Return to Transcripts main page


Nightmare in Nigeria; Putin's Ukraine Endgame; The Ukraine Crisis

Aired May 11, 2014 - 10:00   ET


FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

On today's show, we will take you around the world starting in Nigeria. With the actions of an Islamic terror group have brought condemnation from across the globe. Where did Boko Haram come from and what are they capable of?

Also the big question on Ukraine right now is, will President Putin make a deal? I will ask Henry Kissinger who has spent more time with the Russian leader than any other American.

And who is the world's number one economy, China or the United States? There's been a lot of information and misinformation out there recently. We will sort it out.

All that plus why one curmudgeon says the film "Groundhog Day" is a great addition to life.


BILL MURRAY, ACTOR, "GROUNDHOG DAY": Well, it's Groundhog Day again.


ZAKARIA: But first, here's my take. In foreign policy there is one quick way into the history books. Make a major mistake. We can be sure with Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush that no matter what else is said of them, their decisions leading to military intervention and war will be long discussed.

The second path of big success is actually less sure. Nixon's opening to China was quickly seen as historic, but Harry Truman's many bold decisions -- containment, NATO, the martial plan -- were not lauded as such at the time. So what about the current occupant of the White House? Well, President Obama has not made a major mistake. He has done a skillful job steering the United States out of the muddy waters he inherited -- think Iraq, Afghanistan -- and he's resisted plunging the country into another major conflict with all the complications that would inevitably entail.

But Obama has been less skillful at the constructive aspects of foreign policy, of building up an edifice of achievements. He still has time to fix that. This could explain that the world is now in disarray and geopolitics has returned with a vengeance. Look at Ukraine. But the reality is, as Princeton's John Eikenberry has often pointed out, that the American-led world order built after the Second World War continues to endure seven decades after its creation. It has outlasted challengers from Soviet Russia, Mao's China and most recently radical Islam.

The "Economist" magazine this week tallies the world's 150 largest countries. Ninety-nine of them lean or lean strongly toward the United States. Twenty-one lean against. Washington has 58 treaty allies. China has one -- North Korea.

Russia is not a rising global power seeking to overturn the liberal world order. It is a declining power, terrified that the few countries that still cluster around it are also moving inexorably away from it.

Now here's the real problem. We all accuse Vladimir Putin of Cold War nostalgia, but Washington misses the old days as well. It wishes for a world in which the United States was utterly dominant over its allies, where its foes were to be shunned entirely, where the challenges were stark, moral and vital.

Today's world is messy and complicated. China is our biggest trading partner, but our looming geopolitical rival. Russia is a surly spoiler, but it has created deep ties in Europe. New regional players like Turkey and Brazil have minds of their own and won't be bossed around easily.

What we need is a set of sophisticated strategies to shore up the existing global system but also keep the major powers invested in it. With Ukraine, for example, it's vital that Obama rally the world against Russia's violation of borders and norms, and yet the only long-term solution to Ukraine has to involve Russia.

Without Moscow's buy-in, Ukraine cannot be stable and successful. The country, for example, needs $15 billion to get through its immediate crisis. Would it not make sense to try to split that bill with Moscow?

Obama's strategy of putting pressure on Moscow using targeted sanctions and rallying support in Europe is the right one. It might even be showing some signs of paying off. Similarly with China, the challenge is to provide the assurances that other Asian countries want but to make sure that the pivot does not turn into a containment strategy against China, which is now the world's second largest economic and military power.

That would make for a Cold War in Asia that no Asian country wants and would not serve American interests, either.

Obama's restraint has served him well in avoiding errors, but it has also produced a strangely minimalist approach to his constructive foreign policy agenda. From the Asia pivot to the Russia sanctions to new trade deals, the administration has offered an ambitious and important agenda. But the president approaches it cautiously as if his heart is not in it, as if he's being pulled along by events rather than leading them.

So once more, with feeling this time, Mr. President.

For more go to and read any "Washington Post" column this week. And let's get started.

Recent events in Nigeria have brought shock and condemnation from around the world. I wanted to dig deeper into not only the events but also Boko Haram and the fight between Islam and Christianity in that part of the world.

So I asked Nicholas Kristof and Eliza Griswold to join me. Nick is of course the "New York Times" columnist who has been writing and reporting on the story and his column last Sunday was one of the ways that the kidnapping came to the world's attention.

And Eliza Griswold is a journalist who spent seven years traveling along the world's tenth parallel, which by sex many troubled nations including Nigeria. She wrote a book about it called?


ZAKARIA: So this simple question that everyone has, Liza is who -- what is Boko Haram?

So Boko Haram is a group that's really more of a mess than a militant group. They are a bunch of armed young men who come out of an Islamic movement in northern Nigeria. So Nigeria is split, north-south, largely Christian and Muslim along those lines.

ZAKARIA: North being Muslims, south being Christian.

GRISWOLD: North being Muslims.

ZAKARIA: Generally rules, have more power.

GRISWOLD: Exactly. They have more power and they're closer to the oil wealth. Now in the north there -- people kind of no rights, including a right to go to school. Boko Haram has come out -- it's really reactionary movement that has come out and disenfranchise young people, who attacked Western schools, things they see as Western, in an effort to mobilize around Islam but really in an effort to gain power.

ZAKARIA: So how do you -- you talk about this in your last book, Nick. How do you make sense -- would it be fair to call this Islamic fundamentalism? What is behind this?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: You know, I think we have this misperception that the great divide is between different faiths. Between Christianity and Islam for example. I think actually Eliza was one of the first people I know to really make a point that it's so much between different faiths, it's between moderates and extremists generally. And, you know, moderate Muslims and moderate Christians have a great deal in common. Extremists Muslims and extremists Christians have in common. People in this group resort to violence, oppression, and that is what we're seeing with Boko Haram.

ZAKARIA: But this does seem specifically Muslim these days which is, whenever you see these young men, they always have this incredibly brutal attitude towards women, and it does seem like it's across many parts of a minority of the Islamic world.

KRISTOF: It's true that if you look at places where women and girls are least likely to get educated, where they're most likely to be oppressed, then those are disproportionately countries with conservative Muslim populations. But there are also places where the culture itself, quite aside from religion, is deeply oppressive of women. I mean, Afghanistan, for example. And I think that, you know, what we're seeing here is, unfortunately, a spiral. So in northern Nigeria, there is very little education.

Women are marginalized, partly for cultural and historical reasons. Some people cite Islam is the reason. Female literacy in this region is less than 50 percent. And then that leads people to think girls shouldn't get educated, that leads them to attack schools so girls don't get educated which leaves those areas be further marginalized. Women to be less part of the economy, less a part of the society and leads groups like Boko Haram to have even more influence.

ZAKARIA: And as you were pointing out, part of this is a power struggle. These are armed gangs that have come to wrest power from the Nigerian government. You look at that guy who claims to have abducted these -- kids, you don't get the feeling this guy prays five times a day or observes any of the Muslim. This is a thug who's using what is of convenient language of oppression toward women.

GRISWOLD: Absolutely. Abubakar Shekau who used to be number two in Boko Haram and is now number one, is really a lunatic. If one were to compare him to somebody else in Africa, we would look at Joseph Kony, the head of large resistance army who actually in setting precedence, took a whole school of young girls from their boarding school some years ago in northern Uganda.

Both of them use religion. Kony claims generally to be Catholic. So it really is not as much about Islam as it really is about thuggery, about seizing power, about sex, about taking these young women really as sex slaves and cooks to do the things that the -- that the militants themselves don't want to do.

ZAKARIA: How incompetent has Nigeria been in all of this?

KRISTOF: Nigeria has been not only incompetent, but also in general toward the north, brutal. And the combination of incompetence and brutality is inflamed the situation. Then the army's initial response was to lie about it. They say, oh, we've rescued almost all the girls, all but eight. And, you know, at every step of the way, they essentially ignored the problem.

ZAKARIA: What do you say to people who say, look, this is a local issue, these values are horrible but they don't really pose a threat to the United States or to Western Europe? Why should we care? KRISTOF: You know, I guess I'd say a couple of things. First of all, one of the things we learned in Afghanistan when we neglected it is that if you let an area fester, then over time it can, indeed, affect your interests. The second thing I guess I'd say is we have interests, we also have values. And when you have thugs who kidnap several hundred girls and take kids who should be becoming doctors and sell them for $12 each, then whether or not our interests are affected, we have values at stake.

GRISWOLD: I mean, there are eight direct flights a day from Nigeria to the United States. Not to scaremonger, but it is a matter of time before Boko Haram Figures out how to get on these flights. We already see them having substantial links with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. As well as Al Shabaab. These are very real concerns.

And Abubakar Shekau, the head of Boko Haram, has explicitly said that he is targeting civil society. It's not an accident he took these girls. It is a deliberate attempt to undermine the life of northern Nigerians to replace them with the efforts of Boko Haram, and that's very concerning. And that is our -- we do have an interest in looking at civil society in northern Nigeria and safeguarding the return of these girls in any way possible.

ZAKARIA: Thank you both. Thank you for that.

KRISTOF: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, will Vladimir Putin make a deal? Henry Kissinger will weigh in when we come back.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The president of the United States and the chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.


ZAKARIA: Late last week, President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel stood together in the White House Rose Garden to express their solidarity against Russia's actions. Days later, Vladimir Putin softened his tone and seemed to be looking for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis.

Will it happen and will Germany keep the pressure up?

Joining me now are Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. secretary of state, and Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the former German Defense minister.

Henry, you were on this program during the Sochi Olympics and you made two predictions, you said that Putin was not going to what was happening in Ukraine and the way in which Ukraine was trying to move to the West and move to the EU, and B, that he wouldn't do anything during the Olympics. Both prove exactly right which is the day after being the Sochi Olympics, out, Putin moves.

Now reading him and you have met him more than any other American, do you believe what you're hearing come from him suggest that he is not looking for a diplomatic path?

HENRY KISSINGER, FORMER DEFENSE MINISTER: Yes. I believe that he's looking for a diplomatic outcome, but when I discuss what the outcome is, he doesn't just want an outcome in the abstract, it's concerned. And every president that I know is to -- they cannot look at Ukraine as an entirely fallen country, it's (INAUDIBLE). So membership of Ukraine and NATO is something that it's extremely grating to them if it were to happen.

And then it's the principles, sir. Then he probably, most certainly wants the Ukraine as relatively weak as possible so they're not in a position to challenge him because it's a country of 45 million people. Those are the strategic objectives.

ZAKARIA: You think he doesn't want to annex eastern Ukraine?

KISSINGER: No, but he would like, I guess is to have the eastern Ukraine as his sort of autonomous regions, but that's not the key issue. The key issue seems to me to be this. If Russian strategic frontier at the border of Poland is unacceptable to the west. That would be if you follow the Ukraine fell under Russian --

ZAKARIA: Under Western control.

KISSINGER: Control. A Western strategic frontier 300 miles from Moscow is unacceptable to Russia. So the question is, can one create a kind of -- you can say perfect state or an area of cooperation in which Ukraine will be free to participate in European economic relationships but not join NATO.

ZAKARIA: Merkel has been pretty strong in terms of supporting President Obama. She seems to be alone, though, in Germany in this regard. How do you read the German political situation?

KARL-THEODOR ZU GUTTENBERG, FORMER GERMAN DEFENSE MINISTER: It's a hard situation for Angela Merkel at the moment because on one side of course she's totally committed to the western alliance and has so often quoted values connected to it. On the other hand, she is the leader around the globe that has had the most direct contact with Vladimir Putin during the last couple of weeks and months, and I think that's a balance she has to keep for foreign policy. Talking about the situation in Germany, she is facing quite some tough position. And you hear also some kind of growing -- I call it selective anti- Americanism in a group which is not famous for doing so. So that's a new development and it makes it hard for her to deal with.

ZAKARIA: There is an article that the editor of "Devout," Germany's big newspapers, saying, look, what we have to realize is that new Germany, it's not just old West Germany of the cold wars. This much larger entity it includes parts of the West Germany of the Cold War. It's much entity. It includes parts of the east that have historically been close to Russia and have part of themselves as part of -- kind of bridge between the west and the east. Gerhard Schroeder, the former chancellor, going to Putin's birthday party.

Is this a new Germany that is going to try to play a kind of different role and Merkel is kind of the one person trying to tug it in the Atlantic direction?

GUTTENBERG: So we have it already since a couple of years that the -- that the discussion about finding an equilibrium, or an (INAUDIBLE) between West and the East Germany. And the former Chancellor Schroeder is just one exponent for that very notion, although it was quite ridiculous behavior he had shown at the end of last couple of weeks, first of all accusing the EU of aggressive behavior toward Russia and to the reaction as such was understandable, but it certainly is part of a Germany that tries to find a role within Europe, within the wider Europe, that is somewhere being redefined.

ZAKARIA: Henry, we should still be working, you feel, to keep Russia, in a sense, integrated into the current global order?

KISSINGER: I think paradoxically Russia is a country that has enormous internal problems. It's a declining demography, it's an inadequate industry. But it is a piece of strategic real estate, and piece of strategic real estate from Petersburg to (INAUDIBLE), which it is in everybody's interest that it becomes part of an international system rather than an isolated island.

So yes, I would -- I think one has to interpret Putin not like a Hitler like that he has been, but as a Russian czar who is trying to achieve the maximum for its country. Usually that message are excessive and we are correct in standing up to it, but we also have to know when the confrontation should end.

ZAKARIA: Henry Kissinger, Karl-Theofor, pleasure to have you both on.

Next on GPS, you might have heard that China is becoming the world's biggest economy soon. But don't believe everything you hear. I will explain.


ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World" segment.

ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World" segment. Last week headlines declared that China could eclipse the United States as the world's biggest economy by as only as this year. But before you start lamenting the end of American dominance, the U.S.'s 125-year run as the world's economic leader, listen to me.

America is still number one. It will be for a while. And as it turns out, China is OK with that. Let me explain.

A new report from the World Bank's International Comparison Program, or ICP, says that China is catching up to the U.S. faster than anticipated. In 2005, the ICP estimated China's economy was 43 percent the size of America's. But their latest report puts China's gdp at 13.5 trillion. But that accounts for 87 percent of the U.S. economy, which is 15.5 trillion. Now given that China's economy is growing three times as fast as the U.S., it is fair to project that China will surpass the U.S. by year end. So are we bracing ourselves for a big power shift from west to east for a new pacific era? Well, not exactly. The International Comparison Program based their rankings on a measure called purchasing power parody. PPP, as it's called, estimates the real cost of living. In other words, what money can actually buy you in each country, not how much money you have.

For instance, on average you can buy a loaf of white bread at a market in China for $1.66. But the same would cost you about $2.39 in the United States. A pack of Marlboro cigarettes sets you back $2.40 in China, but $6 in America. And utilities for an apartment in China could cost one third of a comparably sized apartment in the United States. But using PPP as the sole metric can be problematic. While some goods and services may be cheaper in the developing world, many things cost the same whether you are in Beijing, Washington, D.C. or New Delhi. "The Wall Street Journal" (INAUDIBLE), perhaps, puts it best: China can't buy missiles and ships and iPhones and German cars in PPP currency. They have to pay at prevailing exchange rates. National power is best compared on the basis of this standard measure: market exchange rates. And by that measure the U.S. economy is still nearly twice the size of China's. In fact, by that standard, the American economy is larger than China and Japan's combined. So China won't regain its spot as the world's biggest economy for some time. I say regain, by the way, because by some measures China was actually the world's largest economy as recently as 1890. Then the industrial revolution propelled the United States to the top ranking. Now, what that shows you is that it is possible to be very poor and technologically backward as China was without a doubt for most of the 19TH century, and still, because of sheer size, you're going to be counted as the world's biggest economy. What's more, China doesn't even want to be number one right now. China's National Bureau of Statistics has expressed reservations about the World Bank's findings. Why? Maybe because China wants to avoid the spotlight and responsibilities that come with being a rich country.

The Communist Party does not want to make any concessions on trade or climate change or any other areas as rich nations are called on to do. Also keep in mind that China is still a relatively poor country. When you look at per capita GDP, China doesn't rank first, second or even third here. On that criteria, China is behind Peru. A programming note, if you like this show, don't forget to DVR it so you can make sure you never miss an episode of GPS. If you don't know how to DVR, ask some 15-year-old for help.

Next on GPS, a smart conversation about the economy. Is the recent good news in the United States really as good as it might seem, or are we in a bubble? We will begin.


ZAKARIA: There's been positive economic news in recent weeks. United States Fed Chair Janet Yellen said the economy was rebounding after it had paused during the first quarter this year. The unemployment rate fell to its lowest since September of 2008, and 288,000 jobs were created last month. On the other hand, the percentage of people working or looking for a job actually fell by 0.4 percent and wages continue to stagnate. And the economist who predicted both the tech bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble that precipitated the global recession says we're back in bubble territory. To make sense of all of this, I'm joined by Zanny Minton Beddoes, the economics editor of "The Economist" and Steve Rattner who was the Obama administration's car czar and is currently the chairman of Willett Advisors and investment firm. Welcome. So Zanny, when you look at the basic economic news over the last few weeks, particularly in the United States, what conclusion do you draw?

ZANNY MINTON BEDDOES, ECONOMICS EDITOR, THE ECONOMIST: I think we're on track to have a reasonably strong recovery for the rest of the year. It's - there are several things, I think, that make me more optimistic than I have been about previous years. One is that the hangover of the financial crisis really is behind us, consumer balance sheets are in good shape, companies are flash with cash. I mean the other big thing is that unlike last year, we didn't have such a daft fiscal policy. Last year, remember, tax increases, spending cuts dragged down the economy, slowed the recovery. Things that are looking much better this year. But it's still not that great. I mean it's looking better and it's much better than the basic, even no growth we had in the first quarter, but it's still not that great.

ZAKARIA: Steve, Robert Shiller, the economist with us, he predicted both the tech bubble and the housing bubble says we're back in bubble territory. What do you say to that?

STEVE RATTNER, FORMER "CAR CZAR" UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, stocks are expensive, there is no question about that. By any historic measure, we look at the price of stocks relative to the earnings of the un-relying companies, trading at about 16 times the earnings, which is high. It's above its long term historic average. And you do see little bits and pieces or what I call bubblets around in the sense that you've had a number of tech stocks that were quite high, Twitter, for example. Now they're starting to come back down again.

ZAKARIA: So if we look at the chart that Shiller puts out, you know, if you - one way to look at it, I suppose, Zanny, is that it's not nearly as bad, the price earnings ratios, Steve was pointing out, which is how you measure whether a stock is fairly valued, it's not nearly as bad as the tech bubble of '99, but it's kind of on the high side compared to the last century.

MINTON BEDDOES: I like Steve's bubblets. I think we have more than bubblets. We have big bubblets, if you will. But the question is, what - you know, how much do we need to worry about them, and I think that's a function of how that - how big they are? But it's also a function of what impact a correction would have. And I think the important comparison is with, say, 1999, when you had a huge, as you would see it on that chart, huge correction as the dotcom bubble burst, but it didn't have nearly as cataclysmic of consequences as the burst of the housing bubble in 2007. As that precipitated a huge financial crisis. And I think the comparison now is much more like 1999.

ZAKARIA: What about jobs?

RATTNER: You had a lot of jobs created last month, but we're sort of toddling along at roughly about 190,000 jobs most months. That's just barely enough to absorb the number of new people still coming into the labor force. But frankly, as big a problem in my mind, maybe even bigger in some ways, is the fact that incomes aren't growing. Year over year wages, after adjusting for inflation, are essentially flat. And when you get back to the question of why isn't economy growing faster, what are the prospects for growth, unless people - to make it very simplistic. If people don't have income, they can't spend. If they can't spend, the economy doesn't grow. If people don't spend, in my mind that is the principle reason why business holds back on investment, because they don't see demand there. And that's really the biggest problem.

ZAKARIA: Finally, you know, Martin Wolf had a piece in which he said we've got to put in place a whole new set of policies that really aggressively promote inflation, and we should punish all these people who are saving money, who have their money parked in bank checking accounts, savings accounts, and think of all the viewers of the show who have been dutifully been frugal and saving their money, and what he's saying is, I think we need a lot of inflation to basically wipe those savings out or force people to start putting their money to work. What do you think of that?

RATTNER: I - look, I have a great - I have enormous respect for Martin Wolf, but I'm not (ph) try to completely agree on this point for a couple of reasons. First of all, when you put your money in a bank as a saver, the bank in turn is supposed to lend it out to businesses or to people who have some other use for it. You don't happen to have any use for it at the moment yourself. So there's nothing necessarily - it certainly promotes investment. Secondly, we do not have a problem in this country of excessive savings. I think the argument - the coronary argument that others - that Larry Summers in particular has made that you could - maybe get a little further behind, is the idea that government should do more. But this is a ...

ZAKARIA: And that's construction spending, that's stimulus ...

RATTNER: It can do - Yes, it's basic -- you know, Larry is a good friend of all of ours, it's basic Keynesian economics.

ZAKARIA: Wipe out our savers - our viewers' savings accounts?

MINTON BEDDOES: I think that by far the most sensible way to address, what is a very real problem of the lack of investment appetite and the weakness of demand around the world? As Steve says, part of it is very clearly the need for more sensible public investment. And you can see it, infrastructure investment is an obvious one. This country is crying out for infrastructure investment. Europe as a much older population, has actually a quite good infrastructure (INAUDIBLE), but even there you could do with more infrastructure investment. I just recently saw a report that, you know, Germany has incredibly shoddy roads. I guess that depends on what your definition of shoddy is.

ZAKARIA: We will take ... (CROSSTALK)

MINTON BEDDOES: What Germans could do is spending in more infrastructure.

ZAKARIA: I can attest to one piece of those, Those are a report this week that's had that the bathrooms LaGuardia airport have not been renovated in 30 years, which I think we can all publicly attest to.

RATTNER: But they finished the Mumbai airport.


RATTNER: That's a good news.


ZAKARIA: Thank you both very much. Coming up next, we will tell you about two holidays. Why your Mother's Day flowers are likely to be a great example of globalization and why the movie "Groundhog Day" is apparently a great guide for life.


ZAKARIA: It's that time of the year again. Time for pithy advice and inspirational anecdotes for graduates to chew on as they leave their college days behind. President Obama will be addressing graduates at West Point, Michael Bloomberg at Harvard, and I will be trying to impart some wisdom at Sarah Lawrence this year. But leave it to my next guest, who both self-identifies as a libertarian and a curmudgeon to throw some cold water on the typical how to get ahead and live your best life spiel. Charles Murray is one America's most influential and controversial social scientists. He is the author of the bestsellers "Losing Ground" and "The Bell Curve." I sat down with him to discuss his new book "The Curmudgeon's Guide to Getting Ahead."

Welcome back to the show, Charles.

CHARLES MURRAY, AUTHOR: Thank you, Fareed. Glad to be here.

ZAKARIA: But after that - Do you have a kind of curmudgeon's view of young people - the younger generation are wastrels (ph) and, you know, not like they were in the old days?

MURRAY: That's what curmudgeons do. I wrote this for bright college graduates that are making the transition to adult life. And part of the book is to say to them, you know, you're going to the workplace, a lot of the people you are dealing with may look at you pleasantly, and so forth, but they're constantly judging you on all sorts of things that they don't want to admit. And I'm going to tell you what some of those things are.

ZAKARIA: And so, let me ask you some of the advice. You said the first important thing is to get a job, and a real job. Internships are affirmative action for the rich.


ZAKARIA: You don't like them.

MURRAY: You know, it's really important to know what a supervisor/subordinate relationship is like while you are growing up, because when you get into the workplace, for a lot of young graduates, they never had that kind of experience. They've been raised by patient, understanding adults, they've had patient and understanding teachers and they go into a job where somebody is gruff, or they don't say please, maybe they don't say thank you. They don't worry about whether you have an excuse, they just want the work done. And the second thing is, I don't want you to suck up. The very first tip in the whole book is, don't suck up. Say your mind if the discussion is going in a direction you don't like. But to be abrasive, to try to stand out by being flamboyant, that's not going to work. And it shouldn't work.

ZAKARIA: You say get married early and it should be - what did you describe it as a ...

MURRAY: A startup marriage.

ZAKARIA: A start-up marriage, not a merger.

MURRAY: Well, I don't say definitely get married early, but an awful lot of new graduates now assume they shouldn't get married until they are in the 30s. It's just taken for granted. And that's not a bad thing. You know, you're more mature, you and your spouse are established in the world, but don't pass up the chance to get married at 25 or 27 if you met the right person. Because there is one very special thing you'll get together. You will have lived your life when it was still up in the air. You don't know you're going to be a big success is yet and what you accomplish will be together.

ZAKARIA: One of the things you say that you should do is watch again and again one movie. Which one and why?

MURRAY: "Groundhog Day."


MURRAY: I go further than that. I say you can skip the nickel (ph) ethics if you watch "Groundhog Day" often.

ZAKARIA: That's our (INAUDIBLE) how to live a good life.

MURRAY: It's a fabulous movie. It's old, but it shows the evolution of the protagonist who is a complete jerk in the beginning of the movie, self-absorbed, ego-centric, inconsiderate of other people, into a fully realized human being at the end of the movie. It's actually teaching the lessons of how you progress from that egocentrism to the kinds of satisfactions that last.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You went in broadcasting in journalism? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. Believe it or not, I studied 19 Century French poetry.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What a waste of time. You weren't in broadcasting or journalism or anything like that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Huh-uh. Believe it or not, I studied 19 Century French poetry.



ZAKARIA: And what the movie is basically about, is this guy goes to a town, Bill Murray goes to a town, and he gets up the next morning.

MURRAY: And it's the same day again.

ZAKARIA: It's the same day.

MURRAY: It's Groundhog Day.

ZAKARIA: But the point is, that he realizes, correct me if I'm wrong, that there is no great adventure out there that is going to give him a great life that it's all right here. He can - he has what he needs to work with to create a great life.

MURRAY: It takes a long time for him to realize that.

ZAKARIA: What is the one thing you want people to get out of this book?

MURRAY: The one thing I most want them to get out of it is a sense that a lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole is achieved by just a couple of things. That if you find something you love to do and learn how to do it well, and if you find a partner in life with whom -- who is your soul mate, everything else is rounding error.

ZAKARIA: Charles Murray, pleasure to have you on.

MURRAY: Pleasure to be here.

ZAKARIA: Up next, did you get your mom flowers for Mother's Day? If so, you've likely given her a gift from a faraway land. Stay tuned and I'll explain.


ZAKARIA: This week the White House released a scientific report warning that the effects of climate change are already being felt in the United States. President Obama said this is an issue that is going to impact our kids and our grandkids unless we do something about it. It brings me to my question of the week. Which country has the highest percentage of residents who say global climate change is a major threat? A, the United States, B, China, C, South Korea, D, Greece? Stay tuned, we'll tell you the correct answer.

This week's book of the week is John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge's "The Fourth Revolution." This is the latest in a series of smart books by two top editors of "The Economist" and it presents a powerful, intelligent agenda for revitalizing Western government or governments anywhere. It does it in crystal clear prose as well. The book will be out Thursday, but you can order it now.

Now for "The Last Look." Today marks the hundredth official Mother's Day in the United States. And nations on every continent in the world, except the Antarctica have picked up the practice. If the holiday slipped your mind, perhaps you could go outside and pick some flowers from the garden. If you do, you will likely be in the minority of people who have actually given mom flowers that were locally grown. Let's imagine the world's flower trade as a bouquet of 100 roses. 60 of those stems would have been processed through one country, the Netherlands, and most of those have traveled through here, the world's largest flower auction, FloraHolland Aalsmeer, often called the wall street of flowers. Here a sea of flowers of 20,000 varieties cover the floors of one of the largest buildings in the world by floor space, roughly as large as 200 football fields of flowers. The flowers, which have been flown in from all over the world, are paraded on the stage for auction, sold, then shipped back all over the world. This all has to happen very quickly, of course. The 20 million flowers and 2 million plants sold here each day have to make their way to the airport by noon to get in that beautiful bouquet for your mom the next day. Whatever you think of the environmental impact, globalization is clearly blossoming in the Netherlands.

The correct answer is D, Greece. According to a Pew Research poll conducted last spring, 87 percent of residents perceive climate change to be a major threat. South Korea's second on the list, 85 percent feel threatened, which isn't surprising given its proximity to one of the world's worst polluters, China. The Chinese are not bothered, though. Only 39 percent are worried and America isn't much better at 40 percent. If you're part of the group who don't think it's a major threat, I encourage you to read the White House report. There is a link on our website. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

ALEXANDRA FIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Alexandra Field. Here are the top stories we're following at this hour.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 249 pick, the 2014 NFL draft. The St. Louis Rams select, Michael Sam, defensive end.


FIELD: With that seventh round pick, the St. Louis Rams made history, making Michael Sam the first openly gay player ever chosen in the NFL draft. Sam was the SEC co-defensive player of the year. He's been congratulated by everyone from President Obama to Hollywood celebs. Search crews are looking for a third victim missing after a hot air balloon burned and crashed in Virginia Friday. Two passengers who died have now been identified. The University of Richmond says the victims, Ginny Doyle and Natalie Lewis worked with the school's basketball program. The NTSB has been called in to help investigate what went wrong.

Voting is under way today in Eastern Ukraine as people cast ballots on whether to declare independence from Ukraine. Pro-Russian separatists hastily organized the referendum, which the U.S. and other Western nations called illegitimate. A CNN crew saw several people voting twice in one polling station. Many worry the results of the vote could push the country one step closer to civil war. I'm Alexandra Field. "Reliable Sources" starts right now.