we bring in dave zirin, sports editor at the nation. dave, some have called for the death penalty for penn state s football team. we have certainly watched innocent teaming were or seemingly innocent teams throughout the history of the ncaa and college football or basketball have entire dream seasons annihilated because one player or a few players took some money. so there s certainly precedent for collateral damage if the ethics have been breached when it comes to taking money. where s the ncaa on the ethics for child rape? well, the ncaa is nowhere on the ethics of anything. it is not an ethical organization. it s an organization where the president, mark elmert, makes $2 million a year and has 14 vice presidents, each of whom make $400,000 a year, and it s all built on the basis of revenue-producing sports, particularly basketball and football. it s a violation to serve bagels to recruits and have cream cheese.
encouraged, i think, but the fact that we can begin to have this conversation and start a path towards resolution, not only of the banks that are too big to fail, but also of the ncaa, which maybe in our metaphor will be the federal reserve, perpetuating the large institutions. dave, we ll talk to you next time. coming up here on the d.r. show, the report everybody s talking about that proves what we talk about here all the time. politicians profiting from inside information they get as lawmakers. plus, enough s enough. the president talking tough on china, but will he actually bring out the big stick? and jihad jane. she was branded a terrorist and lost everything, including her citizenship. now she s trying to clear her name and reclaim her life. nada proudy is our guest in the moments to come. a little at a time.d y but actually we do and my kids would be like, awesome, mom!
at home, making himself insane, churning around the issues that we debate on this table or sam seder with a different perspective or myself or imogen, or quite honestly, countless other americans, many of whom whose frustration you channel as a candidate for the presidency. many of whom look to you and other candidates to simply be different than all the other candidates we ve been subjected to. what is your advice to the disenfranchised in the country who look at the president and the democratic leadership and the republican debate as more or less a lost cause? all i ve got is my resume. that s all i ve got. and i will tell you, in serving two terms for government, good government is easy. it wasn t hard, it isn t up for sale. and it is currently up for sale. and the root of all evil, our politicians are going to save us from the terrorist threat, they re going to save us from the illegal alien, they re going to save us from drugs, they re going to make sure we don t die on the stre
the day for our legislators, because china would be in motion. and whether it was george bush s treasury secretary or whether it s president obama s treasury secretary every time it comes up, never happens. i think to a larger extent, i don t think they d want it to happen, the legislators. then they wouldn t be able to sort of talk about it. they d actually have to do something about it. and they wouldn t be able to take the campaign contributions. it didn t hurt donald trump, at all. i think donald trump brought this into the mix as sort of a powerful weapon in terms of rhetoric. so that s what we re seeing now. the thing with this rhetoric, it s easy to check, because every year the treasury gets the chance to classify china as a currency manipulator, and every year the treasury department says, oh, no, it s fine. the chinese own, what, 16% of american debt? so, yeah, there s that on the other side. but people use that as a bogeyman.
almost 250,000 folks. a lot of folks want to do that, and we ll mobile that later on this week. i want to talk a little bit about a pesk issue being trade. the president actually upping his rhetoric. the problem is is that you ve got a bunch of export producers in china who like the system as it is. and, you know, making changes are difficult for them politically. i get it. but the united states and other countries, i think, understandably, feel that enough s enough. interestingly, the export producers in china tend to be u.s. multi-nationals who invested in china, who are exporting, and then are lobbying our own congress saying to president obama and the rest of them, you better not change these rules, because you re going to screw up ge, walmart, or whatever it might be. and i have friends who work in intelligence who have said to me, they said, look, i know that basically boeing lobbyists are largely china lobbyists. that china can come and directly