WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Happy new year.
I'm William Brangham.
Judy Woodruff is away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: Anti-government protests continue across Iran, leaving at
least a dozen dead.
THOMAS ERDBRINK, The New York Times: I saw a group of 50 protesters that came out on
the streets, shouted slogans against Iran's supreme leader, shouted slogans against Iran's
intervention in Syria and Iraq, who burned down some trash bins on the street, and then
were, of course, chased by police and ran off.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Then, new year, new laws: the changes taking effect across the country,
from increases in the minimum wage, mandatory sick leave, and marijuana legalization.
And clearing deadly mines in Afghanistan to save lives.
JENNIFER GLASSE: Clearing explosives is a slow and dangerous business.
This area has been mined since the 1980s.
Mine clearance organizations have been able to get rid of about 80 percent of the old
ordnance left in Afghanistan.
But new fighting means they still have a lot of work ahead of them.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In Iran tonight, leaders of the Islamic republic are facing the most
serious challenge to their rule in nearly a decade.
Protests have erupted across the country, with at least 13 killed so far, and growing
fears of a new crackdown.
Iranian state TV initially ignored these protests, but no more.
Today, it broadcast what it said was the aftermath of deadly overnight clashes between protesters
and police.
MAN (through translator): Unfortunately, in total, some 10 people died in various cities
last night.
During the unrest, some public places were set on fire or seriously damaged.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The report said armed protesters tried to take over police stations and military
bases, though it didn't say where that occurred.
The unrest began Thursday, in the city of Mashhad, hometown of the country's supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Demonstrations initially over economic woes quickly spread across the country, including
the capital, Tehran.
In the process, crowds began directly challenging the very head of the regime.
They yelled "Death to Khamenei," and some even shouted support for the late shah, who
was ousted in the 1979 revolution.
In Tehran, on Sunday, protesters overturned police vans and threw rocks at security forces,
who in turn used tear gas, batons and live fire.
These are the biggest protests in Iran since 2009's Green Movement, when masses accused
then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of rigging his reelection.
Security forces swiftly and harshly cracked down on that uprising.
This time, though, the response has been somewhat more restrained.
President Hassan Rouhani acknowledged Sunday that many Iranians haven't seen the economic
benefits they were promised after the signing of the Iran nuclear deal.
HASSAN ROUHANI, Iranian President (through translator): The people have a right to criticize
all over the country.
But criticism is entirely different from violence.
While those responsible in our country must respect the grounds for legal complaints of
the people, at the same time, we must not allow the creation of an atmosphere where
supporters of the revolution and our people worry about their lives and security.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Today, officials in Najafabad in Western Iran said protesters shot at police,
killing one and injuring three more.
Other officials warned the demonstrators will -- quote -- "pay the price."
MAN (through translator): Those who carry out acts of sabotage, riot and unrest, and
set fire to public and private venues and properties should be dealt with strongly.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President Trump encouraged the protesters on Twitter this weekend, and
declared it's time for change in Iran.
Meanwhile, hundreds of people have been arrested, and the government blocked Instagram and the
messaging app Telegram to try and limit the organization of more protests.
For more on the latest in Iran, I spoke a short while ago with Thomas Erdbrink of The
New York Times.
He's in Tehran.
And I began by asking him to describe the scene today.
THOMAS ERDBRINK, The New York Times: So, I was out on the streets of Tehran today, like
many, many other people who were walking the pavements, maybe with the intention to protest
or to shout slogans.
But they definitely weren't able to, because the lines -- the central squares of Tehran
were lined with police officers in riot gear, plainclothes officers on motorcycles.
Clearly, the decision had been made today to not allow these protests, at least in the
capital, from growing any further.
But, despite that, I saw a group of 50 protesters that came out on the streets, shouted slogans
against Iran's supreme leader, shouted slogans against Iran's intervention in Syria and Iraq,
who burned down some trash bins on the streets, and then were, of course, chased by the police
and ran off.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And do you have a sense of what it is that these protesters actually
want?
THOMAS ERDBRINK: Well, these protests are based on the broad feeling of discontent among
average, ordinary Iranians.
And the root of this discontent is inside Iran's economy.
Now, of course, Iran's economy has been under sanctions during the past 10 years and continues
to be under unilateral American sanctions, even after the 2015 nuclear agreement between
Iran and world powers.
It is still impossible to send and receive money to this country.
But at the same time, Iran's economy has also been mismanaged by Iran's leaders, not for
the past 10 years, but for decades already.
Well, as a result, there are many young people here who are without a job, who cannot make
ends meet and who for years already have been complaining about the economy.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, Thomas, who are these protesters?
Who is it that is actually out on the streets today?
THOMAS ERDBRINK: Well, there are two groups of protesters.
There is a big group of people who are dissatisfied with the economical situation.
And also because, in Iran, everything is political, as this is an ideological country, they are
ultimately also dissatisfied with the political choices their leaders have made.
Now, those people can be taxi drivers, lawyers, housewives.
They are the ones who might intend to go on the street, but are not going so at this point
in time, because they are afraid to lose whatever they have.
Maybe they will get in trouble with the law.
But then there is a smaller group of young people who are maybe poor, who feel as if
they have nothing to lose, who seems to be very determined to go out on the street, to
shout these slogans, and to, even at points, throw stones at the police, vandalize, burn
down dustbins and other things, in order to make their point.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Thomas Erdbrink of The New York Times, thank you very much.
THOMAS ERDBRINK: OK.
Thank you for having me.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We will focus more on what's driving the unrest in Iran after the news
summary.
In the day's other news: The new year brought more slaughter in Yemen.
Security officials and witnesses say at least 23 people died in airstrikes by the Saudi
Arabian coalition.
The strikes targeted the port city of Hudaydah on the Red Sea.
It's held by Shiite rebels.
The war in Yemen has killed more than 10,000 civilians since 2015.
Much of the U.S. began the year still in the deep freeze.
It was minus-32 in Aberdeen, South Dakota, the coldest New Year's Day in 99 years.
Readings in Omaha, Nebraska, plunged to 15 below zero overnight, smashing a record set
in 1884.
The windchill made it feel more like minus-40.
And the Deep South braced for temperatures in the teens tonight.
Despite the frigid weather, some people ushered in 2018 with a traditional swim.
In New York, hundreds of swimmers at Coney Island braved 17 degrees to take the annual
Polar Bear Plunge.
It raises money for the local community.
The 129th annual Rose Parade was considerably warmer.
It rolled through the streets of Pasadena, California, with dozens of floats covered
in flowers.
People lined up for hours beforehand.
MAN: Just everyone getting together with the family from out of town you know, and then
just having front-row seats to the Rose Parade.
WOMAN: Never been.
First time.
It's been on my bucket list to see the Rose Bowl Parade.
We made it.
Yay!
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The new year also brings in a number of new laws nationwide.
We will look at some of them later in the program.
President Trump's first tweet of the new year was a shot at Pakistan for harboring terror
groups.
He said the U.S. has given Pakistan billions of dollars in aid.
But he charged, "They have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking our leaders
as fools."
Pakistan's foreign minister dismissed the criticism, saying America is frustrated over
defeat in Afghanistan.
In Northern England, a huge fire engulfed a parking garage in Liverpool last night,
destroying some 1,400 cars.
Flames and thick smoke could be seen billowing out of the seven-story parking deck next to
an event arena.
Police officials said the fire started accidentally in the engine of an older vehicle.
No injuries were reported.
And homicide rates fell in several major U.S. cities last year.
The number in New York appeared to fall below 300 for the first time in nearly 70 years.
Chicago had 650 killings, down more than 15 percent from last year.
But Baltimore had 343, its highest rate of homicides ever.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": unrest in Iran, the implications of recent protests;
what signals is North Korean leader Kim Jong-un sending in his New Year's speech; in the U.S.,
states ring in the new year with a raft of brand-new laws; and much more.
We return now to the protests in Iran.
How significant are they?
And how are they different from what we saw in Iran in 2009?
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
and writes extensively about Iran.
Welcome to the "NewsHour."
KARIM SADJADPOUR, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace: Thank you.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, how significant are these protests?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: I think the protests are significant.
They are different than the major protests of 2009 in a few different ways.
Number one, in 2009, you had millions of people take to the streets.
So far, we have seen in these protests tens of thousands.
So the scale has been smaller.
But what's been larger in 2009 is the geographic scope.
In 2009, it was mostly in the city of Tehran.
These protests began in very religious cities, like Mashhad and Qom, and spilled over to
smaller provincial cities.
So the geographic scope has really been unprecedented.
And number three is that the slogans of these protests have been far more intense than 2009.
In 2009, people were saying, where's my vote?
They want their vote back.
This time around, people are calling to death to the supreme leader and end to the Islamic
republic.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And just for people who weren't aware of Islamic society -- Iranian
society, that is a very striking thing for people to be chanting publicly.
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, absolutely, because we're talking about a highly repressive authoritarian
regime.
This is a government which has a monopoly of coercion.
They're highly organized and well-practiced in the science of repression.
And those who are protesting are really leaderless.
They're unorganized.
They're for the most part unarmed.
But I think there is one really important statistic to again contrast with 2009, which
is, in the 2009 protest, only one million Iranians had smartphones.
Now nearly 48 million Iranians have smartphones.
So the state's ability to control communication and information is much more difficult when
people have smartphones in their pockets with video cameras.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you have a sense -- I asked Thomas Erdbrink the same question -- why
is this happening now?
And what is it -- from this mass of people, what is it that they seem to want?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, I think that people's frustrations have been boiling over for many
months now, in fact, you could argue decades.
There is a theory of popular uprisings which says that they commonly happen when people's
expectations are raised and then suddenly dashed.
And people's expectations were raised by the nuclear deal.
They thought that quality of life would be better.
And it really hasn't improved meaningfully as a result of the nuclear deal.
So, I think Thomas is right, that it's, above all, economic frustrations.
But in a place like Iran, which is not only politically authoritarian, but also economically
and socially authoritarian, all of that has really come out and become evident.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We saw President Trump supporting the protesters in a tweet and saying that
there needs to be change in Iran.
Is that helpful?
I mean, if you were advising the president, what would you urge the U.S. policy to be
in this regard?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: I think the U.S. government needs to be careful.
Of course, when there are protests against a regime whose official slogan is "Death to
America," all American politicians are going to want to support those protests.
But there's a difference between carefully crafted official statements of solidarity,
which I think is right, in contrast to kind of freewheeling presidential tweets, which
could backfire.
But I think more important than what the U.S. says is what the U.S. does.
And it's true that the U.S. has limited leverage over Iran, but one thing we should be doing
is everything in our power to inhibit the regime's ability to control communications,
to control information, and to repress society.
And one way of doing that is to make clear to companies and countries around the world
that they will be censured if they provide the Iranian regime the means and the technology
to censor and black out communications.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, you heard Thomas say that he saw clear evidence that the government
is trying to stop these protests.
What is your sense?
Are they going to continue?
Will they grow, or will this be it?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: I think we can salute the courage of these protests with -- while at
the same time being sober about their prospects for success.
As I said, this is a regime which is very well-practiced in the science of brutality.
They are deeply resolved to stay in power.
And the protesters, as I said, they don't have leadership.
They're unorganized.
They don't have arms.
So, I think that they face enormous hurdles.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Karim Sadjadpour, thank you very much.
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Thank you.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Next: Jeffrey Brown explores the mixed signals coming out of North Korea
today, where a possible overture also came with more threats against the U.S.
JEFFREY BROWN: It was an annual New Year's address from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un,
but this year, it came with a surprise outreach to Seoul, including possible participation
in next month's Winter Olympics, to be held in South Korea.
Coupled with that, though, new boasts of the North's nuclear power.
Here are some key excerpts.
KIM JONG-UN, North Korean Leader (through translator): The entire United States is within
range of our nuclear weapons, and a nuclear button is always on my desk.
This is reality, not a threat.
This year, we should focus on mass-producing nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles for
operational deployment.
The Winter Games, to be held in South Korea, will be a good occasion for the country.
We sincerely hope that the Winter Olympics will be a success.
We are prepared to take various steps, including the dispatch of the delegation.
Officials from the two Koreas may urgently meet to discuss the possibility.
JEFFREY BROWN: What to make of these mixed messages?
Frank Jannuzi took part in Clinton administration talks with North Korea and has since worked
on East Asia policy in and out of government.
He now heads the Mansfield Foundation.
Welcome to you.
FRANK JANNUZI, President and CEO, Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation: Good to be
here.
JEFFREY BROWN: Let's start with this new call for dialogue with South Korea.
How important?
What do you read from that?
FRANK JANNUZI: It's critically important.
This was not a tweet.
This is a carefully prepared government policy document.
And the outreach to South Korea on two fronts, the Olympics, but also on the issue of reducing
tension and trying to live side by side in peace, this was the first time that the Kim
Jong-un government has really responded favorably to the peace initiatives offered up by South
Korean President Moon Jae-in.
JEFFREY BROWN: So, you have that on the one hand.
But, on the other hand, it comes with this continued warning and reiteration to the U.S.
of the nuclear power, so no change there.
FRANK JANNUZI: Well, indeed.
Kim Jong-un's byungjin policy, his dual-track approach of military preparedness and economic
modernization, is predicated on first North Korea establishing a credible nuclear deterrent.
They now claim they have done that.
It perhaps opens the door to dialogue first with South Korea and hopefully down the road
with the United States.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, even in recent days, the current administration has tried to martial
international -- other countries for continued and even stronger sanctions, right?
So, does a speech like this have the potential to change the calculus, if not for the U.S.,
but perhaps for other countries?
FRANK JANNUZI: Well, I would certainly hope that the Trump administration is watching
the speech extremely closely, because it may represent the first positive outcome of the
Trump administration's maximum pressure and engagement strategy.
The pressure in New York, the pressure from the Security Council, the diplomatic isolation
may be bearing fruit.
And now may be the opportunity to seek for some off-ramps.
JEFFREY BROWN: But you're saying it is something that the Trump administration could take credit
for?
FRANK JANNUZI: I don't really care who takes credit.
I think they absolutely could take credit.
I hope that they will, because if their policy is working, it can lead to tension reduction
and the opportunity to make progress on the critical issues that confront us.
JEFFREY BROWN: But another reading of this could be that it's an attempt to wedge -- to
create a wedge between the U.S. and South Korea.
Right?
FRANK JANNUZI: Indeed, because President Moon Jae-in has adopted a softer approach to the
North than has the Trump administration.
I think we shouldn't worry too much.
The South Korean-U.S. alliance is as strong as I have ever seen it in 30 years of looking
at that special partnership.
JEFFREY BROWN: But where does it leave South Korea?
Because they have been -- as you said, the president has called for this kind of new
openness, and now it might actually happen.
FRANK JANNUZI: Well, Moon Jae-in wants to lead on the issues on the Korean Peninsula.
He doesn't want to delegate that job to Washington.
So if he can now orchestrate a meaningful tension reduction and North Korean participation
in the Olympics, he may get that chance to lead in 2018.
JEFFREY BROWN: It's interesting, finally, just to think of the Olympics.
This is the Olympics as kind of diplomatic -- diplomacy ball, right?
FRANK JANNUZI: Well, we have had sports diplomacy in East Asia going back to the Nixon ping-pong
era.
JEFFREY BROWN: We sure have, yes.
FRANK JANNUZI: So, if the Olympics can help bring a mood of peace and then a spirit of
cooperation, that would be a wonderful outcome for these Winter Games.
JEFFREY BROWN: What does happen next?
What do you look for, because we have seen swings so many times in this, right?
FRANK JANNUZI: Absolutely.
The first critical objective is to secure North Korea's participation in the Games.
If that falls through, we may see a real diplomatic backlash.
But I think the next steps are even more important, tension reduction.
No one should expect North Korea to unilaterally disarm or unilaterally halt all their missile
testing and military exercises.
It's going to take careful negotiations.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Frank Jannuzi, thanks very much.
FRANK JANNUZI: Thank you, Jeff.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Stay with us.
Coming up on the "NewsHour": a look ahead to politics in 2018 with our regular Monday
duo; creating safer ground in Afghanistan by removing dangerous explosives; and tiny
satellites that could bring lighting-fast Internet to billions of people on Earth.
But first: Millions of Americans across the country got a pay raise starting today.
Lisa Desjardins reviews some of the many new state laws that just went into effect.
LISA DESJARDINS: The changes impact big policy areas, from minimum wage increases to immigration
and the legalization of marijuana in California, the nation's largest state.
In some cases, states are acting where the federal government cannot or will not.
Reid Wilson is a reporter at The Hill newspaper.
Let's start with a map about these minimum wage increases.
In effect today, 18 states are raising their minimum wage.
And, right now, of course, the federal minimum wage is $7.25.
So, how significant are these increases?
REID WILSON, The Hill: Well, in some states, they're very significant.
Mainers are going to see a minimum wage increase of a full dollar per hour.
In a state like Washington state, the minimum wage is going up by 50 cents.
In some other states, not so significant.
Alaska's minimum wage goes up just 4 cents today.
But across the board, we're seeing action in those states where the federal government
has not changed the minimum wage in a couple of decades now.
And the fact is, there are a lot of progressive sort of union groups and pro-labor organizations
that are using ballot measures to push the minimum wage to $11.50 in Washington state,
which is now the highest in the country.
In a couple of years, that will ratchet up to $13.50.
And even in some of Washington's cities, in Seattle, in SeaTac, Washington, the minimum
wage is now north of $15 an hour.
LISA DESJARDINS: And a dollar increase in wage is a really significant in salary.
REID WILSON: Right.
That would be an increase of about $2,000 a year for the lowest-wage workers.
That's pretty significant for somebody who is making about $20,000 a year.
LISA DESJARDINS: From a national trend, let's talk about a state that is trying to set trends,
California.
They are moving leftward in a couple of areas, one, recreational manner.
Starting today, you can use and buy small amounts of marijuana, with some limits like
other states have.
But California is a massive state and economy.
Is this going to change sort of drug policy, the drug marketplace?
REID WILSON: Well, it could change a little bit in Congress, because there are a significant
number of Republicans in specifically marijuana legalization states.
California is now the sixth state in which marijuana is legal for recreational purposes.
There are a number of Republicans who are trying to push the federal government to leave
these states alone.
Even if you're anti-marijuana, even if you're a conservative Republican, you don't want
the federal Justice Department suing your state over something that your voters chose.
That's not a great way to do public policy.
That's not a great way to get reelected.
So, I think, in -- as more states move towards legalization, we're going to start to see
some changing attitudes in Congress, not necessarily a pro-legalization attitude change, but just
a hands-off, let's let the states do what they want.
LISA DESJARDINS: California is also making a very big policy statement on immigration,
the state now calling itself, as of today, a sanctuary state.
What does that mean?
REID WILSON: So, California has passed a law that will prohibit state law enforcement agencies
from liaising with the federal immigration authorities in some senses.
If there is somebody who is arrested and charged with a very serious crime -- there's a list
of about 60 crimes that they could qualify for -- yes, the California law enforcement
can hand that person over for deportation at the end of his or her sentence.
But just an average -- say, a traffic stop or something like that, if the feds ask for
a detainer request -- or submit a detainer request, California law enforcement will not
necessarily honor that.
LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, and I understood that now some desks at workplaces at ICE has in
local sheriff's departments, they're being asked to leave.
REID WILSON: Right.
And this is part of a larger movement that we're seeing in liberal states and mostly
larger cities that are trying to build a relationship between local police departments and immigrant
communities.
That relationship, they say, helps reduce crime.
Federal authorities want to effectively find ways to deport those who are in the country
illegally.
It's a tenuous sort of triangle there, but it's one that local law enforcement agencies
are increasingly asserting their rights over.
LISA DESJARDINS: Obviously, a lot of politics there, too.
Let's end on a fun note.
There's always these thousands of new laws every January 1, always some oddball ones.
Do you have a favorite?
REID WILSON: Right.
So there are a couple.
There are about 40,000 new laws taking effect on January 1.
In Illinois, August 4, from now on, will be known as Barack Obama Day.
It's not a state holiday, but it's something they're going to observe.
LISA DESJARDINS: Considered his home state.
REID WILSON: Right, of course.
LISA DESJARDINS: Well, thank you.
Happy new year.
Thank you for joining us, Reid Wilson from The Hill.
REID WILSON: You got it.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Now to another policy shift taking effect today, but this one at the federal
level.
Starting today, transgender individuals may openly join the U.S. military, this despite
stiff opposition from President Trump, who tweeted last July that he wouldn't accept
or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity.
Since then, several federal courts have rejected that position.
And the Justice Department said Friday it will allow the transgender individuals to
serve, pending the results of a Pentagon study that is currently under way.
Back in May of 2016, during the Obama administration and before any of these other developments,
we reported on what this shift in military policy could mean for supporters and critics
alike.
Tonight, we take a reprise look at that story.
In 2014, Lieutenant Blake Dremann was going to be one of the first women to serve on a
U.S. Navy submarine.
LT.
BLAKE DREMANN, U.S. Navy: We got invited to the White House, and this is me with the president
and the first 24 females on a submarine.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But by the time that vessel launched in late 2013, Blake was physically
transitioning to the male gender, and giving himself weekly hormone injections.
LT.
BLAKE DREMANN: I took my first shot the week before we got under way, and I took them under
way with us.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Blake is a transgender man.
His sex at birth was female, but he's long identified himself as male.
LT.
BLAKE DREMANN: I probably knew when I was like 5, right, that something was amiss.
But you grow up in the church, you grow up in Bible college, that type of environment,
and you just learn to ignore it.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Blake is now stationed at the Pentagon.
He says most of the other officers treat him like any another colleague.
LT.
BLAKE DREMANN: The senior officers have been very receptive about it.
And I have talked to all kinds of them for sometimes an hour or an hour-and-a-half at
a time just kind of answering questions.
And if you ask, I'm very open.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The tide has slowly been turning for transgender service members like
Blake.
Until last year, if a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine changed their gender identity, Pentagon
policy was to give them a medical disqualification and discharge them from service.
This was policy, but it wasn't always strictly enforced.
But last July, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stopped these dismissals, and ordered the
Pentagon to draft plans to allow transgender people to serve openly.
But that change came too late for some.
As a man, Brynn Tannehill graduated with honors from the Naval Academy in 1997.
She went on to serve as a Navy pilot for over a decade.
LT.
CMDR.
BRYNN TANNEHILL, U.S. Navy Reserve: I was flying an SH-60B helicopter full of sub hunting
gear and surface search radars and infrared cameras.
We could carry anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: She served in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.
And after leaving the Navy, she joined the Reserves, but she soon realized she couldn't
keep flying.
LT.
CMDR.
BRYNN TANNEHILL: I left the military in 2010, left the Reserves, because I was dealing with
gender dysphoria.
I was dealing with the fact that I didn't identify with the gender I had been assigned
at birth.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: She's now a military consultant.
In her free time, she makes her own medieval-style body armor and participates in popular one-on-one
mock combat.
Gender dysphoria, according to the current thinking among mental health professionals,
is the real deep-seated sense that the gender you were born with isn't really who you are.
A survey of over 6,000 transgender Americans found that 20 percent -- that's one in five
-- had served in the military.
That's more than twice the percentage of the general population.
Another study, by the UCLA School of Law, estimates that about 15,500 trans people serve
in the U.S. armed forces, out of a total force of 1.5 million.
The same study found that there are about 130,000 trans veterans, out of 22 million
total veterans.
DR.
GEORGE BROWN, East Tennessee State University: You have to live a double life.
You have to live secretly.
And there are many problems that arrive out of that type of existence.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: George Brown is associate chairman for veterans affairs at East Tennessee
State University.
He spent 15 years as an Air Force psychiatrist.
Since the 1980s, Dr. Brown has treated hundreds of transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines.
And he's developed a theory about why so many trans men and women serve.
DR.
GEORGE BROWN: Ninety percent of the people I interviewed would say, you know, when I
was 17, 18, 19 years old, I knew there was something different about myself, and I really
wanted to run away from this.
And I thought, if I joined the military, I could become a real man.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: However trans men and women end up in the military, Brynn Tannehill wants
them to be treated the same way that all other federal government workers are treated.
LT.
CMDR.
BRYNN TANNEHILL: The federal work force already has policies in place that allow other federal
workers to transition, to change their names, change their gender markers, to use bathrooms,
to use locker rooms.
All of this has been worked out with every other federal agency.
So the military is really kind of a little bit behind the curve on this one.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: She says VA hospitals have been providing hormones and therapy to trans
veterans since 2011.
But that's not the case for service members on active duty or in the Reserves.
Tannehill says, if a woman needs hormone replacement therapy to address menopausal symptoms or
after cancer treatment, she can get it through the military health care system, but not women
like her.
LT.
CMDR.
BRYNN TANNEHILL: If a transgender woman needs that same estrogen in the same doses, she
can't get it.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: According to a recent study in "The New England Journal of Medicine" by
Aaron Belkin of the Palm Center -- they're a research and advocacy group that focuses
on transgender issues -- it would cost the military about $5.6 million to pay for hormones
and other transition-related treatments annually.
According to the same estimate, about 188 soldiers would transition each year.
While this represents just a sliver of the Pentagon's personnel, and its nearly $600
billion annual budget, for retired Marine Colonel Gary Anderson, his concerns about
trans service members go beyond just money.
COL.
GARY ANDERSON (RET.), U.S. Marine Corps: I have nothing personally against women in combat,
gays in the military, transsexuals in the military, or gay pregnant whales in the military,
as long as somebody can show me that there is value added and not value taken away from
the military readiness.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Anderson says that letting transgender people and gays serve has damaged
morale.
He claims it's the lowest it's been in decades.
The cause?
Changing attitudes about the LGBTQI community.
COL.
GARY ANDERSON: I think progressive fascism is a fair description.
I think we have got people who -- quite frankly, diversity in this particular Pentagon and
this particular time frame has become a religion.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the past, the Pentagon has said that the impact of letting gays and
lesbians serve openly has been -- quote -- "negligible."
They have not yet studied the impact of transgender service members.
But Anderson also says that transgender service members present logistical challenges.
COL.
GARY ANDERSON: Will there be a requirement for a third bathing and sanitary facility
aboard submarines, on fire bases and so forth?
LT.
BLAKE DREMANN: We got stalls.
We're mature enough to not -- you know, you shut the door.
Everybody knows.
It's not like there's any secret to what going on when you walk into the bathroom.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: According to the Palm Center, 18 countries, including Canada, the U.K. and
other NATO allies, have allowed transgender soldiers to serve.
And Tannehill says there's no evidence those militaries suffered any problems or setbacks.
LT.
CMDR.
BRYNN TANNEHILL: They have dealt with all the same issues that the DOD is looking at,
and they dealt with them 15, 16 to 20 years ago, including facilities, including medical
care, including nondiscrimination and non -- anti-harassment policies.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Turning now to politics, here to preview what's on the horizon for
Congress and the White House is our Politics Monday duo, Tamara Keith of NPR and Amy Walter
of The Cook Political Report.
Happy new year to you both.
AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Happy new year.
TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Happy new year to you, too.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So nice to see you.
OK, let's just dive into this.
Congress is back this week, the Senate next week.
Can you -- there are so many to-do lists being held by so many different people.
What is atop of the priority list?
TAMARA KEITH: Keeping the government funded.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's a big one.
TAMARA KEITH: You know, the basic functions of government, that's the big deadline that
is going to coming up.
The question is what possibly gets attached to that or is brought up in conjunction with
it.
You know, Marc Short, who is the legislative affairs director for the White House, has
said that he hopes to have some sort of a deal on DACA.
That is the immigration program for young people who came to the country as young people
and they are now in the country illegally.
The president wants to work something out.
Republicans and Democrats, some Republicans in Congress, all the Democrats in Congress
want to work something out.
Whether they can agree on what that would be is very much an open question.
And...
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Because the president has said, I'm getting a wall before I'm giving
on DACA.
TAMARA KEITH: Exactly.
And he said it again in a tweet over the weekend.
So the president is making it very clear that he is serious about getting this wall.
Democrats have said, we will give you border security.
We are not giving you a wall.
And one question about this is, there isn't actually a deadline.
Like, the program doesn't completely end until March.
So is there enough of a deadline?
Are Democrats able to use -- or do they even want to use the government funding bill as
leverage to get that?
Or does this end up sort of just pushing?
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.
AMY WALTER: We spent all of 2017 with Republicans passing, or in some cases not passing, major
legislation with Republican-only votes, right?
The Obamacare repeal ultimately failed.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tax cut.
AMY WALTER: But it was all with Republicans, the tax cut all with Republicans.
This would be, a DACA fix, anything on immigration in general, there is talk about infrastructure,
all those -- there's no longer the 51 votes with just Republicans now.
They have got to get a bunch of Democrats on board, 60 votes.
And they have fewer members now, one fewer, thanks to the election in Alabama, though
I would argue that Doug Jones, as a conservative Democrat, is probably going to be pressured
a lot to vote with Republicans.
But I think it's going to make for -- very difficult the idea of seeing, you know, this
bipartisanship suddenly become the norm.
I think Tam is exactly right.
What's going to happen for 2018 is, let's just try to keep things on track, let's get
stuff done that needs to get done.
And I think getting through a big to-do list is not likely.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Now, I know it's January 1.
Am I allowed to talk about the midterm elections, or is it too early?
(LAUGHTER)
AMY WALTER: It is never too early to talk about elections.
Come on.
(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: OK.
OK.
OK.
Can you lay out the map for us?
How realistic?
How many races are really competitive?
Do the Democrats really have a shot at taking one or both houses back?
AMY WALTER: Yes, the biggest change since a year ago was, there was no possibility -- back
at this time last year, nobody thought there was a possibility that the Senate could flip,
because the map is so tilted against Democrats.
They are defending more seats than Republicans are.
And most of the seats that are difficult for them to defend are in states that Trump carried,
some by double digits.
Now, after what happened in Alabama, the fact we are also seeing an enthusiasm advantage
for Democrats sort of across the board in governor's races -- we have seen it in special
elections for the House, Democratic voters turning out -- there is talk about the possibility
-- I don't think it's likely, but the possibility of Democrats getting the three seats that
they would need to flip control of the Senate.
It requires a lot of things going right, they hold on to all our seats, and they get some
help from people like Steve Bannon, who is likely to be involved in the Senate primaries.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Democrats get some help, you say.
AMY WALTER: Yes, they would -- Steve Bannon was very helpful to them in Alabama by backing
the one candidate who couldn't win in a state as red as Alabama, who was as flawed as Roy
Moore.
If he finds candidates or supports candidates who are weak, especially in more competitive
states like Nevada and Arizona, those are pickup potential for Democrats.
The House is a different story.
Democrats need 24 seats if they're going to flip the House.
There aren't as many seats in play as Democrats would like to have, but the environment looking
much better for Democrats, their enthusiasm is much better.
The geographic challenges are still there for them, trying to find enough districts
where they're not drawn or configured in a way that benefit Republicans.
But it is absolutely a possibility.
They may even be a slight favorite right now, Democrats a slight favorite, to winning the
House, just from what we're seeing in the numbers today.
And, again, we're months out.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tam, question.
Amy is talking about Democratic enthusiasm.
That's what everybody assumes happens in midterm against the incumbent.
But what about GOP enthusiasm?
Because if you looked -- if I blindfolded you right now, and didn't tell you who the
president was, I just told you that he was a Republican, and I said, you got tax cuts,
you got a Supreme Court justice, you got rollback of regulations, you would be hard-pressed
to know that that wasn't just straightforward conservative agenda being enacted by Trump.
Is there going to be some enthusiasm amongst the GOP rank and file because of what Trump
has accomplished in the first year?
TAMARA KEITH: It's an open question.
It's certainly -- in the races that we have seen so far -- and this is an off-year, so
these are special elections.
But in those special elections, Democrats have outperformed Hillary Clinton, and Republicans
have underperformed how Donald Trump did in 2016.
So, right now, there is definitely an enthusiasm difference.
But, absolutely, conservatives who were concerned about a President Trump, were concerned that
he wouldn't be reliably conservative, they have gotten a reliably conservative president.
They have gotten someone who did what basically any Republican president would do.
And for those sort of -- those Trump voters who wanted to just, like, stick it to the
man, they're getting that, too, because they're getting a candidate who is -- you know, he
said I will be so presidential, you're bored, but then he has since said...
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Didn't turn out that way.
TAMARA KEITH: He has since said, but I don't have to do that.
I can keep being interesting, more or less.
And he has continued to tweet up a storm.
And, you know, even his New Year's greeting to the losers in the fake media, he has remained
sort of consistent as the outsider bomb-thrower rhetorically to please his base, while, at
the same time, pleasing sort of straight conservative, you know, the...
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Red meat conservative issues.
TAMARA KEITH: Red meat conservative issues, absolutely.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tamara Keith, Amy Walter, happy new year.
AMY WALTER: Happy new year.
TAMARA KEITH: Happy new year.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Twenty years ago, the Ottawa Treaty banned the production and use of anti-personnel
land mines, but those deadly explosives still litter the landscape of many war-torn nations
like Afghanistan.
But Afghanistan is also home to the world's largest land mine removal program, which has
cleared nearly 80 percent of mines from that country's fight with the Soviets and its own
civil war.
As special correspondent Jennifer Glasse reports, there are still many mine left behind by the
renewed fighting from the U.S.-led war on terror, and casualties are mounting.
JENNIFER GLASSE: For some, the scars of war will last a lifetime.
Three months ago, 13 year old Noorzia stepped on a land mine while collecting firewood.
Today, she's walking on new artificial legs.
MAHPIKAY SIDDIQI, Kabul Orthopedic Organization: When she came here first, she just crying.
Even she afraid from her residual limb.
She hide her face to not look at residual limb.
JENNIFER GLASSE: But now Noorzia is learning to put her legs on herself.
And she couldn't have a better teacher.
Mahpikay Siddiqi lost her legs 20 years ago, also to a mine, also while collecting firewood.
Noorzia's father brought her here to Kabul from Nangarhar Province in the east to get
legs, so she can go to school.
RAHMATULLAH, Father of Noorzia (through translator): She is disabled now.
We need to make sure she can get an education, so she can become a doctor or an engineer
or a teacher.
JENNIFER GLASSE: Mines contaminate 33 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.
At least 30,000 Afghans civilians have been injured or killed by mines or other explosives
since 1989, when mine clearing began after the Soviet Union left.
Just five years ago, casualties caused from mines and other explosive devices looked to
become a thing of the past here, but this year, those numbers are expected to be the
highest since 2001 because of improvised explosive devices set by the Taliban and other government
groups and increased fighting around the country.
This is the Tangi Saidan Valley just outside Kabul.
The Soviets laid mines here in the '80s, then through the '90s, then the Afghan government,
the Taliban and other groups, all fighting for control, laid additional mines.
Until now, it's these old sites that have been the focus de-mining.
But it's new mines that are causing recent casualties.
Patrick Fruchet runs the U.N.'s Mine Action Service.
PATRICK FRUCHET, United Nations Mine Action Service: Back in 2012, there were only about
35 recorded casualties per month.
And those numbers have jumped right back up.
We're at 181 recorded casualties per month here in 2017.
And that's the highest number in the world.
JENNIFER GLASSE: And that's because America's war continues in Afghanistan, now into its
17th year.
There are more than 15,000 U.S. troops here, some fighting alongside Afghan forces.
The United States has carried out three times as many airstrikes this year compared to last
year.
Some of that ordnance won't explode and will become a hazard.
And the Taliban, Islamic State and other anti-government militants regularly use using IEDs, improvised
explosive devices, many triggered by pressure plates, on roads, in fields and villages.
Rahmatullah Rahmat is with the HALO Trust, a de-mining organization.
RAHMATULLAH RAHMAT, HALO Trust: So far, the de-mining organizations or Mine Action program
in Afghanistan didn't decide to touch with the new mines.
JENNIFER GLASSE: For political and practical reasons, mine organizations have primarily
focused on what they call legacy mine and battlefields, from the Soviet periods through
to the Taliban.
Clearing explosives is a slow and dangerous business.
This area has been mined since the 1980s.
Mine clearance organizations have been able to get rid of about 80 percent of the old
ordnance left in Afghanistan.
But new fighting means they still have a lot of work ahead of them.
New mines means pretty much anything laid after 2001, after the arrival of U.S. and
NATO troops.
Removing them will be complicated for a number of reasons.
There aren't any official negotiations with the Taliban or other insurgent groups, and
fighting is ongoing, so access will be difficult.
And the explosives used by insurgent groups are different from mines laid in the past.
RAHMATULLAH RAHMAT: The new mine fields are mostly IEDs, different types of IEDs, which
we, our teams are not trained to that.
JENNIFER GLASSE: The de-miners will need new training.
And that will cost money.
Already, recent cutbacks have forced mine organizations to lay off more than half the
country's 15,000 trained de-miners, after having spent $1.3 billion here since 2001.
PATRICK FRUCHET: Afghanistan has a commitment to clear all of its in-place anti-personnel
land mines by 2023.
The bill for that is about $350 million.
JENNIFER GLASSE: To clear the recently laid mines, de-miners first need to be able to
get to them.
That is hard to do in places where there is active fighting.
U.N. officials will need to negotiate safe access.
PATRICK FRUCHET: We are trying to speak to the parties to the conflict, so that we can
agree with everyone that devices should be abandoned, can be abandoned, so that we can
go in and clear, so that the civilian population, which bears the brunt of casualties in the
conflict in Afghanistan now, the civilian population can be protected from these devices.
JENNIFER GLASSE: Afghanistan has had some success in clearing the country of mines.
In 1995, six years after de-mining began, more than 60 percent of the capital was contaminated.
Today, Kabul's sprawling expanse is a testament to how much has been cleared in nearly three
decades.
On one of the capital's busiest streets, artists paint a mural of a de-miner as a hero, raising
awareness.
Cities may be safe.
The countryside isn't.
FARAH GULISTANI, Mural Painter (through translator): Outside of Kabul, people have to worry about
mines every day.
They could get hurt any time.
So, at the end of a day, when it doesn't happen, people count themselves lucky.
For Afghans, dealing with the threat of mine blasts has become a normal part of life.
JENNIFER GLASSE: Mine agencies believe the only way to stop rising casualties is to start
clearing the explosives left by the current conflict.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jennifer Glasse in Kabul.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Finally tonight, a story about a space race that's very close to its
finish line.
Tiny satellites known as CubeSats are critical to space exploration.
"NewsHour" science producer Nsikan Akpan reports how one scientist plans to propel these Rubik's
Cube-sized satellites to infinity and beyond.
NSIKAN AKPAN: Have you heard of space Internet?
Four thousand small satellites orbiting Earth, beaming down high-speed broadband to the most
remote nooks of the planet, reaching billions.
SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Boeing, and Airbus are all racing to make space Internet a reality.
This scheme depends on CubeSats, low-cost, bite-sized satellites that many view as the
future of telecommunications and deep space exploration.
But these CubeSats have a big problem.
Conventional rockets with their huge chemical fuel tanks are too large and too powerful
for CubeSats, which are as tiny as Rubik's Cubes or small printers.
It'd be like strapping your bicycle to a monster truck.
So CubeSats are currently built without propulsion and can't be controlled once in orbit.
This restricts CubeSats to lower orbits, safe from collisions with normal satellites.
After a few months, the CubeSats fall back to Earth.
What CubeSats need to stay in space are mini-boosters, and scientists are racing to build them.
And if you look inside this chamber, we can show you one capable of blasting them deep
into the cosmos.
PAULO LOZANO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: I grew up in Mexico.
And I was very young.
I watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos," as probably every other child in my generation.
CARL SAGAN, "Cosmos": The cosmos is also within us.
We're made of star stuff.
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
PAULO LOZANO: That inspired me to study the stars, to work on things that leave the Earth.
NSIKAN AKPAN: Paulo Lozano is the director of the Space Propulsion Lab at the Massachusetts
Institute Of Technology.
He's found a solution to the CubeSat problem, and the idea fueling his mini-rocket is simpler
than you might think.
PAULO LOZANO: What we can do is to rub the plastic on any fabric, really, and you can
put a little bit of liquid on your finger, and then get it close, and you will see the
liquid flying, producing a little cone and then flying to the plastic.
NSIKAN AKPAN: That's static electricity.
And it's not just tugging at the droplet.
Look more closely, and you will see the static creates a spray of charged molecules called
ions.
Lozano's tiny rockets, which are the size of quarters, generate these ion sprays.
PAULO LOZANO: They don't produce a lot of force.
So it's always less than the weight of a mosquito.
NSIKAN AKPAN: This may sound wimpy, but even a small action creates a reaction in the frictionless
vacuum of outer space.
Move ions in one direction, and a CubeSat will move uber-fast in the other.
PAULO LOZANO: The best chemical rocket will produce an exhaust of particles that move
at about 4,000 meters a second.
And an ion engine can go much higher.
It can reach 40,00, 50,000, or even more meters a second.
NSIKAN AKPAN: Up to 111,000 miles per hour, more than enough to stay in orbit around Earth
or even blast off to Mars.
Lozano's ion engines look like computer microchips.
They contain a grid of 500 needles, each a solar-powered, custom-built nozzle for spewing
ions.
CATHERINE MILLER, NASA Space Technology Research Fellow: My name is Catherine Miller.
I am a second-year Ph.D. student here.
I am also a NASA space technology research fellow.
They're electrochemically etched and chemically roughened to make the needle tip extremely,
extremely sharp.
And so, from there, you can dip the ionic liquid onto the surface and produce an ion
beam that way.
NSIKAN AKPAN: Latch on a fuel tank the size of a sugar cube, and you're almost ready for
liftoff.
PAULO LOZANO: What we have in here is relatively big vacuum chamber.
You can see what we have right now is a little satellite that is actually magnetically levitated.
We have tiny little thrusters in there that can move the satellite and rotate it around.
And we can investigate then how the thrusters behave, how do they affect the motion of the
satellite while the vacuum chamber is closed.
NSIKAN AKPAN: Ion engines aren't new.
NASA's Dawn mission, which hopped its way to the asteroid Ceres, would have been impossible
without its high-velocity ion engine.
But the Dawn mission cost half-a-billion dollars.
Commercial CubeSats can cost as little as $100,000, and this price is dropping.
Even children are building CubeSats at their elementary schools.
Sure, you're thinking an individual CubeSat can't perform as many operations as a big
mission satellite.
But there is strength in numbers.
PAULO LOZANO: Instead of going to an asteroid every five, 10 years in the traditional way,
release a fleet of these tiny little CubeSats and visit 100 asteroids.
NSIKAN AKPAN: Doing so could prevent Armageddon.
PAULO LOZANO: Some of these asteroids, especially the very small ones, they have the potential
to collide with the Earth.
They won't kill the Earth, but they can kill a city.
NSIKAN AKPAN: By launching a fleet of CubeSats, scientists could learn the chemical compositions
of these city killers.
That could be key to destroying.
An asteroid made of silicon would be much tougher to stop than one made of iron.
Meanwhile, closer to home, Lozano's ion engines could install CubeSats into shiftable orbits
for a space Internet.
So, from a truly World Wide Web to stopping asteroids, Lozano's mini-thrusters hope to
carry CubeSats to infinity and beyond.
Until next time, I'm Nsikan Akpan, and this is "ScienceScope" from the "PBS NewsHour."
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On our Web site, read more about how those tiny satellites could not
only teach us more about asteroids and deep space and help avoid Armageddon, but could
also help test new technologies that could eventually be used by NASA.
That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.
Tonight, "The Untold Tales of Armistead Maupin," from conservative son of the old South to
gay rights pioneer.
That's "Independent Lens" for New Year's Day at 10:30 Eastern, 9:30 Central.
And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.
On Tuesday: the growing market in instructional lesson plans for schools.
I'm William Brangham.
Join us online and again here tomorrow evening.
For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and good night.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét