tv NOW With Alex Wagner MSNBC July 9, 2013 9:00am-10:01am PDT
the shot, he said that clothing was hanging several inches away from martin's skin, therefore he believes that martin was above zimmerman with gravity pulling his clothing down. >> the wound itself, by the gap, by the powder tattooing, in the face of contact of the clothing indicates that this is consistent with mr. zimmerman's account that he -- that mr. martin was over him leaning forward at the time he was shot. >> most of the morning, however, was consumed by a hearing without the jury. the prosecution wants to block the submission of an animation created by zimmerman's defense team, one depicting their version of the chain of events that took place the night of the shooting. after nearly two hours of discussion, the judge delayed further debate on the animation until this afternoon. dr. vincent dimaio is continuing
his testimony right now. let's bring you back to the courthouse. >> -- way we are walking around an such, or even bumping your head. it's no big deal because the axons can take that. if the movement is very violent, it stretches the axons and this causes injury to the wall. if the movement, which is more violent, is relatively mild, the injury is repaired by the axon and there's no problem. and then there is a gradual increase in force until you get something like an automobile accident where, you know, you run into something and your head goes forward and hits the panel. that force is so great that it will injure these axons and they
will not be able to be repaired and they die. now luckily you have a lot of brain cells and a lot of connections, so you can lose a good number of brain cells and still be all right. but at some point you have impairment, and at some point you're going to die. so impacts of the head with a hard surface like concrete, we'll say, what you worry about is the intracranial bleeding and some axonal injury. more likely the intracranial bleeding than axonal injury, to be honest. and so its he's always dangerous. the thing is like, if you hit your head here on the floor,
it's carpet. it absorbs. concrete doesn't yield. when your head hits concrete, your head yields, not the concrete. so it's dangerous. could you kill somebody? sure, if you bang them hard enough. but if you -- but even if you don't do enough to injure the brain significantly, you're going to have some stunning effect. that's what concussion -- you know, these football players who get the concussion, what it is is axonal injury. and some can take it, some can't. sometimes there's sequella down the line. not just banging your head on a cabinet, that doesn't do it. but i mean you fall and you you hit your head, you can get a mild concussion.
you don't lose consciousness. you just appear stunned. i know this is not a medical term, but it is like stunning goes to concussion, goes to getting worse. i think the best thing is stunned. where you may not have any significant physical injury to the brain, but you are stunned just from the impact. stunning is a good term. it's better than concussion. >> you're suggesting it's a progression depending on how hard the impact is and perhaps how susceptible the person is to it? >> yes. and how many times, you know, it is, and how much force is used, and -- but at least you're going to -- if you get your head hits something unyielding on concrete, with sufficient force to tear the scalp, you are going to be, at a minimum, stunned. then it can be much worse than
that. but you're going to be stunned. the thing is if we all hit our heads all the time, how often do you get a scalp laceration? it's not that common. even in people who have their hair cropped, or, like a lot of people in this courtroom, are bald. that removes a little of the cushion. but, you know, the thing is when you have lacerations, you know, there's some trauma. >> dr. dimaio, you were talking specifically about lacerations to the scalp. i know that you've seechd the photographs and reviewed the evidence that george zimmerman had two lacerations to the back of his head. if i might have the lights for a moment, your honor, i'd like to show state's exhibit 76. this has been identified as the photograph -- i'll hold it up
for you in the meantime. this has been identified as state's 76, the very first photo taken of george zimmerman that night by jonathan minolo. >> there's two sides of bleeding you can see. >> two wound sites, if you will. >> where you are bleeding. right. a laceration, it's a tear in the skin. >> i'll stick that here on the projector just as a frame of reference. okay. that's the first picture. and then you later saw pictures where some of the blood had been wiped away. >> right.
>> let's take a look for a moment at 74. what do you see in this picture in terms of evidence of injury? >> it looks like you you've got a bruise on the left side. it's not really a very good photograph. >> let me see if i can fine one that are a little bit bet person these are all in evidence so the jury can review them at their leisure, but -- they aren't in sequential order so i'm
struggling here a bit. let me see if i can find it easily. if not, we will move on. i think we're stuck with this one for the moment. do you see in this photograph what looks like two separate areas of swelling? >> yes. if you look in between -- you can see there is an injury at -- let's see. if you look at the head, say at the -- >> i have a pointer if that would help. may i approach the witness? >> yes, you may. >> it's the top button. >> there is an injury here and
here which probably represent the lacerations since it looks like clotted blood. but if you look right in between this kind of a valley and the reason is, is that this impact site is swollen. and then this is swollen here. so this is not swollen so you know that there are two separate impacts, one impact here, one impact here, producing two separate lacerations with an area in between that is not swollen. and the swollen is due to just a bleeding under the scalp. >> the knot or the lump that people get after hitting their head on something hard is blood as opposed to some other fluid? >> it's blood. right. medical term is hematoma but knot is i guess not medically acceptable. >> talk for a moment, dr.
dimaio, about the curvature of the head and why you're confident that's two separate impacts as opposed to one impact that could have caused all of the injuries that you see. >> well with, okay. it's real simple. it's -- you've got an unyielding surface so when the circular area hits that, it's going to flatten at the point of contact and it is not going to flatten three inches on the other side. you have to move it over. and on top of that, you can see, if it was one impact, it would be swollen between the two. but here you have two areas of swelling so they're separate. >> you commented earlier that it's not that easy to get a laceration from impacting on a flat, solid object? >> yeah. because it takes sufficient force.
i mean everyone bangs their head, has fallen and hit their head. you don't get lacerations. >> what's the mechanism by which -- >> we're continuing to listen in to the courtroom. we're going to take a quick break and bring you more testimony ahead on "now." their d to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be garth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card because you can fly any airline anytime. two words. double miles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles you can actually use, you never miss the fun. beard growing contest and go! ♪ i win! what's in your wallet?
welcome back. we're bringing you live coverage of the george zimmerman trial. dr. vincent dimaio is currently on the stand. he is the 13th witness for the defense. he's now testifying about the alleged confrontation between george zimmerman and trayvon martin shortly before trayvon martin was shot. let's listen in. >> -- but you can get severe head trauma without more on the scalp sglp so scalp. >> sort of gauging the amount of force necessary to cause those injuries alone, would that be enough force in your opinion to
cause this stunning effect that you talked about? >> oh, yes. anyone who's ever had a real bang on the had head knows, you don't have to have a laceration or big bruise to be -- it's a transient type of thing. maybe five, ten seconds, you know, you're kind of stunned. that's why that's a good term to use. medically the doctors would refer to it as a ultra mild concussion. but stunning would be a better thing because people experience that and they hit their heads an they understand it and it is not really of much significance neurologically. >> if you sustained a stunning blow like this, and then you continued to receive additional blows to the head, would the additional blows continue to cause this stunning effect? >> oh, yeah.
yeah. >> so it may compound, in a way? >> yes. actually, if you get a concussion, even if it's mild, and then within a short period of time you get multiple other concussions, people have died. that's the -- friday night football where they get it one week, then they get another one the next week and they'll collapse and die. it is a recognized syndrome. >> so in other words, these impacts could be cumulative just that night into multiple stunning effects ultimately leading to a concussion? >> oh, yeah. well, they probably -- by "stun," i'm using the word "stunning." i know any physicians listening to me are cringing. because -- essentially what it is is a very mild concussion. but stunning is kind of more -- it's not an incapacitating
thing. you're not knock out. anyone who's ever fallen and hit their head hard knows what i'm talking about, the stunning effect. but -- you know, you hit your head hard, you understand what it means. >> there has been some discussion in the testimony about punctate abrasions. let me show you exhibit 66. are there punctate abrasions evident in this photo? >> right here. you can see little reddish markings. that indicates that there was impact with with a surface, flat surface, that was not really smooth, like this wood here. if you hit your head on this wood here, you would not get punctate. you'd have to get something with
a little non-flat surface, you know. little age to it. >> would concrete of the nature that is used in your every day sidewalk have that kind of surface? >> yes, sir. >> is this injury consistent with with mr. zimmerman's head having impacted a sidewalk? >> yes, sir. >> there is some -- we were just checking to see if you care for some water. if you do, just -- >> oh, no, no, no, no. >> the punctate abrasion is that sort of granular looking red stuff around the temple? >> right. it is not smooth. it is an area right here, and a little here, and a little here, and a little here, and a little here, and a little here, and a little here. that sort of thing. >> there appears to be a
noticeable lump or knot a little higher up. >> right. over here. >> does that appear to be a consequence of the impact? >> right. >> how would you describe that? >> a knot? no. hematoma. it is bleeding underneath the scalp. >> do you think it is likely associated with the impact that caused the u.p. nctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.punctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.nctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.ctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.nctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.nctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.nctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.pnctate abrasions? >> yes, sir.unctate abrasions? >> yes, sir. >> could those injuries be caused by one or more impacts with the sidewalk? >> yes, sir. >> let me show you state's exhibit 70, a view of the right side of mr. zimmerman's head, i believe. do you see anything here that
would suggest impact with a fist or the sidewalk? >> you can start to see punctate and there is a little abrasion here. this is consistent with impact of some sort. >> this is in evidence for the other side, 71, slightly different angle. >> you can see it. here is the injury. goes here. you can see the reddish areas. >> let's take a look at the other side of the head, the left side in exhibit 73. if i might take a moment, your honor, and approach the witness so the witness can see. >> oh, i can see.
>> what do you see in this photo that's consistent with blunt force trauma? >> again, you see -- this is a washed out photograph, but there is an area, there are marks right over here, too. i would assume a print photograph would show it better. but there is some punctate marks over here. >> may i approach the witness just briefly and then i'll return? >> yes, you may. >> just to show you this photograph. exhibit 73. if you see better in this what was on the projector, could you point that out to the jury? >> yes. if you look right here, you can see an arc of punctate abrasions, then kind of a area, then another arc over here. >> do you see signs or evidence
of a hematoma? bruising of some sort. >> there is suggestion but it is not as distinct as on the other side. >> i'd like to direction your attention, doctor, to this area above the ear. >> that's the area i'm saying that looks like it's swollen in that area. but it's hard to say definitely. >> i see. that's consistent with swelling as a result of blunt force trauma? >> yes, sir. >> that area is this general area here? >> right.
we are continuing to monitor dr. vincent dimaio's testimony at the george zimmerman trial. we'll take a quick break and bring you more ahead on "now." how bout all these bikes on rollback? like this mongoose adult bike, you save over $20! get more summer for your money at walmart's super summer savings event. a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief
for many with arthritis pain and inflammation. plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions, or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you.
visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. geico's defensive driver,ke 13. good student and multi-policy discounts could save you hundreds of dollus. engineer: uh geico's discounts could save you hundreds of "doll-ars." it sounds like you're saying "dollus." dollus. engineeif you could accentuate the "r" sound of "dollars." are...are... are... engineer: are... arrrrrr. arrrrr. someone bring me an eye patch, i feel like a bloomin' pirate.
geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. honestly, i feel like i nailed that. welcome back. we're continuing to bring you live coverage of the george zimmerman trial. the 13th witness for the defense, dr. vincent dimaio is still on the stand. he is testifying about the alleged confrontation between george zimmerman and trayvon martin shortly before trayvon martin was shot. and the alleged injuries sustained by george zimmerman. let's listen in. >> i show you 72, taken that same evening, to see if that illustrates some of the other injuries you observed. is that the part of the forehead you were talking about? >> right. that's, again, another one of these washed out photographs. but let me see. you can vaguely see. see this like a line here?
here is another. and when you look at the prints, they are reddish markings. you can see this is linear right here. see? line? this is a crease in the forehead. i'm talking about this coming down. then right over here. and those are -- if you look at a better photograph, they are reddish areas. it is not consistent with concrete. it is consistent with something more like a punch than concrete. so this would -- because what you've got is, if you look at it, the skin is intact. the injury is underneath the skin, this reddish mark. >> something that doesn't wash off. >> oh, no, this doesn't wash off because it is on multiple photographs. but i mean it's not blood. but i mean it is underneath the skin. but it's not from something like concrete or anything like that. >> would it likely be a
different impact than one that caused the injury to the nose itself? >> yes, it's too far down and about the same thing. >> in the photograph, if you look more to the right -- i'll put the pen on it for a second as you describe the photos being washed out. do you see some evidence there of some mark of some sort? >> right. this is -- there is a mark like this and then there is a mark here. i have a photograph of myself which is not entered into evidence. >> it's the same picture, is it not? >> it's the same picture but it's kind of -- this thing's washed out so you should have a picture in evidence. >> yes, that's exhibit 72. i'm showing it to you you here now. this is the picture in evidence. so there's a separate red mark on the forehead that you're pointing out now that may
suggest additional impact? >> no. i think this and this are the same impact. i think you have six identifiable injuries. the two lacerations on the back of the head, the impacts in both temple regions -- that's four. the nose is five. and the forehead is six. there may be others but the photographs are not of the quality that you can safely say. >> may there also have been impacts that, for one reason or another, may have landed but didn't actually manifest itself in a visible injury? >> right. >> objection. speculation. >> sustained. >> in a fight situation where
someone may be resisting the attack by someone else, would you expect them, for example, as they are being pushed to the concrete, to resist by their muscles or their back trying to sit up, for example? >> i would assume so. >> so, consistent with with what you see here, is it possible there may have been other impacts, but they weren't so pronounced because there was some ability to actually resist the full force of the impact? >> objection. speculation. >> overruled. >> yes. i told you that, also in addition -- the head wasn't cleaned of blood in some of the photographs. all i can say is there's definite evidence of six impacts. that does not mean that there were only six. but the six i can say. >> may i have just a moment? >> yes, you may.
>> i tender the witness. >> cross examination, your honor? >> yes, you may. joining me now, msnbc legal analyst lisa bloom. lisa, in your opinion how important is it to establish that trayvon martin may are been on top of george zimmerman at one point? >> i think it is extremely important and i think this is the best defense witness so far. we haven't heard cross examination yet and that could change things a lot but on direct, dr. dimaio was i think very strong for the defense, establishing a lot of the points they've been trying to make throughout the trial. he established that -- he at least -- his position is that trayvon martin's shirt separated two to four inches from his body. that's established by powder tattooing. and that's important because the defense says that trayvon martin was straddled over george zimmerman who was on his back. leaning in.
that means the shirt would have separated because of gravity an because the arizona fruit drink was in the pocket pulling the shirt away. dimaio through science is trying to establish for this jury that that's what happened. he also said trayvon martin was likely conscious, capable of speech and motion for 10 to 15 seconds after the shooting. that's important because george zimmerman says that trayvon martin spoke said, you got me, you got me. also we know that trayvon martin's hands, according to zimmerman, were spread out but when the body was found the hands were underneath and the defense would like to use this to explain how that could have happened. finally, george zimmerman's injuries, a big point for the defense throughout this trial, a lot of witnesses have said very nye minor, just a couple of little cuts that bled a lot. everything healed up. he only had a couple of band-aids, no real medical treatment. dr. dimaio is the first witness that the jury has heard from that said actually these injuries could be fairly serious. there is at least six of them and there could be major head trauma.
>> lisa, let's also talk about the toxicology reports. the judge has said it is admissible. an expert is supposed to tell the jurors a small amount of thc was found in martin's system, enough to create some kind of impairment. your assessment of the level of importance here. >> well, for the defense, this is a small but good piece of evidence because, remember, george zimmerman when he called the police initially he said this guy looks suspicious, he looks like he he's on drugs. and the prosecution says, no, he was just simply racially profiled. well, if indeed he was under the influence of some kind of drugs, like thc, marijuana, that would help the defense, probably a little bit. but we're really talking about trace amounts and i think most people's common experience with marijuana is that it mellows them out, it makes them less aggressive, a very small number of people in the population become more aggressive from marijuana but there is no evidence that that happened here.
overall, because the amounts are trace amounts, very, very small, probably not going to be a significant piece of evidence in this trial. >> okay. the court has just taken a recess and will return at 1:30 p.m. eastern. msnbc's she bloom, thank you, as always. after the break, texas is once again the epicenter of the national showdown on abortion. as rick perry he's cowboys dig in their spurs, other prominent members of the gop are doing their part to deny women the right to choose. we will discuss the front line battles next on "now." out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people.
people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. i turn ed 65 last week. the math of retirement is different today. money has to last longer. i don't want to pour over pie charts all day. i want to travel, and i want the income to do it. ishares incomes etfs. low cost and diversified. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.
- hugs from beneful baked delights... - [ barks ]rs ] are crispy, oven-baked dog snacks with soft savory centers, made with beef and cheese. beneful baked delights: a unique collection of four snacks... to help spark play in your day. legislature today resume consideration of one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. republicans in the lone star state seek to ban abortion at 20 weeks and put in place
regulatory burdens designed to force 37 of the state's 42 abortion providers to close their doors. for the past two days, abortion rights supporters, clad in orange, have demonstrated outside the capitol where they have faced off against anti-choice advocates dressed in blue, as well as prominent voices in the pro-life movement. >> no such thing as a life that is so insignificant, so worthless, so unwanted, so unnecessary that any of us would choose and believe that we are so god like that we would singularly have the right to extinguish that which god created. >> the bill, an attempt to dramatically reduce reproductive freedoms for the 13 million women of texas. davis and her supporters displayed democracy in action was dismissed by governor perry
as something else entirely. >> people have relayed to me that never in the mystery of texas have they seen that type after mob rule come in and discombobulate a legislative session. anyone who watched that would consider that would be mob rule. >> despite this outbreak of "mob rule," the bill is expected to be approved by the republican controlled house today and by the senate later this week, after which governor perry will sign it into law. it will make texas the 13th state to ban abortion at 20 weeks. north dakota's ban, the strictest in the country at six weeks, will go into an effect in august. but texas isn't the only state where conservatives have rolled back a woman's right to choose. in ohio governor john kasich flanked by an all-male audience, signed a budget bill that also made ohio's abortion laws some of the strictest in the nation and in wisconsin, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order yesterday after governor scott walker signed a bill into law aimed at shutting down abortion clinics an mandating ultra sounds.
walker quietly signed the bill during a private ceremony over the july 4th weekend. afterwards he had to say -- this bill improves a woman's ability to make an informed chase that will protect her physical and mental health, now and in the future." but to walker and his brethren, choice has nothing to do with freedom or settled law. he specified later -- women have a choice as to the ultrasound they receive. joining me today, "washington post" political editor and white house correspondent for the huffington post -- sorry -- and msnbc contributor sam stein. former dnc communications director and host of msnbc's "disrupt," karen finney. david carr, and former national press secretary for the obama campaign, ben la bolt. also joining us, "new york times" op-ed contributor beth
murfitch. beth, to you first. were you actually in the gallery in texas when wendy davis did her 11-hour filibuster and wrote a really moving op-ed in the "new york times" about your mother's very difficult choice to have an abortion. one of the biggest take-aways from that piece was your urging women who have had to make this difficult choice to come out and talk about it. tell us more about why you think that's important at this moment. >> more women than we would like to know -- or than we think have had abortions. it is estimated 22% of pregnancies in the united states are terminated and that of the women that terminate, 61% of those women are already mothers. i think such shame permeates our discussion about abortion. and in fact that is so contradictory to how i feel about my mother's abortion. i am incredibly proud of her. at the age of 20 years old she had the wisdom and the courage to know that her own potential
would be cut short by a pregnancy and to terminate that pregnancy and i think many of our mothers have similar stories and it is really important to talk about that. >> i want to open it up to our panel here in new york. the choice is really hard and i think that so much of this has been oversimplified into good and bad -- >> absolutely. >> and the notion that women should be ashamed into choices about their bodies and their reproductive life is really i think a bastardization of the argument at large. i want your thoughts on what's happening in texas and across the country because there is movement forward on this issue and it is not in the direction of progress. >> i think it is very clearly a cheap -- i view it as cheap as somebody who is pro-choice. this is an issue consistently being used. that's not to say there aren't
people for whom they feel very strongly, but a lot of politicians use this as a way to firm up their bona fides with the far right. one thing with particular in particular -- there was a stutdstutd study in the "new york times" it is not women's mental health, it is their physical and economic health that tends to suffer when they are forced to have a child they are not prepared to have and when in a lot of instances they already have a child. in states like texas, there are no supports for women who are low-income and forced to have a child. that's part of what's so disgusting about this. they demonize women and demonize the choices and demonize people who may need to rely on some of these programs to help them be better parents. like head start, as sam writes about, or like snap. so you are demonizing women in low-income families on both ends of the spectrum and saying it is your fault, you've got to step up to the plate, but you got to do it on your own and you're a
bad parent. >> what strikes me about it though, they're not necessarily trying to limit the choice that the woman wants. what they are trying to do is create so much burden on the woman after she's made her choice that she reverses it so you have these things like the forced ultrasound issue or simply closing down abortion clinics so that it is such a long process to get there. >> or a dangerous process. >> so that doesn't -- again, what ends up happening is that the mother makes a choice that she wants to terminate the pregnancy, then has to go through all these additional loopholes. i think that's sort of an insidious way of this to go about it politically. >> wait a second. your body is violated by a probe that you may not want. that is not a choice. >> i'm saying they already decided they want the abortion, now you add additional burdens to the process to almost convince them not to do it. >> here's what i don't understand. culturally speaking, what is the rationale here? i think walker is a really interesting case. here he signed this bill, sort of -- secretly, but certainly
without lights around him on the july 4th weekend. which would seem to be -- i guess -- a way of mitigating a disastrous choice in my mind. then at the same time you have a rising star like marco rubio who i think is trying to get some bona fides with the conservative community, perhaps because he's gone out there on immigration reform. does that work on the national stage? i mean obama won women by 11 points, i believe, in the 2012 exit polls? >> i think abortion is a pretty complicated political instrument. if you look at the democrats in texas right now trying to reach out to latinos, this probably isn't the issue that they would have chosen because it -- >> in texas. >> -- yeah. in texas amongst the latino community there is a real complicated relationship with abortion. i think part of what happens is the more subtle nuanced approach. for instance, if you wipe out more than half of the installed
base of clinics in texas, you all the family planning goes with it. all the -- and so you end up with people who are often getting pregnant at higher rates because you have taken out other options. i do think it is an argument that calls for an incredible amount of nuance. never gets it. >> but politically, i mean this is the opposite of what the republican autopsy report on 2012 recommended. they were supposed to be a more inclusive party and you've seen this movement in states across the country other past 20 weeks. now ohio an north carolina are coming on to the map. keeping -- nobody has done more to keep independent women in play for democrats than these laws. this is truly unbelievable. and now that they are adding them to the equation in texas, we thought texas would be in play for democrats because of the growing hispanic population but imagine if independent women are now in play. we've been talking about 2020. maybe this moves the timetable up. >> also, if you're going to be
signing draconian abortion bills into law, maybe you don't do it in a room full of men. i mean like literally politics optic 101. we have to leave it there, new york city -- "new york times" op et contributor, we'll post it online. as part of his rollout on climate change, president obama touted natural gas as he trin significanced fueled warning drilling is not the solution. perhaps nowhere is that qualifier more relevant than in the debate over fracking. we'll weigh pros and cons of america's gas land next. introducing tidy cats with glade tough odor solutions. two trusted names, one amazing product. [ john ] nope. [ tires squeal ] twelve bucks a night! no. they have waterbeds. ew. no! are we near a gas station? [ phone beeps] [ phone ] no.
is that from the mini bar? [ both ] no. is that a cop? no. [ cop ] do you know how fast you were going? no. eighty-seven [ groans ] he's right. is that oscar mayer? [ karen] yes! [ male announcer ] in a world filled with "no", it's nice to finally say "yes". oscar mayer selects deli meat, no artificial preservatives and gluten free. it's yes food. it's oscar mayer. it's yes food. resoft would be great, but we really just need "kid-proof." softsprings got both, let me show you. right over here. here, feel this. wow, that's nice. wow. the soft carpets have never been this durable. you know i think we'll take it. get kid-friendly toughness and feet-friendly softness, without walking all over your budget. he didn't tell us it would do this. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get whole-home installation for just 37 bucks.
oh man. gotta think fast, herbie. back pedal, back pedal. [ crowd cheering ] oh, he's down in flames and now the ice-cold shoulder. one last play... no, game over! gps take him to the dog house. [ male announcer ] make a powerful first impression. the all-new nissan sentra. ♪ yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief! it is an energy source that's pitted environmentalists against the president and made fraccing into a household word. today america is experiencing something of a natural gas bonanza. the u.s. pumps 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas a day. the equivalent of roughly
800,000 olympic sized swimming pools. it's come often at a high cost. the health of a nation. in the new hbo documentary "gas land 2," filmmaker josh fox goes beyond pir teyrotechnics. >> my name is josh fox. it's been five years since the first proposal to drill thousands of gas wells came knock being at my door. with thousands of cases of water contamination, air pollution and health problems across the u.s. -- >> we have found no instance of hydraulic fracking. >> joining us now, josh fox. thanks for joining us. tell us a little bit about why you chose to do a sequel to gas land. i know part two focuses more specifically on corporate interests. tell us a little bit more about that. >> well, as you said, we have one of the most controversial issues in america, this huge natural gas drilling campaign in
34 states. if foreign multi-national oil companies and national oil companies were drilling all over our backyard and that people were complaining about this, complaining there was a movement spreading all throughout the united states, why was no one stepping forward to protect americans in the face of these human rights violations that the companies were putting on them in their backyards. why was nobody stepping forward to protect americans. i wanted to find out what exactly was the interaction between the government and the natural gas industry. what we found out was that at every stage of the process from the local to the state, ultimately to the federal, the regulatory agencies have been co-opted and taken away from the people by the natural gas industry. to the point to which it feels like americans don't have democracy in play with respect to oil and gas development. >> you know, sam, when you talk
about environmental -- when you talk about regulatory infrastructure at all, it is almost like a four-letter word in the current political debate. regulation -- bad! it is really interesting one of the reasons there is a fierce debate over fracking is because there is not a lot of information about what kind of chemicals these companies are putting in to the ground because of regulations, i think one of them is known as the halliburton loophole in 2005. the energy bill largely crafted by then-vice president dick cheney. >> there's loopholes that get around them having to put the actual chemicals that they are releasing. question for josh. first, i was dismayed that you wore your yankees hat throughout the documentary but we'll put that aside. we were discussing this this -- i watched the documentary the other night. portrayal of lisa jackson, she seems someone who knows there is a severity to this issue but sort of is constrained by the office that she holds. can you talk about how you think she comes off in all this? >> i think lisa jackson was a real fighter on this issue was aggressively investigating. what the epa turned up was real
hard proof of contamination in many places. what we saw however after that was when obama embraces natural gas drilling in the 2012 state of the union address, the first campaign speech of the cycle, we watch epa fold and fall apart and dissolve investigations midway through. this happens three weeks ago in wyoming. the epa turned over its investigation which had proven hydraulic fracking was contaminating ground water and with a $1.5 million contribution from the drilling company itself. we're watching the obama administration walk away from science and we know that the obama administration has met many times with the gas industry. we're asking him to please meet with the people, families in the film who are emblematic of thousands of people suffering at the hands of the drilling industry and with the scientists and engineers in the field -- >> indeed, and it is a debate that will continue on. i think it is a positive sign at
least for the argument that the president is talking about the issue of climate change but as you point out, josh, there are many unanswered questions and conversations that need to be had. josh fox, director of "gas land part 2," thank you so much. more after the break. ♪ and i'll never desert you ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you yeaaaah! yeah. so that's our loyalty program. you're automatically enrolled, and the longer you stay, the more rewards you get. great! oh! ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ won't let nobody hurt you ♪ isn't there a simpler way to explain the loyalty program? yes. standing by you from day one. now, that's progressive.
"that starts with one of the world's most advancedy," distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on