Return to Transcripts main page

Campbell Brown

Too Big to Fail Again?; NASA: End of the Final Frontier; Faith & Facts

Aired April 14, 2010 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAMPBELL BROWN, HOST: Hey there, everybody. Another busy day in our nation's capital.

President Obama segues from his big nuclear summit into another negotiation that has the potential to turn nuclear. That is reining in Wall Street.

On a day when the Dow was rocking, closing at its highest level since September, 2008, the president called congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle to the White House to talk about reform. What message is he sending, and who really pays to protect against future failures on Wall Street?

We're going to have a very fiery debate about that coming up very shortly.

And speaking of sending a message, tomorrow the president unveils his new vision for America's space program, one that includes retiring the space shuttle and cutting thousands of jobs in the human space flight program. So could this be the end of the final frontier?

And what kind of message led a Florida man to an 11-year-old girl lost in a swamp for days? He says he prayed and then God showed him the way.

Could there actually be something special going on in your brain when you pray? Dr. Sanjay Gupta took a very close look at this and has the fascinating science behind the power of prayer.

We've got all that and more, but we're going to begin, as always, with your cheat sheet for all the top stories of the day, our "Mash- Up."

And our top international story tonight, the rapid-fire series of deadly earthquakes in China that happened this morning. Five hundred eighty-nine people are known dead and at least 10,000 injured. Many victims, including schoolchildren, are still buried in the rubble at this hour.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Panic, terror and misery have overwhelmed this lonely corner of southwest China. Schools, offices and more than 10,000 homes have collapsed. WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Our Senior International Correspondent John Vause is making the very long drive to the epicenter and is on the phone.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN SR. INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We haven't really seen many military convoys as we've headed by. We haven't actually seen a lot of anything. It's been pitch black through most of the journey. Breathing is difficult. The air is very thin.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Even for those lucky enough to walk out alive, survival remains a struggle because of the harsh climate. Temperatures plunge below freezing at night and snow is expected.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: A thousand miles away in Beijing, the Chinese government is mobilizing rescue teams. In the meantime, a lot of people on the scene are digging with their bare hands.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: China TV reports 1,000 people were rescued alive more than 12 hours after the quake.

And our top story here at home, Attorney General Eric Holder says the administration will decide within weeks where the accused 9/11 conspirators will be tried. But the AG also faced new questions from the Senate about Osama bin Laden.

Now, just to take you back a little bit, here's what he had to say in March. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY General: The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom. That's a reality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Today, Holder clarified his position. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLDER: There will be no need to give bin laden Miranda warnings. And if I was not clear there, I meant to be.

The concern with Miranda warnings is only whether or not the information you would get from that person might be excluded. We have sufficient information, statements from bin Laden, so that there is no reason to Mirandize him at all. What I said in that hearing was an assessment of, I think, the likelihood that we are going to be able to capture him alive. I think it's highly unlikely that he will be taken alive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Holder also said today that he supports using both civilian courts and military commissions for terror trials, whichever would be best for each particular case, he said.

In politics, our stop story is Sarah Palin, rallying the Tea Party troops in Boston today ahead of the big Tax Day rally at the Washington Monument tomorrow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH PALIN (R), FMR. ALASKAN GOVERNOR: Boston, if anyone knows how to throw a Tea Party, it is you.

You're sounding the warning bell just like what happened in that midnight run.

The people in Boston and all across the U.S., we're spending a message to Washington that come November, that big government, big debt Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending spree, that "There, there, little children, we're here to take care of you," that agenda is over. We're voting them out. We're going to tell them you're fired.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: ABC News estimates that Palin made about $12 million since she stepped down as governor of Alaska. We just learned today though that her PAC actually spent more money than it took in the first three months this year.

And the story that's getting all the buzz tonight, the new Twitter archive in, of all places, the Library of Congress. There are about 50 million tweets a day, and every single one of them -- well, the public ones, anyway -- will now be housed in the library, the largest in the world.

The first-ever tweet back in March, 2006, came, not surprisingly, came from Twitter's co-founder. And it reads, "Just setting up my Twitter."

And what may be the newsiest of tweets, Barack Obama's election night message that read, "We just made history. All of this happened because of you. You gave your time, talent and passion. All of this happened because of you."

That will also be archived as well.

And for anybody who is worried about personal direct messages on Twitter, those would be off limits.

And that brings us finally to tonight's punch line. This is courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel, who just could not resist making fun of Sarah Palin's big $12 million payday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, TALK SHOW HOST: Since leaving her job as governor of Alaska, at the end of July -- and it's not even a year -- Sarah Palin has made more than $12 million. The figure is a little bit misleading because most of that money is Alaskan currency, which is primarily made up of pelts and shiny rocks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Jimmy Kimmel, Ladies and Gentlemen.

And that is your Wednesday night "Mash-Up."

Coming up, the fight to fix Wall Street. Will any real reform actually pass and will the banks become too big to fail again?

Also, yesterday, Haiti. Today, Mexico. Michelle Obama steps up her role on the world stage with a new international agenda. Could this be a more ambitious first lady?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: You know all those banks that were just too big to fail? Well, today, congressional leaders from both parties met with President Obama to discuss a financial reform bill aimed at preventing another meltdown. But by the end of the meeting, the two sides were miles apart.

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MINORITY LEADER: The bill that they've reported out of committee is an endless taxpayer bailout of Wall Street banks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: For them to say it's a bailout for financial institutions just defies credibility in every way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So who is right here?

Earlier, I spoke with Robert Reich, former labor secretary, and John Fund from "The Wall Street Journal." Listen.

Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

And we have heard I think a lot of talking points already on this financial reform stuff coming from both sides. So I want to try to cut through some of that right now.

And Secretary Reich, let me start with you.

I think one thing we've heard from Republicans is that this is a plan that institutionalizes the system where banks are too big to fail, what everybody told us was the problem, the too big to fail idea, that we'd have this orderly liquidation fund, $50 billion safety net, I guess you could call it, that would be used to take over a bank if it failed.

So I guess my question is, aren't we feeding the habit? If too big to fail is really a problem, then why create a fund to save them next time?

ROBERT REICH, FMR. LABOR SECRETARY: Well, the idea behind this fund, Campbell, is not to save a bank. It's actually to let regulators get rid of a bank.

The problem with a financial market and financial institutions when they get into trouble is that money and financial assets so easily move -- in fact, they move at a split second -- that you need a little bit of money just to keep them in place for a moment before the federal regulators have a chance to pay off depositors and make sure that the assets are sold in an orderly way. The shareholders of a bank would lose everything, so nobody wins. There's no incentive for a bank to be reckless simply because there's this transitional fund available.

BROWN: I guess, so why set it up then? I mean, if you need that money, shouldn't they have to go to Congress and shouldn't there be the process of going to Congress to ask for the money? Why have it sort of sitting there? Why do you need it? I don't get it.

REICH: Campbell, the purpose of setting it up is precisely to allow a bank to be wound down, dismembered quickly, without there being a run on the bank.

BROWN: But that didn't happen with the crisis.

REICH: The problem with Lehman Brothers was there was a bank run. I'm sorry?

BROWN: Let me bring John into this, because it didn't seem to me that -- I'm just trying to get at the heart of the problem, if we can. And the heart of the problem didn't seem to me to be a run on the banks. It seemed to be the idea of too big to fail. And I'm not sure that I see anything here that incentivizes that to change.

John, what's your take?

JOHN FUND, COLUMNIST, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, I think we have some perverse incentives that are built into this bill. This is the first time I've heard of $50 billion called a little bit of money. And you can renew it. You can put in more $50 billion segments ad infinitum. So it's a potentially endless bailout.

This bill gives enormous powers to the federal government to seize financial institutions even if they're not about to fail. It is broad discretion to the federal government, and it then gives the federal government broad powers to pick winners and losers.

It says systemically important creditors are going to be paid off first. Well, we saw what kind of decisions the government can make on systemically important credits.

When the government took over General Motors, the unions got 100 cents on the dollar, a lot of the bondholders who normally by law go in the front of the line to get money from a bankrupt company, got 20 cents on the dollar. So you're giving enormous discretionary power to the federal government, which I think we should step back from.

Remember, both Republicans and Democrats have dirty hands here. Glass-Steagall, which eliminated a lot of the distinctions between investment banks and traditional banks, was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and a Republican Congress. Clearly, they made mistakes.

I think by rushing to judgment on this bill, and by not making it bipartisan, we are going to create another flawed bill like Glass- Steagall was 10 years ago, which helped get us into this mess.

BROWN: Secretary Reich, go ahead.

REICH: Well, Mr. Fund -- Campbell, Mr. Fund confuses a lot of separate issues there. I mean, first of all, the fund, according to this bill, is entirely paid for by the big banks. They established the fund. They maintain the fund.

FUND: No, no. It's paid for by the banks' customers.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: Excuse me, John. If you could allow me to at least finish my sentence.

FUND: I'm just correcting you. It's paid by the customers.

BROWN: Hang on, guys. I don't want you to talk -- I don't want --

REICH: Not only do we need an orderly bailout, but we need --

BROWN: But we need an orderly conversation.

REICH: -- an orderly conversation.

BROWN: I agree. But hold on.

REICH: Now look, the public is not going to understand unless we have a chance to talk about this.

BROWN: Secretary Reich, I agree. But I think the point is a fair one, which is that, yes, the banks are paying this, but obviously they're going to pass that on to its customers. So, ultimately, ,we're all paying for it. Right?

REICH: Well, ultimately, we all pay every time a bank gets into trouble, Campbell. And I agree with John Fund in one very important way -- no bank should be too big to fail. In fact, I would personally rather in the bill, there be a limit on the size of all banks. No banks should be larger than $100 billion in assets. BROWN: So why can't we get that in the bill?

REICH: Why can't they get that in the bill? I imagine because Wall Street is very powerful both with Democrats and Republicans.

I think Democrats are trying to do the best they can. Republicans would like to water down the Dodd bill as it is already. But I think there ought to be a limit on how big banks can be.

And John Fund, do you agree with me?

FUND: I think more importantly is we need to structure the banks so that the risks that they take is something they realize from day one is going to be borne by them. That will, along with appropriate regulation, which I support, would force the banks into real risk management behavior.

We had with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were the two institutions that led the other banks into the abyss, this financial crisis, was basically Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And then, by extension, the banks they did business with were basically told we're going to bail you out no matter what. We have to end that. And by the way, this banking bill, this financial regulation bill, does very little to go back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and completely reform them, and they're the ones who helped start this.

BROWN: And let me let you respond to that quickly, Secretary Reich. It's a fair point.

REICH: Well, John Fund's point is exactly right in terms of banks should bear the risks, but the problem is we already went through two years ago an exercise in which the banks were supposedly going to bear their own risks. But the problem was that, as they started to fail the entire system locked up, it froze up, because there was not only a run on the banks, Campbell, but the equivalent of a run on the banks, and that is that nobody wanted to trust anybody else with their money. And so everybody hoarded their money.

That's exactly the point here. If you don't have some sort of an orderly process for liquidating these banks, or even better, as I've suggested, set a ceiling of how large banks could be from the beginning, you are going to have a repeat of what we had before.

BROWN: That's what I think my bottom line is, is that I'm not sure that anything I have heard or read in relation to this bill seems like it's going to prevent this from potentially happening again.

Is that fair?

FUND: I agree. I agree.

BROWN: Secretary?

REICH: Well, what worries me, frankly, is that even if you have a liquidation fund like this -- and I think it is a step in the right direction -- you still, if two or three or four major banks who are all using the same investment techniques, if they all start to collapse together, the federal government has an enormous incentive to come in and try to prop them up regardless of what the bill holds and regardless of what regulators -- the power that regulators have. So, limit the size of the banks to begin with.

BROWN: I wish they would. I think a lot of people wish they would.

Secretary Reich, John Fund, appreciate your time, both of you. Thank you very much.

FUND: Thank you.

REICH: Thanks very much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Coming up, tomorrow President Obama will make a big announcement about NASA's new mission. We have Bill Nye the Science Guy joining us with his take on the future for humans in space.

Also, the power of prayer. A man finds an 11-year-old girl after four days lost in a Florida swamp. He says his prayers were answered, literally.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: President Obama is heading to Cape Canaveral, Florida, tomorrow to announce his new plans for NASA. And his plan will include expansion of the commercial space business, eventually, a manned trip to Mars. But the move comes during tough times for NASA. The shuttle program is being scrapped and other cuts will mean thousands of layoffs.

Ali Velshi now with a look at what the president's plan is and what it really means.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Campbell, the president is going to Kennedy Space Center tomorrow to talk to NASA workers about the new priorities for NASA. This isn't really the end of the final frontier. It's a change. In fact, some people say this will allow NASA and the U.S. government to go into another frontier.

Let me show you why things are changing at NASA. Take a look at the budgets.

First of all, in 2010, the budget for NASA was $13 billion. 2011, it's actually going up. This isn't a budget cut. It's going up to $19 billion. And over the next five years, $100 billion is going to be spent on space exploration.

But it's exploration more than transportation. What this administration wants to do is see if they can go into other frontiers, maybe getting further into deep space. And the idea here is that the shuttle, the program that gets astronauts into space and into what we call low-earth orbit, can be taken on by others. Let me give you an example.

It costs $65 million per astronaut, per mission on the space shuttle. The Russians can do the same thing, get an astronaut into space, for $50 million. And we spoke to a private company, a private manned spacecraft company, who feels that the private enterprise can do it for $20 million. So that's the point.

This administration is saying let's take that transportation of astronauts into space and maybe put that into the private sector. But the bottom line here, shifting priorities.

NASA's budget is not being cut. The mission is being changed -- Campbell.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: All right. Ali Velshi for us tonight.

And we want to bring in the Science Guy, Bill Nye, right now, who is already, we should say, at Cape Canaveral to hear the president tomorrow. And a very windy Cape Canaveral, I think.

Hey there, Bill.

Let me ask you first about what Ali just laid out for us, because this is a little controversial here. A number of very famous astronauts have come forward and criticized the president's plan, or this shifting of priorities. Neil Armstrong being one of them.

They sent out a letter saying that his decision is just devastating, that "Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the U.S. is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity."

Tell me what you think of their criticism. Is it fair?

BILL NYE, "THE SCIENCE GUY": Well, it's their are criticism, but as vice president of the Planetary Society, I can tell you we're very excited about the future because we think the United States will finally get out of low-earth orbit and go to these new and exciting destinations on the way, ultimately, to put people on Mars. And the reason you want to put people on Mars, they are better at exploration than robots.

And the robots are made by people, very skilled people, but they can't do what humans do. So people who are thinking that we're cutting programs I don't think have the whole story, because the budget is getting bigger. There will be 2,000 more jobs here at Cape Canaveral.

BROWN: And Bill, talk to people a little bit, because I think for the average person, they don't understand that the investment in NASA can have an impact on all of us in our daily lives in certain ways that we don't, I guess, fully appreciate sometimes. Right?

NYE: Well, of course you're right. People talk about the spin- offs, which I think is what you're driving at. And that's great.

We have Velcro, we have Teflon, all these wonderful things. But societies that stop exploring, they sort of stop.

You say, well, why do you want to keep going? Why do you want to go to higher altitudes, much father from Earth than we've ever gone? What are you going to find there? And we don't know. That's why we're going.

And I can assure you that if we send people to Mars and find signs of water, and then signs of life, it will change the world. It will change the world the way Copernicus did or Galileo. It will be very, very exciting.

The thing that I think people are concerned about is the shuttle programs being retired, the shuttles being retired. Well, that decision was made about five years ago. So it's just now, if I may, coming to roost. And I don't think it's a bad thing. It's a change, and people get nervous about change.

The future is very exciting.

BROWN: As always, Bill Nye, The Science Guy.

Appreciate you being on. And as we said, from a very windy Cape Canaveral tonight.

Bill, thanks very much.

And when we come back, saved by prayer, how science explains the powerful force that helped a rescuer find a lost little girl.

We're also going to hear from Michelle Obama, an interview with CNN, why she's focussing her message on Mexico's children and how it will play here at home.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: It took a leap of faith into murky waters to find a child missing for days. Eleven-year-old Nadia Bloom disappeared last Friday near Lake Jesup in Florida. Early efforts to find her were fruitless, until one of the rescuers, James King, set out on his own, trusting he was going in the right direction.

In an extraordinary interview, King told CNN today that God led him directly to the girl and that finding her was no surprise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES KING, RESCUER: I prayed. And, in some cases, when there's water in front and there's water to the left and water to the right, and trees and brush and bushes, and I said, "Which way to go?" And I looked and he said, "Go that way." And I was looking at water, and I said, "Lord, are you sure?" He said, "I got you."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Which leads us to the facts of faith, the science of prayer. When some say it is all in your head, maybe they're right.

Here's CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Generations of people believing in God. Generations of skeptics trying to figure out why. Now hard science is taking a hard look, exploring the brain to see whether human beings are hard-wired for faith. And astoundingly, the answer may be yes.

DR. ANDREW NEWBERG, NEUROSCIENTIST, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: The brain is set up in such a way that it's very easy for us to have religious and spiritual beliefs and experiences, and make religion and spirituality a part of our lives.

GUPTA: Dr. Andrew Newberg is a pioneer in a new field called neurotheology, conducting groundbreaking studies of brain activity during prayer.

NEWBERG: It's become a wonderful window, so to speak, into understanding how religion and spirituality affect human beings.

GUPTA: Using SPECT imagining, a brain-scanning technology, Newberg has examined nuns deep in prayer, Tibetan Buddhists meditating, Pentecostal Christians speaking in tongues. No matter what the religion, no matter what the form of worship, prayer makes certain regions of the brain light up in a special and unique way, like this, the frontal lobe, right behind the forehead focuses concentration. The limbic system deep in the center triggers feeling of all and joy. The parietal lobe at the back of the brain brings on that feeling of becoming part of something greater in oneself.

Dr. Newberg says, the faithful see this is confirmation that God has designed us to believe.

NEWBERG: The nuns took a look at those scans and said this is great. It makes sense to them that God is up there and we're down here. Obviously, there has to be some conduit through which we understand God.

GUPTA: Perhaps, but secular critics say the new research leaves many unanswered questions.

SCOTT ATRAN, UNIV. OF MICHIGAN: In terms of understanding the fundamental nature of religious beliefs, why people have them, to what purpose they serve, I don't think it's going to give us very much insight. GUPTA: So, for scientists, the question of why we believe still remains a mystery, the answer, perhaps an eternity away. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Up next, more on the "Science of Prayer." How scholars explain the mysterious power of focusing on your faith, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Now, back to the story of a dramatic rescue and what faith may have had to do with it. The man who saved a child from a Florida swamp said it was the power of prayer that led him to that little girl.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES KING, RESCUER: I don't believe in luck. I believe in God, and, you know, I trust in him. I trust in his word, and his word says he'll be a lamp to my feet and light to my path. And I needed him to guide me and so in a Proverbs three, it says that he will direct my path. And so he did. And I stood on that scripture and I shouted it out as I trudged through the swamp and as I prayed, the Holy Spirit led me directly to her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Joining me right now from Philadelphia is Dr. Andrew Newberg, the Director and Co-founder of the Center of Spirituality and the Neurosciences at the University of Pennsylvania talking in moment ago in Sanjay's piece which have mentioned. Dr. Newberg is also a co- author of "How God Changes your Brain." And also with us is Wendy Cadge who is Associate Professor of Sociology at Brandeis University joining us as well to talk about this.

Dr. Newberg, let's talk a little bit, I want to expand on I think of what you told Sanjay. You've done research specifically into what happens in a person's brain when they pray. And it's really something rather unique, isn't it? Explain it.

NEWBERG: Well, absolutely. It's something that actually activates many different parts of the brain. It affects our emotional parts of the brain, the logical parts of the brain. The parts of the brain that help us feel connected to our universe, to God. And therefore, it's really a buzz of activity. It really makes us feel very energized. And I think that's part of why such a powerful experience for people.

BROWN: And you're saying, I guess you're saying, there's actually part of the brain that reacts in a certain unique way also when somebody is having kind of a religious experience, which I think is fascinating. Give us some examples of where you have seen this?

NEWBERG: Well, one of the most important areas is a part of the brain called the parietal lobe and it's located in the back part of the brain. And this is a part of the brain that normally helps us create a sense of our self and a connection of that self to the world. When we've studied people in deep practices like prayer or meditation, there's a decrease in this area. And it makes a lot of sense that they would have sense where they loss their sense of self, they lose their sense of space and time. They feel a connectedness with God that is so overwhelming and so powerful.

And I think that this is a very important part of the kinds of experiences that they have. It also affects the emotional parts of the brain. The part of the brain called the limbic system because these are deeply emotional experiences for people. They have immense joy, immense love, immense compassion. And it has a tremendous effect not only for them in a moment but it exists throughout their entire lives.

BROWN: And Professor Cadge, let me take this step further and look whether one person's prayer can actually affect reality in some way. Heal the sick for example, I think maybe most people don't necessarily believe that prayer could, say, cure cancer, but there have been studies, scientific signs, scientific studies looking at this. Explain what they are and what they found?

PROF. WENDY CADGE, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Yes, since 1965, there have been about 16 studies that tried to look at the effects that prayer has on people who are being prayed for. But specifically when those people don't know that they're being prayed for. These are double blind clinical trials that unnecessarily prayer. The results are mixed, but it's generally seen to be the case that it's hard to show scientifically to prove that one person have an effect on someone else. Specially, when they don't know that they're being prayed for.

BROWN: Well, I guess that's my question to the both of you and Dr. Newberg pick up on these too. This isn't exactly an area that lends itself to scientific research, is it?

NEWBERG: No. It's a very complicated process. And of course, a lot of studies just mentioned, the question that you're really have is, are they the kind of prayer that people are really doing when you're involved in a study, you're given a name. You're praying for a name, very different from when you might be praying for your parents or your child or your loved one where erratically there maybe much greater effect. So, it's always hard to know how to study these kinds of questions. And it's a real challenge for scientists, including myself to figure out the best ways of trying to make some kind of measurement and try to understand this a little better.

BROWN: And evaluate it. Go ahead Professor Cadge.

CADGE: I think that's exactly right because so much of prayer takes place in context, with families and with communities. It's really hard to capture the context in which those prayers happen. In addition to the fact that not all prayers about making a request or petition of God. In a study that I did looking in prayers in hospital prayer books, many people were simply thanking God or accepting gratitude, so it's much more complicated. BROWN: Well, let me ask you to follow up on that. Because I thought this is really interesting. You studied I think 500 prayers to find out what specifically people were praying about. And what did you find?

CADGE: That's right. I was looking at prayers that people had written in prayer books that are inside the Johns Hopkins Hospital. And what I found after looking at about 500 prayers was that about a third of the people were praying prayers of thanks, prayers of gratitude. About a third of people were petitioning God in some way. And about a third were doing both thanking and petitioning. So, the first important point to realize is there's a lot of thanks and gratitude. The second important point is when we looked at the petitions, we found that they weren't always asking for specific things. People were not saying God, please fix my knee. People were asking for support, they were asking for blessings, they were asking for guidance, and a much more generals, psychologically supportive way in the requests they were making.

BROWN: Well, it's a really interesting field. I know you both are breaking new ground. Dr. Newberg and Professor Cadge, thank you so much for being with us. We really appreciate it.

CADGE: Thanks for having me.

NEWBERG: Thank you.

BROWN: And coming up next, Michelle Obama in Mexico, the first lady unveils a new international agenda and speaks out about Mexico's deadly drug war. That and more coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Michelle Obama tonight is the guest of honor at a dinner hosted by Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his wife Margarita Zavala. This is her first official solo outing as first lady. And everywhere she went, she spoke about children, the focus of her new international agenda. That message was remarkably consistent even when she was asked Mexico's raging drug war. She spoke with CNN Juan Carlos Lopez. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHELLE OBAMA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FIRST LADY: You have to fight the war but keep looking at other ways to address the problem. Mrs. Zavala is working on curtailing the command on this side of the border with her new life centers that have been created to train and educate families to help with prevention on the front end. So, few of our young people have become addicted and involved in the drug trade. On our end, we need to do the same. We need to do more of the same, but education is also key to this issue, because what we do know in both countries is that if young people have opportunities, if they know that they're going to get a solid education, perhaps go to college or at least get a job that's going to pay a wage, that's going to allow them to live a decent life and care for their families and their grandchildren, they're going to make the better choice. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And we promised you an assessment of her trip yesterday, so we continue our look now at how the first lady is choosing to present herself to the world, and to help us with that.

Joining us now from Mexico City is Robin Givhan at "The Washington Post" and Mark Lacey of "New York Times." Welcome to both of you.

Robin, let me start with you. I think some people had been wondering if Michelle Obama would actually speak out about the drug violence in Mexico. She was very careful in her interviews. I think, as we just saw. We also know that the two first ladies addressed this privately today. I guess what's your take? There's such a delicate balance to dealing with substantive issues when you're the first lady versus sort of playing kind of different role, especially when you're on a foreign trip. What's your take on how she handled that issue overall?

ROBIN GIVHAN, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I think it's twofold. I think the first thing was that she really wanted to essentially stay on message, which was to focus on this idea of youth engagement, and I think the other piece of it is that she has really made clear that she doesn't want to get involved in policy. You know, she talked a lot about looking at the big picture. And her goal is really to make a connection between her ideas about how to further nurture and inspire youth and also get them to work around all the issues related to drugs.

BROWN: And Mark, you wrote specifically about the reception that Michelle Obama is getting from young people there. We're watching some of the pictures right now. What's she telling them and how is that message being received?

MARK LACEY, "THE NEW YORK TIME": Well, she got an extremely enthusiastic reception today. She spoke at an elementary school and later at a university. And people were giddy with excitement. Basically, her message to young people is that they can succeed. They can make it. She says look at me. Look at my husband. We made it. And basically, young people in Mexico are facing a host of challenges, economic difficulties, violence that's just at incredible levels. They don't feel like the future is all that secure, and she was here mainly, I think, to reassure them that they can do well in their lives and they can help turn their country around.

BROWN: But to that point, Robin, given how I guess different their lives are in many ways from kids here in the United States, do you think they can relate to her and her story?

GIVHAN: Well one of the things that was particularly interesting, when she spoke to these older children or older sort of young adults was the fact that they were really just rapt with attention as she spoke. There was not a lot of cheering, there wasn't a great of applause. In fact there was very little as she spoke. But it was interesting to see how she did engage them. And I think one of the other things that she did do was not merely to say that they can improve their own law and that they have a responsibility, but she also sort of took on government and societies to say that you have a responsibility for making sure that all of these kids have an equal access to education regardless of their background and regardless of their gender.

BROWN: And I want to play a little bit, because she was asked about specifically immigration reform, talking about relations and issues between the two countries. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We're seeing young children who are trying to cross the border just to reconnect with their parents and their lives are in danger. They're putting precarious situations. And a strong immigration reform policy would help alleviate some of those challenges. But the truth is that in the United States, it takes both parties and Congress to also be on that same page as well. It's not enough that the president wants it. We need republicans and democrats to support it as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And you just listening to how she sort of choose her words very carefully there, sort of weaving in bipartisanship with a very hot button issue and young people as well and to how she talked about that, it's a pretty deft political touch there. What is that tell you about, I guess how she's learned kind of walk that line politically, Mark?

LACEY: Well, the Mexicans really want immigration reform in the United States. They've been disappointed many times before. They're hanging on the words of every u.s. official. I think Michelle Obama knows this, that she shouldn't make news. She shouldn't promise too much. And it's really out of her control. It's out of her husband's control and it is a divisive political issue that will have to play out, much as health care reform did. Nobody knows exactly how this issue is going to unfold over the coming year.

BROWN: All right. Mark Lacey and Robin Givhan. Thanks guys. I appreciate it. And coming up next, Matalin and Martin take on today's hot topic including Viagra for women. It's tonight's Massey M2. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Time now for our segment, a little something we call M2 that stands for Matalin and Martin, Matalin and Martin, Mary Matalin and Roland Martin, they are here square off on today's hot topics. Go for it, guys.

MARY MATALIN, CNN political ANALYST: Hey Campbell, the whole world is talking about NASA, NASA which defined the 20th century, words we'll never forget described a country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: It's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATALIN: Those words were larger than the NASA program.

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN political ANALYST: Absolutely.

MATALIN: Shooting for the moon as opposed to shooting the moon defined a generation, define, essentially define an aspiration on nation and today, the president announced or is going to announce that they're cutting the moon program. And you know what, Roland? I'm an aspirational American, but I think that current moon program is over bloated and way behind schedule, and to cut that part of our NASA budget is a good thing.

MARTIN: And look, I'm born and raised in Houston. And look, that's the home of Johnson Space Center, the home of NASA. And I really appreciate what NASA has done. They should have this -- they should have this battle going on. Neil Armstrong, very critical, the one who actually made that particular comment, but then you have buzz Aldrin who is saying, look, I support the president. I do believe we need a strong space program, but this is an interesting partnership, Mary. Some private exploration, in terms of rockets and chip and also in public. Pretty good interesting mix.

MATALIN: Do you really think though, you know, there's no more private sector person than I.

ROLAND: Right.

MATALIN: But do you really think there are some things that the private sector cannot do alone. It's just cost prohibitive, like nuclear programming or something. So, that's the wrong reason but it's the right thing to do. But they're still expanding NASA's budget. And we should shoot for mars. We can shoot for something else.

MARTIN: Well, I agree. I agree. But again, I think that some people are really tied emotionally, generationally to the whole issue of NASA which you got to have a different vision of 21st century and be perfectly on.

MATALIN: And we agree.

MARTIN: All right. Speaking about a different vision or whatever in 21st century. Technology is playing a crazy role, iPads, Blackberry, iPhones, all this stuff, but cell phone video is going crazy. Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys talking some smack at a bar or some kind of restaurant. Folks, check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I love him.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Yes, I know you do.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: (bleep) I wanted (bleep) they were on (bleep) so bad that J's got have a yes man. So, to get this (bleep).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN: There you got Jerry sitting here cursing, he's sitting here going on and on and on. This is the one thing, I think public people, look, you're on the same both afraid off, to be captured, just sort of being honest with the boys or girls.

MATALIN: That is so what I thought. If anyone captured anything you and I said before the show or after the show, sometimes even during the show, John kind would be forced to fire us. But in this case, this is really not anything like what we were talking about earlier this week. Roger Goodell should just not to the extent that in your sports and twitter world, there talking about, there should be some punishment to Jerry Jones. This is Jerry Jones being Jerry Jones. He's a man's man. He was right about what he said about Tebow who might adore. But this is -- just leave him alone and at least people stop taking people's pictures when they don't want to be taken. Then, Jerry is Jerry. And you crack me up. Everybody should know this that you have every gadget known to mankind. You never put them down.

MARTIN: Yes, I do. I got them all but trust me, I'm not talking around somebody walking around with its cell phone.

MATALIN: All right. Well, we agree on two things. Maybe we'll agree on this next topic which sent all my geezer gallon pals a teeter this morning, not on twitter, teeter.

Female Viagra, if I was a man, this is being a smart thing because all men, I don't want Viagra but women are sort of lacking about it. But I've actually learned something today. I want to talk about this because I have been laboring under the myth for two decades now that there's all this research and medication for men when just the opposite is true. Do you know there are seven federal agents for women and none for men?

MARTIN: Wow!

MATALIN: Thirty nine states have medical specialties and only six for men. For every one article written about man's health issues, there are 23 for women. Once again, men getting the shore end of the stick and they live six years -- six fewer years than women. Let's get some equality here.

MARTIN: I have no issue whatsoever when it comes to Viagra for women. To all the guys on the crew, more sex? Absolutely.

MATALIN: No, no.

MARTIN: I don't think any guy will object to there being a pill for women. I'm right there, Mary. MATALIN: You know what? I know, why did I even try to have a talk like this with -- I know all the guys there. I see you behind the camera. This is not -- can I just say to all you men something that I'm sure your wives have told you many times.

MARTIN: Why?

MATALIN: It is not the physicality. Physicality is secondary to romance...

MARTIN: I agree.

MATALIN: ...to relationships, to trust, so you could tie us down and main line us with Viagra, but if you don't bring us roses, forget about it, baby.

MARTIN: First of all, I do all of there believe want the sex too, garment, so come and please. Take the pill by all means, I absolutely love it. Mary look, we're apart, you're in D.C. and I'm in New York. But I do have my fleur-de-lis, whatever they call it, little New Orleans symbol cuff links, so I was thinking about you, so.

MATALIN: There you go. You're a hot daddy. You're hot daddy.

MARTIN: All right, I love that pill though. We got to go. Campbell, back to you.

BROWN: Thanks, guys. "Larry King Live" starts in just a few minutes. And coming up next, some amazing images you don't want to miss right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: OK. We're a little late on the draw there, but that pretty much says it all. Luckily, officials say, no lives or property were in immediate danger. That's it for us. Thanks for joining us. "Larry King Live" starts right now.