tv Consider This Al Jazeera September 12, 2013 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
>> welcome to aljazeera. here are the top stories, a fire still burning tonight on the jersey shore, more than 30 businesses have been destroyed along the boardwalk from sea side park to sea side heights. governor chris christie has a message for visitors. >> do not come here. do not travel, stay away. we are still trying to bring more fire equipment in here. this is something that's going to be going on for quite some time. >> firefighters and residents are being treated. >> people in colorado are
worried about more mud slides. people were trapped in their cars, the hardest hit area is boulder county. at least three people have died. >> secretary of state john kerry will meet with russian's prime minister for talks on syria's chemical weapons. president obama said he is confident diplomatic talks will work but has not ruled out a strike. those are the headlines. "consider this" is up next on aljazeera.
>> vladamir putin argues for u.n. security council control as secretary of state john kerry begins high level talks with his russian counter park. is putin pushing the decision on syria to the united nations? has the u.n. lost its credible on the world stage. >> a dramatic increase in the use of swat teams made the people lease are supposed to protect less safe? >> fewer than one ofify models was a person of color. has diverse city gone out of style in the fashion industry? we'll ask a super not he will straight head. we begin with syria. russian president vladamir putin is at the center of the syria storm. he's won a big battle by forcing the debate back to the security council where russia's veto
gives it a voice in any internationally response. the paralysis on the civil syrian civil war raises questions. >> russia and china have flexed their veto power, raising questions whether the deep divides between word powers an the security council render the united states powerless. u.n. secretary admitted the failures. >> a collective failure, over the past two and a half years remain a heavy burden on the standing of the united nations and its member states. >> as did the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. >> clearly it is the understatement. year to say we still have work to do. >> critics say the u.n. is a bureaucratic nightmare and dangers of war zones often revent personnel to get to the scenes of alleged massacres.
a u.n. rights pan sell detailed rapes, executions and murders in syria. they had to rely on eyewitness testimony after not being allowed in the country. >> the report on the chemical attack in a suburb is delayed. some say it will blame the assad regime. russian president vladimir putin's op ed praises the u.n. while warning the u.s. not to act in syria without u.n. security backing, because no one wants the u.n. to suffer the fate of the league of nations. the major world powers can't agree on how to proceed with the resolution on syria's use of chemical weapons, because the russians won't agree to any resolutions include i can a threat of military force. the top russian and u.s. envoys continue to talk without u.n. help and trust has yet to be established. >> you want me to take your word for it.
it's a little early for that. >> ok. >> join meg now to discuss the issues at and with the united nations are david rhode and philippe, united nations director and human rights watch. david, you've been very critical of the u.n., writing a piece entitled "the u.n. keeps failing right when we need it." we certainly need it right now, especially the people suffering in syria through the humanitarian crisis. can it be effective. >> the issue is the u.n. security council and permanent five members that have veto power. in terms of syria, it's not the bureaucracy failing, it is the p5 and it's russia. let's be honest. putin has put himself in this position of strength by being obstinate and blocking every
effort. we can argue the use of force, but simple things like missions, humanitarian statements, all blocked. >> giving how he's put himself out there now and these op ed in the new york times, do you think he is going to change his tune? >> maybe he has. if something can work in the u.n., that's how it should work. it's up to russia. if it's a sirius offer, that would be a step forward. it has to be a clear resolution about how this is going to happen, not a mixed and muddled mission for the u.n. >> talking about putin and his op ed piece, he defended the united nations. i want to show you a quote. he said: >> of course, he's talking about the united states even though
they have taken military action on their own in the past. it's hard to believe that the country of the country who vetoed more than anyone else in history is making this argument. >> it's very clear when you see president putin, you have to look at his record. for the last two and a half years, what has russia been doing in the security council? they have used veto power to prevent the u.n. security council from doing its job, addressing the crisis in syria and in the meantime, russia has been arming president of the syria, who was committing mass astrocities. no one in the security council
has undermined more. >> the american am bass door of the united nations was clear about the dysfunction at the u.n., hard not to understand why. she did say this before the new chemical weapons proposal. let's listen in to what she had to say. >> there is nothing in the pattern of our interactions with our colleagues in the security council, with our russian colleagues that would give us any reason to be optimistic, and indeed, we have seen nothing in president putin's comments that suggest that there is an available path forward at the security council. >> french came out with a resolution about how to go forward with securing the chemical weapons. the threat of force remained if syria did not comply. already the russians complained about that, already the negotiations are going back and forth. >> the trench were pushing for
an act under chapter seven, meaning force can be used to enforce the u.n. secure council resolution. the russians are pushing for just a at the same time from the president of the security council. that's the key issue. it's this question of force, how will this deal actually be carried out, and that will be the real thing. i think the thing to watch is to see how the obama administration reacts to this. if they're looking for a quick, superficial solution and aren't going to push assad and putin on this offer, they'll take a mild statement and it won't be effective. >> do you think that's what's going to happen. >> it is hard to tell. there is in the french draft resolution something we find interesting, a referral of situation to the international criminal court. you can play games with weapons inspectors, you cannot play games with the prosecutor of the international criminal court. once it's sealed by the security council, there is no way back and there is a real opportunity
for justice for the victims of the crimes and the people killed. >> that throws an even bigger wrinkle. if assad is proven to be responsible for the chemical weapons attack, the russians not going to want him to go to the criminal court, the hague. they're going to protect him again. >> this report by the u.n. inspectors is probably going to come out monday or early next week. the people of the united states laugh at the u.n., but it does have much more credibility internationally than the united states government. this report on monday or early next week is very important. if it's very strong and clear that assad carried out these chemical attacks, it does help obama, does help the international pressure on putin to deliver. >> with a little caveat and a the weapon's inspectors job is not to say who used the chemical weapons. >> just whether they were used or not.
some of the things leaked from that report seem to show they went a little farther and are indicating that they think it was linked to the assad regime. >> it's very possible that the delivery, the methods of delivery of the sarin gas, it will point to the government. human rights have done their own homework and investigation, looking at all the available, talking to victims, talking to doctors and first, there is a very strong case that all the elements are pointing to responsibility by the government. it's very important to establish it, but don't forget fought last two years, we've had the u.n. commission of inquiry that discovered that the government is engaged in mass killing. the case is strong whether people were killed with chemical weapons or not doesn't make that much of a different. >> looking at the veto tally
from 1946 to 2012, russia has vetoed 128 times, the u.s. 83. pretty much, you could put together the u.s. vote tees with the french, chinese and the british and altogether, they're barely more than the russians by themselves. can the u.n. security council in today's world be as effective with the structure, be effective with the structure that was created back in the 1940's? >> i don't think so. there's been complaints for decades around the world particularly with emerging economies that there should be a change on the security council. india should be there. africa, latin america, as well. it's an antiquated system and the veto doesn't lead to compromise, it leads to deadlock. maybe the veto was helpful in a stand off between super powers and nuclear weapons, but there
needs to be a change. >> the security council has rarely authorized military action by its members. >> it's happened. remember libya, everybody was surprised at the time. >> korea and kosovo, it's happened, but it doesn't happen often. >> it's happened outside of the security council, because russia was opposed at the time. the council can be united to face a dangerous situation for civilians. >> russia abstained in kosovo, so at least it's been able to do it sometimes, but not often. >> kosovo was not authorized at the time by the security council and the u.s. and u.k. made the case that the war was maybe not legal, but it was legitimate. they knew that the vote did not pass and they didn't provoke it. it could happen this time around, there is no important enforcing a veto that will prove that your action is illegal.
they are enlarging the security council, if you look at it from a human rights point of view, would it make things really better in a situation like syria? syria were opposing, so i think there is no easy fix. >> you brought up the u.s. attitude toward the united nations. 66% of americans think the u.n. still has a place in the world, but a gallup poll found 35% of americans thought the u.n. was doing a good job of solving the problems that they have faced. do you think the rest of the world feels a little more positively toward the u.n. in its efforts. >> i think they do. they have respect for the institution. there are conspiracy theories for what they were doing. the u.n. does tremendous work
dealing with emergencies, development issues, and really, you know, dealing with foot crises, these things. that doesn't get the headlines very much. >> peace keeping. we've got the u.n. has more than 10,000 peacekeepers in haiti, 6,000 in mali. 1700 in afghanistan. without those peacekeepers, all these situations would be much worse. what happens now in syria, even if the u.n. security council decides to agree and follow through on this chemical weapons deal, who ends up securing these things? u.n. peace keepers not used to going into the middle of a hot civil war. >> they were not go in on a day like today. they are not equipped to fight.
there's been contingency planning and keeping a mission that can be deployed. once you have a peace to keep, right now, it's of course not a situation for u.n. peacekeepers. they never get into the middle of the wars like this. >> bottom line, it is up to russia. it is up to russia and i hope there will be a deal. i hope this is an opening with john kerry trying to get a political settlement in syria, a far better outcome for the people of the region. i hope this all moves forward. >> as we are talking about a horrible who you you man tarian crisis, so many people dead, so many injured and millions of refugees. i know you are very concerned about that and i wish you the best in your efforts. thank you for being here. >> swat teams, once a last resort for local police have
[ pounding. >> police, search warrant. police, search warrant. search warrant, search warrant. >> don't move! don't move! >> don't move! >> coming up, coming up! don't move, search warrant, don't move! search warrant, don't move! >> that is frightening to watch. joining us now to discuss our changing police forces from tennessee is a reporter for the huffing to know post and author of rise of the warrior cop, the militarization of america's police forces. thank you for joining us tonight. watching that raid is frightening. if you go back to pretty much the whole history of the united, there has been a reluctance to act as military police. you are saying they have become extremely heavily armed and
there is a militarization culture and that's how it is now? >> the u.s. has done a good job of keeping the military out of domestic law enforcement and there's a strong tradition back to the founding. what i argue in the back is we've done well to keep active duty soldiers out of policing with good reason, where we've dropped the ball is allowed and encouraged domestic police officers to be armed, dressed, trained, and adopt the mindset of soldiers, to take sort of a battlefield mentality. when you look at how they approach the job, interact with the citizens they're supposed to be serving, you fall into the same trappings as if they were actually soldiers. >> the numbers are stunning. in 1983, 13% of towns between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a swat team. by 2005, 80% of towns that size
had a swat team. with that, the number of raids that increased from the 1970s, only a few hundred a year, in the early 1980's, 3,000, by 2005, the number is in the vicinity of 50,000 of those raids. why do you think we've seen that kind of a sharp increase? is it simply because more towns have more swat teams and thus use them even when they may not be necessary? >> there have been a number of policies, particularly at the federal level have driven the explosion in these swat teams. the pentagon for about 30 years now has been giving away surplus military equipment to police departments across the country, we are talking about tanks, armored personnel carriers, m sins, so billions of pieces of military equipment have been transferred this way. this is built for use on battle fields used on american
neighborhoods and streets. you couple that with federal grants that are strictly tied to drug policing, if you send your swat team out, wait for a suspected murderer or rapist and send your swat team out after them, there is no federal money for that. on regular drug raised, you can generate money for your police department by using your swat team that way. this explosion has been driven by the drug war and these drug war incentives. the criminology who came up with those numbers you cited earlier found 75-80% of swat raised are to serve warrants an people suspected of drug crimes. >> there is the money from home land security in some cases to these police departments and they had to play it in some way or another. as a result, you are creating non-violent situations out of
violent crimes. >> the justification for using these kind of tactics in drug raised at one point was drug people are heavily armed and prone to violence. at least the government was making arguments. in the last 15-20 years, medical marijuana starts being legalized in states across the country, you see the federal government responding by sending federal swat teams in to raid the dispensaries and clinics. you can't make the arguments that these people are dangerous criminals, they are openly operating these businesses, they have licenses, business licenses, operating under state law. this was the use of this kind of force, this kind of violence to send a political message. i think we entered new territory when that happened. the other thing we've been seeing in the last five or six years is the use of this kind of force now, you know, as a first resort, so for enforce even rag
la atory war, there have been swat raised on bars with underage drinking going on. i just suspected a swat raid on an organic farm in texas that was basically a zoning code nuisance violation volunteer on the other hand, aren't there -- isn't the there the need for police to be heavily armed with the kinds of weapons that criminals have these days? there was a case in miami dade county a couple of years ago where a group of police went in to serve a warrant of someone accused of being a killer, a violent felon. this a swat team had been involved, none of those police would have died and some were killed. >> i don't know if you can say that. there have been plenty of swat officers killed in these raised, as well. i would argue i do think there is a time and place for swat teams, when you're using violent to diffuse an already violent situation or save lives at immediate risk.
apprehending a violent fugitive might be one of those situations, bank robberies, barricades, hostage situations, the objective is that swat raised around being used to defuse an already violent situation, they create violence and put lives at risk. when you break into someone's house at 3:00 in the morning whether it's the drug dealer you intended to raid or the family that is not the right house because somebody wrote down the wrong address, this is why we have such a pile of bodies of innocent people killed in these raids. >> there is a substantial list of children, seen years, even a 92-year-old woman killed in these situations. let's take a look at a police recruitment video in oregon that has gone viral. [ sirens ]
>> i'll watch from here and make sure no one he is case. [ explosion ] >> snipers, helicopters, dynamite. with recruitment videos like that becoming more common, do you see part of the problem is that they're really selling police as being the military, and that it's attracting different kind of people to be policeman? >> yeah, i mean, if you think about it, this is the first step in the process where you're recruiting people to become police officers. if you think back to high school or college and the people watching that video, think about who you now in high school or college and watch that video and say that's what i want to do, that's how i want to make my living. those aren't the people i want
to trust to become police officers. when they recruited. they used to tress helping out people, community service, helping out your neighbors. now it's about kicking burt and taking names, kicking down doors, repealing out of helicopters, attacking people. >> we have a question from hermela aregawi. >> a viewer wants to know how does swat training compare to armed forces training, since they use a lot of the same weapons? >> they're very, i mean, it's -- well, it really varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. there is some large metro areas swat teams that train with military units, with special forces, army rangers, some of the elite military units. you get into rural areas, there isn't much training at all or what training they do get is ad hoc and not regular. there is a couple of things
going on, whether it is appropriate to use them as often as they are used, the trend is filtering down to smaller towns and communities, they don't have the money for a full time swat team, so you've got part time guys just doing it for kicks and for fun and the overtime and not getting the proper training at all. those are particularly bad raids. not only are they used inappropriately, they are poorly trained. >> crime statistics have gone down the same period you say our police have become more militarized. violent crime rates are down. why shouldn't we see this as a clear correlation between these stronger police forces and the drop in crime? >> well, the drop in crime has start of happened all over the
western world, also in canada which has not turned you to militarization or not to the extent we've seen here. it began in the 1980's during the reagan administration or nixon administration with the war on drugs. we don't really see the crime drop start until the mid-1990's, so the time lines don't really add up. the drop in crime has been in violent crime, rape within murder, assault and property crime. swat teams again, 75-80 percent of these raised are on people suspected of drug crimes. drug use has remained pretty much steady for the last 30-40 years, and the drug supply hasn't really changed at all. if anything, drugs are more available in higher purity forms that are more pure than ever. >> i know you want to make sure that people know that the book is not an antti cop book. go ahead. >> yeah, well, i mean, it's an
on thety politician book. you can rail at cops and say mean things all you want, but that's not going to change anything. if you have a system loaded with add in tentatives and policies, you can feed great people into it and still belt bad results. the criticism and reform needs to be directed at the politicians who put these things in place. >> the book is "the rise of the warrior cop." >> as schools begin, the glaring difference between public schools comes into focus. how parents can help their children make the grade. >> why the fashion world is showing so few models of color.
>> public schools opened in many communities across the country this week. some kids arrived at well-funded public schools with small classes, new computers, art and music teachers and advanced placement programs, all resources that wealthier school districts can afford through property taxes and large contributions from parents. kids from less affluent
districts do without. for more, i'm joined by sarah hill, assistant professor of science from fullerton and susan sweeney from stanford. thank you both for being with us tonight. >> thank you. >> california is a state that's trying to move education tax dollars from more affluent school districts to less. a law was signed intended to do that. some people doubted that rob hundred hood approach is going to work. a reporter was told: >> sarah, doesn't a point? money oftentimes doesn't really end up making a difference, according to studies. >> money isn't everything, but
it certainly does matter. if you play it out to its the conclusion, it would matter if a school had no money, of course. we do know that it can help, in terms of things like in california, we have the highest student-teacher ray yo in the country, and so one of the most basic things we can do is simply hire more teachers to put fewer students in each classroom and i think teachers would feel more effective. money does matter. it's a little bit tricky to figure out exactly how, but it certainly does help. >> susan, what do you think? >> well, i think we want all children and all communities to succeed. i think with he need to find ways and we were very supportive of both of the propositions and are supportive of proposition 13 that passed. >> when funds are shifted from well-off, well performing schools to underperforming schools elsewhere, isn't the
risk that you hurt the schools that are working to help some schools that don't? >> that is a concern, and some people, a lot of schools are actually saying that that's part of the problem. i think really the issue is that california underfunds education. we know that calendarle is toward the bottom in terse of what it spends on per pupil education and that's really the problem. shifting a little bit of money from the top performing schools won't hurt them as much as it will help the underperforming schools. the underproblem is that all of the schools need more money from the state and that hasn't been there for years. >> in vermont, back in 1997, the legislature passed a law called act 60, transferring tax money from of a fluent districts in vacation areas, people with second homes, very rich areas that didn't have that main kids to go to school and moved the money to less affluent, urban
and rural skills, trying to create equal access to education for all. i interviewed them back there. john irving said that what vermont was doing was marksism. he was so offended, he went out and helped start a private school for his kindergarten age son. if we start moving that money around, don't we risk losing some of these kids and having kids leave public schools and go to private schools no. >> that has happened in some cases. this has been on since the early 1970ed in california and spread to other states. in half of the states, they've been making moves to make education more equitable between school districts. that have been some of those consequences, but the question
is i folks are saying what is the answer for schools that need more money? >> the ultimate answer would be to pump lots of education into the system for all of the schools. the problem is that money doesn't exist, so perhaps the next best solution is to take some money from higher performing schools, and shift it and it does help those underperforming schools. >> parent funded foundations, california has 6050 parent supported educational foundations. they play a very big role in paying for programs that otherwise wouldn't exist at those schools. we have some numbers here. the foundation's helped to raise $70 million for schools back in 1989. this is nationwide, but six years ago, nationwide, those same educational foundations, these numbers are for california schools, they went from
70 million in 1989 to 1.36 billion years ago. that is a huge increase. i would imagine you think that's certainly a plus for california education, even if it contributes to disparity's between schools in of a fluent districts and those that aren't? >> i think all moneys going into public schools are good. one thing about education foundations, there is some differences in how we counted foundations. some of that funding, that was probably a low number early on. as sash are a mentioned in some of her work, it is hard to get this data, and we're only starting to see it. i would wonder if some of these, and the i don't know if this is something she picked up in her work about in-kind and financial money directed from private foundations and corporations directly into schools, not through foundations.
>> how about things like what santa monica has done, a parent wants to contribute to the school their kid goes to, the money goes into a bigger pool and gets distributed between all the schools in that district is that a good idea or is that a disincentive for parents saying i don't want to give $10, because only one dollar is going to my child's school. >> they should be educational partners working with their school board and administration. we are stuck with a crazy quilt of districts, some are small, some large, they serve various grades, and we have over 1,000 of them. i think that education foundations are effective and can do their best work when they serve the largest number of children and have a cohesive
plan. >> we have reaction. >> susan, tan ford professor rice's article got responses. one asked this question. at what point are these public schools with generous foundations no longer public schools. at what point do they become taxpayer subsidized private schools. >> susan? >> i think at least in california, there is enough need to go around, and we find that education foundations, they are there to work with the community, the board should have community members, as well as parents, so they are not just parent-based. they bring back some local control to a local community. >> you know, hermela mentioned rob rice. he wrote an article, he's a
stanford professor. he wrote: >> eviction schools in california asking parents for $3,400 per child as a contribution. he says that he wants the tax laws changed. he thinks that because the money goes into a foundation, it's a charity, they can deduct that money in effect, the federal government is then helping finance or subsidizing these richer public schools. sarah, your reaction. >> well, it's something to think about, because most of these foundations we're talking about $100 to $200 per student, but a few have gotten to be substantial. we're talking several thousand dollars per child that they're able to raise. it's something we need to think about, what are the policy
implications. i don't know filled advocate not giving tax deductions. that gets complicate, but it is something that we need to think about in terms of what could policy do in order to perhaps alleviate some of these really big in equalities being introduced back into the system. it would be very interesting to look at some revenue sharing between a wealthy area and a school districts that's less wealthy. that's a really interesting idea that we should explore. >> lots of issues to think about. sarah, suiciden, appreciate you joining us tonight, thank you for your time. >> coming up, fashion week comes to an end and the cost of some of these joust fits may surprise you. the mercedes benz being shown off may be considered a bargain. that's next.
>> today's data dive dumps into the high cost of style, the very high cost, just at new york's fashion week comes to a close. designers pay a stylist $5,000 to $20,000 a day. makeup and hair could run to $100,000 per show. just to get a subscription to the in demand fashion calendar costs $450. tickets are generally just for celebrities, press or fashion buyers, but there are packages available for $250 to see two shows. they last about 10 minutes, that's about $12.50 a minute. tickets for the crutoure is highly priced. this dress runs $11,650. that could pay the rent for a
full year on a nice apartment. >> sex and the city's car rebradshaw's shoes have soared to february $55, up 60%, far more than inflation. there are the handbags. this crocodile bag set a record at auction, selling for $203,150. again, $203,150. you can get two porsches and still have enough left over to pay tuition at harvard. the porsche loses value the second it leaves the lot. the bag may be worth more once you leave the store. unbelievable. >> has diversity gone out of style in the passion world?
disappeared from the runways. only 6% of the models were black, 2% latinas and 9% asian. this fashion week, minority representation was worse. beth ann hardison says: >> why is this happening? joining us from california is beverly johnson, a super model and the founder of the beverly johnson lifestyle brand. she was the first african-american at a appear on the cover of vogue back in 1974. here in our studio is the fashion columnist for the wall street journal. thank you for being with us tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> great to have you. after beth ann hard."
son wrote that letter, models came out in support. >> there is a time when silence is not acceptable. if the conversation cannot be had publicly in our industry, then inherently, there is something wrong with the industry. >> bevel, is there something wrong to the industry, how do we get to point barely seeing women of color on the runways? >> yes. i'm doing my memoirs, and it feels like we're back in the 1970's again. i purposely did not go to fashion week this year because of the absence of women of color on the runways. it's not like we haven't, you know, called this to the attention of the press before. i just think that now ayma imand models are fed up.
we really want to see something done about this. >> when you look at those numbers, they should be fed up. the numbers are really striking, and after this whole to do this week and letters that were sent to fashion councils in europe, the people over there are not reacting positively to this, not saying that they're going to take action. why is this going on? >> we've seen this before when people were concerned about skinny models, too, right, they didn't look like real people. the fashion industry is often really slow to respond to these things. the average model is three pounds heavier now than five years ago. maybe versus some change there. models of color, these are deep issues. i sat with a diner who had specifically told her agents she wanted models of color and she wasn't getting them. they weren't coming. they're not even getting the start to be with the agencies in
the first place. even when a designer wants models of color, it's hard to find them. >> let's talk about the agency in a minute. the letter named fashion houses. most people don't think the designers themselves are racist, but they looked at who didn't have any models of collar this year donna kkran, versace. >> to make a distinction between, you know, the skinny models and now we're speaking about race and we're speaking about race in a sense of, you know, being an african-american, and being a descendent of a
slave, trying to pit the skinny model versus this issue of race in the fashion industry i think is doing a disservice to the problem. i particularly think that it's so irresponsible, the world that we live in, the american community that we live in for an industry as large as the fashion industry, where every other corporation, you know, fortune 500 corporation is dealing with the diversity needed in their particular industry and community. for the fashion industry to totally ignore the presence of people of color on their runways is actually something that i think is really fiscally irresponsible. >> isn't it just plain stupid, a third of the country is minority, and all of a sudden, you're not putting any
minorities on your runway. who are you going to sell the product to? that's a lot of money you're leaving on the table. >> it's also hispanic, latina and asian models. we're not seeing models of color in general. we rarely see brunette models. we see tall, nordic, thin blonde models. >> one arguments you brought up about models not coming in, one of the arguments is that it becomes sort of a vicious circle, because there are so few jobs for the minority model that they're competing against each other. they bring their rates down, because, you know, whoever is willing to take the lesser amount of money will get the job, and then as a result since the minority models around getting the higher race, the agencies don't want to represent them. >> we're back in the 70's. we're back in the 1970's, you're
back in my era, i was the one who was breaking the color barrier and making it easier for these models to come in behind me. we're going back to the 1970's. >> we're showing your suffer of vogue back in 19 if he didn't four. i want to show something else. we went today and looked at the pages. there's the elite modeling agency now. see if you can find me a black model on that page. there are some, but very, very few. you simply, we noticed that there are barely any models of color. why are these agencies not representing the count are i? >> they're not thinking about doing that. when product are being sold, they do statistics, they look at demographics and try to do advertising that meets its
demographics. that's not the way the fashion industry works. i'm not defending it, i think it's wrong. >> were there buyers during fashion week and most of white. >> that could be a part of it. >> people who work for the bigos, macy's and bloomingdales. >> it's fulfilling fantasies. >> a fantasy where there's no black people? where there's no colored people in the world. >> or no asians, yeah. >> you know who i would like to appeal to? i would like to appeal to the white and the black actresses that grace the cover of these magazines and that do the
advertisement and that do the big editor yells and i would like to ask that community, ask the angelina jolies and jennifer anistons to come out and speak on behalf of black models and with their sense of fairness that they have in so many different issues, and because of their relationships that are so close with designers of today because of the red carpet, i would like to appeal to them to come out and stand behind us. >> that's a good suggestion. >> and talk about this fantasy you think that the designers are having where there is an absence of color on their runway. >> i want to get a social media question in. >> beverly wants to know how many black casting directors and model bookers are there? is it about more than just cat walk representation? >> yes, it's more than about cat
walk representation, but we always, listen, calvin kline, i was the first person of color, i would imagine on calvin kline's runway and the same with donna karan. they do make these leaps. it's everybody's responsibility. we can't pass the buck here. thank you so much for having me on the show and shedding the light on this very serious issue. hopefully we can come together in a way that doesn't lead to boycotting a certain designer's clothing. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> this show may be over, but the conversation continues on our website, aljazeera.com/considerthis or facebook, or twitter at @ajconsiderthis. we'll see you next time.
good evening, everyone. welcome to al jazeera. i am john siegenthale in new york. >> this is not a game. secretary john kerry calls for real action on the plan for syria to hand over chemical weapons. >> my staff, i feel like i want to throw up. >> the governor of neshingsz sickened by another shore tragedy that will destroyed businesses. many were struggling to rebuild after hurricane sandy. thousands from their homes, from drenching rain.
Uploaded by TV Archive on