The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; November 6, 2007

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. The ousted Chief Justice of Pakistan rallied lawyers today to protest emergency rule. He was deposed Saturday when President Perez Mushara ordered a crackdown. rallies turned violent in two cities today in Central and Eastern Pakistan, as lawyers clashed again with police. There were also reports today the government might delay

elections up to three months. Right now, they're scheduled for January. We'll have more on Pakistan right after this news summary. A bombing in northern Afghanistan today killed at least 28 people, including five members of parliament. It happened in Boglan, as lawmakers were visiting a factory. Doctors said 42 children were among the wounded. It was one of the worst attacks since the Taliban fell in 2001, and Kabul lawmakers appealed for an end to such violence. We're really asking our government to be strong and to be more strong, and particularly for the people of Afghanistan, that's a voice. Please try to be responsible nation. Do not allow terrorists to come and do not go to be a victim of their extremist ideology anymore. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing. Six more Americans were killed in Iraq on Monday. That announcement today made this the deadliest year of the war for U.S. forces. 852 U.S. troops have died in Iraq so far in

2007. That total includes 10 killed so far in November, a stepped up pace from October. President Bush's nominee for Attorney General Michael Mucese moved closer to confirmation today. The Judiciary Committee voted 11 to 8 to send the nomination to the Senate floor. NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman has our report. As senators filed into the committee room, the outcome was all but assured, even though Mucese refused to define waterboarding as torture. Republican Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania said he spoke to Mucese about that yesterday. It was his legal opinion that the Congress has the constitutional authority to prohibit waterboarding, equating it with torture and making it illegal. I look forward to congressional consideration of this issue of waterboarding, where the people who ought to decide it and with

his assurances in writing that he will back us up, that's good enough for me. But the assurances Mucese gave specter were not enough for Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy. We are supposed to find comfort in the representation by a nominee to the highest law enforcement office in the country that he will in fact enforce the laws that we pass in the future. Can our standards really have sunk so low enforcing the law as the job of the Attorney General? It is a prerequisite not a virtue that enhances a nominee's qualifications. Make no mistake about it. Waterboarding is already illegal. Under United States law. President Bush announced the nomination 51 days ago in the Rose Garden and since has warned Mucese would be his only nominee. Democrat Diane Feinstein of California said in the end that was why she gave her vote to Mucese. I don't believe a leaderless department is in the best interest of the American

people or the department itself. And I think that's something really worthy of consideration. I believe the president would not send another nominee to the Hill. Feinstein and fellow Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York joined all the committee's Republicans in supporting the nomination. The full Senate is set to vote on Mucese's nomination by late next week and he's expected to win confirmation comfortably. A White House spokeswoman said Mucese will be an exceptional Attorney General at a critical time. Executives from the Internet giant Yahoo got a tongue lashing at a house hearing today. Lawmakers announced a company for turning over records that let the Chinese government hunt down a dissident journalist. Committee Chairman Tom Lantos told the executives morally you are pygmies. He demanded they apologize to the man's family seated in the audience. The Yahoo leaders defended the company but they did apologize. The president laid out a plan today for improving

import safety that follows a rash of recalls involving tainted goods from toothpaste to toys, many from China. He endorsed the advisory panel's recommendations that included granting the Food and Drug Administration the power to order mandatory recalls, increasing inspections by US officials overseas, and outlawing the resale of products that have already been recalled. We need to do more to ensure that American families have confidence in what they find on our store shelves. They have the right to expect the food they eat, the medicines they take or the toys they buy from their children to be safe. The Bush plan drew fire from Democrats, Senator Charles Schumer of New York said it simply continues a hodgepodge of federal oversight. The acting head of the consumer product safety commission defended her record at a house hearing today. Nancy Nord said she favors a proposal to grant her agency more funding. But Democrats criticized Nord for opposing reforms they've suggested. They also said the

agency's failures mean parents have to play toy box roulette. The house was nearly forced to debate impeaching Vice President Cheney today. Democrat Dennis Cassandra presidential candidate offered the resolution. It accused Mr. Cheney of lying about intelligence to force war with Iraq. Republicans voted to support Cucinich. They hoped to embarrass Democratic leaders who have ruled out impeachment. The resolution was ultimately sent to a committee. In the 2008 presidential campaign candidate Ron Paul said a one day Republican fundraising record Monday raking in more than 4.3 million dollars from 37,000 donors all of it online. Only Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised more in one day. Paul is a Texas congressman who favors low taxes and smaller government. He's also the only Republican candidate who opposes the war in Iraq. This was election day in several states in Mississippi Republican governor Haley Barber was heavily

favored to win reelection. But Kentucky's Republican governor Ernie Fletcher was far behind in his his Democratic challenger in pre-election polls. In Oregon voters considered raising the cigarette tax to pay for health insurance for children and Utah voted on setting up the nation's first statewide school voucher program open to all families. The price of oil traded above $97 a barrel today for the first time. It ultimately settled under that mark and gains by energy companies boosted Wall Street. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 117 points to close at nearly 13,661. The Nasdaq rose 30 points to close at 2825. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now Pakistani lawyers in revolt. The candidates on climate change a new way to advertise on the web and a success story in Rwanda. The continuing turmoil in Pakistan we begin with this report from Lindsey Hilsome of independent

television news. At the house where Benice of Buddha is spending the night in Islamabad her people have come here to greet her that she doesn't have the same level of support as in her hometown of Karachi. Yet in this situation in this state of emergency everyone's eyes are now on her next move. Landing in the Capitol this evening she said she feared that General Mushara would now delay elections. It's essential if this is not the case for Jeremy Mushara to come on television and announce that elections are being called for January 16 the 70s are being dissolved on November 15. The 70s have to be dissolved in 90s time for the election at the commission election scheduled to be adhered to. She left the airport in an open-roofed vehicle despite the bombs targeted on her mitigating Karachi last month in which a hundred and forty of her supporters were killed. The violence however was in full time today near Lahore where lawyers and police clashed for a second day.

Lawyers are still the main route demonstrating against what they say is mafia law but the protests are getting smaller as more lawyers are arrested. Members of the Islamabad Bar Association were on the streets before a telephone address by Iftika Choudhri, the proposed Supreme Court Justice who's under cancer arrest. I request the community of lawyers to go to every corner of Pakistan and give the message that this is the time to sacrifice. Don't be afraid God will help us and the day will come when you'll see the Constitution supreme and no dictatorship for a long time. But the new Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Doga swore in another four judges and set aside the ruling by the deposed Supreme Court that the state of emergency was illegal. General Mushara for military uniform at Kavanagh today. If the court says he may remain president he'll be happy for parliamentary elections to go ahead.

Benazia Puto's supporters will go along with whatever she decides but many others in Pakistan will regard any elections while General Mushara remains president as illegitimate. Margaret Warner has more and for more on the unusual role lawyers are playing in this crisis and where their protests may lead we turn to Hussein Akani, director of Boston University Center for International Relations and a syndicated columnist in South Asia. He was an advisor to Benazia Puto when she was prime minister and Steve Call, a New Yorker magazine staff writer and president of the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington. He's a former Washington Post correspondent in South Asia and recently returned from a 10-day reporting trip to Pakistan. Welcome gentlemen, Hussein Akani, explained to us why lawyers are the ones who are out front on this. Margaret, there are three factors. First of all, the lawyers are a highly politicized community. In fact, the president of the Supreme Court

Bar Association is a member of Benazia Puto's party. Navashiri's Pakistan STEM league is also represented amongst the legal community. So that's one of the reasons. The second is that Pakistan's lawyers can afford to protest. 65 million Pakistanis live below $1 a day. So there are two poor to miss out on one day's work to be able to join a protest. Lawyers can afford to do that. And the third thing is that this entire struggle has become a struggle for rule of law in Pakistan and the lawyers have an interest in upholding the Constitution and becoming the champions of rule of law. Is there something in the history or culture or traditions of Pakistan and Pakistani society that pushes lawyers to this role? I mean is this a role they've played in the past? Absolutely. Pakistan's founder was a lawyer. Most of Pakistan's elected leaders historically have been lawyers. And whenever Pakistan has had martial law, the lawyers are the ones who have had the greatest trouble with it. During 1968-69, the

lawyers started the campaign that resulted in the Alster of Pakistan's first military ruler, Afil Marshall-Aub Khan. They also were at the forefront of the campaign against General Zellhuk, although General Zellhuk died in a played crash. So there is a history to this. What's your view, Steve Call of the prominent role lawyers are taking in this? They started out as an angry minority, inflamed by President Musharraf's decision to sack the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And for some of the reasons we say in this outline, they've now become the front of a much broader political opposition. They're attempting to restore a judiciary that has been really badly weakened over the last 20 years. They are defending a Constitution, but we should be clear Pakistan's Constitution is quite an unstable document. What they really express is a kind of national wish that there be a stable constitutional order and a system of reliable rule of law. And in that sense, they've become a vanguard for a much broader movement to restore civilian rule. And who's

Senate Khan? He would just say the same thing about the Supreme Court has taken, had taken a new more assertive role after Musharraf, the first time he suspended the Chief Justice, back in the spring. Absolutely. In the past, Pakistan's Supreme Court judges were sacked by military rulers through one device or another, but they went home. This particular Chief Justice, Justice if the Hachodri, decided that he's going to resist. He said, you can't send me home. It is not in the Constitution. That was a breath of pressure in Pakistan. Somebody standing up to the all-powerful military and saying, look, you can't decide everything. And that made him a folk hero. He when he started, when he started his rallies in March, farmers, peasants turned up at his rallies. His march from Islamabad to Lahore, which is a five-hour drive, became a 28-hour drive. And so, the lawyers started it, but the people joined in. So Steve, we saw today him rallying lawyers, while he's under his arrest by cell phone, how

central a figure is he now in this unfolding drama? Well, he's cast himself as a political leader. He's moved beyond his judicial role, and he's trying to call people into the streets. In that sense, he now joins Ben Azir Buto, who has a proven record of being able to draw followers in the street as a kind of broker at a pivotal moment. What happens next, I think, depends to some extent on how broad and how sustained popular protest against this emergency becomes. He clearly was calling Pakistanis of all kinds to make sacrifices, and he used that word knowing that any street protest is likely to generate violence. There's already been a number of instances this year where security forces have fired on protesters and killed on armed civilians. So, if he succeeds in calling his followers into the street, he's inviting them to participate in a potentially dangerous movement. And there's really, I got a very bad blood between him and Musharraf. I mean, he really charged, he really became a thorn in

Musharraf's side. It's personal on both sides. For General Musharraf, the chief justice, as with one or two other figures in Pakistani politics, what became a man with whom he just felt he could not do business with whom he had no for whom he had no trust and regard. And ultimately, he decided that he was prepared to risk a very carefully developed negotiation with Ben Azir Buto and the Pakistan People's Party in order to ensure that he was rid of this man and rid of the court that he seemed to be leading against him. So, Mr. Akani, Professor Akani, what do you think explains the fact that the people have not come to the streets yet? The way they did in the spring? Well, let us understand that this is just the beginning. People will join in. As I said earlier, the lawyers represent the middle class. Pakistan's poorest of poor, basically do not like to enter a campaign in which they are likely to be arrested because one household member going to prison means the family goes without food. So, Ben Azir Buto's supporters who definitely are the poorest of

the poor, they usually come out like they did on October 18 when Ben Azir Buto returned to Pakistan for celebratory rallies, rallies that are not challenged by the police, although that one turned violent because of a suicide attack. When Ben Azir Buto calls for rallies and people don't feel that they are threatened by being arrested or beaten up by the police, they will turn out in large numbers. And that's exactly what happened with the chief justice during spring. After the initial police resistance, when he was allowed to have their rallies, large numbers of people came out and I think we'll see that in the days to come. Steve, before we go on about the prospect of a rally because Buto is calling for one on Friday, how far can lawyers really get if they're really just on their own? I mean, they vowed to, for instance, cripple the courts. Because that really put enough pressure on Musharraf. No, I think only the broader popular protests that Hussein refers to can put sufficient pressure on Musharraf to force either a backtracking in the state of emergency that he's declared or perhaps in a more dire scenario his removal from office. So what do you

think? How do you think this is going to unfold? I mean, I'm not asking you really to predict, but what are Musharraf's options here? I think there's essentially there are two scenarios. Either he gets away with it or he doesn't. If he gets away with it, it will be because he outlast the street protests. He enjoys the cover that seems to be available from the Bush administration's mixed signals about how they're going to react to his essentially his coup and also because he holds the army together, which is something he's managed to do for a long time under pressure. If he doesn't get away with it, it will be because popular protests or other factors, for instance, descend within the army essentially brings matters to a head behind the scenes and leads his colleagues in uniform to say you've gone too far. We cannot recover from this and it's in our institutional interest to make a change. Mr. Akani, what do you think Musharraf's options are? Do you think what the lawyers are doing now has

the power to ultimately force him to back down? I don't think it has the power on its own, but it is part of many factors. Definitely if there's prolonged unrest, Pakistan's economy is going to be affected. Musharraf has attracted international investment, which he brags about. Investors don't like a country where there is unrest in the streets. So then the prosperity of the military is going to be affected because the military is a major stakeholder in Pakistan's economy now. I think those are the factors that are more likely to make Musharraf basically change his orientation or the military will make him change his direction. I don't see him getting away with it completely at all. The reason is that Pakistani society simply cannot, this has lasted almost several months already. It began in March and Pakistan has had one form or another of unrest for several months. I think it has to get resolved or get worse and if it gets worse then the Pakistan Army tells General Musharraf it's time for you to go sir. Our institution is more important than your personality. And Steve

called those. Benazir Boucho have any cards to play here. She was asked today a couple of times about is she going to meet with Musharraf? Well there are indications that as would be natural that Musharraf is reaching out to her trying to see if there is a way that he can persuade her to keep her people off the street. I don't see how she can accommodate the president at this stage. He has essentially aggregated the agreement that they had made together. She has to decide whether she's prepared to go to jail, whether she's prepared to lead all of her followers into the street, how she's going to mount the pressure that she seems prepared to mount and she'll presumably make those decisions in part on whether she believes there is any realistic chance that Musharraf would turn around quickly and reschedule the elections and essentially undo the state of emergency that he's created. That seems unlikely but the Bush administration among others has been urging President Musharraf to reconsider quickly and it's at least conceivable that there's a discussion about

that in Musharraf's cabinet. All right, we'll be watching. Thank you so much Steve Call, who's saying Akani. Thanks. Now the presidential candidates and climate change, Ray Suarez, begins with some background. Senator Hillary Clinton is the latest Democratic candidate to unveil a plan for combating climate change. In a speech in Iowa yesterday, Clinton said she wants to require all US vehicles to average 55 miles per gallon by 2030. It's a move that puts her on a similar track with other Democratic candidates plans for more efficient cars. Virtually all the Democratic contenders support a reduction by at least 80% from 1990 levels in carbon emissions by 2050 and research and development on alternative fuel sources. But there are differences on how to reduce energy consumption and

regulation. Former Senator John Edwards, for example, supports a ban on new coal burning plants unless they capture and store new emissions. All the earth's creatures are threatened by global warming. One candidate for president is doing something to stop it. Chris Dodd, he's the only one with an energy plan that has a courageous corporate carbon tax. Some candidates have started advertising on the issue. Senator Christopher Dodd released this ad about his proposal for a carbon tax on corporations that emit greenhouse gases. Because stopping global warming is in our hands. And Governor Bill Richardson wants the nation to generate 50% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2040. The planet is getting hotter. This is a fact, not a war case. Among the Republican candidates who broach the topic less often, there are fewer specifics across the board. Most want to develop alternative energy sources. His former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. I think we have to accept the view

that scientists have that there is global warming and that human operation, human condition contributes to that. We should be supporting all the alternatives. We need we need a project similar to putting a man on the moon. Giuliani, along with representatives Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tan Crado, and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson have yet to indicate whether they support any kind of government action to address global warming. Former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney say they're willing to consider a cap on carbon gas emissions. Nearly all the GOP hopefuls have opposed mandatory increases in auto fuel efficiency. In contrast, Senator John McCain has been the most specific. He's the lead author of a Senate proposal to reduce carbon emissions by 65 percent by 2050. He's called for higher fuel economy standards. And he's promised to have the United States join an international treaty on climate change on the condition that India and China joined to. All the Republican

candidates have voiced support for expanding nuclear power. To some analysis of the differences between the parties on climate change policy and politics. Jean Carpinski is the president of the League of Conservation Voters. The league is trying to raise awareness of global warming and make it a top issue in the primaries. And Ken Green studies public policy on climate change and the environment for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. He's tracking the candidate's position on this issue. And Ken Green, if I were to head out to the hustings and watch the stump speeches, attend some of the candidates' forms in the GOP, would I hear global climate change come up much? I think you'd hear it come up. I don't know that you'd hear it come up with the same kind of uniformity that you're hearing from the Democratic candidates. I think generally speaking, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on this is for things. Specificity, uniformity of position, the aggressiveness of the position, and the nature of their response, the approach they want to take to the issue. The Democrats are

generally united on this. The Republicans have a broad spectrum of opinion on it, some having not expressed an opinion much at all. Gene Karpinski, if I were to head out to Democrats candidates forum or listen to the stump speeches, how often does global warming come up? Are they making a big issue at it? Well, there's a lot of good news that they're right. In fact, all the major Democratic Party candidates make global warming in the related issue of clean energy, a top priority in their campaign. If you ask any of them, what are your top priorities domestically? They'll say health care and this issue of clean energy and global warming. If you listen to the stump speech, if you're a voter in Iowa and your Hampshire, listen to it, the early stump speech, this issue will come up all the time. It's clearly a top priority and that's good news. In fact, on the Republicans side, Mr. McCain has made clear it's also a top priority. So if you listen to his stump speech in those early voting states, you'll hear him talk about the issue of global warming and clean energy all the time as well. So it is a bipartisan issue but clearly all the Democrats and that's a change compared to previous election cycles in terms of the conversation that's happening every day with this issue being a top priority. Are the situations that you both just

described or reflection of who votes in both parties? Primaries. If we asked Republican voters what their top issues are, would global warming come up on the list? Well, it would probably come up on the list but I'm not sure it would come up on the list in the top four or five. In fact, environmental issues generally poll in the lower part of the concerned spectrum. People are more concerned about local issues, crime and education and so forth. So I'm not sure it would rank as highly. But certainly, the Republicans voters are as concerned about this as Democratic voters. I think it's the approach that they're likely to vary and I think everyone has the same sort of in the states where they're growing corn. You're not going to hear a lot of talk against death and all and I think everybody's going to support it no matter what party they're in, no matter what party they're voting for. So I think the Republican people are concerned about the issue, whether or not there's concerned as Democrats, hard to say. Well, the top four or five can green says not on the GOP side. What about among Democrats? Well, absolutely. If you ask the question, are you concerned

about the regulated issues of clean energy and global warming? It becomes a top tier issue for Democrats, also for independence. And if you ask about support for the policies that will make a difference to address the global warming problem, to bring us to a clean energy future. Across the board, Democrats, Republicans, independence, very, very strong support for things like making our cars go for them again on a gas, cleaning up our power plants and relying more on renewables and efficiency, putting a cap on emissions, global warming pollution emissions, to really cut, cut global warming emissions in that way as well. So the policy support is across the board. It's probably a higher priority issue among Democrats and independents when we talk about the policies that are needed to fix this problem, support across the board. But it's can green just noted like ethanol and Iowa. This is a big complicated country with a lot of different priorities. Are the Democratic candidates as likely to talk about this in Michigan as they are in California? You know, absolutely. In fact, just take an example, Senator Obama went to

Michigan, addressed auto executives, and talked about why we need to raise fuel economy standards. I think that's one of the key differences between this election cycle on Democratic side and the past cycles. Vice President Gore, he understood this issue. But kind of was advised not to talk about it and didn't really talk about that much. Senator Kerry told him I stood these issues, but it was not, he would say he talked about it every day, but the voters didn't hear it. This cycle is very different. All the major Democratic candidates are talking about it every day. The voters are hearing it and they're hearing that it's a top priority because that's key. We want to make sure the next president who comes into the White House doesn't just have a good policy on their website. But in fact, has a issue that they've talked about engaged voters in, and therefore comes into the White House with a mandate, with a mandate for real change. Can green two states where global climate change awareness seems to be high or Florida and California with Republican governors and a field of candidates that aren't bringing up the issue or that much in some, like Tom Tang, Crado, Duncan Hunter,

out now doubting whether the syndrome is actually gripping the earth or not. Can those governors in key electoral states as well uphold the party somewhere? Well, I mean, it remains to be seen. Certainly the governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, has really thrown his way behind greenhouse gas emission reductions. And it's going to be an interesting challenge to see how he reconciles that when Republicans come into California who have a less stringent position if they're going to be able to pull the Republican base toward the Republicans who are not likely to just walk up and match the governor's prescription. Both of those states, of course, while they have Republican governors, those governors are not on the hard Republican end of the spectrum. They have positions that are more akin to the Democrats. Governor Schwarzenegger's environmental position being one of them, clearly they're splitting their positions. They're not single ticket voters. They're all good for single ticket voters. But at the moment, can you run in the GOP primary race without a well-crafted global climate change policy?

I think you can for the moment, but I think that's going to change. If the Democrats do continue to make this a daily issue, I think the Republicans are going to be driven to respond. They're going to have to reach down for a concrete counter proposal that embodies more conservative approaches to the issue. But they're going to have to move toward acknowledging the severity of the issue of the importance of the issue to the voters and the primacy of picking and enacting a set of policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think that'll happen. What about on the Democratic side? Are there campaigns that have made more of a priority than others who have sort of pulled the other candidates in their party along? Well, as a good news is, again, all the major party candidates today have made it a priority and have strong, comprehensive aggressive plans. Being this year, that wasn't true. What we've seen over the past nine months is a competition among the candidates to make it a priority and to put a strong plan forward together. First out of the box, quite frankly, was John Edwards. He had the first

comprehensive plan. We plotted it for that. Right now, if you look at the targets as your set-up piece showed, all of them now support mandatory emissions and raising fuel economy standards for cars. Governor Richardson, to his credit, has the most aggressive targets for 2050. He supports 90% reductions rather than 80. And as the most aggressive targets for raising fuel economy for cars. So there are some differences. But overall, most importantly, all of them are making it a priority. All of them are talking about every day with voters. And I think each of them is wanting to make sure that voters hear that message. So that's part of what they vote on as they're choosing the next candidate. Are the Democratic candidates more ready to use the power of government and the authority of the president to do some of these things, Ken Green? I really don't think so. I suspect what you're going to have is a race toward the most aggressive targets that in the campaign. And you're seeing a race toward levels of reductions that are really unrealistic in terms of any possibility of achievement. And then when they get into office, much as with the Clinton administration,

even though they have talked to good fight about climate change, they're going to suddenly be confronted with the economic realities and the costs of imposing their policies and the give and take of Capitol Hill politics. Let me get a quick response from Gene. Are some of these targets as hard to reach as Ken Green would indicate in your view? No, not at all. In fact, what we need to do is really rely on good old American ingenuity and know how. If you do this right, it's good for jobs, it's good for the economy, it's good for national security, it's good for consumers. And yes, it's also good to save the planet. This is a win, win, win, win, win, win if we do it right. And this says that if we don't do it now, if we don't start now, it's going to cost much more later. So it's smart policy and smart politics to be on the right side of this issue. Gene Carpinski, Ken Green, gentlemen, thank you both. Thank you. Judy Woodruff has our immediate look at the balance between online

information's financial potential and individual privacy. It's where millions of young people list their favorite hobbies, movies, friends, and trends. And now all that information from the two largest social networking sites, Facebook and my space with a combined total of more than 160 million users will be made increasingly available to advertisers. Facebook announced today that it will allow companies to show ads to its users, both when they are on and off the site, based on personal information they list online. Yesterday, my space unveiled a self-service advertising tool, allowing groups like small businesses, musicians, and politicians to post an ad and choose who sees it. They also increase the number of categories that track user preferences by more than 10 fold in order for businesses to better target their products to the much sought after 18 to 25-year-old demographic.

This marks a shift from the online advertising model established by Google, where ads are displayed based on the key words a person searches for. It is the biggest step yet by the social networking sites to try to capitalize on their exploding popularity. So, what does all this mean for advertising and the bounds of online privacy? For that, we turn to Martin Glaser, editor and host of MediaShift, weblog at PBS.org, that looks at the intersection of media and technology. Martin Glaser, just to be clear, this is all about making money, right? That's right. All these social networks are very popular when it comes to the amount of people who are going to visit the sites, but as far as revenues go and how much money they're making, that's always been a question mark when it comes to social networks. What more can you tell us about how these two new advertising initiatives by MySpace and Google are going to work?

Well, the MySpace initiative, which is called self-serve, basically if you're a band, like let's say you're a reggae band, and you want to reach people who like reggae music. You want to reach people who are a certain age, a certain gender, you know where they live. You can actually target your ads to show up on those people's profile pages on MySpace. Facebook is doing a similar service, not as self-service, but more for brands that want to reach particular people in demographics, and they're also doing this thing called beacon, which basically, if you are a member of Facebook and you go out to other sites and buy things, like let's say you buy a book at Amazon, it will actually show up on your new speed of what you're doing, so your friends can see that you bought a book at Amazon. It's all about that personal recommendation. A lot of people trust the information they get from their friends, so if they see that their friends are buying a particular book or are going to see a specific movie, then the marketers believe there's a better chance

that they'll go out and do the same things. So, is anything one of these 160 million users of Facebook and MySpace right on their site, on their communications? Is that now going to be available to the advertiser? They're going to be able to tap into that, what they call data mining, they'll be able to get the information on the profiles of a lot of people, but they're not going to know specifically who it is, that it's anonymous information that's an aggregate. So, theoretically, they won't know that it's you, but they might know all of your tastes and know how to target the ad to you. That's something that marketers believe is the holy grail, to be able to actually target and add specifically to your tastes, and not just serve a banner ad that you don't care about, but specifically honed in on what your tastes are. And if you have a profile page on one of these social networks, you usually put the music that you like, the books that you like, a lot of your tastes, the causes that you follow, the media that you follow.

So, it makes it a lot easier for the marketers to really target in and serve advertising that was actually relevant to what you care about. We know that online privacy has been an issue, not just, of course, on my space and Facebook, but across the internet, the Federal Trade Commission just last week, held hearings on it. What is the concern here? Well, the concern is that a lot of us put information online, and we don't really think about the consequences of what we're putting up online, and all this personal information. And what the FTC is wondering is that there are a lot of these online advertisers who are going beyond just serving banners. They're doing what's called behavioral advertising, and that means they're following you through cookies in your computer. They're following to see what sites you visited, so that let's say you had gone to a travel site and looked into buying a ticket to go to Jamaica, and then you went on and went to a few other sites, and you were on a social networking site, and you got an ad that actually was offering you a deal on that trip to Jamaica.

So it's a little bit scary when you start to see these very targeted ads, and you wonder how do they know that I'm interested in Jamaica? How did they figure that out? So there's a lot of information out there that we're giving just by going online, just by going and searching, using the search engines, and also by visiting various sites. And we just aren't necessarily aware of what we're giving out and what the possible consequences of that are. Cookies being those things that save information in your computer. So is the FTC, what's your understanding? Are they likely to do something about this? I don't think that the FTC will necessarily do something drastic. I think that they might look into some kind of standards some way. It's really about educating the public, and if they can do something to really help people understand what they're giving away when they go, when they put up their profile on my space and on Facebook, if they can really educate people, I think that's the key, and show them the options of what they can do to opt out of those networks,

and to opt out of being tracked in that way. That's really the key. There's been talk about a do not track database, which is similar to a do not call database, where you could actually put your name in and say, I don't want online advertisers and marketers to track my movements online, but the marketers and the website publishers believe that that's not a good solution because it's going to take away from their ways of making money. Just quickly, as of right now, if you use one of these sites of my space or Facebook, and you're concerned about privacy, what can you do about it? Well, first, you should look and see what their privacy, see if there's ways you can opt out of their tracking. And second of all, if there is a do not track database, you might want to go into that. But basically, or you can also clear those cookies that are in your computer that are showing all the sites that you've been to. So those are a lot of steps. So if there's a simple way to kind of opt out of having people track you,

that's what makes a lot more sense. And if the FTC and the businesses and the consumer groups and privacy groups can get together and come up with a really simple, elegant solution that would really help. Probably something people are going to be paying a lot more attention to now. All right, Mark Glaser, we appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Now to the global fight against AIDS. Four years after President Bush launched a U.S.-backed plan to curb AIDS in Africa, the program is working to provide treatment for millions. The New Zowers Health Correspondents, Susan Denser, traveled to Rwanda recently to gauge the promise and the reality. Our health unit reports are a partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It's often hard to comprehend the toll that HIV-AIDS has taken here in this beautiful land of the legendary 1,000 hills.

About 4 percent of the adult population here in Rwanda is infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. That's added untold misery in a poor country where per capita income is just $1,600 a year. Before the widespread use of antiretroviral drugs, or ARVs, thousands with HIV were dying. But now all of that has changed to the benefit of people like Fatima Niera Safari, a 24-year-old Muslim woman with HIV. We interviewed her outside the hospital where she gets her HIV treatment. I learned I was infected in 2001 after the death of my first husband. I started on antiretroviral treatment. I took it for eight months, then I had my first child with my second husband. Thanks in part to drug treatment she underwent while pregnant, her now-year-old son was born HIV-free. As is the case with tens of thousands of Rwandes with HIV, Niera Safari's treatment is paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

I know that it is funded by the American government, and we are very, very happy that they manage to bring that support to us. With the treatment, we are healthy. We are living like any ordinary person, and we are very, very grateful for that support. A work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. The program that pays for Niera Safari's treatment proposed by President Bush in 2003 is the U.S. Global AIDS Initiative. It's often called PEPFAR, the president's emergency plan for AIDS relief. Congress ultimately voted to spend $15 billion on the five-year effort to fight HIV in roughly 120 countries. The goal by 2008 was to get 7 million people on antiretroviral drugs, prevent 10 million new infections, and provide care for 2 million orphans and other AIDS-affected people. From the start, countless concerns were raised that the program was too costly

or by contrast that the U.S. wasn't spending enough on it. That health systems and poor nations could never deliver the care. That Africans in particular couldn't follow complex treatment regiments. That high-cost anti-AIDS drugs would be stolen or diverted. But now, four years after the program got going, most of these concerns have been laid to rest, says Ambassador Mark Dible. He's the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator. When President Bush started this, when he announced this, 50,000 people, 50,000 people, and all of Sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Through last September, we supported treatment for 1.1 million people. And that, I think, is the greatest thing about PEPFAR. It's hope. It's creating hope where there was no hope. Dr. Agnes Binauwaho heads Rwanda's National AIDS Control Commission. PEPFAR has been a great success in Rwanda. It was really adapted to what we are already doing, just give us the capacity to go faster, to fight the disease,

and to bring very deep inside communities, care and treatment services, and we are very grateful. The Global AIDS Initiative is making its greatest headway in getting HIV-infected people on antiretroviral treatment. The job has been made easier by rapidly falling prices of generic forms of the drugs. A year's worth of treatment for one person used to cost thousands of dollars, but the U.S. program can now purchase a typical combination drug treatment for as low as $90 per person per year. John Dunlap is the health officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development, who directs the AIDS Initiative program in Rwanda. He says Rwanda may be the first of 15 so-called focus countries to reach its five-year treatment target about a year ahead of schedule. The treatment goal for Rwanda is 50,000 people on antiretrovirals by the end of the PEPFAR program, and indeed, Rwanda is really moving very fast in terms of achieving that goal.

We expect to be close to or have achieved that by the end of this year, so that's very exciting. The results are evident here at Shira Hospital in Northwestern, Rwanda. Patients with HIV who are trained as community counselors were meeting here the day we visited. The U.S. program paid for extensive renovations and expansion of the hospital. Today, under a contract from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Columbia University supports the hospital staff in delivering a range of anti-AIDS programs. One is the effort to prevent maternal-to-child transmission of HIV. If pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and their infants are not treated with antiretroviral drugs, babies may acquire the virus up to 45 percent of the time, as a result up to 1 million babies worldwide each year acquire HIV.

We have women who are already coming here for antiretroviral treatment under the program to prevent transmission from mother-to-child and then who come here to deliver. At Shira, Dr. Ruban said Beigui Tanest described the protocols the hospital follows to block mother-to-child transmission. There are other women who arrive here. We do the test right here on the delivery table. They have never had treatment, so we have to give them the varipine when they are in labor. After delivery, the babies also get medications. Usually, naveripine syrup and AZT. For AZT, the infant must receive the dose for 30 days. Tanest told us the hospital has cut transmission rates to levels close to those in the US, where today as few as 1 percent of infants born to HIV infected mothers have the virus. I can say that here at our hospital, we have reduced the rate of transmission from around 40 percent estimated in places like this to less than 5 percent.

One of the babies who have been spared from HIV is the young son of Odette Mi Makusa. Before this program, people were dying in the villages, or they would be brought to the hospital only to die. But today, Mi Makusa and her husband are living with HIV, and their child was born HIV-free. Rwanda's experience has set to rest other concerns, such as that drugs paid for by the US would be siphoned off or stolen. Dr. Binauahu of the National AIDS Commission points to a cell phone-based tracking system called tracknet. It allows monitoring of drugs given to every patient around the country. Just go and see if you have one case of corruption with reports and not track. Me, I'm paid to be sure that every single dollar spent in the fight against HIV-AIDS, go in the right place to the right person and the right amongst. The concern that Africans could not adhere to rigorous AIDS drug treatment

regimens has also eased. Lack of adherence to treatment not only harms the patient, but can also spur the growth of drug-resistant strains of HIV. Dr. Inosant Nyarohirira is Rwanda's minister in charge of HIV-AIDS and other infectious diseases. We have a donation which is beyond 90 percent. I have to say that I was impressed too, and really the tracknet has answered that question. Global HIV experts say adherence rates that high exceed those found among some patients in the US. More than anything else, USAID and the battle against HIV and Rwanda may be helping not to bury the past but to move beyond it. These skulls belong to some of the ethnic tutsis who were slaughtered 13 years ago by Rwanda's ethnic houtus. This is one of the many memorials to the genocide in Rwanda that killed upwards of 800,000 people in 1994. Memories of that unspeakable harsh still haunt many Rwandans to this very day. But many also told us that

the battle against HIV and the US assistance in that effort had played a role in the nation's post-genocide healing. Nowhere is that more evident than here at Avega, the association of genocide widows in Rwanda. That's where we met Winifred Mukakaki Hana, now 48. Her husband, like her a tutsi, was killed during the genocide as were two of her three children. In prison in a church, she was repeatedly raped by her who took afters. So many, she told us that she lost count. After about a month and 20 days, there came a soldier who wanted to rape me. Then I told him, please, instead of treating me like this, why don't you shoot me so that I can at least get some peace. Then he said that he cannot waste his bullets on me. That's when he got a bayonet and pierced me in the groin. Mukakaki Hana was eight months pregnant with her late husband's child when the genocide ended. Her captor sliced her Achilles tendons so she could only crawl away.

I delivered the baby alive, but I couldn't move and I couldn't help myself. There were dogs all over the place that came and ate my child. They ate my baby. Just after the war, I tested positive for HIV. So I started coming just after the war, as soon as a vega was born, so they'd been caring for me and providing me with treatment. They kind of became my parents. Mukakaki Hana told us she's alive today because the U.S. is paying for her antiretroviral drugs provided through the clinic here. The truth is, those drugs are very helpful for us. We really need to thank God for that because if we didn't get those drugs, me personally, I would no longer be alive. By the end of next year, two million more people around the world who will have benefited from the U.S. program may be able to say much the same thing. Susan will have another story

from Rwanda tomorrow night. You can ask questions about U.S. efforts to combat AIDS in Africa in our online insider forum. Find it at pbs.org slash news hour. Also look online for Susan's slideshow of photos and original footage plus a lesson plan for teachers. Again, the major developments of the day. The ousted chief Justice of Pakistan rallied lawyers to protest emergency rule. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send the nominee for attorney general, Michael Mukasey, to the full Senate, and this evening the House voted to override the president's veto of a water project bill. The Senate is expected to follow suit. Tonight on PBS Frontline World looks at extraordinary rendition, the CIA's practice of moving suspected terrorists to secret foreign jails for interrogation. Check your local listings for the time.

We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Eiffel. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by every day it seems talk of oil, energy, the environment. Where are the answers? Right now we're producing clean renewable geothermal energy. Generating enough energy to power seven million homes. Imagine that, an oil company as part of the solution. This is the power of human energy. The new AT&T, Pacific Life, and the National Science Foundation, supporting education and research across all fields of science and engineering. And with the ongoing support of these

institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. To purchase video of the news hour with Jim Lehrer, call 1-866-678-News. At the height of the Cold War, the US and Soviet Union are locked in a nuclear standoff.

We can't even recreate the terror and the fear that existed at that time. In October 1957, the Soviets stunned the world by orbiting the first Earth satellite, Sputnik. Sputnik signaled a fundamental shift in the Cold War arena. Previously to this, the US had been viewed as having the upper hand, not so much any more. Sputnik was defined not as a Soviet success, but as a US failure. Much of the blame for failure is directed at the president. President Russia has launched an Earth satellite. They also claim to have had a successful

firing of the hit-o-con-metal ballistics missile. None of them.