Skip to main content

tv   Consider This  Al Jazeera  May 3, 2014 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT

9:00 pm
an effect as patients have been forced to by cheaper shoes. >> it could make the dips. thanks for joining us. i'm thomas drayton, we'll be back with another news in an hour. "consider this" starts now. . >> the c d.c. blocked by congress from studying gun violence. we are joined by a congress woman and n.r.a. woman who was a top doctor at the c d.c. is climate change leading to intergsal conflict. do animal lovers put pets before people. we'll be joined by a dare devil not long before he leapt off the world's tallest building. >> i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this," here is more on what is ahead.
9:01 pm
>> house bill 60 will protect law-abiding systems. >> a bill was signed making it legal to have loaded weapons in barks churches, schools and some government buildings. >> a miami resident receiving a letter from the president about the arrest in venezuela much. >> i'm excite that in the united states a person can rite to the president and -- write to a president and get an answer. >> what's when you bring together two french dare devils. >> two dare devils leap from the world's tallest building in dubai. >> we begin with calls for federal fund to research causes and cures for gun violence in america. that research has been rejected. 70,000 attended the national rifle association's meeting in indianapolis. on the agenda passing a law
9:02 pm
allow gun owners to pack their guns in states where concealed carry is burn. >> in georgia a new law was signed which would allow loaded guns to be brought into bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and airport buildings outside checkpoints. >> we believe in the rite of the people to defend themselves we believe in the second amendment. today i will put into law a gun bill that heralds self-defence, personnel liberties and public safety. >> little wonder that georgia congressman jack kingston changed his tune. he rejects calls to fund the centres for disease control to research gun violence. >> in a statement, he said:.
9:03 pm
>> for more we are joined by congress woman caroline maloney, pushing to allow the cda to conduct fir safety reach. and president and chief director of the task force of global health. as the former director of the trench he led research in 1990s before it was defunded. >> great to have you both with us. after newtown, congressman pinkston was vocal about the fact that he felt more research needed to be done about gun violence, he's changed his tune, and he's talking about the president wanting gun grabbing initiatives. what do you say to him? >> what is threatening about doing research. we research everything. as researchers point out. alone with gun safety research, there are initiatives to prohibit. i would say no area should be so
9:04 pm
walled off that we can't research and find cures and solutions. i thought after sandy hook that there would be a lot of progun safety, ta the background checks would pass. research, we need it in order to build a case, and the amount of gun violence in the world is staggering. 33,000 people a year die from gun violence. 32 people a day die from gun violence, and 19 in 2012 - 91 children under the age of 12 were killed with gun violence. why not research ways to prevent it and see if background checks work and safety locks work. >> public policy is not set without research. >> you need data to pass anything. by stopping the data they stop progress in congress, and senator markey and i have a bill to allocate $10 mullion to the
9:05 pm
center of disease control. >> you are an n.r.a. member, you like to shoot. we invited the n.r.a. to participate. and they did not respond. gun violence is seen as a health issue. tens of thousands are killed and costs tens of billions in medical costs. what can research on gun violence do for us. >> we have two tough problems to solve. one is, as you mentioned, that 30,000 a year are killed by guns. we want to prevent some of those deaths, especially suicide. and many, many of those deaths that are preventible. we have another problem at the same time. that is that our gun rights are threatened. rights of gun owners are under threat. and what we have got to do is find a way both to reduce firearm injuries and deaths, and to protect the rights of legitimate gun owners. if we only wanted to do one of
9:06 pm
those, we wouldn't do research. if all you wanted to do was protect the rites of legitimate gun owners. don't allow discussion, let alone laws about firearm injuries, and about guns. don't allow that to do go on. if all you wanted to do was prevent firearm injuries and deaths, take guns away from civilians. we want to solve both problems at the same time. there are ways to do it. if you want to figure out what works to achieve both of these goals at the same time, you need to do research to find out the answer. and right now we don't know what works. we don't know that letting more people carry concealed weapons in public will save lives and promote security. we don't know that that will protect the rights of gun owners. we are asking politicians to sign bills when they have no idea what the impact of those bills would be. it's not fair for us to ask
9:07 pm
politicians to pass on bills when we don't give them the evidence about what works and what doesn't. we flying blind in an area that is critically important to health and safety. >> you are trying to address the issues on the website. you mention a bunch of different initiatives that you have, including making gun traffic illegal, allowing the c d.c. to conduct fire safety, requiring background checks for gun beers, limiting large capacity magazines, renew weapons bans and require checks for gun owners. isn't it a foregone conclusion that in an election year none of that will move forward. >> we try. >> the point that you can do both is true. you can find common ground. there's no reason why you can't research ways to prevent gun death and ensure that law-biding rightful citizens can bear arms, it's in the constitution. none of my bills take guns away
9:08 pm
from a law-abiding person, one that can own one. as we learnt in webster new york. mentally ill people cabinet the illegal guns, and in this case after sandy hook, a man got a straw purchaser to get him illegal gun, set fire to his house and proceeded to kill fire officers and police officers that were coming to save him. multifas faceted issue. we need to look at mental health, it should be like having a cup of war. why in the world. it's not a felony to traffic and sell illegal guns. it's an outrage. most n.r.a. members tell me they support the deal. why can't we pass it? >> the antigun safety movement in congress is so deep and strong commonsense measures, that the n.r.a. supports we can't pass. >> dr roans berg, the n.r.a.'s
9:09 pm
chief lobbyist chris cox said that where c d.c. research is concerned. that the concern is not with:. >> should the c d.c. not be the place where research is conducted because of that association with disease trench? >> first you need to realise that when people don't like the results from scientific reach, they try to discredit the researchers and methods. the n.r.a. did not like results that suggested having a firm in your home not only doesn't protect you but puts you at 300% more risk that someone in your family will be killed in a homicide and 500% risk that sun will be killed in a suicide. n.r.a. didn't like the fact that
9:10 pm
legitimate, high-quality research shows that having a gun in your home puts you at more risk. c d.c. is the only agency with a background and epidemiology skills to look at the broader picture. n.r.a. can look at mental illness and what's when the mentally ill, adjudicated mentally ill have firearms. the department of justice can look at what happens when convicted felons and criminals have firearms, but c d.c. can look at what is the impact on the population as a whole. they have the tools to do it and do very high quality research. >> do you agree congress woman? >> we trust them with our lives in other areas. >> absolutely. >> there's funding for other research at other agencies. >> absolutely and the ban is unique to gun safety. i don't know of another area of research where urbaned from doing this type of research.
9:11 pm
the president did an executive order that said research could take place in this area. and our legislation supports the executive order and makes it clear that it didn't prohibit the research funding for gun safety. >> i want to conclude - i want to bring up one thing with you dr rosenberg. the c d.c. has not been funded to do anything on gun safety since the 1990s, but you wrote that we have spent billions since the 1970s on trench from auto -- on trench from auto accidents -- prevention from autoaccidents, do you think research in this field can do the same, saying thrives? >> it can. the congressman who opposed c d.c. and whose amendment took away the funding has, over the years, become a friend.
9:12 pm
we both influenced each other and agree that the research is so important. it's a matter of life and death. jay dicky would say it's a mistake and we need to do everything we can to get the research going again. >> an important discussion giving how many people are dying. >> thank you. >> thank you both, appreciate you both joining us on the show today. mane venezuela immigrants -- many venezuelan immigrants in the u.s. are dismayed by the lack of attention it has got in the u.s. 41 have been killed since protests against nicolas maduro, because of shortages in basic goods, high inflation, and one of the world's worst violent crimes rate. u.s. senator and congress men are calling for sanctions. venezuelan americans are frustrated that the white house hasn't taken action, one started an online petition asking president obama to openly condemn the human rites violations.
9:13 pm
president obama responded in a handwritten letter saying: . >> joining us is congressman joe garcia representing the 26th distribute of florida and delivered the letter to ruth alcala. she was happy with the letter. what is the administration going behind the scenes. >> if i announce what they are doing, it wouldn't be behind the scenes. let's be clear, the last thing on earth is we should be playing a goliath to their david. this is not a dade, a just causes. venezuelans find themselves in these tough straits because of their incompetence, an inability
9:14 pm
to manage a rich economy. they are a natural resource-rich country and created such havoc and distribution. they have the most violent country in south america. it is because of these things that they find themselves in a crisis. what the administration must and is doing is supporting the civil dissent or the opposition to the government. that makes all the assistance in the world. >> without acting as a colli ath, you can -- goliath, you can speak about it, and the letter called on president obama to take action. she said mentioning venezuela would be enough. it seems it's something that has been ignored as people have been dying in a country that is important to the gates. >> it's important to me and have been giving floor speeches. this is important. you have to understand this has
9:15 pm
got to be thoughtful and do what we want, which is promote civil society, change and democracy. in south florida, as you know, there are a lot of people calling for an embargo. the embargo with cuba hasn't turned out too well. we have the longest lasting dictatorship. it makes sense to have sanctions that move it. that's why we signed on, sanctions that trt the human waste. >> the white house hasn't signed tonne the sanctions. how -- signed tonne the actions. how does the president get involved. president nicolas maduro mocks the united states, blames them for unrest. a socialist ally, the president of bolivia accused the u.s. of inciting civil war in venezuela for its oil. what should the president be doing, what should congress be
9:16 pm
doing? i know you have been moving towards sanctions but nothing has figized. >> -- finalised. >> let's be clear, we don't want to put ourselves into a position to respond to crazy rhetoric. there's nothing more than nicolas maduro wants more than to put himself into a debate with the united states about his ipp competence. what is clear is his incompetence, that's why there's little foreign investment, why they have gone from half of oil production. so the inept attitude of the regime is clear. we shouldn't give them an outside excuse. we have been working with opposition leaders to move change, and have been working with the civil society and are backing a dialogue that is ocourting. the truth is the reason brazil and the catholic church and columbia are participating in the dialogue is they are worried about the investments, the region, and that is what makes
9:17 pm
sense, as opposed to give them a sounding board for the failed policies. >> the bishops in venezuela have accused the government of brutal repress. the former president of brazil has started speaking out against nicolas maduro. he was a long-time ally of nicolas maduro, and his predecessor chavez. let's talk about governor scott. he accused president obama of not caring about venezuela. he said: does governor scott have a point. venezuelan is close to the united states. it is a far bigger partner with the united states than ukraine, it's a bigger train partner than with italy or spain. venezuelan is important. it's not been in the national conversation. >> i agree with you. i think they should be in the
9:18 pm
conversation. let's be clear rick scott has no purview. he has ignored many problems, for him to find a souping board in the president of the united states. i don't want to equate him to nicolas maduro. the repress going on in venezuela is deplorable. i have spoken about it. the fact that leaders of the opposition are in gaol are unpardonable and unexcusable. that is why the administration has taken a strong position and the president of the united states spoke about it. let's not try to find foreign policy creds in a governor that barely has credibility within his own state. he was able to find a good venezuela restaurant - we are looking for a good one whenever we can find it. it's nice he found one. >> i want to touch on a topic immigration reform. what do you think will happen?
9:19 pm
>> it will pass. >> how soon. >> it's important to pass. it's in the vital national interest. what we need to do is pressure the republicans to give us a vote. if they do give us a vote, it will pass. the leader of the republican party, john boehner, the highest elected republican basically mocked his own party for abb inability to get this down. 70% of americans support comprehensive immigration. >> good to have you with us. >> thanks. always a pleasure. >> "consider this" will be right
9:20 pm
9:21 pm
9:22 pm
back. is it >> is america a democracy or do the wealth have so much influence that others are powerless. u.s. has been declared to be an oligarchy saying there is a lot of influence or policy paying. we are joined by a political science professor. and the co-author of an article. he is the author of: . >> martin, good of you to join us. you don't use the word oligarchy, you talk about economic elite domination and bias pluralism. the way you define economic
9:23 pm
leaders is broad. we are not talking about the top 1%. >> that's right. we are looking at a larger group of people at the top of the income distribution. people at the 90th income per cent il. within that group, there's a variation in how much power and influence he has. so we wouldn't dispute the notion that the very affluent oligarchs, if you will exist, but there's a wider group of people involved with and flun that will in american toll picks. >> you look at answers to service questions. public policy issues, you broke them down and found a proposed change with high support among economic elites. it is adopted 45% of the time. maybe the greater power is that they have almost a veto power over things they oppose. >> that's right.
9:24 pm
when economic elites or powerful groups are strongly opposed to a policy change it's unlikely to occur. we saw that in the data. because we have a strong status quo bias, policies that have a great deal of support, in some cases unanimous support among power of the groups, among the eleels - economic elites, they have only an even chance or so of being adopted. >> what about less wealthy americans, when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or organised interest, they lose: . >> as you said now. don't they wield power at the ballot box and through large organizations from an aarp to the n.a.a.c.p. to the n.r.a. even? >> it's true those organised groups, unions as well are
9:25 pm
important. we found some modest evidence of influence through those kinds of let's say mass-based organizations. and, of course, it's true that people do have a choice when they go to the poll, a choice of a few candidates, maybe two, in a general election, but those candidates have been vetted, if you will. by the money system, by people who have the resources. so for a candidate to gain office, it's true they need a constituency among the voters, and among donors as well. that comes first. >> has anything changed. if you go back to the beginning of the republic, george washington, thomas jefferson and adams, they were oligarchs. that held true throughout the history. the robber barons at the turn of the 20th century had the power the rich could only dream of. >> yes, you are right about that. in some ways our system was
9:26 pm
designed to constrap the ability to shape policy making and restrict involvement and influence of public. now, of course, over the centuries we have seen the franchise expand and a broadening of the political system. research showed that despite the formal equality that we have achieved over time, and it's certainly not complete, but that has been, of course, tremendous progress, despite that formal equality we have a situation where middle class americans get the policies they want only when they agree with the affluent or powerful interest groups. >> is this just an issue of our system or is it a reality of power everywhere, because if you look worldwide, communist revolutions have been led by people who would have fallen within your definition of economic elites in those
9:27 pm
countries, and presidents like bill clinton, and ronald reagan were not born to it but were part of it by the time they got power. people are chosen in the cabinet because they have expertise that comes from being successful in life. i guess what can be done about it, and how much do you think it hurts us. >> i think you are right, there's never been any society where political power was shared among the better off and less well-off citizens. it's a matter of degree. and to find, as we did, that people in the middle of the income distribution have so little influence calls into questions the nature of the democracy. you point out the political leaders tend to be drawn from sort of more exall theive professional or economic strata, and that is true. the senate has been labelled a millionaire's club. there are many liberal members
9:28 pm
of the senate. including those with incredible resources. it's not a one to one, or that every member holds the same views. there's a tendency for a group of people to prefer policies that promotes its interest, and we have seep the result of that. >> we know since your study the rich are richer and other incomes stagnated. who knows how things have changed since that data was looked at. the book is thought provoking called affluence and influence. appreciate you join us to talk about this. now to climate change, could it lead to international conflict and war? polls show a third of americans worry about climate change a great deal, despite reports of record sea levels, carbon dioxide concentration and powerful storms that some attribute to the changing limate.
9:29 pm
a united nation -- climate. a united nations report equates hot temperatures to hot tempers. claeping is contributing -- climate change is contributing to destabilising nations and war. a top military commander who was a kept tick has a view -- sceptic has a dire view of what is in store. we are joined by retired navy rear admiral david titley, a founding director to weather and climate risk at penn state university. how did you go from a self-professed hard-core sceptic to labelling it a pre-eminent challenge. >> thank you for having me. this is an important issue. what i did was looked at the evidence. i started to about five to 10 years ago, really took a look at the ested. just as when -- evidence.
9:30 pm
just as when you drive a navy ship, you look at lots of evidence to figure out where you are, before global positioning systems. you look at rising air texturesers ocean temperatures, sea level, decrease in the ice, how the animals and ecosystems are moving - there's too much evidence to conclude anything but climbs is changing. >> when did the military start to think about this, as something that the military needed to prepare for, and being concerned about climate change in the context of growing conflict. >> seven years ago the center for naval analysis, a board composed of three and four-star retired admirals and generals released a report that for the first time identified climate change as a threat multiplier and an ak sellerant to
9:31 pm
instability. after that there was a number of reports from inside and outside the pentagon, and, in fact, the center for naval analysis will reissue the report, updating seminal 2006 studies. this has been on the radar for some time. >> you said that the parallels between political did you suggests recording climate change has made, and the decisions leading europe to world war i are striking and sobering. how so? >> i think so, if you look at the complex causes of world war i, at one of the roots you almost see a denial by governments after they had been advised of what the consequences could be, might be, the risks, the governments collectively ignored them and we walked into a tragedy in 1914 that ultimately killed 8.6 million soldiers. and this ability to not confront
9:32 pm
the facts. it can be serious. parallels struck me. that's why i wrote the piece with a cole eke. hasn't the need or desire for resources been a good factor in trigguring conflict. why is this different? >> well, the difference is we are changing in military terms, the physical battle space. the difference is the way the climate changes is it affects food, energy and water. not just the developed world, but every person in the world has the need and a right to. how are the distributions going to happen. water will change, and has that changes, that changes ability to grow and produce food and
9:33 pm
number. the public is not taking this seriously. a march poll found a third of americans cared a great deal about it, about the same as 1989. is some of the problem that predictions in the past have been overstated and people are turning a deaf ear. >> climate, almost by def nicks is diffuse, abstract and something that most think about in the future. i tell people we plan for a future climate but live in weather today. you start looking at the weather that we are living in today - what it is. increasing hotter summers. increasing droughts. when it rains, it rains harder and we tend to get floods and more of them, or more intense rain fallment we see the sea, and the storm surge from superstorm sandy, and a bunch of that was, in fact, because it was an elevated sea level rise.
9:34 pm
>> what do you think that will mean in the context of international conflict. >> i think it could go either one of two ways. it could be every person for themselves and be the accelerate and catalyst for instability or we could see the changing climax a common enemy, and this would be something we could possibly agree upon to fight as a collective world. that would be an optimistic view. i'm not sure we can get there. it doesn't have to just be half a story here. >> i know you address all sorts of geopolitical issues that are arising as an as a result of that. >> thank you for coming on the show. >> thank you for having me.
9:35 pm
9:36 pm
9:37 pm
. >> in america fat is four letter word. can fat be good for you and exercise bad. nearly 35% of minister are clip ib bees, something that is causing us to spend $150 billion. it's a cause of major preventible diseases. heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes.
9:38 pm
i spoke to a professor claiming overweight and obese people sometimes live longer and better lives, even if they are suffering chronic disease, and too much exercise can be bad for your health, and he lays it out on his latest book: >> good to have you with us. we heard all sorts of conflicting information about what is good for us, what is not good for us. we pretty much always understood that fat and any form of obesity was bad. how can it be okay to be moderately obese. >> it can confuse people. our research makes the point that we can no longer say what many doctors and people have thought for a long time. that thinner is necessarily healthier. >> you point out that some overweight or moderately obese
9:39 pm
people who suffer kidney failure, aids, cancers or heart disease end up doing better than thin patients. how does that work? . >> data shows fairness with hear disease - conditions that many people in united states and across the world have that the overweight and obese have a bett better phial, 30 to 50%, than do leaper counterparts who have the same dose. some of it may be the fact that thin people have low muscle mass and are weak. if you have a thin person with low muscle mass, physically weak, with a low level of
9:40 pm
fittions, they have a higher mortality than a heavier person, and heavier person who is physically fit that has more muscle along with fats. >> most doctors tell patients they have an ideal weight and body fat index. at what point is weight a danger? highest groups have the highest mortality. weight hearts in that way. >> there was a huge study by katherine flagal of the center of disease control published last january in jana. a study of the meta-analysis of a huge number of studies of 2.9 million people showing that the optimal survival was with - in a bmi group of 25-30, which is considered overweight. has 6% lower mortality than the normal bmi. >> what about the huge campaign, we saw michelle obama fighting
9:41 pm
obesity in kids, and the phrase, the obesity epidemic has become a conventional wisdom. how serious a problem is it? >> i do think that what is a more serious problem is physical inactivity and low fitness. i don't want to negate the fact that studies showed that good survival in the obvious weight do not show this in a modern obese. bmis above 35 is having higher mortalityies, and above 40, class 3 or some use the term morbid obesity. that's what it's called. at that level it's associated with adverse outcomes. they need to lose weights. >> you bring up that there are
9:42 pm
issues with excessive exercise. >> absolutely. i mean, even though we don't have a national problem with too much exercise. we have a national problem with too little exercise. only 20% of our population are probably needing the minimal requirements for physical activity according to the federal guidelines. there are small numbers of people who are doing extreme aiment of exercise, doing marathons and triathlons, exercising 2-3 hours a day, and the data does that there is some cardiac risk of doing this. if you monitor people after a marathon, a third of them release the same enzymes released in a heart attack or heart failure, and you do scans of the heart. they have evidence of cardiac dysfunction much the optimal amount of exercise is probably in the 30 to 45 minute range. maybe at most 60 minute range. if one is doing more exercise
9:43 pm
than that. they are not doing it for health reasons. they are doing it for sport, camaraderie, ego. you can get the maximum benefits of exercise probably somewhere between 30 and 45 minutes of aerobike exercise. >> the book is beesity paradox -- obesity paradox. "consider this" will be right
9:44 pm
back. . >> americans love their cats and dogs we have almost turned them into citizens. about 90% of pet orps consider them part -- owners consider them as part of the family and many refer to them as their pets parents. if you look at the most read stories, dogs and cats will be near the top. we not only pamper our pets, spending 55 billion on them last year, they have more rights and protections than ever. how did we get here, what happened next. >> david grim, deputy news letter joins us and the author
9:45 pm
of a book citizen canine - our resolving relationship with cats and dogs. great to have you with us. $55 billion we spend on pets. you said you spent $10,000. i'm one of 90% who consider the dog a part of the family and referred to myself as a daddy of my dog. you write in the book - that's my dog on tv. and you write about the history of dogs and cats as pets. how did we get to the point where we are - where pets are treated like people and not property as they were in the past? >> it's been remarkable. cats have lived with us for 10,000 years, dogs for upwards of 30,000. it's in the last couple of decades that they are considered qualified family members. and citing the statistics you cited. a big driver is technology. we just love in this world
9:46 pm
filled with the internet. mobile devices and we go out to a cafe, and we spend more time staring at the iphone and each other and it robbed us a lot of human interaction. cats and dogs appingor us back -- ango us back. the cat is the companion that sits on your lap and pays attention. your human companions are searching the web. they are family members because they fill an emotional void. we become isolated and we need them more. >> there's a most towards granting pets legal rights and it's gone as far as people who think they should be league at perps, and you bring up the case, a case we dealt with here about chim pan zees and there was an effort that lost in court, trying to give them a similar rites to those of
9:47 pm
humans. where is the middle ground that we should reach. what is the legal rite of animals, our bets today. >> a lot of people that argue for more lights are not necessarily arguing for cats and dogs to vote or drive cars, they are looking at basining rights -- basic rights, perhaps to medical care, to be free from abuse and a good home. similar to the rights for children. that's a middle ground. we are not saying we thu turn them into full human books, but give them basic application, acknowledging that they are members of the family and deserve to be protected in the courts. >> there has been a series of laws that have given analyse rights to protect them. >> all 50 states in the united
9:48 pm
states have fell jobby anticruelty laws that are harsh. if you abuse a cat or dog fines are up to $25,000. they have been the subject of custody cases where judges have said what is in the level interests of the animal. openers sued for emotional distress if pets have been harmed or killed and the damages are om available to spouses or children. cats and dogs can inherit money, like children. so there's been a lot of movements in the court and legs latures that has elevated the status of animal. they are property, but a lot of decisions blurred the line between property and person. >> after hurricane katrina, where people wouldn't leave their homes, because they didn't want to take the rescuers didn't want to take the pets with them, there's a law that compels rescue agencies to have plan on how to say the pets. >> that's right. half the people that didn't
9:49 pm
evacuate during hurricane katrina didn't because the rescuers came down in helicopters or boats, and they would say we are not going to taining your cat or dog and people say fine, i'm staying behind. this is a member of my family, i'm not leaving them behind. the a lot of these people died. in the aftermath of katrina congress passed the pets act compelling the rescue agencies to save pets and people. a number of states passed similar acts. in future natural disasters, you start to see pets rescued as well as people. >> as part of the research for the book, you observed a carrier name napoleon, a canine lab. part of the change that you see it in the way we look at cats and dogs is because we have come to realise that they actually under much more than they were thought to be in the past. >> exactly, there has been an explosion in cape ip research --
9:50 pm
kyne in research, especially -- canine research. research found dogs know. chim pap zees can not do some things that dogs can do. it led to a revolution there's things that dogs can do, and they've been shown to have empathy, concepts of justice and morality altruism. cats are capable of such as much, but they are harder to study. we don't know as much about the feel ip mind as the kain ip. >> cats and dogs under a lot more than they are given credit for. it's good to have you on the show. the book is: sh . >> it's a fascinating look at the history of our bets.
9:51 pm
"consider this" will be back.
9:52 pm
9:53 pm
imagine standing on a platform at the top of the world's highest building and jumping off. that's what two dare devil skydivers did in dubai in a bid to break the guinness world record for base jumping. if you are afraid of height - look away now . . >> joining us from paris via skype is fred, one of the two professional skydivers we saw break the wortd record by jump -- world record by jumping you have the power in dubai, he is the son of a parachutist and did his first jump at the aim of 10, has 15,000 jumps to his
9:54 pm
name, has won numerous competition, including the world championships. good to have you with us in every possible way, given what you went through. congratulations to you and vince, your partner. a lot of people know the building from the movie and crazy shot mission impossible of tom cruz. it was scary there, he was danning lipping out the window -- dangling out the window. you dove off the top. how fright nipping is the moment when you stepped off. >> we are used to jumping from cliffs, when i used to base jump. we are not so frightened. the weird thing was that we were standing on a platform, and that put us away from the top of the building and to stand on the platform was weird. it was like standing in the middle of the sky. it was a great vision.
9:55 pm
we were super excited. we had been preparing the project for a long time. it's been incredible. >> others jumped from lower on the tower. you had a platform built that added height and pushed you from the tower. it almost seemed scarier was i watched that, to get up on the platform than to jump from it. >> well no, it's not so scary because you go from the center of the tower. you climb in the middle and once you are up the top, you are getting ready and everything on the platform, and it was quite weird to be - to go at the end of the platform, and just before the jump, because we had to spend some time there to wait for the helicopter and all the camera men to get ready, so it was intense. >> there was a cameraman that jumped with you. we see him in some of the video. this building is trees the height of the empire state
9:56 pm
building standing at 1250 feet. what goes through your mind as you prepare to jump 2,717 feet? >> well, it's a lot of concentration. you know, we - i mean, we have been preparing the jump for a long time. so we were quite trained and actually when you - when you jump off, it's a lot of - you are really excited, you know. it's a lot of happiness at the same time, because we were finally making the jump happen, and actually we would like to thank the prince of dubai who gave us and help us to realise this project. because they have been helping us a lot and pore us to achieve the jump.
9:57 pm
it was superexciting. and so happy. it's a lot of concentration, at the same time we were enjoying the moment a lot. i know you love doing this. you trained hard, you jumped out of helicopters in dubai and leapt off mountains at similar heights to the tower in switzerland. as i have seen some of the video of that, it seemed that almost those mountain jumps were more dangerous than jumping from the tower. >> well, it is different, you know, but we came to a special place. a place where there is a ramp that is the same size and same kind as the ramp on the top of the other building. then the trajectory with the wind shift around the tower, this was specific to that jump. there is not one time when you can do this. that's why we do the jumps from
9:58 pm
the helicopter to train the trajectory movements, and then, yes, we were ready to fly around the tower and ready. >> is jumping from a higher altitude safer than a lower altitude because it gives you time for the parachute to slow you down. >> yes. i mean it's - depends what you do, but, like, when you jump low, you - it's like a specific way to make it safe. on this jump it was more like the height of this building. i mean, it's so high that you create some trajectories and do stuff. that was the plan. we did wind shoot, head down free fly close to the building, which was really fast, and there is no building in the world where you can do this kind of
9:59 pm
technical manoeuvre actually. >> it's amazing to see what you guys were doing. i hope you get well paid for this. >> you know, we work with dubai, so it's - for us it was a dream to - a dream that came true because it was - yeah, a big project for us. we wanted to do this. it's been - yes, it's been possible. >> how do you top this. what is next? >> actually, we were working on the project that will happen in europe. i can't tell you more, because it will come soon. yes, we do not have other plans to jump from building. >> keep us posted we'd love to see what you do next. >> thank you. >> frightening but exciting. pleasure to have you with us. the show may be over but the
10:00 pm
consider continues on the website, and on facebook, google+ or twitter. see you next >> a group of armed vigilantes is trading machine gun fire with members of the knights templar cartel until early this year, the town of nueva italia in mexico's western state of michoacan was under the control of the cartel