number 3, and gonzaga wins the whole darn thing. >> revenge of the ghost of john stockton. look, i've taken gonzaga way too many years. it never works out. i wish you could lock in this, but you're going to need a lot of luck. because i don't think gonzaga has it. >> speaking of luck, how many perfect brackets have there been in history? >> zero, from our understanding. look how many zeroes there are. there are 18 zeroes. one in 9, and then 18 zeroes. quintillion, that is way less than your chance of winning the mega millions, which is one in 303 million. how about getting a reflection? poker it's one and 650,000. getting a perfect ncaa bracket, if you get, that you've done amazing stuff. >> well, gonzaga. >> okay, there you go. >> harry, thank you. and if you are really smart, folks, you will not take our advice anyway. harry, thank you for playing. thank you for watching. be sure to catch all of the march madness men's tournament action on our sister networks,

tedious, tnt, and trutv, as well as on cbs. good luck with your brackets, and goodnight. >> good evening, everyone i laura coates, and welcome to cnn tonight. look, it's being called the first twitter fueled bank ran. customers withdrew 42 billion dollars. yes, i said billion with a b. it all happened in a single day just last week in silicon valley bank. the viral panic spreading on twitter, texts, and also attack -- group chats, which raises a ton of questions, like where do we get our information in who we trust with that information and what happens the next time? plus, what exactly is the mission of a women's college. now, the answer may not be as obvious as you may think. one of the top women colleges in this country, hillary clinton's alma mater, wellesley college, they're now divided

over whether to open admission to all nine binary and trans inter sudan's, including trans men. we'll discuss all of that tonight. and in pre-pandemic times, they call out the olden days now, a lot of us could not imagine for a moment working from home in the long run. but now, it's a fact of life for so many people. but what if it turns out that working from home is actually less healthy than you think? would you change your mind about doing it? we've got a lot to talk about tonight. here with me, the new york times emma goldberg, congressman ro khanna, former senate candidate joe canyon, and very serious podcast host josh borrow. i'm glad that you're all here with me tonight everyone. there's a lot to talk about here. and i want to begin with what everyone's talk about, but from a different angle. the idea of this bank run, the idea of what happened in these bank failures. it raises the question, given

how people first learned about it, i mean, we thought that social media might have its own vices, right, might be problematic in some ways. but it really seem to be the impetus for people getting information quickly, congressman, about a potential for a bank run. how does that sit with you? >> well, i think you saw that almost every venture capitalist, every tech leaders on twitter. and money moves very, very fast. so, it was very important for government to move fast. i'm glad that secretary yellen got there by sunday night, and give them credit. but we do have to think about how we going to make sure we're moving as fast as money moves in a modern economy. >> speaking fast, my concern, if you think about it, it's important to hear about it. but to get it right, kind of like the media, right, you don't to be the first to publish, not be the first get it right, get information out there. and with a speed of social media, with the ability to get information from here to across the world in seconds, it raises concerns about the quality of information.

do you have concerns about whether it's trustworthy to have it so quick? >> i mean, not in this instance. because the concerns about silicon valley bank are well founded. the bank really did have a solvency problem. i actually, in some ways, this was a fairly low tech bank run. because obviously we saw it spilling out onto twitter over the last few days. but over a period of months, you had warnings among the very small community of customers at this bank. in a way, it was like a small town bank. it's the small constellation of high tech companies, and the venture capital firms that funded. these people all know each other. they have each other's phone numbers. they have warnings going from these veasey firms, from some of the firms, two companies, saying we have concerns about whether silicon valley bank is solvent. we think you should move your bank or somewhere else. it's like an wonderful life, being in a small town, and that's why silicon bank was so vulnerable. a more normal bank with a more diverse customer base, the customers would not all be talking about to each other about the banks and financial condition. so, we saw it spill on twitter in the end.

but i think is really a more traditional type of community conversation. and again, the bank really did fail to manage its interest rate. it ended up with a lot of assets there on its books, that they decline in value. and there are very valid concerns about whether the bank had enough assets to backup those deposits. in the end, i don't think twitter misled people. >> i've gotta tell you, i don't think i've ever heard anyone mention it's wonderful life in the context of this. and i'm all here for it. but in that case, remember the end of the movie, it was a people the town that actually had to foot the bill and try to support george in the end. see, i know -- >> [laughter] but >> we're talking my language, and whatever -- has for the wings. however, in this instance, he's right. ultimately, it did fail. there was a collapse, in thinking about this. but there's still the very real notion, atlanta has a comment on this, and a point that they made, and i want to read it to you all, they're talking about more to the point an idea of shouting fire, essentially. more the point by tweeting, such over the top language, about the inevitability, not the possibility, but the

inevitability of massive bank runs across the country. they were of course making such bankers more likely. shouting fire in a crowded theater is not necessarily wrong, if the theater is on fire. but to your point, they say encouraging panic is never the best strategy. predictions can become a self fulfilling prophecy. everyone who thinks that everyone else is going to pull their money out of the bank is going to try to get in the door first. so, in light of the fact that it really was problematic, are you concerned that this was the idea, well, you can't say that? you can't say it's inevitable, it seems odd. >> i think we only apply that logic to poor people. we only apply that logic to the masses. the reality is, what we are witnessing right now, is another attempt to shift the blame, shift the blame for the people who are trusted to be the experts, who did not manage that risk, who played fast and loose with other people's money. and when you go back to 2000, eight there were so many people like myself, we were coming out of college, we want to find out the job market in the world had been destroyed by people who decided they did not want to

actually deal with free markets when those free markets turned against them on their bad decisions. we've seen time and time again that there is a lack of accountability and a lack of stewardship. so, i think when we talk about freedom in the middle east in the power of twitter to keep people informed, allow them to communicate, what we are talking, about what we saw happen with the eat the rich, with all the gamestop and all of those things, where people were able to get together to put what little if anything they had together, and come up with a broader strategy. the same thing that rich people and hedge funds do all the time. i think powers the people against financial institutions is a good thing. it keeps people honest. and the last part about that is what you talk, about making sure the government can react, and does that encourage this bad behavior time and time again? >> to that point, i think you raise, it and we are both talking at this point, emma, the idea of who had the information, who was able to circulate? you are talking about many people in the tech sector. many people who had all this money who are encouraged to centralize it in one particular, bank and had this very notion.

what do you say to this idea of the information being out there, the notion of the self fulfilling prophecy, even though, i, mean it was already happening in the long run, and this power dynamic he speaks about? >> yeah, i think this was a peculiar kind of story. because on the one, had its sort of a tale as old as time of the regulation and kind of playing fast and loose with people's money. and on the other, hand it is sort of an interesting situation, in that it was contained within certain spheres of the economy. i've been speaking with a lot of founders and people who work in d.c. and others who did say there was a very strange experience in the days leading up to the collapse and after it, in which they were kind of searching for any stream of information they could get. and that many friends, colleagues, investors, and be inundated with that information, and not knowing exactly what you can do to be both responsible and within the law is a very scary situation. and i also do just want to say i think some people frame this as, you know, a crisis that's really just hit the superrich. but so many the people i've

spoken to are also trying to figure out how to make payroll, and they did spend a whole weekend to figure out how to make people work for them. and i think this was a bank that had up to 50% of the tack and health sciences start-ups in the country, more than 2500 veasey firms. so, there are a lot of people whose money was in this. and they had you have a great book about the democratizing of the idea of access, this is your backyard, silicon valley and the idea that thinking about people are viewing tech as only just notion, but the reality is that, it is perhaps diversified. at the end of the day, you still have the government coming in pretty quickly and trying to resolve this issue. many people are left wondering if the autopsy posed this crisis was so easy to identify, why wasn't the avoidance and deterrence? >> i think there are two things the government was trying to prevent, one was a run on regional banks. you did not want everyone

taking their deposits out and putting it in the top four banks. the other thing is payroll, rippling had 400,000 people that they were paying. those would've stopped. this is different than the 2008 bailout, there they helped bond holders and shareholders. here they're using a funds that banks pay a premium simply to say, to provide liquidity and the assets of silicon valley bank are there so hopefully it is not even to deplete that fund. they acted pretty fast to get it done before the monday markets opened. >> it almost have a dam defeat to damage if you don't. if you are working so fast, why are you working so slow? >> they protracted with appropriate speed, here the big risk here, the firms, you could've had ways to advance payroll and get that down that would've been a little bit messier, the big problem, and you saw this in the stocks of other regional banks. you might well have had a number of additional bank failures this week a lot more

people losing access to their deposits and also losing access to loans. if you have a crisis in the financial sector and individuals need credit, it can make it difficult for people to borrow, and have terrible effects on the economy, so i think that was the right reaction here. i think going forward, so you don't like have panics in the future. i think we need to revisit what the deposit insurance limit is need to be. i think it was clear here that is not reasonable, there are a lot of companies that need more than a quarter million dollars in the bank on an ongoing basements because they have to make payroll that kind of thing they cannot be expected go to the bouncy know their bank with a fine two cone to see if the bank goes belly up. and then the other shift that you need is how is the bank able to get in this position where it took all of this interest rate risk? you can tell people don't spread rumors and don't panic and worried about bank for that reason, you have to be confident that the banks are gonna be solvent because they need supervision and regulation to make sure the banks are solid. that clearly went wrong with silicon valley bank i think there are some questions for the california regulators about

how exactly they let that happen i'm interest to learn about that and if we can fix that when we may have some more confidence in the future. >> something tells me there will be some hearings about all of this in trying to figure it out. we're gonna come right back on more on this point, but one thing that we should think about, food for thought, is, they ease that you're now able to take money out of the bank compared to what has happened in the past. a bank run is really on your phone, half the time. think about the ease of that and is that part of the new scheme? listen everyone, some parents are up in arms about to test question from an ap course in one virginia school district. we are gonna tell you what it is and why that question is being removed and get a paneled away, and next. someone who thinks with their hands. who can shape raw materials into somethihing meaningful. and who wantnts to serve in their own way. if you're out there. if you're looking for more. we're looking too. we're calling on a new generation of builders

for navy's next-gen submarines. lomita feed is 101 years old this year and counting. i'm bill lockwood, current caretaker and owner. when covid hit, we had some challenges like a lot of businesses did. i heard about the payroll tax refund, it allowed us to keep the amount of people that we needed and the people that have been here taking care of us. see if your business may qualify. go to getrefunds.com.

♪ ♪ get $1500 purchase allowance on a 2023 cadillac xt5 and xt6. ♪

visit your local cadillac dealer today.

virginia's largest school system is removing a test question for ap government studies class and asking students to compare political ideologies using things like race and gender demographics. now this is happening because apparent in the fairfax county school district posted this picture of the question on twitter. do not worry, you don't have to go close to your screens organ tell you what it really said. writing in part, i don't care who you are or what side of the aisle you are on, it should infuriate you. now here, of course, is an easier way to read this particular question it is on the multiple choice question that asked students in the class, quote, which of the following is an accurate

comparison of liberals versus conservatives. the potential answer is for liberals, included young white males, middle aged urban lessons, college educated black male professionals, and white upper class suburban mail. now the potential answers for conservatives included east coast, ivy league educated scientists, this southern male migrant labor, catholic midwestern mail and west coast hispanic teacher. now the school district says that that question was actually designed to assess 12th graders understanding of american political ideology, but it admits that it did not meet the distant visions high expectations. as may of been in part of a navy corps about the college board is confirming now in a tweet that this is not part of the ap program, adding that quote it's antithetical to the content and format of an 80

question. i will just say, i'm ready to be a game show host with those options right now. did you feel that? let's begin here, i want to ask you emma, this idea of the question itself. the idea of trying to essentially get people to compartmentalize or categorize use stereotypes to describe, what people must be thinking based on race and demographics what is your reaction? >> i think it is fractious political moment where one of the greatest problems that we're facing is tribalism, i think the last thing we should be doing is reinforcing the idea that any persons ideology tracks with demographics in a specific way. i did a little bit of reporting during the 2020 election and i think one of the things that i learned from talking to voters is it's really hard to know what i buy is going to say about what anything you -- people surprise you. so i think a question that reinforces that somebody of a

political party looks or should look a certain way is definitely problematic and surprising to see. >> i do wonder the idea of political strategist out there and the business and trying to predict things, here's where we need to go, here's the talking point that you need to say, you've run campaigns of course and you are sitting member of congress. the idea that people are paint with such a wide brush and stroke does it concern you or is there some statement to be made about, look, if people are thinking this way than we have to tap into it? >> i think it was an appropriate question for the reasons that i mentioned. but i think that the school district has apologized, they said this was wrong, and it is being used to politicize the culture wars. it is not like the school district, they had a poorly worded question, they took it away. but this is sort of being used by the right to now say we are not going to teach about african american history, we should not teach about 250 years of slavery, 100 years of

jim crow. it cannot be used ideologically, fine, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach about race and gender in our history. >> what do you think? >> this comes down to trust and truth and when there is no trust you cannot have the pursuit of truth. you can talk about the fact that the overwhelming majority of black people have been voting for one party, the overwhelming majority of people from a cultural background voting is taken way to a political party, but i think at some point this is a nonpartisan, trans partisan betrayal of what america is supposed to be. some delay joe biden says that if you don't vote for me you ain't black, when you have people say that if you part of the lgbtq community than you cannot possibly vote for republican or you're betraying yourself and so again there is the soft bigotry that is hurled, large, with a smile on their face from the left that does not actually seem to acknowledge the hatred and the

hurt that is embedded in some of these blanket to also a sentences. again, i think the reason why you have somebody like ron desantis in florida talking about this, the reason why you have people talking about this is that every single time evidence is produced to suggest, he has, these things are happening to our children, people look like me, that think like me, are being marginalized. it is tossed away, called one of, and then used effectively as the impetus to >> you agree? >> i think this is an overreaction to a single question on high school exam. i mean, look, obviously there is no demographic characteristic that you can read into would 100% certainty, what somebody's political views or affiliation would be. that's obviously true. i'm sure the person that wrote this question realize that that's true. i don't know for the materials we've seen what exactly they're trying to get at in this exam, in an 80 u.s. government course. it's a valid topic to talk

about demographic support in american politics, and how that's change overtime. it's change some very interesting ways in the last few years. actually, there's been a decline in the polarization of racialized voting in the trump years, which i think a few people haven't realized. so, not knowing exactly what the material was they were trying to teach with this ham fisted question, and i certainly don't see any reason as a person who does not live in fairfax county, virginia, to get agitated over this one exam question. >> okay, what -- if let's assume for the sake of conversation that the whole point of it was to talk about the fact there is this highly fractious community we live in, that people are assuming things based on your race, your color, your gender, that you're gonna vote in a monolithic way. if that's the nature of the conversation for high school students, is that problematic, to acknowledge that there are some who believe that? >> i don't think it's problematic to acknowledge that. but i also think that basically every society in history has had group divisions over politics, where you've had demographic groups that tend to

be more supportive of one political movement or another. i don't think that's an off limits topic to discuss. in fact, i think it's a central topic in an 80 u.s. government course. it should be discussed in the right way. and this question did not do that. but i don't think we can infer from this what the course is more broadly about. >> your question is about people assume -- you mentioned the word betrayal, the idea that if you do not conform to this idea of the monolith, and somehow you are in authentic, as opposed to perhaps the, you being -- the facts of the data out there is wrong. that's your issue? >> look, i just think that this is broader than one question, if it was just one question, we would not be having the conversation. the issue is that time after time, issue after issue, there are things that people are concerned about, namely, they do not trust the government or schools to give their children an unbiased perspective on what it means to be american, who they, are the things they should value. so, yes, i think again, it cuts both ways. but for my perspective, yes,

when you've had the 2016 nominee for president of the democratic party say that all republicans effectively writ large are deplorables. >> she said half. >> while, the ones who did vote for him. >> she said half. >> [laughter] details, details, gentlemen. >> still not a great statement. >> both you, me, not black, i think, again you should be able to talk about your political decisions. but it was not a prerequisite of that conversation say the other people are not just wrong, but they're evil. and i think that is where we are today, where parents are going to say i have to assume there is an evil intent in these questions. and i responsibility to protect my family and my community. >> do you mind if i turn to you and say when there is no trust in government? congressman, how do you feel about this issue? >> instead of focus on the question -- of what was wrong, you know what i wish we had discussed in this country, how people are graduating high school with no knowledge of american history. when we talk about learning what the constitution, learning what the declaration independents, learning about who fredericton glistens,

learning what dr. king? >> more specifics, more broadly. >> we want to have a conversation about how we respect each other, want to treat each other with principles and -- the demographics, let us have people understand american history. we have a whole generation of people who don't sufficiently understand american history. and we're having a conversation about one question on a high school exam. >> i would agree. but i think that point though, look, every state you go to from new york state to florida to california, we've got children who cannot read and cannot add. so, i think the broader conversation here, the conversation in the background 's culture war on wokeism and the back and forth is rooted in the fact that the core competency that is required for the schools is not being met. and instead focusing on, that we get often all these tangents, where we start having conversations about what is the demographic of a political party, what kind of activities should the school be hiding from the children, none of that goes to what you are talking about. we have a generation of children that do not know what they're supposed to know when they walk out of those

government funded buildings. that is the broader problem. but in the absence of us dealing with that, parents just want to make sure their children are not being taught a matter of nonsense that has them hating themselves or their community or their parents. >> let me speak on behalf of a parent of public school children. i certainly am a hoping they're not a member of a generation that is painted with such a broad stroke. i do think it's an opportunity to have both conversations, the idea of us illuminating the issues that parents are confronted with, and students as well, but also more broadly, what we expect from our schools. but it really cannot stop there. it's really a whole village. it's also a whole village to educate children as well. let's go to college right now though, because wellesley college is holding a referendum that gets at its very identity as an all women's school. students are voting today whether to open admission to all transgender and non-binary applicants, that includes trans man. we're gonna talk about it, next.

was also the first time your profits left you speechless. at the counter or on the go, save 20% with the lowest transaction fees and keep more of what you make. start saving today at godaddy.com ♪ ♪ no two dreams are the same.

but there is one van equipped to handle them all. for over 120 years, mercedes-benz vans have been built, upfitted and ready to go. because we believe dreams - should never stay that way.

everyone, students at will be cold she was an update. one of the country's top women's colleges voted today in

passing a non binding referendum that would change their admissions process. the referendum says, in part, that, quote, we'll be college in admissions will adopt a policy that is inclusive of all transgender and non-binary prospective students, that would include trans men. back with me now is emma goldberg,. -- joe pinion and josh bough here as well. again, this is a non binding referendum here, but they voted in favor of all non-berry and trans into the school according to media relations as well, what is your thought on this because on one hand you think about what it means to be a women's college, and that is going to be the opponent discussions point, and the idea of an inclusive educational institution. what do you so? >> i think it's no wonder that it has become such a fraud and complicated question, because

following it it seems like you have the principal -- sorry the president saying that she wants to honor the legacy and history of what it means to be a women's college and he have the student activists making a very nuanced point about, i think what they said was standing by the spirit of a letter of these principles and saying, what does it mean to lead in all people who are marginalized on the basis of their gender identity? that can mean nonbinary people, transgender people, it is a lot of a bigger tent. so i think it is raising really complicated questions i think it's powerful to see them playing out in this open conversation and having students actually get to air their perspectives and lead these conversations. >> let me tell you what the president of the university actually said and wrote, she released a statement, it says in part this. wellesley is a -- this is before the vote -- wellesley is a women's college that admits cis, trans, and nonbinary students who consistently identify as women. wellesley is also inclusive

community that embraces alumni and staff who embrace different activities. i believe that the two ways of seeing wellesley is not mutually exclusive, there are other this is who we are, a women's college and a diverse community. joe, you disagree with this referendum. tell me why. >> well, look. i think for me it is, there are private institution, they have the right to do what they want to do. wellesley get it to turn their own future. but as my grandfather told me a long go, you cannot serve two masters. the reality is that there is value in having a female institution, a women institution, there is value and having an all man institutions like war house. there is value in being able to say that there is a tradition here, or catering to a specific subtitles student, because there are advantages to that, because there are people who have certain provinces to the type of educational environment they want to be in. >> what if this wasn't gender? what it was a matter of race,

instead, the idea of catering to, and the notion was -- i am a daughter of a smith graduate and an amherst graduate. at the time they were obviously all exclusive for men and women, but the idea that the people want to learn. >> it's a tragedy that we have effectively made it so easy to categorically pivot to the marginalization of black people, the 400 years of subjugation, and saying hey look, there are some schools have been cater all men and some schools are gonna catered all women and institutions have the right to make the determination for themselves but it is substantively different to have a conversation about people simply being discriminated against because of the race we are not seeing, it they should be places for trans men on trans women to attend university but we're not seeing that wellesley does not have the ability to do so but i think to dismiss out of hand the value of having a college that speaks -- that caters specifically to women, and having a value of a school like morehouse that does

this demand, i think it does withhold a disservice. we are taught now, the long-long legacy of things that people across the political spectrum would say are beneficial. >> i think the mistake might have it, and i want to ask this question, the premise, you statement initially was that if the premise is that people have a right to decide what in buyer meant they feel comfortable, and how can we not expand beyond the notion of transgender, same-sex, and beyond. i would note, of course, that this is about gender identity, to your larger point, emma. that this is opening the doors for people who identify as women. it's still when it's, college what do you say? >> i think a gender specific colleges inherently not inclusive, in certain ways. that is the key idea behind the institution, the only have a certain kind of people and then you have a lot of institutions in society that are for men and women, and if there for historical reasons, and we do that -- i think women especially, but men can benefit from institutions that are

specifically for them. i think there is a reason why there is been such a decline in men only colleges. easy more women only colleges that remain. that, said i think it is up to wellesley to decide what exactly that nonexclusive metric is going to be. i think there are versions of what the value is in having a women's institution, the idea that the students who support this referendum articulate that it is about having an institution for people who have faced oppression or marginalization on the basis of their gender. i think that is also a coherent concept, it's just a different concept and i think that you can have a college that had either those missions and indeed you have seen women colleges that have gone in both directions on that policy. so i don't think from the outside that there is a crack dancer, those i think that wellesley can be the author of its future, and again i think you've seen some institutions that were once all women only go coed because they decide that, whatever purpose there was that they want to be women, only like vaster for example, they decide they're going to meet everybody. so i think all those decisions can be correct, it's just a matter for the institution.

the last thing i would note is that the students do not only institution -- >> it is nonbinding. >> the coach is a bright wide variety of stakeholders. it's not that the college necessarily have to do whatever the students want to, do but i think that wellesley gets to determine its own future here. >> congressman, there's a whole lot of things happening legislatively at the state level and of course the federal level regarding lgbtq+ rights and certainly transgender communities in particular. how do you see this issue? >> i support the students and wanting to make the institution more inclusive. look, a democracy depends on renewal. it depends upon a new voices. i learned so much from young people about issues of trans rights, nonbinary, the rights of those nonbinary, the vocabulary, and a lot of times i say things, you might want to phrase it this way. i think we have to listen. the younger generation, they are so comfortable with folks who are trans, folks were

nonbinary, that this is going to be their country at some point, and that doesn't mean that we do not respect tradition, it doesn't mean that we don't respect institutions, but we have a listen to them and i applaud the students. my guess is, just making a prediction, 5 to 10 years out, they are probably going to be the ones who are making these decisions and institutions around the country. >> i applaud the fact of the students were able to, to your larger point, even have the. say we all know the power of alumni, we know the power of the legacy of different institutions but the notion here that there was a voice and kind of democratizing of this is really important to our greater conversation about education. i will be curious to see how this all pans out. this vote just happened, the result just have happened, so i will be curious to see what the reaction is. everyone, the justice department is suing one of the country's largest pharmacies. they are accusing rite aid of contributing into the opioid epidemic. so was the company filling

restrictions with obvious red flags? we'll unpack it, next.

somewhere out there is that one-in-a-million. someone who thinks with their hands. who can shape raw materials into something meaningful. and who wants to serve in their own way. if you're out there. if you're looking for more. we're looking too. we're calling on a new generation of builders for navy's next-gen submarines.

>> listen everyone, the department of justice is suing drugstore chain rite aid, you may have seen, accusing it of ignoring red flags and opioid prescriptions. the -- is alleging in their announcements that, quote, write aid pharmacists repeatedly fill prescriptions for controlled substances without red flag -- , and intensely deleted internal notes about suspicious prescribers. now, these practices opened the floodgates for millions of opioid pills and other controlled substances to flow illegally out of right aids stores, unquote. cnn has reached out to write aid for comment, but we have yet to hear back. this is pretty important to think about, because we know that the reproach and the

reaction to the opioid crisis has obviously changed over time, from how people viewed addiction in the 80s and 90s to where we are today. and we've seen a lot in terms of manufacturers and big pharma. this may be one of the first times we're seeing doj go after the pharmacy that is providing the material. you've had a lot to say about this. in fact, new legislation on this very issue. tell me about it. >> well, it's outrageous what rite aid is doing. i mean, i've traveled to so many communities, factory towns decimated because our manufacturing left, went offshore. and people are just suffering because of addiction to opioids. i mean, debts of despair is about how a lot of people in the working class have life expectancies less than they had 20, 30 years ago. and then to have companies like rite aid profiting on the despair and grief of americans is sickening. i don't think that's actually a partisan issue. i think you would have republicans and democrats saying the same thing. >> there is support, of, course to combat the opioid crisis in this country.

and really, the idea, the allegation as it's laid out. first, of all the fact the doj is bringing suit and having information that they are alleging at this point in time, very significant to think of where they are right now. what do you make of this approach? >> well, look, i think it's heartening that the government is looking into this. that you have a multi billion dollar behemoth in some ways. they have abused their ability and access to those drugs to fuel a crisis that's taken the lives of callous americans. so, i think we should all be heartened by that. my concern is as the government does always, many days late, many million dollar short, and millions of lies overdue. so, i think even if you pivot now at what's happening here with the fentanyl crisis, we need to do more in the immediate to make sure that we stop the next opioid crisis, which is already unfolding at a precipitously faster rate. and i think there's things the doj can do today. i think there's things d.c. can do today to stem that tide of fentanyl flowing from china,

not interrupting the supply chains. so, good on the doj to go after rite aid, what after the doctors and white coats, now we're going after the lab techs in the scientific jackets and all their stuff as well. but, i think at the end of the day, the real conversation is less retroactive trying to make ourselves feel good, what can we do today, and what can the government do today to prevent this from happening one more time to the american people? >> one thing that has to happen, we all know, and a lawyer in me is coming out as they've got to prove their case, first of all. we know there is obviously an indictment on these institutions on the court of public opinion. they've got to approve their case. and this is how they begun. >> i mean, the sad thing is in a way we're decades away here. -- what we could've done 25 years ago to identify the opioid crisis, worse what we're doing today. because if you look in europe, where we now have the oratory of prescribing opioids like we did in the 90s and 2000s, very misguided approach to the treatment of pain that created this huge market, that created

a lot of people with opioid problems, and also created the market into which you can sell heroin and then fentanyl. and then by the time we found good ways to cut off the flow of pills, you had the massive attics. so, that created the -- that push people towards drugs that were never intended for the prescription market, ultimately, towards fentanyl. so, look, i mean, when we have rules on prescribing for a reason. and if people are breaking them, we need to hold him accountable for that. but this sort of thing, if we had done it back in the late 1990s, this is something that could've actually done a lot to stop the opioid crisis. now if you stop the introduction of opioid pills, either into the black market or through prescriptions, people who should not be getting them, you're sort of just pushing -- you sort of just end up with people falling into the fentanyl problem. and fentanyl, you, know it's a lot harder to figured exactly how to stop the flow. that >> you mean, the problem that it's often found in a whole host of drugs? now >> yes, you have

counterfeit drugs that appear to be prescription pills, but in, fact contain fentanyl. but you have all these totally black market alternatives to overlies. if you cut off the flow of pills in the year 2000, you would have had a lot fewer people. using if you cut off the flow of pills, now it's still good to do the margin, based on the lawn people using heroin, using fentanyl instead. it's just a much more difficult problem to attack. >> yet they're attacking it, which is a good thing. >> like the representative was saying, communities have been robbed by this, families have been ravaged by this. there's been so little accountability for all the people who are putting profits over people's lives. so, i think any level of accountability that's possible, even a, slight is obviously so important. and i was really alarmed to read the reports of, for example, comments by pharmacists being deleted that said things like cash only pill mill, and the company saying careful what you put in writing. i think any level of accountability that's possible in a situation where profits had been consistently put over peoples lives is crucial. >> i, mean that's the nature of the allegations, right. not just the idea of -- to sue rite aid or sue any

institution that has many different branches, they are going to allege, they are alleging some sort of coordination or something noble. and the idea of turning a blind eye, this seems to be a testament to that will be leading to accountability as well, potentially, again, doj has a lot to prove. and we'll see what happens here. listen, the nature of how and where we work has completely changed over the past few years. in fact, probably last two especially. you know, it turns out that working from home may not be so great for mental and physical health. and i promise i've not been advised in -- who want to work from home. we want to talk about why that might not be the healthiest thing anymore, next. ♪ ♪

♪ a feeling this electric is invite only. ♪ fortunately, you're invited. experience the elevation of electrification at the invitation to lexus sales event. the first time you connected your godaddy website and your store was also the first time you realized... well, we can do anything. cheesecake cookies? the chookie! manage all your sales from one place with a partner that always puts you first. (we did it) start today at godaddy.com hi, i'm michael, i've lost 70 pounds on golo. i spent thousands on other diets that didn't work. on golo, i spent a couple hundred bucks and got back down to my high school weight. you're not gonna believe this thing is possible but it is.

lomita feed is 101 years old this year and counting. i'm bill lockwood, current caretaker and owner.

when covid hit, we had some challenges like a lot of businesses did. i heard about the payroll tax refund, it allowed us to keep the amount of people that we needed and the people that have been here taking care of us. see if your business may qualify. go to getrefunds.com. >> everyone, so, millions of

americans love the flexibility of working from home. but what about the impact on our mental and our physical health? there is a provocative op-ed in the new york times under the headline working from home is less healthy nine yet think. the author, dr. jordan mental, who is a sports medicine doctor, says while some people use remote work to exercise more and walk with family, others became less active, gained weight, endured isolation and depression. let's see what my panel has to say about this. you can't work from home, you remember of congress. you can't phone it in. but how do you feel about? it >> not anymore. [laughter] >> oh! they got you there. >> is it a privileged position? yes. is a good free mental health from working from home? if you want to do that, how about universal child care in this country? i mean, not everyone has that privilege to just not be able to work from home. candidate did $10 a day

childcare for every family, we should do that in the united states. >> at a minimum, perhaps. >> i think it's not like the old arrangements were everyone went into the office work so perfectly for everyone. working parents spent decades trying to do the possible -- impossible balancing act of being at the office, being at the, school pick up at the same time. i think what we have been giving is a invitation to rethink that. and i think that's why a lot of companies and workers are moving toward hybrid arrangements. right, now about 50% of people in the country who can do their jobs remotely are in hybrid arrangements. so, i think it's a lot about the opportunity where we can get the best about. >> i work from home. i just have to make sure i make a point of getting out of the apartments and going to see somebody as part of my schedule every day. i go workout it varies boot camp every morning, that gets me out of the apartment. >> don't show off. >> every morning, really? >> i'm just sharing my truth. that gets me out of my apartment, and make sure i can make plans with my friend. sometime my husband comes home, and it's like have you left the apartment? today and i try to make sure i can avoid that question or at

least answer yes do it. >> how about you? >> look, i think will not all jobs have to be an in office job, i think covid reveal that. i also think that, to your point, there's something about getting out of the house, finding ways to, i think, sometimes get away from your spouse. absence makes your heart grow fonder. >> [laughter] >> but, look i think every work environment calls for a different type of setup. i think hybrid has been good. i think he make a great point, that one of the benefits is people who were unable to afford childcare, not also having to give the jobs to do that. so, i think in general, hi red options are good. but i think also we have to make sure you take good care of itself, mind, body and spirit. >> apparently, varies boot camp every single morning. i will not see you there. but i will see you at a moment, because there is an incident involving a collision over the black sea and it's marking the first-time russian and u.s. military aircraft have come into direct contact since russia launched its invasion of

ukraine. we'll tell you exactly what happened, next. who can shape raw materials into something meaningful. and who wants to serve in their own way. if you're out there. if you're looking for more. we're looking too. we're calling on a new generation of builders for navy's next-gen submarines.

with angi, you can connect with and see ratings and reviews. and when you book and pay throug you're covered by our happiness check out angi.com today. angi... and done.

♪ ♪ no two dreams are the same. but there is one van equipped to handle them all. for over 120 years, mercedes-benz vans have been built, upfitted and ready to go. because we believe dreams - should never stay that way.