Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Troops Weigh In On DADT; WikiLeaks, Good or Bad?; Several People Shot At Funeral Home in North St. Louis; The Truth About Vitamin D; Crisis Heats Up in North Korea; Home Prices Down; President Meets With Top Republicans
Aired November 30, 2010 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks buddy, good to see you my friend.
And yes, lots of stuff there, including the president saying they're going to make sure or try and make sure that nobody sees a tax increase on January 1st.
I'm Ali Velshi alongside my friend Kate Bolduan with you for the next two hours. This is what we've got on "The Rundown."
We talked about it yesterday. We're going to talk a little more about it today; the leak of those secret diplomatic documents is turning into a raging flood.
Is it a criminal act that threatens national and public security? Or is it a public service?
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, did today's big "Slurpee Summit" fizzle or find common ground? We heard from the president, a little bit from the GOP, they went head-to-head over hot topics that could hit your wallet pretty hard.
VELSHI: And something many of you may have been spending hundreds of dollars on for years may have been a big waste of money. I'm going to tell you about that shortly. But in just about an hour, the Pentagon is expected to give opponents of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" some long awaited ammunition. It's a report on military attitudes.
Whether troops themselves think military readiness, cohesion or morale would suffer if openly gay men and women were allowed to serve. Now we don't yet know all of the details, but sources who have seen them -- seen the reports say that 70 percent of the 115,000 GIs who answered a survey anticipate positive effects, mixed effects or no effect at all if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is repealed.
Sources tell CNN the study's authors predict, quote, "limited and isolated disruption in the ranks but nothing widespread or long lasting." Opposition is said to run highest the Marines, but even there it is in the minority. And that reflects the views of the general population. Let me show you a CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll just this month finds that 72 percent of Americans favor allowing openly gay service members.
Twenty-three percent don't. Now we should point out the Pentagon isn't the only one with a voice in this debate. In September, a federal judge ruled that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was unconstitutional. She barred the services from enforcing it. But her ruling is on hold while the government appeals. In the end, a decision to scrap or keep a 17-year-old policy that was born of political compromise will almost certainly be up to Congress.
So that brings me to "Two At the Top" where CNN's Dana Bash, our Congressional Correspondent is standing by. Gauging the fallout of this new information on this lame-duck Congress.
Dana what's it -- how is it going over at Congress?
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know the true answer is it's too early to tell, because as we speak, the people from the Pentagon, the authors of this report actually, are making their rounds around the Capitol. So it's not really clear yet how it's going to fall out. We're probably going to need a day or two for that.
However, having said that you just gave some of the details of it. The fact that this does seem to be so positive if you will, for those who favor a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," they believe and they hope that those fence-sitters, and there are many of them, particularly in the United States Senate, that they could be swayed to at least vote to -- at least start debate. That is really what we're talking about here on the defense bill that includes a repeal.
VELSHI: What -- everything we talk about now, Dana, has some reference to the lame-duck Congress and the new Congress coming in in January. Who will this report fall to to do something about it? Is the lame-duck Congress going to do anything about it or do they just punt this one to the new Congress?
BASH: Well, right now, the Senate majority leader Harry Reid says that he is planning on bringing this before the United States Senate. So it is the Senate that everybody should have their eye on. And the fact of the matter is that you do have most Democrats whose favor this. But there are a handful of Republicans who are those fence-sitters.
And I'll just tell you, I just ran in the hallway to Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. She is one of those fence-sitters. And she hadn't seen this - I gave her what I had in terms of the details. And she said her initial response was, well, this looks like it's pretty good. But -- this is the but - I think this is what we're going to hear more and more, Ali.
It depends on how it's implemented. This is a survey of how people feel in the military, which is positive for those who want to repeal, but how it's implemented is the question that many of these senators are going to ask.
We're going to have two very, very big important hearings later this week where they're going to be able to ask those questions to Pentagon brass.
VELSHI: All right, Dana, thanks very much for that.
Dana Bash, live at Congress discussing this new study that we'll be talking about in an hour. Hour and a half we'll get the official results about how the military feels about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and repealing it -- Kate.
BOLDUAN: A Wisconsin high school is closed quite tight today as students, staff, and police try to process last night's hostage drama. A 15-year-old sophomore held 23 classmates and a teacher at gunpoint for hours after school let out.
The standoff finally came to an end mid-evening when police burst in and the student shot himself. He's in the hospital with a life- threatening wound. However, his motives and state of mind, they are still a very big mystery right now. Police say he made no demands and was even-keeled and well liked at school.
That gets us today's "Sound Effect" which tries to answer the age-old question, what's so funny? For the Arizona Cardinals last night's game against the San Francisco 49ers was nothing to laugh about. The Cards' sixth-straight loss took their record to 3-8, ouch, for the season.
Yet somehow, late in the game, with the Cards down 18 points, the starting quarterback Derek Anderson took off his game face and yukked it up with a teammate. In the post game, a reporter asked him, what was going on. And that's when the fireworks began.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEREK ANDERSON, QUARTERBACK, ARIZONA CARDINALS: I'm not laughing about it. You think this is funny, I take this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) serious. Real serious. I put my heart and soul into this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) every single week.
QUESTION: All I'm saying is the camera showed you laughing --
ANDERSON: I'm telling you right now what I do every single week. Every single week I put my freaking heart and soul into this. I study my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) off. I don't go out there and laugh. It's not funny. Nothing is funny to me. I don't want to go out there and get embarrassed on Monday Night Football in front of everybody.
QUESTION: That's why I'm asking you --
ANDERSON: I'm telling you right now. We're not -- we're talking. Deuce and I are talking.
QUESTION: What was the context --?
ANDERSON: I'm done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: He's done. The Cardinals' coach said he didn't see any levity but would be disappointed if that was the case. VELSHI: Hey, we were talking about the "Slurpee Summit". This is the president meeting with the leaders of the opposition of the -- well, the Republicans in the house and the Democrats in the Senate. That convened today. It probably sounds a lot cooler than it actually was. The meeting between President Obama, GOP leadership, and top Democrats, well they only allowed an hour for the entire meeting.
Not much time to cover complex issues on the agenda like tax cuts and the nuclear arms treaty. But the GOP side called the meeting useful and said what they heard from President Obama was encouraging.
For his part, we just heard from the president, he acknowledged the need for everybody to work together because, quote, "the American people didn't vote for gridlock."
BOLDUAN: General Motors, well, they hope to get a shot in the arm from its part-electric Chevy Volt. And GM hopes it will also give Detroit a shot in the arm as well. The company has just announced plans to hire 1,000 new engineers and researchers to focus on electric vehicles. GM's CEO arrived at today's media event in what else, the first Chevy Volt off the line, and he laid out short-term plans for the car.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN AKERSON, CEO, GENERAL MOTORS: This is the first launch on a commercial basis here, and it will be distributed in seven key markets in the United States. Next year we help to take it to Europe. We'll rebrand it under the Opal brand and Impera, but it will be produced internationally. In '11 and into '12.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: they are looking for some good news these days.
VELSHI: Well, I have to say, I think this is a game-changer.
BOLDUAN: How so?
VELSHI: And GM has not had a game changer for a long time. I just think that the -- oil is at 82 bucks a barrel. I mean, we are not going to see lower oil prices. People are looking for an alternative. They are moving toward smaller cars and they are looking at - you know, I drove the Leaf, the Nissan Leaf; it was all electric, versus this. But I think there are going to be a lot of people really interested in this.
And it puts GM in the forefront of auto manufacturing as opposed to trailing like they've been doing for years.
BOLDUAN: Forty thousand dollars a pop.
VELSHI: Yes, well and the Leaf is less money but I think these things will get -- I don't think they'll get cheaper. They'll become more valuable over time.
BOLDUAN: More attractive.
VELSHI: They'll become more attractive, exactly.
So Dan Akerson, he also spoke directly with Poppy Harlow from cnnmoney.com. She is joining us next hour with details on that conversation.
VELSHI: That will make three car enthusiasts having a conversation at the time. Talk about electric news, a retired Frenchman reveals he's had 271 unknown Picasso pieces stashed at home for decades. Who does this?
BOLDUAN: I say that all the time.
VELSHI: Right, yes, I've got a whole bunch of great art in my garage. He says he worked for the artist and later Picasso's widow. She gave him the artwork over time. The only problem is the painter's heirs don't buy it. They say this guy must have stolen the pieces somehow. And they are suing him. The art has been confiscated by France's central office for the Fight Against Traffic in Cultural Goods, that's really the name of the agency -
BOLDUAN: It's for real
VELSHI: Until it's all sorted out.
BOLDUAN: So WikiLeaks, yes, we're still talking about it. Why? Because it's a quarter million confidential documents being released. Now that we know some of the dirty details, we have to ask, and we've been asking this a little bit.
VELSHI: Good or bad.
BOLDUAN: Is it bad or is it good for America?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: The WikiLeaks saga continues. The headline today, china is losing patience with longtime ally North Korea. In one exchange from April 2009, senior Chinese officials describe the North Korean regime as, quote, "a small child."
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in Asia on a four-day trip that will put her face-to-face with many of the leaders mentioned in these documents. Not always in flattering terms as well. Clinton had harsh words yesterday about the release of the 250,000 confidential cables.
VELSHI: OK, so there are a couple of things going on. One is what is in these cables? How much is coming out? What is damaging? And there have been these debates about whether or not this endangers people's lives or in this case their reputations. Countries dealing with other countries.
BOLDUAN: Right, is it embarrassing or is it more? VELSHI: But is it useful or is it not? And people are really split on this. I asked on my Facebook page, and I was getting a lot of reaction. So we wanted to bring in other people to talk about this with us. I want to bring Glynnis Macnicol, he's the editor of "Business Insiders Media Page" from New York. And she is -- she has been following things to do with media and the criticisms of these WikiLeaks.
Glynnis, let's -- without complicating this, what's the feeling out there? Is it helpful for us to know some of the details about international diplomacy that have been leaked in these documents or is it dangerous?
GLYNNIS MACNICOL, EDITOR, "BUSINESS INSIDERS MEDIA PAGE": Well, I think right this second it's a lot of fun. A lot of these cables are providing - you know, they are a great read; they're making for great headlines. They are a lot of fun to read. I don't know so far if anything has been released that would be specifically categorized as dangerous. I mean it's certainly an embarrassment to American officials and possibly some international figures.
But I don't think anything that we've read so far is a danger to the country. I think the real danger and what's probably going to be explored going forward is how did this young kid stationed in Iraq get access to these documents? What if he could have access to things that actually did matter, that actually were part of our national security? So I think really that's the troublesome part about this is how he found these. How he got them out. All of those sort of security questions.
BOLDUAN: But what about in terms of - you know, as journalists, more transparency in government the better, as we always say.
But, Glynnis, when you think of it from that perspective for the American people or for - you know, even take the media, is there any -- is this kind of transparency good or is this where transparency has gone from good to dangerous do you think?
MACNICOL: Well, I mean, part of that question is to say a lot of this information we probably already knew. You know, we already knew who was travel with Gadhafi. We already knew that probably the Mideast is not comfortable with Iran.
We already knew that there's a lot of questions about North Korea and succession. So a lot of this stuff is almost, you know if you looked for it you could have found reports about it in the media. What's been revealed is how diplomats are talking about it and how they are discovering this information. You know, whether it be at a dinner or whatnot.
VELSHI: You are right. It's more stuff you can write a book about I suppose. But here's a question for you. Is this different from -- for you than the release about military activities that was in the last WikiLeaks dump which the government argument did and could possibly have endangered lives? MACNICOL: Certainly. This -- I think -- I don't know if lighthearted would be the word to use here, but there's so much -- this is so much more gossipy. I mean, honestly, when you read it, it feels like the U.N. has written, you know, a page six column. You know, there's not -- it's more entertaining and you don't get the sense that what's being revealed here necessarily is dangerous to any specific person the same way that that first dump really made you question whether we're putting soldiers at risk. I don't think anything we've read in this WikiLeaks dump would make you question that we're putting military figures at risk. I think --
VELSHI: We're just hurting some reputations (INAUDIBLE).
MACNICOL: Well, you know what, like it's humanizing diplomacy a little bit, too. I mean this is -- you realize that people are chitchatting at diplomatic dinner parties the way that everyone does at their own personal dinner party. It's just on a -- it's writ (ph) much larger. So I don't think there's that same sort of severity of result. You know, we're not really endangering anyone's lives here. And, you know, the larger question is, when you speak about transparency, we live in a digital age right now. Things are transparent constantly just by the nature of -- we are being inundated with so much information. So to go back to the point of how --
BOLDUAN: With or without the media being the filter.
MACNICOL: Right. And the media sometimes, I think, doesn't provide enough of a filter because you just can't possibly keep up with all of the information that's being thrown at you. So it's -- it's hard to say if there's a level of transparency here or if it's just, we're all trying to contend with this new way of exchanging information that we all are fumbling around with. And apparently, you know, the U.S. government, national security is fumbling around with it much the same as everyone else.
BOLDUAN: Glynnis Macnicol, thanks so much for joining us from New York.
MACNICOL: Thank you.
VELSHI: All right, home prices down again after steady gains since 2009, according to one measure of it. We're going to be telling you what's going on in a minute and find out whether this is a good time to buy a house.
But first, a little quiz for you. How many new single family homes were sold in the U.S. last month -- 83,000, 283,000, or 938,000? I'll tell you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: All right, before the break we asked you, how many new single family homes were sold in the United States last month, 83,000, 283,000 or 983,000? The answer is b, 283,000 new single family homes were sold in the United -- that's still a lot, but it's a big country. We're telling you this because home prices are down, according to one report. Look at this chart on the screen. Very hard to read that because it's not down by much, but they've been going up.
BOLDUAN: To the untrained business eye, that doesn't say much.
VELSHI: Because it looks flat, right?
BOLDUAN: Right.
VELSHI: Right. And it is. And if you took that chart back way before 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005 you'd have seen home prices dropping. They were well above $200,000 a piece.
BOLDUAN: Right. Right.
VELSHI: But from July to September, they dropped 2 percent. It may not sound like a lot, but it can knock thousands of dollars off the price of a home that you're trying to buy or sell. What we're trying to figure out and what Kate was sort of talking to me in the break about is, is there something bigger to this? Is this a trend? Is it a bigger deal?
BOLDUAN: As we like to say, or is this a blip?
VELSHI: Or is it a blip? Who better to answer that than Christine Romans, my co-host on "Your Money." She joins us from New York.
What's your view, Christine? Because as you know, I've been fairly bullish on the market. I've got an article in "Money" magazine this month saying it's a perfect time to buy a house.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CO-HOST, "YOUR MONEY": That's right. Well, I think, Kate, frankly, that life is a series of blips. And we ride them. And --
VELSHI: Good point.
ROMANS: That's the whole nature of the beast. And, look, that looks like a flat line, that chart you just showed me.
VELSHI: Right.
ROMANS: Bottom line is, there aren't enough reasons for home prices to continue to rise. And that's the thing here. It looked as though there was stabilization. Even rising home prices throughout 2009. We've run out of reasons for home prices to keep going up. You had the foreclosure mess in past weeks and months that really put a freeze on foreclosure sales. And that's been a problem throughout the whole housing market. You even have really, really low mortgage rates. My gosh. If you know somebody who just bought a house, they're looking at mortgage rates you've never seen them this low.
VELSHI: Yes, 4.5 percent. Yes.
ROMANS: But, wow, it's just incredible. So, for buyers that have got the pick of the market out there, unless they're trying to sell a house themselves, so it's all very, very difficult right now still in the housing market. I think these numbers show that, Ali. VELSHI: We should put that on the bottom of the screen, life is a series of blips.
BOLDUAN: Life is a series of blips.
VELSHI: Christine, the other issue that we talk about a lot --
ROMANS: A T-shirt.
VELSHI: And I don't know what's going to happen to this, but today was the last day for many people to apply for extensions to their unemployment benefits, federal extensions for that. That's going to change our landscape a lot. Where do we stand with this? You and I -- I think we talk about this every month or two.
BOLDUAN: This is a big fight that's -- yes, this is a big fight, though.
VELSHI: Yes.
ROMANS: I can't think of a single issue right now happening today that affects more people. Hundreds of thousands of people today are wondering whether they're going to be able to have extensions to their unemployment benefits. There's a whole part of society called the 99ers, people who have had 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and the state agencies -- I've been talking to the state labor departments today, Ali and Kate. They say they are frankly inundated with phone calls they're handling or e-mail traffic, web traffic about what to do next.
Some of the states are telling us, I want to be really very clear about this. If you are on extended unemployment benefits, some of the states are telling us, file for an extension anyway, even if you don't think you're going to get it. Even if you don't think Congress is going to fund it. Why? Because if maybe next -- the next Congress or down the road they do, it will be easier to go back retroactively and get you those benefits. So that's point one.
Point two, for a lot of people, you're going to stop -- 2 million people are going to stop getting benefits by the end of the year, 4 million, frankly, probably by February if Congress doesn't do something. The president just said that in his meeting with Republican leaders and congressional leaders that he urged them to do something quickly, an emergency fix here. But, Ali, how many -- times -- at what point does the emergency become chronic? And what are we going to do about it? How are we going to pay for it?
VELSHI: Right.
BOLDUAN: Right.
ROMANS: One quick point, guys. Remember during -- oh, and, Ali, I know you know this well. Remember during the heat of the bailout drama, why is Wall Street getting a bailout and Main Street isn't? The total cost of the TARP bailout for the banks will likely be $25 billion. That's according to the CBO. VELSHI: Yes.
ROMANS: That's far -- that's less than six months of the cost of extends benefits. Maybe what main street's bailout was, right there before us all along, and it was unemployment benefits, and that bailout is about to run out.
VELSHI: Yes, that's a good point you bring up there, $34 billion was the last extension, 314 the whole thing.
Christine, great to see you. Thanks so much.
ROMANS: Bye, guys.
VELSHI: You can see Christine every day here on the show at this time. You can see us both on "Your Money" Saturdays at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, Sundays at 3:00. And Christine is the author of this great new book. It's worth picking up. It's called "Smart Is The New Rich," which is true, and it's on shelves now.
BOLDUAN: Or life is a series of blips.
VELSHI: Or life is a -- that's her next book.
BOLDUAN: All right. So let's get a check of the latest developments in the day's top stories right now.
A 10-month Pentagon study concludes that most service members don't care if gays serve openly in the military. Sources familiar with the report say that 70 percent of those surveyed think that lifting the ban, known as "don't ask, don't tell," would have positive, mixed or no result at all. And the report is to be released in the next hour. You know we'll have more on that.
And in Utah, the trial of the man accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart when she was 14 was halted today because of a medical issue with Brian David Mitchell. CNN affiliate KSTU says Mitchell was taken out of the courtroom on a stretcher with an oxygen mask on his face. Mitchell's lawyer says he had a seizure in the courtroom. A spokeswoman for the prosecution confirmed the report and the trial is now set to resume tomorrow.
Also what we're watching, and in Washington, a meeting between President Obama and congressional leaders concluded just a short while ago. Both sides reporting progress. That's what they always say is a productive meeting. Among the issues discussed, whether Bush era tax cuts should be extended. And this was their first such meeting since Republicans won control in the House in the midterm elections. Much more on that, of course.
VELSHI: Do we even know why this is called the Slurpee summit. I've forgotten the --
BOLDUAN: We do know. And it's a little convoluted. If you'll remember during -- when they were campaigning for the midterms, President Obama would go out and stump speech, basically. And he would say, we -- the car was in the ditch. The car is the economy. We were --
VELSHI: Oh, and those guys were drinking a Slurpee.
BOLDUAN: And Republicans were on the top of the ditch just slurping a Slurpee.
VELSHI: I see. OK, that's what it is. All right.
BOLDUAN: That's what it is. (INAUDIBLE).
VELSHI: We don't know that any Slurpees were actually consumed by the president or top Republicans at the meeting this morning. They only met -- they allowed an hour for the meeting. I don't know how long it ended up going.
BOLDUAN: It was just under a couple of hours.
VELSHI: Ed is going to help bring us up to speed on whether anything came out of it that is going to make a difference to you. We believe there is. So Ed joins us for the stakeout right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: All right, our senior White House correspondent, Ed Henry, has been following the president's meet, that Slurpee summit, --
BOLDUAN: Slurpee summit.
VELSHI: With top Republicans this morning. He joins us now from the White House.
What came out of it, Ed?
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think what's interesting is, is you guys -- you're right, you know, when you were heading into the break saying that, look, in the grand scheme of things, this was originally supposed to be a lot longer. I mean the president, when he invited Republicans right after the election, I think it was two days after the election, he said he wanted to meet for a couple of hours, a few hours, and then go up to the residence here for dinner. That never happened. And so this was shrunk down.
But while they planned for about an hour, hour and a half today, it went on for just under two hours, I'm told. And from a senior administration official, I just picked up some new information I think that's interesting, is that behind closed doors, this official tells me, the president did acknowledge to Republicans that he failed in the last two years to be bipartisan enough and he pledged to do a better job.
Now, why is that important? Well, the day after the election, when we had that news conference in the East Room, the president got hit by his critics for appearing to not really acknowledge any mistakes after that midterm defeat and appearing, in the estimation of his critics, arrogant. This is a sign, I think, that maybe he's ready to change the tone a little bit and acknowledge he made some mistakes. But, more importantly, moving forward, is there going to be a substantive change here? Because they came out of this with no deal on tax cuts, no deal on extending unemployment insurance. You've got millions of people about to lose their benefits before Christmas. So I think there's maybe a positive step forward for both sides. But they still didn't gain any ground, ultimately. So there's a lot more that needs to be done.
BOLDUAN: And you -- and tone is the one thing. And while it sound like one of those words we just kind of throw around in TV, tone, it seems to me, like kind of the only thing that we get a really good read on coming out of that. I don't think any of us expected --
VELSHI: It seemed pretty good, though. Hearing the president and hearing Mitch McConnell come out of it, it sounded like they weren't fighting.
BOLDUAN: Did you see a (INAUDIBLE)? Did it seem maybe they actually may be able to work together?
HENRY: Well, yes, because, I mean, look, how many times did John Boehner say the phrase "common ground"? I think it was three, four, five -- I kept hearing him saying it over and over.
And remember, the Republican leaders up there, McConnell and others, have been saying they want to make sure that Barack Obama is a one-term president. Now all of a sudden, they are coming out saying let's get some common ground, maybe that's a positive step.
But again, the proof is in the pudding. You can talk all you want -- we had a great meeting, we're going to have another meeting, the president has said now we're going to have a summit at Camp David -- you can have all the summits you want, until you meet each other halfway on tax cuts, on unemployment benefits, on START, on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," we've got nothing. I mean, it's just talk so far.
VELSHI: But they did say, the president did come out and say that they are working toward nobody seeing a tax increase on January 1st. That was about the most definite thing I heard coming out of this.
HENRY: They are working towards it, yes, absolutely, but they still don't have a deal. And the president has wanted basically to extend all the middle class tax cuts, has been a little leery of extending all the tax cuts for the rich, he defines at that as $250,000 a year or more per year in income.
But he has signaled in recent weeks, after the election, he might be willing to do a one-year or two-year extension of the tax rates for the rich. Again, you are right, no ground yet, but he's suggesting, look, I'm ready to go to the middle.
But I have to tell you, before this meeting, Mitch McConnell was on the Senate floor saying don't raise taxes on anyone, suggesting that he wanted to extend all of them, basically, indefinitely. That's not where the president is right now. But the president did also deputize the treasury secretary, the budget chief, Jack Lew, to now meet with four Congressional leaders to try to hammer this out. Again, is this just another meeting or are they going to move forward? We'll see.
BOLDUAN: Yes, McConnell seemed to lay down a firm marker earlier this morning.
CNN's Senior White House correspondent Ed Henry, thanks, man.
VELSHI: All right, we've got breaking news. You're looking at live pictures from our affiliate KTVI in North St. Louis. And we -- what we're hearing here is that there have been several people shot at a funeral home. The -- it's the Reliable Funeral Home, I understand, the Reliable Funeral Home in the north part of St. Louis, Missouri. That's pretty much what we have on that, but we are getting that from --
BOLDUAN: Definitely see it's roped of there and they are going -- it looks like a large funeral home. But that's what we have right now, several people shot in St. Louis, Missouri. We're going to work some sources, see what else we can get on that and we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: Breaking news, we're going to get you caught up on what we told you just before the break.
This is from our affiliate KTVI, this is a video from just a short time ago, reports of a shooting at a funeral home in St. Louis, Missouri, several people shot there. The name of the funeral home we've learned is the Reliable Funeral Home, and you are seeing video from just a short time ago.
As you can see, authorities on the scene and several people shot. That's the latest we have. We're still working to try to confirm any more information and bring that to you as quickly as possible.
VELSHI: For anybody who knows the area, it's on the 3900 block of Washington Avenue in St. Louis, northern part of St. Louis.
We'll stay on top of that for you. Those pictures coming from KTVI, we'll follow that for you.
Listen to this, forget what you may have heard about Vitamin D, new research out today suggests that you may not need those supplements. In fact, for some people, an extra dose of vitamin might do more harm than good.
This, as you can well imagine, is all foreign to me, right? Because I am not --
BOLDUAN: You don't care about your health, is that what you're saying? VELSHI: Well, it's not that I don't care. I don't actually know. Somebody quizzed me and said, what does Vitamin D do for you and should you have been taking it. I don't know the answer to that.
BOLDUAN: Just think sunlight and if you could smell it, fish.
ELIZABETH COHEN, SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right, yes.
VELSHI: That's why there's an aroma of fish on the set right now.
COHEN: You thought it was me, it's the stuff that I brought.
BOLDUAN: So what we're talking about here?
COHEN: Al right, so what we're talking about is how to get enough Vitamin D but not too much Vitamin D, cause enough Vitamin D will help your heart, it will help fight cancer, it does all sorts of good things.
So the Institute of Medicine, who are the folks who do all the studies to determine how much of everything we ought to get, here's what they say. They say that if you are up to age 70, you should be getting about 600 international units a day. If your over age 70, you should be getting 800.
I know that means nothing to anybody, so that's why I have this smelly fish in front of me. All right, so in order to get what, you know, an adult would need, not a senior citizen --
VELSHI: Likely what a guy like me is going to get, if I needed to get it, is one of those tablets.
COHEN: OK, well, we'll get to that in a minute. Don't jump to the tablets quite yet.
BOLDUAN: Hold on. Hold on.
COHEN: Cause I'm hoping maybe I can convince you to eat the food.
VELSHI: All right, let's go for it.
COHEN: So breakfast, bowl of cereal and an orange juice. How tough is that, Ali?
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: Not bad, even I can manage that.
COHEN: OK, lunch, a little bit of tuna. Dinner, a pretty small piece of salmon.
You're done. You're done for the day.
VELSHI: I have to have all three of those things? COHEN: Everything on there. I mean, there are other foods, too.
BOLDUAN: What kind of diet are you on? That's not that much food.
(CROSSTALK)
BOLDUAN: Tell us about the supplements, because a lot of people do just revert to Vitamin D supplements.
COHEN: Yes, so these Vitamin D supplements 400 -- 4,000 international units could do you harm, and these are 400 each. So you don't want to megadose, taking a couple of them probably isn't going to do anything now.
Sunlight is the other thing that's important. So if you have white skin, hang out in the sun for five minutes without sunscreen. Probably not going to do any harm and it will help your body make Vitamin D. If you have darker skin, 15 to 20 minutes.
So that's another option. If you're not into the fish, you can be into the sun.
BOLDUAN: So the news is that you cannot -- you don't want to get too much. Is that the news here?
COHEN: Right, you don't want to get too much. To be honest, not a lot of people get too much. I mean, it's relatively difficult. I mean, 4,000 international units, when each of these tablets has 400, you'd have to take ten of them or less depending upon the food.
But there are people who aren't so clever about this and who do megadose on supplements. Not a good idea to megadose on Vitamin D, it could hurt your heart, your kidneys.
VELSHI: You'd think for all the time I talk to -- for all the time I talk to you every week about this you'd think I would have gotten better about my habits.
BOLDUAN: What is wrong with you? Listen to her, it's not hard.
COHEN: I'm going to leave this on your desk.
BOLDUAN: Senior medical correspondent sitting right next to you --
VELSHI: That's why we bring Kate in, cause she understands these things.
Does she -- is she slimming for me? Does she make me look fat?
COHEN: You look great next to her.
VELSHI: Tomorrow. I'm going to have my corn flakes and tuna and salmon.
BOLDUAN: I hope so. All at once.
COHEN: I'll leave them here for you.
BOLDUAN: Here we go.
VELSHI: North Korea, we've been talking about that -- boy -- for about a week this has been going on. North Korea fires a new warning to South Korea and the United States. Is it going to go beyond this heated rhetoric? We take you "Globe Trekking" to Seoul when we get back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: Time for a little bit of "Globe Trekking" right now.
North Korea throwing gas on its rhetorical battle with South Korea. Today, warning of an "all-out war" any time if South Korea and the United States continue their joint naval exercises in the disputed Yellow Sea.
Despite the threat, those war games continued full speed ahead today and are scheduled to run through Friday. The U.S. military says they are designed to send a clear message of deterrence to North Korea.
Washington says the exercises are in response to North Korea's sinking of a South Korean warship in march which killed 46 sailors, by the way. The North denies it had anything to do with the sinking.
This latest crisis, of course, triggered by North Korea's artillery attack on a South Korean island. Two civilians and two South Korean Marines were killed in the attack and many others were wounded. Both South Korea and its main ally, the United States, denounced the attack as inhumane.
And along with its new threat, North Korea is boasting of advances in its nuclear program. Pyongyang says a new uranium enriched plant revealed three weeks ago offers a new pathway to make nuclear weapons. The North's new claims have not been independently verified, however.
Another revelation today from WikiLeaks. Among the cables released by the web site, one suggestion that at least some Chinese officials don't view North Korea as a useful ally and would take no action if it collapsed.
Meantime, the U.S., South Korea and Japan plan to meet in Washington next month in a bid to resolve the latest crisis; China is also calling for talks on the crisis.
And moving on to Rome, a massive student protest over expected spending cuts in education brings the city to a virtual standstill. Protesters also disrupted traffic and blocked train tracks in Milan, Pisa and Venice.
The main demonstrations are called "Block Everything Day" -- very creative name. It comes as parliament debates a bill on education reform. Students argue that the cuts breach their right to education. All this just adds to the more headache for Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, he faces two confidence votes next month -- Ali.
VELSHI: Kate, you remember Christmas Day, you and I were both working when that bomber, underpants bomber came into Detroit.
BOLDUAN: Yes, I will not forget that day anytime soon.
VELSHI: It was supposed to be an easy going day for us, but every time we cover terrorism on an airplane or terrorist attacks, the question comes up as to why is everyone not checked against these terror watch lists. And this wasn't the case in this instance, but there's always been that question.
The Department of Homeland Security -- we just got this in now confirmed. The Department of Homeland Security announces that they are way ahead of schedule in ensuring that every passenger who flies into, out of or within the United States will now be checked against a terror list. It's now being done.
BOLDUAN: The into the United States is a big point.
VELSHI: Right. So, in June they achieved everybody flying on domestic flights was checked against any watch list.
BOLDUAN: But everyone that's trying to bomb the United States are coming from somewhere else.
VELSHI: So, now everybody into or out of and within the United States is being checks. And the details are that they check -- the things they check. They check the name, the date of birth and the gender against terrorist watch lists.
By the way, the difficulty here has been a lot of people get annoyed. Particularly women who are married who have I.D. that's not the same because they are really, really sticky about . So, the one take-away for all of you -- because I think most of our viewers are not terrorists -- is make sure when you are traveling all your documents match ahead of time. The name the airline has --
BOLDUAN: I ran into that when I was traveling right after being married. But you can deal with a little bit of frustration.
VELSHI: Oh, totally. And if you had just gotten married or just gotten divorced or something's happened, carry some kind of documentation to prove it.
BOLDUAN: Exactly. That's the key. That's what helped me through.
VELSHI: Yes. Good. All right. Well, we'll -- hey what do humpback whales have to do with wind and water turbines?
BOLDUAN: I guess we're going to find out. VELSHI: Yes. There you go. Scientists are designing better, more efficient turbines by understanding the little bumps over a whale's fins. I'm saying that as if I knew before this moment that there were bumps on a whale's fins. Stick around. We'll tell you more about it on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: OK. So the question we asked before we went to the break is what do humpback whales have to do with creating better wind and turbine power. Obviously that's power that's going to cost less to produce because there's a fair amount of wind and a whole lot of water.
BOULDUAN: A whole lot of water. Well, scientists have already been using designs inspired by the bumps on the edge of the whale's fins --
VELSHI: Which are called --
BOLDUAN: Tubercles.
VELSHI: Tubercles.
BOLDUAN: Why are you trying to make me look dumb on TV?
VELSHI: I just wanted to se how you pronounced it because I didn't quite know how it was said.
BOLDUAN: Moving on.
They've used these bumps to make more efficient turbine blades for wind power. And now they have much more in store.
That's where Mark Murray comes in. He's been working on this, and he's an associate professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. And he joins us live from Washington.
Thanks so much, Mark. As it's been used for wind power, but why is it now being used for water power? How does this all work? Where does the humpback whale come in to play?
MARK MURRAY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY: Well, the humpback whale comes into play -- this is research that was done in conjunction with a biologist, Frank Fish, and another engineer, Lawrence Howell at Duke University, along with Dave Melosevic at the Naval Academy. We had found out that the tubercles, those bumps on the front of the flippers, actually helped air foils - particular air foils shaped like a humpback whale perform better. It didn't stall as quickly. It actually produced more lift.
And from that, from this bioinspiration and understanding that nature potentially could make things a little bit better through evolution. We're trying to take this bioinspiration and potentially use it for things like wind turbines or water turbines. In this particular project, the water turbine project was introduced -- suggested by one of my former students who is now an ensign at M.I.T. of Timothy Gruber. And in conjunction with an ocean engineering professor, Dave Fredriksson, we developed a project to test the effectiveness of putting these tubercles on underwater windmills, which would be called current tidal generators and found out that they did perform a little bit better when we had these tubercles on the blades.
VELSHI: What's the end result? If they do work better, can we retrofit existing wind turbines and water ones? And how much more efficiency will that get us if they were to do that? In other words, what kind of scale are we talking about?
MURRAY: If you're looking at anything like this, which is a new science, you really need to do a lot more research on the specific aspects. I can say that for the specific characteristics that we used, the flow speeds, the size, the shape of the blade, that these work.
But you're going to have to go in and actually do a lot more research on different types of blades that were specifically developed. And we were looking at low flow because tidal currents are generally low flow. And with low flows, we found that these were effective.
Now, the blades themselves may not have been designed specifically for low flow. So, could you have back fit? Probably not. We like the design of these blades because they're simple. And something that you put under the water, you don't want a complicated mechanism that could corrode or break and you have to put divers then in the water to correct any sort of complicated mechanism. These are just simple blades.
VELSHI: Mark, good to talk to you about it. Thanks very much for telling us a bit about how tubercles on whale fins can actually help us generate energy a little better. Good to talk to you, mark.
MURRAY: Thanks a lot, Kate and Ali. You guys have a good afternoon.
VELSHI: Thank you.
BOLDUAN: Thank you so much.
So, a former Republican Congressman and now TV personality is calling out the party? Calling out the party on Sarah Palin telling them to man up, Ali Velshi.
VELSHI: Yes. Exactly. We'll hear who said that in our political update on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: Time now for a CNN political update , my favorite time of day, which there is plenty going on today. Senior producer -- political editor Mark Preston. I can never seen to get your title correct. I just know you as Preston back home. VELSHI: But he's not -- I haven't seen you in forever, Mark. Good to see you, my friend.
MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL EDITOR: And I got my voice, Ali, so you have to listen to me have today unfortunately for you, you and Kate. I hope you're taking good care of her down there in Atlanta.
VELSHI: We are. We absolutely are.
PRESTON: Are you? Very good. Very good.
OK. Let's get to the headlines. Joe Scarborough, the MSNBC anchor who served in Congress from 1995 to 2001. Came in on that 1994 Republican wave, has a scathing column in the "Politico" newspaper today. What he's saying is that Sarah Palin, even though she is the most talked about figure right now in GOP circles when it comes to the 2010 presidential election, she's also unelectable. He also says that Republican leaders are privately saying that she could be a disaster in 2012 if she's the nominee, and he's urging them to publicly come out and voice their criticism.
We haven't heard anything from Sarah Palin. I suspect we will maybe sometime today. and when she does, I bet you it will be on Facebook.
Democrats have had trouble figuring out who is going to oversee their campaign efforts to head up the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They've been trying to figure out who will do so in 2012. What is this? This is the campaign arm for Democratic senators.
Tough task heading into 2012. There's going to be 21 Democratic senators as well as independents who caucus with the Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans only have nine senators up for re-election. Well, Patty Murray, the Washington senator who chaired the committee back in 2002, she's decided to do it again. Apparently, she's telling her colleagues that she's accepted. Today it should be officially announced probably a little later today.
And in closing, Ali, this is really up your alley. All has to do with the Bush tax cuts. We talk a lot about the Bush tax cuts here on television, but what does that really mean for our viewers? Well, if they do not get the Bush tax cuts extended, this is what it would mean. For a married couple with two children making $100,000 a year, their tax bill would go up $4,500. If you're a single person making $50,000 a year, it would increase by $1,100. Not chump change.
And I'll tell you, our friends over at CNN Money have this great chart and break it all down. Jean Sahadi, good friend of ours, has an excellent story. I suggest you go to CNNpolitics.com. You can get that story, and it will tell you what the big to-do is about the Bush tax cuts.
VELSHI: Should have a quiz on how much you know about the deficit, which I thought was great. Jean is like, crazy smart, but she breaks it down like you. Makes it really easy for us to understand.
BOLDUAN: He's the one that's on the quick e-mail. "Jean, help me."
VELSHI: "I'm on TV in four minutes, and I got to understand the deficit.
(LAUGHTER)
BOLDUAN: Mark Preston, thank you, sir.
VELSHI: All right. When we come back, we're going to talk about "don't ask, don't tell." this is a survey of military members -
BOLDUAN: Long awaited.
VELSHI: -- tens of thousands of them. We're getting the results. We've heard some of the results already, and we're finding out what military members think of repealing "don't ask, don't tell." How is it going to affect military morale and cohesion? We'll tell you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
