OPINION - Shields and Books 9/13/2015

"Shields and Brooks on U.S. reaching out to refugees, Iran deal assurance" PBS NewsHour 9/11/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including whether the U.S. has a responsibility to take in Syrians displaced by war, Senate Democrats’ blocking of a GOP resolution to reject the Iran deal, Vice President Joe Biden’s interview with Stephen Colbert and former Gov. Rick Perry drops out.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  But first to the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

We just had a segment where we laid out in painful detail how difficult it is for a refugee to gain asylum in the United States.  And there are several people who say, you know what?  If it wasn’t for the United States’ foreign policy of perhaps disbanding the Iraqi army, creating a tremendous amount of regional instability that perhaps in — fueled ISIS, destabilized Syria further, and has caused this migrant crises — is the United States responsible or should they be more responsible in taking more asylum seekers?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Yes, I would be one of those people.

I think all the things you mentioned.  And then a couple years ago, we had a big debate about Syria and whether we should be helping the moderates, the moderates, such as they are, in Syria and whether we should arm those moderates.  And people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham said yes.

Eventually, the current administration did arm them, but with very little, much too late.  And so you have this war between Assad’s forces and ISIS.  And so I do think it was partially our — the vacuum created by the U.S. and the West, when there was still some sort of moderate solution possible, that helped create this crisis.  And, therefore, we have a responsibility to take in more refugees.

It’s still, though, bizarre to me that most of the debate is on this side of the pipeline, the flow of people on the receiving end.  There are hundreds of millions — not hundreds, but there are a lot of — millions of people in Syria.  Are they all going to come?  What about dealing with that Syria there and creating safe havens, creating places where people can go to be safe, when you can have islands of stability inside these two evil forces?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  I agree 100 percent with 50 percent of what David said.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS:  I think that it didn’t begin with the United States’ withdrawal from Iraq.  It began with the United States’ invasion of Iraq and the entire destabilization of the region.

And there’s no question that Iran was strengthened by the United States’ invasion of Iraq, that sectarian violence was encouraged and that — destabilization.  As far as our — the United States’ commitment to Syria, it’s certainly been halting.  But that part of that halting has been lack of any domestic political support, as a consequence of what happened in Iraq.

And it was just an unmitigated disaster.  But the reality is that the moral leadership of the planet, or at least of the Western world right now, has become in Berlin and Stockholm.  Germany and Sweden have stepped up.  And people say, oh, well, that is in the self-interest of Germany.

It is in the self-interest of Germany to take talented, energetic, able, committed people who have the resources, the initiative and the strength to get out.  It’s a tragedy.  David makes the point that a nation the size of Syria, four million people have left the country.

I mean, that’s a stain on us and it’s a stain on all of the civilized world that we have allowed that to continue.

TENNIS - Serena's Loss

"Why Serena’s loss is one of the biggest upsets in sports history" PBS NewsHour 9/11/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Winner of this year's French Open, Australian Open and Wimbledon, Serena Williams seemed poised to clinch a spectacular Grand Slam triumph at the U.S. Open (tennis).  But her hopes were dashed Friday when Roberta Vinci of Italy defeated the 21-time majors champion in a stunning upset.  Hari Sreenivasan talks to Christine Brennan of USA Today.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  When Serena Williams took to the court this afternoon, her match was expected by many to be one more victory on the road to a spectacular Grand Slam triumph.

Williams had won all three prior major titles this year, the French Open, Australian Open and Wimbledon.  She defeated her sister, Venus, in a tough match earlier this week.  But her opponent, unseated Roberta Vinci of Italy, dashed the hopes of the 21-time major champion in a stunning upset.

Serena was going for history and trying to become the first woman to win a Grand Slam, all four majors in the same season, since Steffi Graf last did that in 1988.

Christine Brennan of USA Today and a commentator for ABC News joins us now.

We were all watching.  What happened?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, USA Today:  Yes, exactly.  What happened?

Well, Vinci happened.  And one of the biggest upsets, Hari, we have ever seen in sports, men or women’s, any sport around the world happened, one of the biggest.  I’m not saying it’s the biggest.  But Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson in 1990.  You have had upsets in golf.  Of course, people remember the U.S. beating the Soviets in hockey at the Olympics in 1980.

I don’t know where that ranks that, to me, is always going to be the biggest.  But in terms of a story that had been building not just for the last week-and-a-half, almost two weeks of the U.S. Open (tennis), but all summer, as we have been looking at the stories of American Pharoah and Jordan Spieth, and we have been talking Grand Slams and Triple Crowns, and here comes Serena just blazing the trail with the Australian, the French, Wimbledon.

And she is at her home tournament.  Wow.  No one ever saw this coming.

HEALTH - Blood Pressure Targets

What?!  I've had high blood pressure for decades and my doctor set my target as less than 120/80.  So this is 'new?'

"Study:  Lower targets for blood pressure can prevent heart attacks and strokes" PBS NewsHour 9/11/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For patients over 50, having blood pressure below the commonly recommended targets can drastically reduce the risk of heart disease and strokes.  That’s according to a major blood pressure study from the National Institutes of Health, which called the information "potentially lifesaving."  Hari Sreenivasan speaks to Dr. Gary Gibbons of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  There’s news out from the National Institutes of Health today that could change the way we deal with blood pressure.  Researchers found that, for many patients over 50, blood pressure far below the commonly recommended targets can drastically reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes and deaths.

Doctors said the top line of a blood pressure reading should be below 120 for many.  Prior recommendations put the number at 140.  In fact, the NIH announced the end of a major blood pressure study a year early, saying it was potentially lifesaving information.

Dr. Gary Gibbons is director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH, which sponsored the trial. He joins us now.

Dr. Gibbons, first of all, break this down for us.  Why is this significant?

DR. GARY GIBBONS, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute:  Well, as you know, Hari, 70 million Americans have high blood pressure.

It predisposes to the leading causes of death, such as heart disease and stroke.  And we knew for a long time that treating high blood pressure was important to prevent these complications.  But there was a lot of uncertainty as to how low doctors should go and bringing that pressure down.

The SPRINT study, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, was designed to ask and answer that question.  And now we have those interim results that make it very clear that being aggressive and intensive treatment regimen that goes to that lower target below 120 millimeters of mercury shows great benefit in reducing the complications such as heart attacks, heart failure and stroke and saves lives.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  When you start to say low blood pressure, people are going to start becoming concerned about the elderly, for whom low blood pressure can lead to dizziness or fainting.  How do you figure out if 120 is right for you?

DR. GARY GIBBONS:  Well, as in all things, that we must balance the benefits against potential harms.  And that’s why it’s important for each patient to consult their care provider to see what’s the right target for them.

But it’s important to note that this study included individuals 50 and over, and indeed included — one-fourth of the study sample with age 75 or older.  So it was inclusive of the elderly.  Indeed, our preliminary analysis suggest that the benefit, we’re seeing across the diverse group of people in the study sample, including those over 75.

So, we think that this may be broadly applicable to those 50 and older who are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

RUSSIA - Syria, Putin Interference

"What does Moscow get from offering Assad military support?" PBS NewsHour 9/10/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What do we know about Russia’s military involvement in Syria?  Gwen Ifill speaks to Pavel Baev of the Peace Research Institute Oslo and Steven Simon of Dartmouth College.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  So, what are the Russians up to in Syria, and what’s the impact on the ground?

For some answers, we turn to Pavel Baev, a Russian military scholar and the research director at the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, and Steven Simon, a visiting lecturer at Dartmouth College.  He served on the National Security Council staff during the Obama and Clinton administrations.

Pavel Baev, what do we know of the extent of the Russian involvement right now in Syria?

PAVEL BAEV, Peace Research Institute Oslo:  Very little is actually known for fact, and what is known doesn’t make much sense, because what the Russians are saying is, yes, we are supplying — were supplying small arms, ammunition and personnel carriers and some military advisers and some technical personnel.

This sort of military weapons do not need any technical advisers and personnel.  They’re pretty elementary.  So the feeling is that the little increase in Russian military deliveries produced a lot of political spin and that was deliberate.

GWEN IFILL:  Steven Simon, do we think we’re talking about advisory help or combat help?

STEVEN SIMON, Dartmouth College:  Well, we know that the Russians are worried about this — the viability of the Syrian regime right now.

The Syrians have — that is, the regime has absorbed pretty serious losses over the past year.  They had a good year in 2014 — 2015, not very good.  They lost Idlib.  They lost Palmyra.  They’re under pressure in the south and now they’re under pressure in the east at Deir el-Zour.

They have got a demographic problem.  It’s not clear how long they can actually keep up the fight.  For the Russians, the viability of this regime is extremely important for a number of reasons, and I seriously doubt they’re going to let it go down.

I infer from that the kind of assistance they’re preparing to provide to the Syrians will be military assistance, assistance that will help keep the Syrian regime afloat and on the battlefield at a very precarious moment.

So more people will be sacrificed on the alter of despot Bashar al-Assad.

ARCHAEOLOGY - Long-Lost Human Ancestor

"Trove of fossils from a long-lost human ancestor is greatest find in decades" PBS NewsHour 9/10/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Scientists have discovered a new human-like species, deep in a cave system in South Africa.  Researchers have said that the discovery could change our conception of human ancestry.  For more on the discovery, Jeffrey Brown speaks to Jamie Shreeve of National Geographic Magazine and excavation team member Becca Peixotto.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Researchers announced a fossil discovery today that some consider one of the greatest in the last 50 years, and one that could provide an important link in the family tree for all humans.

Jeffrey Brown has the story.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  The bones were found in a deep cave 30 miles northwest of Johannesburg.  And the way they were found and then gathered is another incredible part of the story.

In all, 1,500 fossil remains were brought up and contained remains of 15 individuals of all different ages.  Scientists named the new species Homo Naledi and created this rendering.

The quest is chronicled in the new issue of “National Geographic” and in a special documentary airing on “NOVA” next week called “The Dawn of Humanity.” (link to full show, 1:53:07)

Here’s a short clip.

NARRATOR:  As the analysis goes on, the bones from the Rising Star cave are finally ready to be presented to the world.

MAN:  We have got a new species of early human in the genus Homo, and that’s tremendously exciting.

We have never had anything in that transition period between the late Australopithecus and the earliest members of our genus in any kind of abundance, and, boy, we have it in abundance now.

NARRATOR:  To members of the team, the fossils suggest a creature unlike anything ever found before.

MAN:  We are looking at creatures that are humanlike in their feet, humanlike in their hands, humanlike in their teeth.  Everything that interacts directly with the environment is Homo, and everything that’s sort of central, you know, the trunk, the architecture of the vertebral column, the brain, those sorts of things are more primitive.  It’s like evolution is crafting us from the outside in.

BRITAIN - Hale to the Queen's Longest Reign

"Queen Elizabeth marks her record reign with a rail trip" PBS NewsHour 9/9/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In 1952, Britain's Queen Elizabeth II assumed the throne after the death of her father.  More than 63 years later, her reign has lasted longer than that of her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, who up until now had been the nation's longest ruling monarch.  Tim Ewart of Independent Television News reports on how she spent the occasion.

TIM EWART, Independent Television News:  It was a routine royal engagement, the reopening of a railway line, but this was a momentous moment in the queen’s reign.

She arrived from Balmoral, her estate in the highlands, where she had originally hoped to spend a quiet day.  She was met in Edinburgh, a moment not without irony, by Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon.  Many in her Scottish National Party would like to sever links with the crown.

The queen was to be carried in style aboard the steam train Union of South Africa.  Today was a day all about making journeys, one long, extraordinary so, touching seven decades, the four corners of the globe and the affections of many million people, the other short, 31 miles from Edinburgh down to the borders.

The queen’s thoughts may have been on a rather more somber journey many years ago.  In February 1952, she flew back to London from Kenya after the sudden death of her father, King George VI.  She had left a princess and returned a queen at just 25 years old.

As the Union of South Africa headed south, a tide of tributes was gaining momentum, led by the prime minister.

DAVID CAMERON, Prime Minister, United Kingdom:  And it is, of course, typical of her selfless sense of service that she would have us treat this day just like any other.

TIM EWART:  The queen’s first stop was Newtongrange station.  It was a chance to meet some of the thousands of well-wishers who had turned out to share her big day.

The queen was always uncomfortable about celebrations she regards as inextricably linked to the death of her great-great grandmother, but such was the level of public and media interest in today’s milestone in her reign that she was in the end forced to respond to it.

Nicola Sturgeon, passionate advocate of Scottish independence, was now cheerleader for the British monarch.

NUCLEAR DEAL - U.S. Negotiator Comments

"U.S. negotiator talks holding Iran to its nuclear deal obligations" PBS NewsHour 9/9/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns headed a secret negotiating team that met with high level Iranian representatives first in 2008 under President George W. Bush, and then in earnest in 2013, when the Obama and Rouhani governments revived the talks.  Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner interviews Burns about the deal and whether Iran will comply.

MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour):  William Burns, thank you for joining us.

WILLIAM BURNS, Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State:  It’s a pleasure to be with you.

MARGARET WARNER:  Now that it’s clear that the president has at least the votes he needs to get this Iran deal through somehow, does it matter internationally whether he has to do it by veto or whether he is able to somehow finesse having a vote at all?

WILLIAM BURNS:  Well, I think the more quickly this can be accomplished on the Hill, I think the better it is for the United States as a demonstration of our commitment to this agreement, and then to focus on implementation, which is going to be a real challenge for all of us.

MARGARET WARNER:  Now, there are some Republican members of Congress who are talking already about, once the deal goes through, slapping new sanctions on Iran, unilateral ones that are non-nuclear-related.

Would that throw a monkey wrench in the works either on the Iranian or on the implementation side?

WILLIAM BURNS:  It could, is the honest answer.

So, I think the real issue here is less new measures at this point, and it’s more the rigorous implementation of those provisions which already exist to push back against Iranian behavior, whether it’s support for terrorism in the region directly through proxies or human rights practices that we have continued to condemn.

MARGARET WARNER:  So do you mean more rigorous than we are now?

WILLIAM BURNS:  Yes, I think there are things that we can do working with others to try to interdict arms shipments to Hezbollah, as well as to Houthis in Yemen.  I think we’re in a stronger position to do that now that we’re moving ahead with implementation of the nuclear agreement.

MIGRANT CRISIS - European Union Ambassodor

"Will EU proposal relieve pressure on those bearing the brunt of the migrant crisis?" PBS NewsHour 9/9/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced new plans to require member states to absorb a share of 160,000 asylum seekers flocking to Italy, Greece and Hungary.  European Union Ambassador David O'Sullivan joins Gwen Ifill to discuss the announced proposal.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Joining us now to talk about that push and pull, and the announced proposal today to help remedy the crisis, is the European Union’s ambassador to the United States, David O’Sullivan.

Welcome.

DAVID O’SULLIVAN, European Union Ambassador to the United States:  Thank you.

GWEN IFILL:  So let’s talk about the proposal put forth today to take — to accept 160,000 of these migrants and refugees and spread them somehow among different countries in the E.U.  How feasible is that?

DAVID O’SULLIVAN:  I think it’s eminently feasible.

I mean, you need to understand, of course, that this is basically a proposal designed to relieve the immediate pressure on the front-line countries in Europe who’ve had to bear the brunt of the increased wave of refugees, particularly Italy and Greece coming from the Mediterranean, and now Hungary through the route of the Western Balkans.

It’s clear that these countries, enormous efforts though they have made — and the Italians and Greek people have been extremely generous in their reaction — it is more that they can cope with, so we do need a redistribution of people already on European soil across all of our member states, so the burden can be shared more equitably.

But this is not the only action which is being proposed, of course.  We’re also looking at stepping up action across the borders.  We are the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to the refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

But, as your report has shown, the system there is at breaking point, and this is part of the push that the international community will also need to address.

GWEN IFILL:  A lot at the breaking point, including emotions.

DAVID O’SULLIVAN:  Indeed.

GWEN IFILL:  I want to talk about the 160,000, though, because you’re saying that is a baseline, that’s where you begin, not where you necessarily end.

And you’re talking about enforcing by putting in place, mandating quotas, certain countries have to accept a certain amount.  How do you enforce that?

POLITICS - Andrew Jackson vs Donald Trump

"What Andrew Jackson has in common with Donald Trump" PBS NewsHour 9/8/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Of the nearly two dozen major candidates running for president, the ones getting the most attention are the political outsiders.  Is this a rare situation, or have American voters seen this before?  Gwen Ifill talks to presidential historians Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith and Lara Brown of George Washington University.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  There are nearly two dozen major candidates running for president this year, and the ones getting the most attention are not all elected officials.  They are the outsiders, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Bernie Sanders, Carly Fiorina, using YouTube, Instagram and other social media to build huge followings and get onto debate stages.

But is this really brand-new?  Or have we been here before?

We turn to three political historians, Lara Brown, who directs George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, and NewsHour regulars Michael Beschloss, the author of nine books, and Richard Norton Smith, whose most recent book was on the life of Nelson Rockefeller.

So, Michael Beschloss, a lot of people are running.  We seem to be paying attention to them.  But the ones catching fire are not necessarily the politicians or at least seen or perceived as being the politicians.  How unusual is that?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian:  Well, it has happened before a lot in history.  And maybe the best example of that would have been Ross Perot in 1992.

What he basically said was, I’m a businessman.  I have never held public office.  And that means I’m not implicated in these party establishments that have taken the country the wrong way.  So he went on “Larry King” in February of 1992.

GWEN IFILL:  Remember.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS:  And he said, if you Americans want me to run, I will run as a third-party candidate, and I will attack the federal deficits, which neither party is doing anything about.

He allowed himself, at least in his language, to be recruited.  He ran, and at one point early that year, at least in the late spring, he was running ahead of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the two major-party candidates.

GWEN IFILL:  And he was a third-party candidate.

But we have seen people even from the establishment parties, Lara Brown, who have broken out of this and changed up the whole feel of an election race before Ross Perot.

LARA BROWN, George Washington University:  Well, I think that’s right.

What we really have to do is make a distinction.  And that distinction is those who call themselves outsiders, who really mean they’re just outside Washington (DC), vs. those who call themselves outsiders because they’re outside of politics altogether.

GWEN IFILL:  For example?

LARA BROWN:  For example, we can see the governors who run.

ON LABOR DAY - $15 Minimum Wage

"How does the fight for $15 affect the labor market?" PBS NewsHour 9/7/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Three years since a small group of fast-food workers began protesting in demand of higher pay and better conditions, a minimum wage of $15 an hour is becoming a reality for many across the country.  Jeffrey Brown gets two perspectives from Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It was just three years ago when more than 100 fast food workers in New York City first began walking off the job to demand higher wages and better working conditions.  Now a $15-an-hour minimum wage is becoming a reality for many low-wage workers across the country.

Jeffrey Brown has our Labor Day look.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  This summer has been a big one for the movement.  Los Angeles officials agreed to raise the minimum wage from $9 an hour to $15.  Mayors of eight other cities near San Francisco, including San Jose, are expected to soon endorse a similar plan.  And New York State is moving toward a $15-an-hour wage for all fast food workers; $15 has already been signed into law in other cities, including Seattle, with wages hiked gradually, depending on the city, between 2017 and 2021.

We look at the movement’s growing success and questions about its impact.

Robert Reich is former secretary of labor and now professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.  He led a workers walkout at a McDonald’s in April.  His new book is called “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few.”  And Michael Strain is an economist who studies labor market and wages.  He’s a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

And I want to welcome both of you.

Robert Reich, let me start with you.

Overview first.  Is it fair to see this movement as taking real hold and why do you think it has picked up so much momentum?

ROBERT REICH, Former U.S. Labor Secretary:  Jeff, I do think that it is taking hold.

I think it’s picked up momentum because, for one thing, the minimum wage in real terms, adjusted for inflation, keeps on dropping.  If we had the same minimum wage we had as in 1968, adjusted for inflation, it would be over $10 today.

I think a lot of people who are middle class, lower middle class and poor are just saying, look, this is just simply unfair.  And, finally, you have got a lot of middle class who are people are saying, we’re paying more and more taxes to keep working people out of poverty, which is effectively a subsidy to all of these low-wage employers.  And that’s not fair either.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Michael Strain, how do you assess the strength of the movement and what is behind it?

MICHAEL STRAIN, American Enterprise Institute:  Well, I think there’s no question that the movement is strong and seems to be growing stronger and, by their metrics of success, they have racked up some real victories.

I think if we raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour or similar levels in these cities, it will create winners, it will create losers.  In my judgment, there are going to be more losers than winners.  I think it’s a very risky strategy.  But I certainly understand what’s motivating these workers and these organizers, and I admire the goal, which is to help the working poor and working class Americans.

What has our (U.S.) Negligence Wrought?

Our negligence:

1)  G.W. Bush invades Iraq and that draws our military strength away from Afghanistan which harbored the 9/11 terrorists.

2)  We fail to support ANY military action in the Syrian civil war, not even air strikes.

Results:

A)  Our involvement in Afghanistan goes on for 11+ years.

B)  Syria is, for all intents and purposes, is destroyed by a megalomaniac dictator.

C)  And Iraq ends up with a non-functional and divided government, and a weakened and non-effective military.

D)  Now we have ISIS, and IMO, Putin perceives an opportunity to expand Russian power.


I firmly believe that if we had NOT invaded Iraq and stayed focused on Afghanistan, we would not have been there for 11yrs and the Afghanistan government would have been more stable.  Iraq would have had an army that could counter any over-spill from Syria.

If we had at least given air support in the Syrian civil war by bombing Bashar al-Assad's army depots (especially tanks) and air fields, Syria would have been much better off and ISIS would not have been born.

Our inaction or negligence is what has put the U.S. and countries in the region is grave danger.  This will cost us even more now AND we may not be able to reverse the consequences.

OPINION - Shields and Gerson 9/4/2015

"Shields and Gerson on refugee crisis responsibility, Trump’s GOP pledge" PBS NewsHour 9/4/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Hillary Clinton’s latest interview on her use of a private email server, Donald Trump’s pledge not to run as a third-party candidate, plus who should be stepping up to address the refugee crisis in Europe.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  I will say this about Secretary Clinton today.  Her answer to Andrea on Joe Biden was pitch-perfect.  I mean, it was human, it was natural, it was very personal in the best sense.  And it didn’t have any political angle to it that I could detect.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Well, she asked her, do you have a comment about the fact that he’s considering running?

MARK SHIELDS:  Right.  Oh, I’m sorry.  Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And she said, it’s not for me to say.  And then she went on to say, he needs the space to think about it, right?

MARK SHIELDS:  Right.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Michael, we ran a clip of what the Vice President said last night at that speech at the synagogue in Atlanta.

Do you think get the sense that he’s leaning away?  He clearly didn’t sound like he is there yet.

MICHAEL GERSON, Washington Post:  I get the sense that you’re seeing that process in public, exactly what he’s thinking about this.  It’s one of his appeals, is this transparency.

And this is a family that underwent a terrible trauma three months ago, that, you know, a trauma like that can strengthen a family, but it also can be a difficult time.  And a presidential campaign brings minute and massive scrutiny.

And so I think that is a real issue.  But he could come in here.  He doesn’t fit an ideological gap.  He’s very much like Clinton in a lot of his views.  There is no ideological gap he would fill.  But there is a kind of ethical gap that he might fill.

GUATEMALA - Uprising

"Why Guatemalans rose up against government corruption" PBS NewsHour 9/4/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On Thursday, Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina was forced to resign.  By the afternoon, he was in court, accused of taking part in a multi-million dollar bribery operation, and then he spent the night in jail.  Judy Woodruff takes a closer look at the dramatic turn of events with Adriana Beltrán from the Washington Office on Latin America.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  We turn now to a major shakeup in the Central American nation of Guatemala.

On Thursday morning, President Otto Perez Molina was forced to resign.  By Thursday afternoon, he was in court to face charges, and he spent the night in jail.  He’s accused of taking part in a multimillion-dollar bribery operation.  As the allegations were revealed over the summer, tens of thousands of Guatemalans took to the streets, demanding accountability.

For more on these allegations and what it means for that country, I’m joined now by Adriana Beltran.  She’s a Guatemala expert at the Washington Office on Latin America. It’s a research group that advocates for human rights.

Welcome to the NewsHour.

ADRIANA BELTRAN, Washington Office on Latin America:  Thank you, Judy, for inviting me.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, tell us, what are all these corruption charges about?  What do they actually involve?

ADRIANA BELTRAN:  Well, back in April, the Guatemalan public prosecutor’s office and the U.N.-led International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, or CICIG, unearthed a massive corruption scandal within the tax authority office.

It implicated a number of high-level officials that had essentially set up a scheme where they were accepting massive bribes for importers to be able to pay lower taxes, thereby defrauding the state of millions and millions of revenue.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And this has been unfolding over the year. Earlier this year, the vice president had to step down.

ADRIANA BELTRAN:  Right.

So, due to these charges, the vice president was forced to resign in May.  In August, following more investigations that were carried out by the prosecutor’s office and by the CICIG, they announced they had sufficient evidence to allege that both former Vice President Baldetti and now former President Otto Perez Molina were involved in this case.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - And Humanity

"Why humanity is essential to the future of artificial intelligence" PBS NewsHour 9/4/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As we advance toward increasingly sophisticated forms of artificial intelligence, John Markoff, author of “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans and Robots,” joins Jeffrey Brown to discuss our anxiety about autonomous technology and the human ethics that go into that invention.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  Is it man against or with machine?  Do machines, robots help us, replace us, hurt us?

Robots are being built and seeping into more and more of our lives, but how much are their value and impact understood and accounted for?

Such questions are part of a new book that looks at the last decades and the advance of artificial intelligence and robotics.  It’s titled “Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground Between Humans and Robots.”

Author John Markoff is a longtime science and technology reporter for The New York Times.

And welcome to you.

JOHN MARKOFF, Author, “Machines of Loving Grace “:  Thank you.

JEFFREY BROWN:  “Machines of Loving Grace,” it sounds great, wonderful, right?  A little bit of religion, a little bit of human love, but it’s more complicated.

JOHN MARKOFF:  Yes.  Well, yes, and I might have put a question mark after it.

JEFFREY BROWN:  OK.

JOHN MARKOFF:  Because I think we can go down both paths.  And we probably will go down both paths.

My point is, it’s a human choice at this point.  These machines are not evolving by themselves.  There are human designers.

JEFFREY BROWN:  You’re making a distinction.  You’re coming at this as a reporter and you’re making a distinction between machines that are replacing humans and those that are sort of helping us.

JOHN MARKOFF:  Yes.

CALIFORNIA - Drought Shaming

"LA mayor says ‘drought shaming’ is our civic duty" PBS NewsHour 9/3/2015

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Now to our weekly feature, Brief But Spectacular.

Tonight, we hear from Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles.

With California in the midst of a severe drought, the state imposed mandatory water restrictions earlier this year.  Last week, the mayor’s office announced that, for the month of July, Los Angeles saved even more water than the state asked them to, using two million fewer gallons.

ERIC GARCETTI (D), Mayor of Los Angeles:  The droughts in Los Angeles and in California are here to stay.  So, we have got to make it a little bit more exciting, make it a little more sexy.

Ah, water.  We see so much water misused, wasted, thrown out to the ocean, or bad decisions made that take up more water than we need to sustain life.  The 'Save the Drop' campaign in Los Angeles is all about mindfulness.  It’s about being conscious of our behavior and our use.

I’m half-Mexican, half-Jewish, so it’s going to be a combination of intelligent forward-looking action and old-fashioned guilt.  Drought shaming is when you go to your next-door neighbor and say, you know, you have never been on that grass in your front lawn.  Why don’t you get rid of it?

I would say, if you have a lawn you are using, great.  Keep it.  Water less frequently, but keep it.  But 90 percent of lawns, maybe even more, go completely unoccupied.

We’re being very innovative here in Los Angeles with water, with the plentiful water we actually still have, switching out our turf and paying people to do that, to have better plans that use less water, and then recycling water.  About 60 percent of our daily use of water, equivalent of that, gets treated through our sewage treatment plants to a standard you could basically drink.  But then we wash it out to the ocean, instead of putting it back into the land here.

We’re not just planning for the next two years to get through the immediacy of the drought.  But we have got a 10-year and a 20-year plan to wean ourselves off of water that we import.

This is a nonpartisan issue.  Water doesn’t care what your party registration is.  It just cares that you are wasting it.  I hope to leave behind a legacy in which we reengineer Los Angeles once again, but in a way to live more sustainably with the water we already have.

I’m Mayor Eric Garcetti.  And this is my 'Brief But Spectacular' take on California and our relationship with water.

NEWSHOUR BOOK SHELF - "Purity"

Hummm.... Wonder if author watched "The X-Files" (Purity Control)?

"In ‘Purity,’ Jonathan Franzen dismantles the deception of idealism" PBS NewsHour 9/1/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Jonathan Franzen's latest novel unfolds between multiple characters across time and geography, connected by a theme named in its title: "Purity."  Jeffrey Brown visits the author on the California coast to discuss the book's inspiration and why he gets into heated public debates.

JONATHAN FRANZEN, Author, “Purity”:  That is the curlew again.  But it’s — this is — in the summer, they just get these amazing rust pink colors.  The rest of the year, they go real kind of gray and camouflage.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  The long-billed curlew, the Least sandpiper, the Heermann’s gull.

JONATHAN FRANZEN:  There’s one back — from the back that is still in its breeding plumage

JEFFREY BROWN:  Everywhere you look, there are birds here at the Moss Landing Wildlife Area on the California coast, oddly enough, in the shadow of a power plant.

And Jonathan Franzen, a dedicated, even obsessed bird-watcher knows them all.

JONATHAN FRANZEN:  Actually, I think that’s a jaeger.

JEFFREY BROWN:  It’s a pastime, Franzen says, that repays patience and a keen eye for the unexpected, much like the work he’s best known for, writing novels.

JONATHAN FRANZEN:  A great birder will spend some time looking at what everyone else is looking at, but then you will see him or her start to look around where everyone is not looking.  And that, I definitely recognize from my own practice of fiction.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Franzen lives in the seaside town of Santa Cruz, but was raised in a rather different setting, in the suburbs of Saint Louis.

He gained critical attention from his first two novels, but not many readers.  That changed with the 2001 publication of “The Corrections,” a sprawling novel about a dysfunctional Midwestern family which won the National Book Award and established him as one of the nation’s best-known writers.  When his next novel, “Freedom,” arrived in 2010, “TIME” magazine greeted it with a cover story proclaiming Franzen the great American novelist.

Now comes “Purity,” a book, he says, about youthful idealism.

IRAN - Opinion, Nuclear Deal

"Nuclear deal will dangerously empower Iran in the long term, says former U.S. arms control official" PBS NewsHour 8/31/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former U.S. arms control official Stephen Rademaker says the Iran nuclear agreement is a Faustian bargain that will end up empowering rather than weakening Iran in the end.  He joins Gwen Ifill to discuss his objections and how he would amend the deal.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Over the weekend, Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley became the 31st senator to announce his support for the Iran nuclear agreement.  His backing puts President Obama three votes away from winning a veto-proof majority in the Senate.  That would derail any resolutions disapproving the agreement.

Tonight, we continue our series of conversations on the Iran nuclear deal.  Last time, we heard from a former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency who supports the agreement.

Tonight, we hear from an opponent.  Stephen Rademaker was an assistant secretary of state for the Bureaus of Arms Control and International Security and Nonproliferation under President George W. Bush.  He’s now a principal at the Podesta Group in Washington and an adviser to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Thank you for joining us.

In a nutshell, what is your opposition to this deal as it is written now?

STEPHEN RADEMAKER, Former U.S. Arms Control Official:  I believe there are number of major flaws with the agreement.

But the single most important one is that it basically locks in that Iran will be a threshold nuclear weapons state.  That means that Iran is going to be able, in very short order, to produce nuclear weapons.

GWEN IFILL:  Explain to people the difference between threshold, just a little definitional question, and actually having the weapons?

STEPHEN RADEMAKER:  Well, being on the threshold means a country can be very, very close to actually having a nuclear weapon, but hasn’t actually produced one.  The term is often used that they can be a screwdriver’s turn away from actually putting together a nuclear weapon.

And experts have said for years, for decades that if Iran is allowed to become a threshold nuclear weapon state, that will stimulate a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which of course is a very dangerous region of the world.  And there are other countries there that, if Iran was allowed to have that capability, they are going to want exactly that same capability.

"Supporting deal, Sen. Casey says Iran is far too close to a nuclear weapon right now" PBS NewsHour 9/1/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Obama is now just one vote away from being able to veto legislation blocking approval of the Iranian nuclear deal.  Two Senate Democrats, Chris Coons of Delaware and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, announced their support today.  Sen. Bob Casey joins Judy Woodruff to discuss his stance.

"Why the American Jewish community is divided over the Iran deal" PBS NewsHour 9/3/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Among the American Jewish community, the Iran nuclear deal has triggered vigorous debate.  While advocacy groups and politicians campaign for both sides of the issue, members of the Jewish community grapple with what’s best for Israel and for America.  Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner looks at why the deal has become such a contentious issue.

HACKING - China and Russia Link-Up

"How China and Russia are mining major U.S. data hacks" PBS NewsHour 8/31/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Intelligence services in Russia and China are cross-referencing hacked U.S. databases to reveal the identities of U.S. intelligence workers, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.  Jeffrey Brown learns more from reporter Brian Bennett.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Next, a closer look at how major hacks of U.S. data are being used by China and Russia to target U.S. spies.

Today’s Los Angeles Times reports that intelligence services in those two nations are aggressively cross-referencing leaked information, including security clearances, airline records and medical insurance forms, to reveal the identities of intelligence officers and agents.

Jeffrey Brown has more.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  We hear about these high-level data breaches all the time.  Today’s story connects some of the dots in a chilling way, claiming, for example, that at least one clandestine network of American engineers and scientists who work with U.S. undercover agents overseas has already been compromised.

One of the article’s authors, L.A. Times reporter Brian Bennett, joins me now.

And welcome to you.

So, we hear about these acts.  This is about what happens afterwards, right, cross-indexing and putting together the information.  What kind of clues are they looking for?

BRIAN BENNETT, The Los Angeles Times:  So, right now, countries like China and Russia are collecting massive amounts of data on the lives of Americans and the lives of government workers.

And this is going to allow them to get a dossier on people and know about their medical history, their banking information, if they have financial difficulties and might be vulnerable to blackmail or something else, their — any marital indiscretions that may have come out, their connections overseas.  And all this information is put together in massive databases and powerful computers can crunch them and give a very detailed view of people traveling.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 8/28/2015

"Shields and Brooks on Biden’s presidential pondering, voter perceptions of Clinton" PBS NewsHour 8/28/2015

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including whether Vice President Joe Biden will join the 2016 presidential race, whether Hillary Clinton has stumbled as a frontrunner and why Sen. Bernie Sanders still seems like a long shot despite drawing huge crowds.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Vice President Joe Biden weighs a run for the White House.  Party loyalists criticize Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal e-mail account.  And Bernie Sanders continues to draw huge crowds and pulls ahead in New Hampshire — just a few of this week’s news developments, as we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.

That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, we have been spending a lot of time talking about the Republican race for the last few weeks.  Let’s spend some time tonight talking about the Democrats.

Joe Biden, David, a lot of talk about whether he’s going to get in.  He’s been meeting with the head of the Teamsters union.  He met with the liberal darling Elizabeth Warren, Senator Warren.  He’s got people advocating for him now at this big Democratic gathering in Minneapolis.

Do you think he’s going to get in?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  No.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS:  No.

Well, first, God bless him for his resilience.  The guy loses a son, and still wants to serve the country and still is emotionally strong enough to do it.  I salute him.  And — but — and he’s a wonderful man, and he’s a great public servant.

But what the country is in the mood for is anti-establishment.  I think that’s one of the reasons Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are sailing into headwinds.  Bernie Sanders has it.  Donald Trump has it in spades.  Joe Biden doesn’t have it.

And so whatever the problem is with the Clinton campaign, Joe Biden also has that problem.  And so I think he will get a sense of that larger atmosphere, let alone the money and the organization and all that, and Hillary Clinton’s still formidable strength, really.  And so my guess — it’s a guess shared by a lot of Democratic insiders — is that he won’t do it.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Do you share the guess?

MARK SHIELDS:  I don’t.

And, you know, and with great respect for David, but I don’t think anybody knows.  As David indicated, he wasn’t sure.  It’s the most personal decision imaginable.  And, as David touched on, with the death of his son Beau in May, it becomes even more personal.  It’s a family decision.  He’s a grandfather.

I mean, he really is.  What you see with Joe Biden is what you get.  And that is — David’s right.  It is not an anti-establishment, but America is craving authenticity in 2016.  And Joe Biden brings authenticity to it.  He’s also a happy warrior.  He also communicates with working-class voters a lot better than most Democrats do, and I think better than Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Clinton did, except in the late primaries in 2008.

So I think he probably had ruled it out, he had accepted it earlier, and Hillary Clinton had wrapped up endorsements.  She had money, she had support, and she stumbled.  Make no mistake about it.  And she looks vulnerable.  And there’s a surge of affection for Joe Biden, and I don’t think he’s made the decision.

I think he’s going to make it shortly.  His conversation with Elizabeth Warren, there was no offer, no ask.  They spent an hour and 50 minutes together.  And 90 percent of it was talking about issues, and 10 percent — 10 minutes or so about politics.
-----
MARK SHIELDS:  The pros, Judy, are basically, as Secretary Clinton — the Democratic Party has as its whole card is empathy, and that is a sense on the part of voters that they care about people like me.

In 2012, there were four presidential qualities that the exit poll of voters on the Election Day.  They asked, who has vision to the future, who’s a strong leader, who has — who shares your values?  Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama by 10 points.  Who cares about people like you, 81-18 Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton always had that.  Bill Clinton, when you questioned his candor, his forthrightness, or his behavior, there was always a sense he cares about ordinary people, there is a real commitment there.

She, in this latest Quinnipiac poll, national poll yesterday, you know…

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Hillary Clinton?

MARK SHIELDS:  Hillary Clinton.  Who’s ahead, who’s behind us doesn’t mean anything.

They asked, who cares about people, the needs of someone like you?  And she was 46 percent agree, 51 percent disagree.  I mean, that is a killer.  Joe Biden has a far more positive rating, as does Bernie Sanders.

I mean, with Hillary Clinton, the first woman candidate and a Democrat who has been — Children’s Defense Fund and health care and all the rest of it — that’s a real problem.  I don’t care how many endorsements you have got, how many superdelegates you have got.  That becomes a real problem.

MALE CHAUVINIST WORLD - Teen Consent

"Prep school rape trial raises questions about teen consent" PBS NewsHour 8/28/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Nineteen-year-old Owen Labrie, a former student at a prep school in New Hampshire, was accused of raping a freshman girl in 2014, but a jury cleared him of felony rape, convicting him on other lesser charges.  Jeffrey Brown discusses the case and the idea of sexual consent with Deborah Tuerkheimer of Northwestern University School of Law and Emily Bazelon of The New York Times Magazine.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  ..... we return to questions and concerns being raised about sexual assault among teens at the high school and college level, and what sort of consent can and should be given.

A trial over an alleged case of rape at an elite boarding school in New Hampshire concluded today.  The case has attracted national attention, and it touches on some broader issues.

Jeffrey Brown starts with some background.

WOMAN:  Guilty or not guilty?

WOMAN:  Guilty.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  Owen Labrie wept as the verdict was read aloud in a New Hampshire state courtroom.  The former prep school student had been accused of raping a freshman girl before his graduation in May 2014.

But the jury this afternoon cleared him of felony rape and instead convicted him on three misdemeanor sex charges and one felony count of using a computer to lure a minor for sexual contact.  During the trial, prosecutors argued Labrie forced himself on the alleged victim during a so-called senior salute, a tradition at Saint Paul’s where some older students arrange trysts with younger ones, including for sex.

OWEN LABRIE, Defendant:  I thought she was having a good time.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Labrie said there was consensual sexual contact between the two, but later testified that — quote — “divine inspiration” compelled him to stop short of intercourse.

OWEN LABRIE:  I thought to myself, maybe we shouldn’t do this.  It hadn’t been my intention going into the night to have sex.

JEFFREY BROWN:  The identity of the victim, now 16 years old, has not been released.  She testified that she said no to Labrie three times during the encounter.