime in terms of the United States has to do with the memorability election of the year 2000. Do you think the populace of the United States passed a bill that would in fact change the voting procedures that resulted in what people generally Democrats especially the left wing of the party believes in. Of this is an illegitimate regime for the United States right now. Can you tell me. I don't know what the hell does that that's that's really great that they didn't pass. The Senate House passed this three point I think eight or nine billion dollar bill to sort of reform get new equipment new ballots. You know generally a new voting process second chance for people who put their ballots in there some mistake so there are some good things about that. But there's still some election reform. I think that hasn't been dealt with and probably won't be dealt with by this Congress and that is the whole notion of how much money goes into election how much money is really where we're really at a stage now where people are buying the office

whatever office we can look at it in Texas. We can look at it any place around the country. There are examples of it. And then the other. When that happened in 2000 that we have simply forgotten about and that is the whole state of the Electorial College where some people were saying how we should deal with just disbanding the whole electoral college and deal with a popular election that has not gotten dealt with at all and I think that is a critical issue that we should be dealing with before the next presidential you know the issues of campaign finance reform and election reform issues that people are really divided on but it seems as if there was some unity and this much is in there at all or even a voting procedure. Sure it's always easy to spend four billion dollars if you address something that and the train pulled we're going to say yeah you know I mean I what I think this is largely a waste of money. If it if it makes people feel that their franchise is being protected that is obviously a thing of some of the value. But but the truth is I don't think we had a 4 billion dollar problem on our hands here and I think the money just flows solid to the people who rather

caught caught. Well I mean look if we as well just write them a check for one day that's an event. From the other side of how they have to hear it I realize I don't have it they don't have the same for I'll write it all over again. No but I do like the issue they do that abroad that frankly about the quality of the of the people they're running for office and I mean what is happening in this country is that we're not attracting people who are really going into public office for service. They're going into it for profit and that is the root of our problem if you ask me. So we just wasted this four billion dollars now I wouldn't say that we need we had a problem that needed to be addressed. Now this may not be the end of the addressing but there is a problem when people that large number of people felt that they did not have a voice in a major election like a presidential race. You've got to turn your attention to fix I just wasn't feeling it was fact I mean there you people were actually turned away from the polls some people were denied the opportunity to vote and taught is right I mean is this going to fix the broader County situation I don't know what to do with broader

County I mean Florida is just like a basket case some bios of the rights organizations fear of there is a problem with this legislation also because they feel it will deter some people from going to the polls so I'm guessing we haven't heard the last of this we clearly have not heard the last of al Qaeda because with the recent attack in Indonesia and the attack on military personnel in Kuwait we now have the chief the head of the CIA coming forward and said absolutely sure the homeland is targeted there is likely to be another attack. I can't tell you anything else about it. And the familiarity here with the strike situation. And the watch today. I mean you know there's going to be a threat but we don't know exactly when and where I'll just what is likely to materialize. But you think about it well you know I mean it appears that they can't say anything else. And and it gives the public the impression that it's more of a cover yourself cover all bases. We've got to keep saying this because it was probably true that at some point there is going to be another quote big win here or for certain a lot of small ones. But whether Right I mean we're going to

continue to hear that. My problem with them. With this with elevating al Qaeda to this this really this this god like stature it minimises a lot of other. The biggest conflict minimize a lot of problem people have with their government so when you do a queue when you come up with a blanket accuse every little every uprising every Obviously terrorist incident as being al Qaeda. I think it is. I think you. Well al Qaeda has become basically the synonym for Islamic militants Nevada and that you're absolutely right that is not the case there are loads of other Islamic militant groups around. Now al Qaeda seems to have had the most resources to be able to carry out its threat. But I'll tell you the Bush administration is right in one very important fact we are in a war. There will be other attacks I don't think anybody doubts that. The question is do we deal with this threat. Only

militarily and only in the fear component or do we also start looking at some of the policies that brought about this kind of hatred. And I think you're you're right on the latter point if we don't start looking at our policies our foreign policy then I think that we will see you know so far into the future where we will be a target and unfortunately that isn't a discussion that's occurring either in the White House because you have a sort of war council I call them in terms of Mr. Bush's cabinet. And it certainly isn't happening in culture not what you told me what could we do that would satisfy al-Qaida of course or to cease it. Not only is he not in jail not that this is a problem I don't just file I'm going to I'm asking the question because I know that they are an organization they have attacked us they do wish to continue to do this in genetics and we're not just saying that I was I am saying we could have to start I'm not saying what I'm saying is let's take a let's just take for example when you have sort of let's just go back to our previous conversation when you have

a policy where you are protecting basically protecting Israel and not holding Israel to the same standard that you hold every other country within and in terms of US violating U.N. resolutions. Then you set up a paradigm where you are feeding that kind of anti-American attitude that you will see in the Muslim countries that sort of is sort of pablum for these these guys are starting to cut off is really going on a battle that way but then I say divided it's not that it's not just you know it's not just Israel. Frankly I mean that's not that I'm down and out as one example I'm not using that you for your stated goals I'm going to say I'm going to be impossible and united for the United States to do more than their political impossible for the United States isn't it. That's when I was well you have it here. No it's not politically not likely to happen. That's a good point but that does not mean that if that's not the right call that's not one of them I will if she has an interest in showing the countries that most Americans have no idea that we're there and some of the locals the locals know we are there

and they don't like you when you go down that road no you go down a large until you know you go down to Peru. I mean I can go down the list in terms of looking at how this country has actually aborted and you know somebody will have to consider me for coming out into the sunset with before we go there's a very important and sad announcement that I have to make and it has to do with the passing of a Washington broadcaster who became a tradition here for those who listened to him over the years. Ernest what the former talk show host of crosstalk a WDC you radio pastor this week at 54 years old he is fondly remembered by a great many of Washingtonians who listened to that program over the years and will be sorely missed. Honest white dead at 54. We're going to take a short break. If I say nanotechnology and you say is Mork and Mindy you really need to pay attention. When we come back. So you think today's cell phones are small. If you really want to know small

how about a supercomputer so small you can wear it on your wristwatch or on your finger. It's what nano technology can and very likely will do for us all. Here is Jason Day Walton with the report. These researchers share a common goal. To develop and use nanotechnology. But just what is Nano. Right now. James Griffin a senior researcher at Howard University explains Nanotechnology is the technology of really small things you really have to divide a human hair into over a thousand parts to get to the two one nanometer. It's really really small really small with really big potential. Experts say nanotechnology can make most avenues of life easier and better. Eventually there could even be a tiny robot that lives in your house and keeps your house dust free. These scientific miracles of the future are made possible by manipulating atoms and molecules the atoms in the molecules already exist.

What you'd like to do is just simply take them and form them in some particular order. Our arrangement Griffin's research may one day lead to computers that are faster and smaller than ever imaginable. So the prospect of actually having nano computing where you have let's say. Very very fast supercomputer. And going on your hand or wearing on your worse watch is probably much closer than than some of the other technologies. Dr. Kimberly Jones of Howard University applies nanotechnology in her research to make tiny implantable kidney dialysis device. So if your kidneys fail then these implantable membranes can be put in your body to take up the function of your kidney. So these patients would not have to go to the hospital or disrupt their lives. Imagine this. Some experts say that with nano technology eventually you'll be able to swallow a tiny robot in pill form. That robot will search your body looking for cancerous

cells. Find the cells and kill them. Dr. Jones is also working on a way to detect and filter harmful agents out of water and air. This could be key in the case of biological warfare and as liquid or air flows through the membrane pores. You can actually detect if there's a contaminant or something that you don't want is in the air is an air stream of water stream. Some applications of nanotechnology like restoring sight to the blind are raising some ethical issues. What we're doing we will not in any way compete with anything which nature is doing. In fact what we're really trying to do is is learn how Major does it at the nanotechnology level nanotechnology is not 100. Which are you. The researchers say the possibilities are for evening exchange. I'm Jay and they won't. Joining us now is Jude Shriver technology writer for The Los Angeles Times Dr. Gary Harris a professor of electrical engineering and director of the Materials Science Research Center

of Excellence at Howard University Gary I know that in technical terms nano means one billionth of so we all know that it's a very very small thing. But we looked at the machinery that we just saw and and they Walton's report and they find a difficulty relating that large machinery to these small particles. What we're looking at. Well exactly. Those machines are really our eyes and our ears at the nano level. And by using special techniques we can actually image the surface and look at molecules individual molecules individual atoms in a one by one kind of thing. We can select them out. We can organize them in what's called a selfless symbol structure and then we can do a lot of special things with those things we want to stay organized to really. The goal is here really to build stuff from the bottom up as opposed to the top down.

But it's in the process of building these things stuff as you call them. Pretty complex for example the computer industry has for years talked about faster microprocessors faster bit bigger hard drives. But what in terms of. Building applications that take advantage of these things has proved very difficult for example we're not any closer to getting a computer that can parse language or translate language with any degree of real accuracy in our setup piece here we day she talked about having now technology deliver agents to cancerous cells in our recall articles years ago talking about monoclonal antibodies doing the exact same thing and here we aren't any closer to that so how difficult is it to transfer this basic technology into practical application will remember it. It's not an easy task. In a way the scientists the technologists the engineer is really playing God in a little way. That is that they're taking you know the fundamental parts of nature atoms and molecules and arranging them in special kinds of ways.

So this technology takes time to develop. And. It will develop along three different phases. One it will impact the existing technology that's already out. The whole area of microelectronics computer processing integrated circuits opto optical storage devices there's a secondary area that it's beginning to impact right now. That's the whole area of nano biological applications that you've heard things such as the. Chip on the lab I mean lab on a chip. Also things called memes which is micro machine structures that can do some very special things little gears and pulleys that we can develop in people also talking about nano planes and satellites that actually have. Not only a officer can observe things but

also can have on board lap that can do diagnostics and analyze equipment environments and would prevent a man from having to go into hostile and sort of environments. How long has nanotechnology research been going on. Well if you go back and look at the history a physicist by the name of Richard Feynman in fact he was a Nobel Prize winner back in 1953 sort of a candid term nano technology in which he said as far as he could understand from the basic physics there was nothing that limited man from building things Adams and molecules at a time. And so the the field sort of has its genesis in 1953. But recently in the last 10 15 years the field has really begin to mature and begin to have the impact not only

just. Certain areas it's mainstream areas but in the areas of biology and chemistry and pharmaceuticals as well and there's some ethical issues raised by this Buy Here are a whole lot of ethical issues. When you get a chance to play like God in a little way you begin to touch all kinds of ethical issues. For example if you develop one of these nano robots that can go in and analyze and cut out cancer cells and so forth. Well what's to stop it from attacking ordinary cells and. And so that's just one dilemma that you're faced with and and there's also a dilemma that some scientists have brought up in and one including Bill Joy the CEO of Sun. Is that wow if you've got these nano robots and these nanostructures What do you need people for. I mean they can do everything first. So they're oh just tons and tons of

ethical issues that. Face this we'll and I think we just need to go in there and begin to attack them and sort of address them and I presume that nano devices can have some of the characteristics of some biological matter as well as mechanical care. That's right that's the part that always scares me and I am logical and as a result they could go off in left field that we don't know the predicted behavior once they get inside. You're you're right on target with that and that that's one of the dangers. You know in in the field I don't see it as a major problem right away because many of the things that we talk about are still in what was called the cartoon stage where we can sort of make cartoons about it. We don't really know how to make the whole thing happen. But clearly this is the area that the world is staked out as a key technology for this century. And so all the players come to the

table and put their minds together. I'm sure that will begin to solve some of these problems and well you say this is the technology that the world has to carry for the 21st century to what extent. This is an international effort or to what extent most of the research is going on to the United States. Is this comparable for instance to the race to get to the moon are different countries doing it individually. Oh certainly. You name a country that has a viable science and technology program and I can name you several centers several institutes in which they have efforts in the whole area of nanotechnology ranging the whole field of nanotechnology from what we call microelectronics nano electronics all the way down to polymers and to nano fabrication to quantum structures through micro and nano Miche electro magnetic machines through a whole new area called

Microfluidics. And so everybody is fighting and studying and doing all the kinds of things that they can do to really make hay in this field because they see it is really the next the next sort of generation. Of technology that will be out there and it impacts you know almost all fields of science. You know that we know about. I want to go back to one of my earlier questions. Why haven't we seen the vigorous debate that we've seen for example with cloning with nanotechnology assuming that there are some risks that you point out with perhaps creating mutant viruses or anything else and deploying these small devices and well the reason why is that on the biological side of nano and there's a chemical side in and there's a fabrication side on the biological side of nanotechnology is probably the least developed and in many of the things that we talk about on that side or are really cartoons or ideas that people have. And that's

probably why it hasn't really. Sort of gotten involved in a multi level debate on whether it's ethical and what that what the negative drawbacks are but it's not far away from the scene in the United States. Just recently and as one of Clinton's last jesters announced today you know over 450 billion dollar initiative and this whole area of nanotechnology that impacts not only the National Science Foundation but every single federal agency and including NIH as well that have to do with my next question and that is the cost of this to what extent is this research driven by our money the taxpayers money or to what extent is it market driven. Well it is really a combination of both but. To really do some of the fundamental work the fundamental work is usually And science is funded by the government. And we're fortunate

and Howard to be part of really one of the first initiatives that began almost about 10 years ago called the National nano fabrication users network. And this is a consortium of five schools on Howard Cornell Penn State UC Santa Barbara and Stanford in which we are a sort of a national user's facility for investigators both industry a small company and sometimes even a large company to come and use our facilities to help them facilitate the development of new nanotechnology products and prototypes and all kinds of different things. Speaking of products and prototypes that many companies or corporations become interested in the technology at this stage and if so what field do you see new products developing in first. Well. Let me to answer that question I kind of got to

go back a little just a little bit of this one. One driving force for this is is that people have done some basic calculations and predictions on the standard technology that we use now for microelectronics and in based on their technology. Most scientists believe somewhere in the year 2030 or in that range that we'll just reach physical limits as to how small we can make computers based on this technology so that that that has been one driving force there that really not this generation but maybe the next generation or maybe even the generation after that will have to use different technology will maybe be a molecular computer or an optical computer. And so we have to put in place all the kinds of things that you need to develop in order to make that happen in the future. So that's that's one driving force. And then there are there are really some products out there that are really starting to penetrate the

marketplace. This whole thing about lab a lab on a chip. Where a person comes in gives a little blood sample and diagnostic diagnostic tool. Everything is done on a single chip and it's a small little instrument that you can carry around. Not only would it tell you your cholesterol level blood count all of those kinds of things would be just one simple device. One of the things that bothers me and Jube raised this question already I'll raise it again in another way and that is if indeed I can swallow a pill that will have on it a nano technological device that will run down the cancer cells and get rid of them and as you pointed out how do we know it won't just go after my healthy brain cells because whoever it is who provided me with this might have some evil notion in mind. It would always appear as if the ethical discussion is running behind the technological discussion of the ethical discussion that somehow all this behind the curve we're playing

catch up. That's true. Well let me let me give you an example of something that already exists. You might have heard about it. A small company has developed a pill that you can swallow. That's a camera. And attached to one's body they would have a receiver. And as this camera goes down in your stomach it takes pictures pictures from inside of your stomach that allow you to identify all sores and all kinds of stomach problems and then a trance missed those signals to a a little receiver that you would carry around all day. And then that pill that appeal as my son calls it been passed off as waste and can be collected in the actually used again. So a device like that already exist. So what one oftentimes happens is that there's a disconnect between some of the political issues associated with science and the actual science. And people don't believe that do you know when you say something

can happen it can happen in a reasonable amount of time. We don't read enough science fiction to keep up to date with what's what's going on. And I'm afraid that's it we're just about out of time I can't for God they can do that and they haven't developed a pill that can get rid of a hangover the next morning after somebody has had too much to drink or make VCR TV time. Thank you. Our thanks to all of our panelists when joining us but most of all thanks to you for watching. Stay well. Good night.