Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Battle Over Voter I.D. Laws; Models For Every Size; Obama Addresses Muslim Protests; Obama Addresses Muslim Protests; Relief Refs Under Fire; Fixing America's Schools; How Candidates Plan to Fix America's Schools; Using Gadgets to Improve Health; Discover Card to Pay Customers
Aired September 25, 2012 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, everyone. I'm Deborah Feyerick in for Suzanne Malveaux. This hour in the CNN NEWSROOM, we are focusing on the controversial voter I.D. laws across the nation and how they could impact you. And we're going to get into that football touchdown, you know what I'm talking about, that sent everyone into social outrage on social media. We're also talking to a man who puts the unthinkable in the fridge to diagnose his own health. But let's get right to it.
Well, just 42 days until elections and the battle over voter I.D.s is intensifying in several states, a battle that could mean tens of thousands of you may not have your votes counted. Today, in Pennsylvania, in a courtroom there, the state is trying to prove that its new voter I.D. law will not disenfranchise voters. South Carolina, meantime, is appealing a Justice Department decision that prevents the state from instituting stricter voter I.D. requirements. And here's what's at stake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE.)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Supreme Court across the street can hear us!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK (voice-over): As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court prepared to hear arguments on the state's new voter I.D. recently, the NAACP protested what they call a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS, PRESIDENT, NAACP: We have seen more states pushing more laws, pushing more voters out of the ballot box than we have seen in the past 100 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP) FEYERICK: It is a scene that's played out in states across the country. Civil rights groups pushing back against voter I.D. laws enacted by publicly controlled legislature since 2010.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WENDY WEISER, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE: The effort to actually change the rules of the game at the last minute is a really misguided effort.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: Wendy Weiser is with the Brennan Center for Justice and warns hundreds of thousands of voters may not have necessary I.D. They include the elderly, college students, poor people, blacks and Latinos, groups that traditionally vote Democratic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WEISER: We need to do everything we can to ensure that there is no fraud in our elections, but what we shouldn't be doing is passing unnecessary laws that needlessly exclude thousands or hundreds of thousands of eligible Americans from participating equally in our democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: The new voter I.D. laws protect only against voter impersonation. In Pennsylvania, a traditional swing state, lawyers for both sides admit no known cases of in-person fraud. Still, it's a problem, says conservative columnist John Fund, an expert on the subject.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN FUND, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: If someone walks in and votes in the name of a dead person, and they don't have to show I.D., how likely is that dead person going to complain? We'll never know. And unless they confess, the crime is perfect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: Of the eight states to enact strict voter I.D., either the Justice Department or state and federal courts have blocked in three states, Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina, which is currently appealing. Pennsylvania is pending. Alabama and Mississippi need the green light from the Justice Department. Of the eight, only Tennessee and Kansas voters will have to meet the strict new I.D. standards this November.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FUND: We want to make it easy to vote and we want to make it hard to cheat. We can do both.
(END VIDEO CLIP) FEYERICK: And with both sides fighting against any voter being disenfranchised in November, neither is willing to give up a single vote.
(on camera): So, one side says that requiring I.D.s is necessary in order to prevent voter fraud, but on the other, it's unnecessary -- it's an unnecessary attempt to roll back voting rights. So, will change in requirement this close to election end up leaving many, many voters confused and unable to comply? Joining me now is John Avlon, a CNN Political Contributor and Senior Political Columnist for "Newsweek" and "The Daily Beast." John, listen to what Michelle Obama told the congressional black caucus over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: So, we cannot let anyone discourage us from casting our ballots. We cannot let anyone make us feel unwelcome in the voting booth. It is up to us to make sure that in every election, every voice is heard and every vote is counted. That means making sure our laws preserve that right. It means monitoring the polls to ensure that every eligible voter can exercise that right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: So, John, is -- so many new laws, so many different requirements now. Poll workers are going to have a field day trying to figure out what it all means. Is there the potential for chaos at the polls come November?
JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR: Is there the potential? Absolutely. We're changing the rules and that leads to a degree of uncertainty. People who haven't had to show I.D. at the polls before in certain states find themselves having to do so. And that question mark could leave some folks to be afraid to come out and vote. Look, we have a somewhat tortured history with voting rights in this country. And so, these laws, that's why they strike such an emotional button. We also have some instances in the past of voter fraud. But the fact that these legislations in so many states have occurred in just the last two years does strike many people, particularly on the Democratic side of the isle, as, in effect, a policy brush back pitch. And the one thing we should be able to agree on, as John Fund said, is that we want everyone to be able to vote and to be able to show there's no fraud at the same time. It's a delicate balance but with 40 days left to the election, the stakes couldn't be higher.
FEYERICK: You know, and another thing John Fund also said, he said, you know, this is really about -- this is this about voter integrity on both sides. You don't want somebody who's voting improperly to disenfranchise somebody who is voting properly, but what does this do, fundamentally, to voter confidence? Because you may have a lot of people who say, you know what? They're telling me it's not that difficult but, frankly, I can't take the day, I don't have the time, you know, I'm not going to go renew my driver's license and they'll self-disenfranchise effectively.
AVLON: That is a real danger. Remember, one of our concerns and one of the great efforts are we should be making as a nation in the run up to election date is ensuring that everyone that is eligible to vote does vote. And declining turnout is a real problem in our democracy. That's something we should be confronting with a full force of public policy. So, when this question mark, this confusion occurs, it can be a disincentive and some people might opt out. The other obvious question is with early voting, with all these mail-in ballots we're seeing in a growing number of states, the whole issue of fraud isn't addressed in those states.
So, in many ways, the remedies that have been put forward don't address, potentially, the real problem. And as the Pennsylvania attorney general said in that court case, your packaged reference (ph), there is no specific incidence of voter fraud they could point to as a reason for the law. And that further complicates it and adds the partisan aura that only really, frankly, causing people to question the good will of people pushing these voter I.D. laws.
FEYERICK: Which is fascinating because the voter I.D. law is really only meant to stop in-person voter impersonation but really without any sort of sweeping either -- you know, overhaul of the system when it comes to registration, when it comes to absentee ballots, provisional ballots. Every state is different and there's always going to be this OK, well, who is going to be the next Florida, basically.
AVLON: That is -- that is a real danger. I mean, look, we have a federal system in this country so we do have, in effect, 50 different versions of voter laws in place, each state has their own. But there are some proposals for more comprehensive reform to put forward. The Brennan Center at NYU has put forward a very interesting reform called "Voter Registration Modernization" would essentially take the paperwork, the physical paperwork, out of the registration process. To digitize this effort. To have state rules try to make sure that every eligible voter proactively is enrolled. And that should be something we could agree on. We should be able to agree no matter whether you're Democrat, Republican, or independent, that everyone who is eligible should be enrolled and encouraged to vote.
FEYERICK: All right, John Avlon for us. And I certainly think that there is no voter out there that wants to see the election decided in the courts as we experienced just a little over a decade ago. Thanks so much, appreciate it.
Well, here's what we're working on for you this hour.
(voice-over): President Obama on the world stage today with a high- stakes speech, issuing a new warning to Iran.
Plus, tracking your health with technology. There's an app for pretty much everything from losing weight to checking your sleep patterns. But should you use your smart phone as your doctor?
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I can spring back into more curvy, you know, with mad men and the T.V. starting to embrace more of a curvier (INAUDIBLE.) They're starting to want to see that. Like, women want to see that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They want to see women who look like them, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, they want to see -- it's relatable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: When you hear the word model you think super skinny but plus-sized models are making their way into magazines and on to the runway.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: Well, President Obama tells world leaders that the clock is ticking on Iran. And in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, the President warned against allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Make no mistake, a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That's why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that's why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: And the president's speech was at the U.N. and later at the Clinton global initiative put him on the world stage just six weeks before election day. His words of major implications for the presidential race, also for U.S. foreign policy.
And I want to bring in Chief White House Correspondent Jessica Yellin. Jessica, you know, there was some tough talk on Iran and the president seemed to counter some of the remarks that were made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who, really, for all intents and purposes, this could really be the last time he is in the United States as a member of the general assembly. What was the line that the president took on Iran?
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, he took a tough line. He expressed, again, that this is an existential fight on Israel, that's language that traditionally the Israeli's want to hear. He said that this is -- time is not unlimited for the world to stop Iran from pursuing any potential nuclear ambitions -- weapons ambitions. And he also that the U.S. will do what it must to stop it which is another way of saying, indirectly, that all options are on the table.
So, he's effectively restating the hard line he took in an APAC speech he gave to the -- pro-Israel lobby earlier this year. But he didn't go -- he didn't go further and draw any red lines or new lines which is what the Romney campaign was calling on him to do. But it would be astonishing if he would do that at this stage, only for election purposes, in a campaign season. I mean, this is what you would expect a president to do. And he took the line that he has firmly drawn to date.
FEYERICK: Right, which is diplomacy, which is sanctions on Iranian crude oil plus the banks that handle that as well. But, again, obviously, in the red line, that means -- what does that mean? Military action? And I think it's a little -- nobody really wants to go there.
YELLIN: Well, what's he going to do? Spell out to the entire world, if Iran crosses this line, then there will be an attack? That is not language that the president has used before. So, it would be an enormous departure if he did that here today. So, it's not the administration's policy. It would -- no one expected him to say that today.
FEYERICK: OK. Now, also, the president really addressed those -- the violent attack t that have been spurred because of this anti-Muslim video. And really saying, you know, extremists use violence because they have nothing else. They don't have jobs. You know, they're not creating a better society. What else was he trying to convey to the -- to the people there? 120 countries?
YELLIN: Yes. Well, he was talking, as you mentioned, to a global audience as well as a domestic political audience of voters who maybe are just starting to pay attention.
And two different goals there. To the global audience he was talking about America's values. And that America values, both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. So the freedom of these video- makers to make a video that was offensive and deplorable, in the president's mind and in the minds of my Muslims. Listen to what the president said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: Now I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video. And I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well. For as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
YELLIN: But he also, Deb, bracketed the speech, beginning and end, with talk of Ambassador Stevens and his death, calling it a crisis. The violence that incited it is a crisis in the Middle East. Clearly emphasizing to a domestic audience that this is no bump in the road, as he said on "60 Minutes."
FEYERICK: All right, Jessica Yellin for us there, covering fascinating speeches coming out of the U.N. General Assembly. Thank you so much. And tomorrow we're going to hear from leaders of the Arab Spring, as well as President Ahmadinejad. It will be his last address as president of Iran.
Well not to be outdone in the foreign policy debate, Mitt Romney also took the stage, but he was at the global -- the Clinton Global Initiative earlier this morning. Former President Bill Clinton introduced him. During his speech, the former Massachusetts governor took a swipe at the Obama administration by noting the current state of fairs overseas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Syria has witnessed the killing of tens of thousands of people. The president of Egypt is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Our ambassador to Libya was assassinated in a terrorist attack. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons capability. We somehow feel that we're at the mercy of events, rather than shaping events.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: And Mr. Romney also used part of his speech to push a theme of his campaign, reiterating that he would never apologize for America.
Well, it's the call everyone is talking about. What call, you ask? Packers versus Seahawks. And the heat is on the replacement refs. But really the question is, should the players union pull its members off the field to support the NFL referees?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: So if you don't think the NFL referees need to be back on the field, well then you probably missed the "Monday Night Football" game between the Green Bay Packers and the Seattle Seahawks. Let's take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE). The game's final play. It's a Wilson (ph) loft to the end zone. Which (INAUDIBLE), fumble by Tate with Jennings simultaneous. Who has it? Who'd they give it to? Touchdown!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: OK, so who caught it? Well, yes, that's kind of the source of the controversy. And this is likely to be the most controversial call the replacement refs have made in the last three weeks. What looked like an interception by the Packers was ruled as a touchdown for the Seahawks, giving them the victory 14-12. This has provoked such an explosion on Twitter, it has fans and players outraged over the NFL lockout of the referees.
Here to sort out what our executive producer calls a "hot mess" is our Sports Illustrated's Ben Reiter.
And, Ben, first off, you know, it sort of looked like an interception. What say you?
BEN REITER, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED STAFF WRITER: Well, Deb, it was an interception. Anyone can see that. But the fact is, the play should not have gotten that far. If we look at the tape, we see Golden Tate, the Seattle Seahawks' wide receiver, push off the Green Bay Packers' defensive back Sam Shields. That's clearly offensive pass interference. That wasn't called either.
At the end of the day, the inevitable have happened. The replacement referees have botched a call that has decided the outcome of a game. And they did it on a national stage on "Monday Night Football." And to one of the NFL's most storied franchises, the Green Bay Packers.
FEYERICK: Yes, it really has come down to being just a hot mess. The players have been screaming. You know, they want their referees back. The league should end -- the league should end the lockout. But here's the deal. Where are the players putting their money where their mouths are? Why aren't they saying, we're not going to play if you don't bring back our refs? Is that a little too much?
REITER: You know, I think that's the one thing that could cause immediate change here. If we look at social media, we look at Twitter, players are going wild about this. They're very angry. Using obscenities. You know, even Drew Brees, who's one of the league's most prominent players, excoriated the NFL for having these replacement refs on the field.
When pushes comes to shove, though, when it means sacrificing game checks of $1 million or more in some cases, it's simply not going to happen. Remember back to last year when the players themselves were locked out, they ended up caving to the league. To expect them to now go on strike on behalf of the referees, that's just a step too far, Deb.
FEYERICK: And, you know, just very quickly. I mean this could be the season that has an asterisk next to it because so many games were so sort of questionable as to the calls. Do you know how much money the NFL is going lose to this? Because this is really -- this could ultimately hurt their bottom line.
REITER: Well, you know, that's really the problem here. The NFL, so far at least, is not losing a dime. Viewership's at an all-time high. Yes. When we talk about the integrity of the game, that's one thing. That could have a long-term effect. But as far as these mistakes causing an immediate change as far as the league's stand versus the refs, I just don't think it's going to happen. FEYERICK: Yes. Yes, it's like watching a constant blooper reel. OK. We thank you for joining us and we appreciate your insights. Thanks so much.
REITER: Thanks, Deb.
FEYERICK: All right, well it is something that every parent thinks about, their kids' education. And where you live makes a big difference in the quality of that education. We'll look at Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's plans for reform.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: And as you all know, there are only 42 days to go before the election. To help you get ready, we're running a series on the big issues facing the two presidential candidates. And today Lisa Sylvester reports on the difference between Mitt Romney and President Obama when it comes to education.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At this elementary school in Potomac, Maryland, first graders are learning their math lesson in Chinese. Part of a language immersion program. But at the same time, other schools across the country, from Washington, D.C., to Texas, are so strapped, they've been forced to consider letting go of librarians, cutting bus routes and eliminating field trips. It's something parents all know, where you live can determine the quality of your child's education. But the nation's education system as a whole is lagging when compared to other developed countries. The U.S. ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math.
How to fix the education system was front and center in Chicago this month, as teachers walked off the job over issues of longer school days, merit pay, and teacher evaluations. Education reform is an issue in the presidential campaign. President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, both favor expanding charter schools, support standardized tests and want more accountability from teachers and principals. But the two men have significant disagreements.
ALYSON KLEIN, EDUCATION WEEK: I think some of the main differences between Governor Romney and President Obama when it comes to education come in the area of school choice. Governor Romney sees a really robust role for school choice and school improvement, whereas President Obama, like a lot of Democrats, has been skeptical of vouchers.
SYLVESTER: Romney supports taking federal dollars for educating special needs and low income families, known as Title I funds, and giving them directly to parents in the form of vouchers, although Romney avoids using that word.
ROMNEY: For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to the student so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school of their choice.
SYLVESTER: The Obama administration is staunchly opposed.
SYLVESTER (on camera): Why not expand vouchers? Why not give parents more choices?
ARNE DUNCAN, EDUCATION SECRETARY: The goal can't be to remove one child from the system and let the other 500 drown. We have to make every single school a great, great school. I think all of our time and energy and resources should go to making public schools, schools of choice.
SYLVESTER: Education Secretary Arne Duncan is using federal dollars as an incentive for states to raise academic standards. In a program called "Race To The Top" he wants school districts to adopt common set of standards so what a child learns in Topeka, Kansas, is the same as in Toledo, Ohio.
SYLVESTER (voice-over): The Obama administration has given states billions in stimulus dollars to reform schools. That brings us to another big difference between Obama and Romney -- funding.
Here's how Duncan views it.
DUNCAN: We think of education as an investment. They look at education as an expense. And Congressman Ryan's budget, which Governor Romney supports, would see 200,000 less children go to Head Start programs. We'd see huge cutbacks in funding for poor children, huge cutbacks for children with special needs.
SYLVESTER: But it's unclear if Romney would follow through on the cuts proposed by his running mate. We reached out to the Romney campaign but it did not make anyone available for comment.
But conservative groups, like the Heritage Foundation, says spending should be reigned in.
LINDSEY BURKE, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: And so we have seen this tremendous increase in spending but we have nothing to show for it in terms of results. It really does come back to the idea that it's not about more spending. It's about empowering parents with control over how we spend those dollars.
SYLVESTER: On No Child Left Behind, both candidates say the law needs to be fixed. Romney emphasizes transparency and requiring that states release public report cards on all schools. The Obama administration has granted waivers to 33 states and the District of Columbia to come up with new ways to measure progress.
(SINGING)
SYLVESTER: On this much, both men agree. The nation can't afford to fail its students.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FEYERICK: And Lisa Sylvester joins us from Washington. Lisa, we've heard a lot of complaints from parents and teachers about teaching to tests, kids learning the standardized testing. Is that likely to change?
SYLVESTER: Both Mitt Romney and President Obama both support standardized tests and the notion of giving students across the country the same tests and being able to measure progress and to have accountability. So in that sense, these standardized tests are likely to stay.
But there's a recognition that many schools are doing is they know what is going to be tested and so when they have limited amount of classroom instruction time, teachers are doing is just focusing on those items on the test, not giving students a broader education. That is one of the things that, as people look at education reform, that's one of the things not just teachers but parents are saying that needs to change.
The real crux of this is how to you maintain having these standardized testing where you can measure progress, accountability and the like, but still able to teach children in a very broad way as well -- Deb?
FEYERICK: Absolutely. Make them curious about life.
SYLVESTER: That's right.
FEYERICK: Lisa Sylvester, thanks so much.
Well, home prices, they are up, returning to the best level in nine years. We'll show you the cities that are doing well.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: Well, tempers are flaring in Spain over the country's economic crisis. Police blocked roads leading to the country's parliament in Madrid as hundreds of protesters gathered. They're complaining that the crisis has, as they put it, hijacked the country's democracy. Spain is preparing to cut billions in spending before a bailout loan from Eurozone countries kicks in.
Deadly battles playing out in Syria right now. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(GUNFIRE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: Rebels are fighting government forces in the city of Aleppo. An opposition group says at least 50 people have died across Syria so far. President Obama tells the U.N. General Assembly that Syria must no longer be led by, quote, "a dictator who massacres his people."
And here in the states, another sign of the turn around in the long- suffering real estate market. The average price of a home rose in all 20 major market cities for a third consecutive month. The July data released today shows prices rose 1.6 percent compared to the previous month. That is the same level as they were nine years ago.
Want to get fit? There's an app for that. How about monitoring your stress level? Yes, there's an app for that, too. We'll look at the benefits and drawbacks of tracking your body with technology.
But first, a lot of have questions about the best way to invest our money? The closer we are to retirement, the more help we need. Luckily, our "Help Desk has answers. Here's Alison Kosik
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALISON KOSIK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, there. Today on the "Help Desk" we're helping prepare for retirement.
With me this hour, Liz Miller and Greg McBride.
Greg, this question is for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm five to 10 years from retirement. I have maybe 10 to 20 percent of my net worth available in cash. I would like to invest and put to it better use. But given the political and economic uncertainties, what would you suggest I do with my cash resources?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOSIK: And this -- this is one of the questions that most of us ask. This gentleman is five to 10 years from retirement. What to do?
GREG MCBRIDE, SENIOR FINANCIAL ANALYST, BANKRATE.COM: The money he'll be withdrawing from the first five years of retirement has to be very conservatively invested. We're talking about cash investments or high-quality bonds. Yes, the returns are low but he doesn't have the ability to take a whole lot of risk because he needs that money so soon.
Now, money that he's going to earmark for withdrawal beyond the 10- year time frame, that can and should be invested more aggressively to preserve buying power in the years ahead.
KOSIK: Do you agree with that, that there should be some risk?
LIZ MILLER, PRESIDENT, SUMMIT PLACE FINANCIAL ADVISORS: I think for the longer term and to support that retirement, absolutely. But even in the shorter term, there are some high-quality stocks with nice dividends that would give income in the next five to 10 years to get him ready for retirement and maintain liquidity. So I would keep that in the radar in today's environment as well.
KOSIK: OK.
All right, if you have an issue you want our experts to tackle, upload a 30-second video with you "Help Desk" question to ireport.com.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: So this week, we're focusing on our mobile society and how we use technology every day to improve our lives. Many of you are using apps and other devices to monitor your health, everything to heart monitors to apps that measure your mood to Fitbits, to clock how many steps you take a day.
Larry Smarr is someone who uses a lot of gadgets to gage his health, and he joins us from La Jolla, California. Also joining us is senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen.
Larry, you're so totally into this that you even took your own stool sample, stored it in your refrigerator to send to a lab. Some may think that's going too far. What do your friends and family think about what you're doing, digitally tracking your entire health?
LARRY SMARR, FOUNDING DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFO TECHNOLOGY: Well, you are going to have to learn about a lot more numbers in your body to control your health. The Fitbit, I have measured my steps. When I'm on the elliptical, I'm using a heart rate monitor that's running the machine. You know, you spend a third of your life sleeping, you don't know what it is. I know every 30 seconds. I have blood pressure, because my Zeo (ph) is measure weather I'm dreaming of whether I'm awake. I have blood pressure -- one of the most important things for preventing heart attacks. I measure that a couple of times a day. Then, yes, here's the feared stool sample container.
(LAUGHTER)
It's a sterile test tube.
People don't understand. People think blood samples are good. They are. But your stool is a much more information-rich material. It has about half your bacterias. Bacteria is about half of it. It has tremendous information about your health or disease. I've been able to take an MRI and get the data from it and print out a 3-D version of the portion of my colon with inflammation in it.
FEYERICK: It's fascinating, but you don't you feel a little bit obsessed? I mean, isn't it sort of taking it one step too far? You wake up, maybe you feel good, don't feel good. Why do you need to know all this information?
SMARR: There's a myth that if you feel good, there's nothing wrong with you. That's just false. I felt good. Turned out, I had a chronic incurable disease, Crohn's disease, which I only discovered by doing these kinds of biomarkers.
Now, actually, I spend my time like anybody else. I spend less time on this than most people do on watching sports.
FEYERICK: Hmm, all right.
Elizabeth, I want to bring you in here. What do you think about using the gadgets to monitor your health? And I think on some levels to self-diagnose?
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I encourage people to be empowered patients. This is great stuff in many ways. You can find things that your doctor may not find. You're looking at sort of every minute of your day. He said he discovered his own Crohn's disease. So that was probably a very helpful thing.
However, here's where I worry. I worry that some people will look at the data and be overly confident about interpreting it on their own. They think, oh, I found this, this and this, and that must mean whatever, without going to the doctor. This is not a replacement for going to the doctor. Learn from this, share it with your doctor. But you are not a doctor, so don't think you can interpret things that you can't.
FEYERICK: Mr. Smarr, let me ask you this. The question that Elizabeth has raised and that is, do you go to a doctor? You take the results of everything you're discovering about yourself and consult, collaborate with a physician?
SMARR: That's exactly what I do. I have the head of the gastrointestinal program here at U.C. San Diego Medical School. One of two of three of the top cardio doctors. I'm going this afternoon to talk to one of the experts today about in gut microbio. I totally believe in this collaborative approach. But here's the problem. The doctor's got maybe 10 minutes with you. If you have not been spending the time to understand yourself and bring the data to the doctor, they don't have enough time to really analyze this. I respect the little time that I have with someone as highly trained as my doctor, as highly experienced. I want to make the best use of his time.
FEYERICK: Which goes to Elizabeth's point about being an empowered patient.
Mr. Smarr diagnosed his own Crohn's disease or realized there was a larger problem with it. Is there something, for example, where you get too consumed with your health? Maybe, in a way, that is unnatural. Seems to me you stop living and you're constantly monitoring.
COHEN: You might get Medical Student Syndrome. They're known for becoming overly obsessed with their health. Every sneeze must be a lung disease. Every bump must be cancer. They get obsessed about it. We have heard stories about people who get invested online and develop this Medical Student Syndrome. You don't want that to happen to you. That's one bad scenario.
(CROSSTALK)
SMARR: I happen to be a scientist, a lifetime scientist. I'm used to working with data. I'm used to forming hypotheses and testing them. I'm not a hypochondriac at all. And by the way, I live a very rich and full life.
FEYERICK: Which is good to know. So not only are you informed but also you're also educated. If I started to monitor myself -- you know, the Woody Allen thing. I see a tumor the size of a basketball. I could see myself sort of going to the next step and looking a negative.
COHEN: And that's key. Larry has said that he's not that kind of person. He's not a hypochondriac. He's not going to do that. It's good that you know yourself. If you know you're the Woody Allen type --
(LAUGHTER)
-- maybe it's not for you. Or, on the other hand, what I get nervous about is that someone will see the data and think, I'm fine, this data tells me I'm fine, and really they're not.
FEYERICK: All right, so it's really got to be a combination.
Larry Smarr, congratulations. Clearly, you're educated. You know how to handle this.
And, Elizabeth Cohen, of course, your insights are always interesting.
CNN's, our Mobile Society Initiative is taking an in-depth look at how mobile technology is changing our work, from health to personal relationships to business. For more of the coverage, you can go to CNN.com/ourmobilesociety, or visit the Our Mobile Society section of the CNN mobile app.
If you have a Discover Card, you may get some cash back. That's right. The company you pay, now has to pay out a total of $200 million.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: Well, millions of credit card -- Discover credit card customers will actually get the credit card company to pay them for a change. That's because the company is being forced to refund $200 million by government regulators because of what they called deceptive marketing practices.
Alison Kosik is at the New York Stock Exchange to explain it for us.
So what was the company doing that got them in trouble?
KOSIK: Well, Deb, investigators found that Discover's telemarketers made people think that they were getting certain products for free, when they weren't. These are -- for these add-ones, you can buy when you open a credit card like identity theft protection, credit card score tracking. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FDIC did this investigation and what they did was listened to a bunch of recorded sales calls and what they said was they discovered that the reps there spoke unusually fast when they were explaining the costs and the product terms to these customers. They also say that the telemarketing scripts implied consumers wouldn't be charged when there was a fee attached. Sometimes the reps even processed these add-ones and charged customers money when they didn't agree to them in the first place.
What Discover says it will do, they say they will stop the deceptive sales tactics. They'll pay $14 million to regulators on top of the customer refunds -- Deb?
FEYERICK: I think we have been on the end of one of those calls where somebody talks so quickly that you think you're getting something for free and you're not getting anything.
KOSIK: They tricking you.
FEYERICK: Exactly. On average, how much do you think a refund customers are going to be getting?
KOSIK: It is going to depend on what the product was in the first place, when it was purchased, how long they had it. But the average refund that these people are going to get comes to about $57 per person. The refunds will automatically be credited to your Discover account. If you don't have a Discover account anymore, they'll mail you a check. And look for the refunds at the beginning of next year - Deb?
FEYERICK: And will some get a little more and some get a little less depending how long they have the card, or no? Will it be even or just a nod of compensation, like, oops, we missed up.
KOSIK: More like an, "Oops, we messed up, here's a little compensation. We're sorry. We won't do it again."
FEYERICK: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
FEYERICK: Alison Kosik, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Well, she's a groundbreaker for curvy girls everywhere. This plus- sized model is proud of her figure. She even has a food line and she calls it Food Porn.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
FEYERICK: Well, all across America budding models are trying to get their big break. Imagine trying to make it in the world of high-end fashion with a few extra pounds.
As Alina Cho reports, one model has done just that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALINA CHO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): One look at the body, and the face, and it is clear Robyn Lawley is a bombshell. But what would you think if we told you Lawley is a plus-sized model?
(on camera): You really struggled with your weight, didn't you?
ROBYN LAWLEY, PLUS-SIZED MODEL: Yes, I, you know, I'm just -- I'm naturally just a bigger size.
CHO (voice-over): 6'2", a size 12, and proud of it.
LAWLEY: I'm happy with who I am. Why do I have to change for a size- zero frame?
CHO: The now 23-year-old Australian began her career as a traditional model, at age 16. Always fighting to lose weight, rarely winning the battle. For a time she quit. Then one day --
LAWLEY: I saw an Australian plus-sized model doing really well and I Googled plus-sized modeling, had no idea it even existed really. And, you know, I found photos of other models doing amazing editorial and I was, like, I can do this.
CHO: Look at her now, on the covers of "Vogue Italia," "French Elle," and her latest gig, an ad campaign for Ralph Lauren, the first time that company has ever hired a plus-sized model.
(on camera): It's a huge feat.
AMEERA OMAR, DIRECTOR WILHELMINA CURVE DIVISION: It's a huge, huge, huge, huge feat. She is setting the tone for, you know, what the curve market is becoming.
LAWLEY: He was my first actual real big designer to use me in my whole career. So that was -- that was how big of a deal it was for me. And it is such an iconic brand.
CHO: Making a statement that real women look less like this --
(MUSIC)
CHO: -- and more like this.
UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS: Remember, the mirror can be your best friend or your worst enemy.
LAWLEY: I think it is back into more curvy, you know, with "Mad Men" and the TV seeming to embrace a curvier figure, they want to see that. Women want to see that.
CHO (on camera): they want to see women who look like them.
LAWLEY: Yes. It is relatable.
CHO (voice-over): So is Lawley's love for food.
LAWLEY: It looks amazing. There is no love sincerer than food.
(LAUGHTER)
CHO (on camera): That's right. (voice-over): She even has a food blog, called Robyn Lawley Eats.
LAWLEY: That's something I made and photographed. So that --
(LAUGHTER)
CHO (on camera): Yum.
(voice-over): She calls it -- Food Porn.
LAWLEY: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
That's what I look up in my spare time.
(LAUGHTER)
CHO: A model who hopes one day to not just grace the covers of magazines, but walk the catwalk too.
LAWLEY: I want it be on every runway and a few girls in every runway, as well as different ethnicities or different ages.
CHO (on camera): Many opportunities?
LAWLEY: Yes. And that's when we can shine.
CHO (voice-over): Alina Cho, CNN, New York.
(SINGING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: Well, CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with Brooke Baldwin.
Hey, Brooke.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Deborah Feyerick. Good to see you.
And good to see all of you. I'm Brooke Baldwin.
