original "star trek," then i used to watch a little "monty python." that's not news. and keith olbermann actually got back at the senator actually making a valid point, that the fcc does not regulate cable. >> there's nothing that can be done about that. it's all what we want. the viewer. >> i want pete dominick, i don't fear competition, we'll see you tomorrow, my friend. tomorrow, my friend. that's all for us tonight. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com welcome to the program. coming up, a conservative who is making waves, ken cuccinelli, going to court to enforce a very conservative agenda. >> and i'll introduce you to a teacher i had in high school. >> cannot wait. first, as always, our opening arguments. the republicans in washington playing a dangerous game of politics.

the senate, jon kyl, the senator from arizona, saying the senate will not consider a critically important arms control treaty that would limit the number of nuclear warheads russia could have pointing at us. third time he has done this. republicans, democrats alike, saying this is a critically important treaty. for partisan reasons, he's not letting the senate vote. the bipartisan support for the treaty goes on and on and on. this is the first time i can remember that a treaty of this magnitude was being held up for partisan purposes. this treaty supported by both sides of the aisle. i just don't get what's going on. >> he's holding out for an appropriation. he asked for more money and obama said okay and then he asked for more money. this is going back and forth. certainly does look like it's strictly partisan haggling over something awfully important. >> the fundamental point, this treaty is an extension of the treaties negotiated with reagan, the start treaties. it limits the amount of warheads. permits us to inspect them.

i think senator reid should demand there be a vote. they need two-thirds. democrats of course have 59. he would need eight republicans. i think the president should make an appeal to the nation, saying as president, i am telling you this is for our safety. >> he certainly has the power to do that. this would not be the first time a large important issue has passed during a lame duck session. the 2002 homeland security act was passed during such a session. >> it used to be foreign policy stopped, debates stopped at the borders. you don't let partisan stuff interfere when we're talking about the rest of the world. >> that's right. >> not so much anymore, which is a real loss. >> i agree with you. eliot, i agree. >> we will continue this conversation in "the arena." joining us now, cnn political analyst paul begala and james traub from "the new york times." >> arms treaties with russia have always had bipartisan

support. what is going on here? by the way, most foreign policy experts support this. so why is he suddenly saying no? >> what's even more amazing, it's not the soviet union. you know, sometimes when you talk to these guys, and i've talked to kyl, you have to say, do you think that the russians are going to launch an attack against us? it's not the soviet union anymore. at least -- kyl doesn't say this, jim demint, a conservative republican, has i guess stentally referred to russia as the soviet union. >> well, he's older, so we remember. >> i remember it too, but i noticed when it ended. so i would say two things, one, there is a -- obviously, this is a very conservative republican caucus and these people really think arms control is just bad. two, it's a profoundly partisan one. and so the point you made, that until now, arms control treaties have passed by a bipartisan

majority, is because there was the thought that when we are facing the supremely important global issues, we have to put partisan issues to one side. that feeling isn't there anymore. so when you think about the republicans who are blocking us and above all kyl, and you ask yourself, what's his calculation, i guess it is, in part, genuine conviction. you can't trust those russians. and the thought, i'm not going to give this victory, this all-important victory to obama. >> can we talk about this treaty in more than just abstract terms? the treaty caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads, cap the number of launchers and put in place a system to inspect and verify, all of which is enormously important for our security. this is not a giveaway. this is not something we're doing as a favor to russia. this is something that george shultz supports, secretary of state, under a republican administration. the roster of republicans who support this is as long as my arm. the entire foreign policy establishment. this is the third time senator

kyl has blocked it. now it is clear to me this is almost specious. it is politics. i think it's an outrage. it is getting to the point where it's outrageous. >> kyl's position has been -- well, let me go back one second. kyl's position in my conversations with him has been there are all these terrible things these guys want to do, like a comprehensive test ban treaty, deep cults and so forth. i'll never fopermit that. the start treaty has been, well, i'm suspicious but if they do this and that, than maybe i'll think it's okay. the big "this" is what's called modernization. spend lots money on the nuclear infrastructure. the obama administration said fine, we're going to spend a ridiculous amount of money. >> $80 billion. >> an insane amount of money -- >> $10 billion more on top of that so -- >> the point is it's like they called his bluff, then he said, i got a new one. it strikes me as being extremely cynical on his part. >> which is why the question i am now brought to is what happens if harry reid says, you

know what, i'm bringing this to the floor? i think he should do that. he should say, we're not going to let our foreign policy be held hostage by one or two renn gag republican senators. i think he gets the vote. >> is it likely they could push something through in the lame duck session? >> bring it to the floor, i'm with james -- >> well, we put homeland security through in a lame duck session -- >> -- president of the united states in the lame duck session -- lame duck congress is a full-on, completely constitutional congress. there's this nonsense out there that somehow they shouldn't do important things. they must do important things. that's why we pay them all the money. >> the sarcasm wasn't sufficiently -- >> right. this is the only power we have to inspect the russian nuclear arsenal. that's a profoundly conservative argument about taking on or challenging a potential adversary and understanding what

they're doing, more importantly, keep them from proliferating, letting these loose nukes go. >> it's not domestic politics. it's our relations with russia. it's a history of arms control. so, if it fails, it's very, very bad. and we need russia for a lot of things. we need them for iran. we need them for afghanistan. because our troops go through there. so if it fails, these people who i agree with you are playing politics with it, will have done something far more grave and consequential that they themselves seem to be recognizing. >> also what effect does it have on obama's profile elsewhere? >> terrible. >> he's already in a weakened position. here we are undermining him yet again. is that the perception? >> he had a terrible trip to asia, bad g-20 summit. even if he gets a deal with the south koreans, he's never going to pass it through the senate. he has to have this. i don't think people are going to vote on this domestically. but for america's standing abroad. to be seen as a strong president

who can make deals with the russians and then deliver. >> i want to come back to your south korean reference. you've been in the white house. i was amazed when president obama went there and didn't close that deal. i said, wasn't that deal done before he got on the airplane and the rest was formalities? how could this happen? >> i don't know. the phrase they use on these foreign trips is deliverables. you don't put your president in the room unless there's a deliverable coming out. once in a while, it's a high act. sometimes it's only the president who can make the deal or choose to not make the deal. in this case, it should have been all wrapped up for the president and south korean president and it wasn't. i honestly don't know why. >> i've had people come up to me and say, you're telling me the president of the united states, when we have american troops still there, how many decades later, couldn't look at the president of south korea in the eye and say, you don't sign on this dotted line, our troops are coming home tomorrow, how do you feel? >> i'm not sure that's what i want to hear him say -- >> well, troops there for our interest -- >> i don't think he wants to use that because we want to have those troops there too --

>> they care more than we do and that's why you're getting a trade deal so we can sell a few cars. that was outrageous. can we come totally local? nancy pelosi? >> no pause here at all for k.p. to interject. >> go for it, go for it. >> i'm just teasing you. but that was my next question. >> go for it. >> nancy pelosi back in the leadership position. is that a wise move? >> first off, politicians don't do things unless it's in their interest, right? and three to one -- >> well that is -- >> at least the perceived difference, right? i've been lucky, i've seen nancy pelosi behind the scenes. i don't think she's the best public performer on television. i've worked on the hill. i've never seen anybody this effective in closed doors. she delivered that health care bill. it wasn't obama, wasn't anybody else, it was pelosi. her colleagues also -- she gets the blame, i don't think she should, for the 60 seats my party just lost. she certainly should get credit for the 55 they won under her. in that sense, it's a bit of a

wash. i think they believe the president is the face of the party, not pelosi, the minority leader to be of the democratic of the house. and they're going to need her negotiating and fighting with john boehner behind the scenes and they can't do without her. she's that effective behind the scenes. >> when i heard her response to the deficit commission, which basically is not just no but hell no, i thought, if this is what nancy pelosi is here to represent, the absolute unwillingness to give any ground on a classical liberal vision of what the economy should be in the aftermath of this election, is that the face that the democrats do want to have on their legislative party? i don't know it is. i found that really troubling. i thought that was politically ma malajoint but more importantly what was at stake. >> paul begala, james traub, thank you. coming up later in the program, a question we will ask a lot, what makes a great teacher? we'll meet one, stay with us.

>> the federal government has never before, ever, ordered americans to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce. if they can do this, they can order you what car to buy. host: could switching to really save you fifteen percent or m insurance dochuck wo or m insurance

it chucking my wd!ang woodk, or m insurance if you're taking an antidepressant and still feel depressed, one option your doctor may consider is adding abilify. abilify treats depression in adults when added to an antidepressant. some people had symptom improvement in as early as one to two weeks after adding abilify. now with the abilify (me+) program, your first two weeks of abilify can be free. abilify is not for everyone. call your doctor if your depression worsens or you have unusual changes in behavior, or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens and young adults. elderly dementia patients taking abilify have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor if you have high fever, stiff muscles and confusion to address a possible life-threatening condition. or if you have uncontrollable muscle movements, as these could become permanent. high blood sugar has been reported

with abilify and medicines like it. in some cases, extreme high blood sugar can lead to coma or death. other risks include decreases in white blood cells, which can be serious, dizziness upon standing, seizures, trouble swallowing, and impaired judgment or motor skills. adding abilify has made a difference for me. [ male announcer ] visit abilifyoffer.com for your free trial offer. and ask your doctor about the risks and benefits of adding abilify.

these days, an increasing number of state attorneys general are being called activist a.g.s. taking on issues that used to be strictly federal. our next guest is perhaps leading that crusade. he is an unusual mix of ultraconservative and idealistic. in fact, you would probably call him the conservative eliot spitzer. >> ken cuccinelli was sworn in as virginia's a.g. less than a year ago. he says forcing americans to have government approved health insurance is unconstitutional. he's also suing the environmental protection agency because he doesn't believe carbon dioxide is contributing to massive global warming. >> you sort of paved the road for a.g.s who take the law into their own hands. >> i want to get to our guest. we didn't quite take the law into our own hands, we enforced

the law. ken cuccinelli joins us tonight from washington, d.c. welcome. >> good to be with you. >> you're challenging the federal health care law as unconstitutional. >> yes. >> it's safe to say the case will end up at the supreme court. explain briefly your case, please. >> sure. what's happening in this bill, particularly with the individual mandate, and that is a dictate to every american they have to buy the health insurance or pay a fine is unconstitutional. that has never happened before. when people say that this legislation is unconstitutional, that's what they're referring to. the federal government has never before, ever, ordered americans to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce. if they can do this, they can order you what car to buy, to buy asparagus, to sign up for a gym, which are the examples the judge in our case used during the last hearing in the case. that's an incredible power that has never been exercised before,

and it is being exercised in this bill. >> okay, let me just state up at the top, i obviously applaud the use of your office to enforce the law as you see it, as you understand it. virtually every constitutional scholar, author, disagrees, and feels at the end of the day based on existing constitutional interpretations the commerce clause since the new deal has been interpreted to permit federal regulation of broad pieces of the economy such as health care -- >> eliot, you're just wrong -- >> -- ken, ken -- >> -- every single judge has said it's totally unprecedented. every single judge. i'm not just talking about the cases with the states. every single one of them has said this exercise of power is completely unprecedented. >> you don't have a problem, i presume, with medicare, the medicare structure is something you deem constitutional. >> tax -- as they do, taxing to spend on health care is perfectly constitutional. >> imagine if the medicare

system, as many conservatives have proposed, said, we got the medicare system and either you play in our system or, in which case you pay us the money and we provide you health care when you get to a certain age, or you can buy private system. you're saying that's understa unconstitutional? >> you're sort of moving to the discussion that's a lot like a hybrid privatization of social security -- >> right, but you're not saying that would be unconstitutional, are you? >> if what they're doing is taxing your work, which is what they do with social security, and giving you some choice over where that money goes because it's being used under the taxing power, whether we like it or not, and frankly that would be an improvement on social security, it is constitutional. >> that is -- >> but that is not what sen thatting in this health care bill. >> that's exactly what's happening. >> it absolutely is not. >> that's exactly what's going on here. the dollars they're being taxed -- and this is a tax imposition by congress -- >> what's the tax? if i buy the health insurance, i

don't pay a penny. >> ken, what's being taxed is individuals are being told you must contribute to cover the cost of the $40 billion of health care that, right now, is not paid for, because individuals are uninsured. this is exactly the logic that mitt romney, the conservative republican, embraced when he put his health care system in place in massachusetts. you're not saying that was unconstitutional, are you? >> oh, come on, eliot. your viewers need to know, every state in the country could enact this federal health care bill in this state and it's perfectly constitutional for a state to do it. it is the federal government that the constitution restrains and limits the powers of, not the states. >> ken, the fallacy is this is a tax, it is recognized as a tax, it is enforced by the irs, it is imposed upon you as many taxes are, if you do not do something else. you're trying to slip this in, call it a penalty. frankly, i think it's a distinction without a difference -- >> me, congress called the

penalty in the bill. >> when the supreme court look at this, it will view this as attacks and say because this is attack, congress has the right to impose is, triggers of things that people either do or don't do. >> ken, i've interviewed several legal scholars who think you may have a winnable case but it's very complicated and you people have argued at a level most people can't relate to. but they can relate to, what does it mean when you say if they expand the commerce clause to govern -- to regulate inactivity, that means that they can then tell you to do anything, they can regulate anything, from what kind of car to buy, et cetera? can you give me a concrete example of what you mean? >> the first question, if i remember correctly, the first question the judge asked in our case when the lawyer for the federal government got up was, if this is constitutional, what boundary is there to federal power? there's nothing they can't order you to buy. they can order you to buy a car because detroit needs the jobs.

that's a rationale. they can compel you into commerce. make you buy one every three years. the price is about the same as health insurance anyway. there is no limit to that power. if all they have to do is order you to buy something and penalize you financially, if you don't, and that's constitutional, health insurance is no different from anything else. and the federal government got up there and said no, it's unique. they didn't describe how. well, what about food? what about transportation? what about housing? what about clothing? what about medicine? i guess medicine could fall under health care. but you can't quarantine that. i was on a panel with former solicitor general walter dellinger who served in the clinton administration. he's the only person who, in my view, has fully answered that question. when the question was put to him in our panel, he said the limits are political. what that means is that it's a majority vote of the congress. and if we're going to decide everything by majority vote of the congress, why do we have a

constitution to protect the rights and the freedom of americans and to protect the prerogatives of states like massachusetts, as was used earlier as an example? they want to do this. they've gone down this path. it is not working very well for them. nonetheless, they have the thoo authority to do that as a state. the federal government cannot compel us to do this. >> ken, i want to come back to dellinger's answer which you tried to -- he is one of the leading constitutional scholars in the nation. what he said was exactly correct. because what he said was when the political framework of this nation, meaning congress, passings a medicare system, a medicaid system, the entirety of the health care regulatory structure that the congress says this is how we will regulate 17% of our gross domestic product, that is interstate commerce, and that is what congress and the act you're challenging is, in fact, participating in, the coherent regulation of commerce in that way, that is why walter, i am sure, would agree with me,

that this statute will be deemed constitutional. >> certainly he would agree with that. >> and that's what -- >> and we'll find out. >> precisely. we will find out. look, it's going to be a good case. thank you for a fascinating conversation. look forward to having you come back. >> thanks, ya'll. >> i said what i thought was completely logically obvious that health care's not a right. it was like i farted in church. i was greeted with -- >> that's not the thing to do, i gather? >> it's bad, eliot. blanked, shock stares. ess world? our professors know. because they've been there. and they work closely with business leaders to develop curriculum to meet the needs of top businesses. which means when our graduates walk in the room, they're not only prepared... they're prepared to lead. devry university's keller graduate school of management. learn how to grow the business of you at keller.edu.

[ commearlier, she hady vonn! an all-over achy cold... what's her advantage? it's speedy alka-seltzer! [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus rushes relief for all-over achy colds. the official cold medicine of the u.s. ski team. alka-seltzer plus.

time for the culture of politics. the health care debate rages on long after the passage of obama care and the divisiveness of the issue during midterms. our guest says americans don't necessarily have a right to health care. >> will cain is a regular here on "sparker spitzer." he's the host of "off the page" at the nationalreview.com. he's also a licensed attorney in the state of texas. >> so that gives credibility to whatever i say. >> makings it more important. >> absolutely. welcome, will. i guess as a texan and a lawyer, you're probably looking forward to succeeding from the union. >> i wish it happened yesterday. >> rick perry's kind of backing off a little from that. you can see he's kind of anxious to do it. >> yeah, as many of us texans

are. >> you say you brought up the subject of -- that health care is not a right on election night. >> right. >> and you got a strange reaction. tell us about that. >> i said it on a postelection panel on cnn. i said what i thought was completely logically obvious that health care's not a right. it was like i farted in church. i was greeted with -- >> i've never done that. not a good thing to do, gather? >> it's bad, eliot. blanked, shock stares. if it's true that we're potentially looking at the repeal of obama care, we need to rewind to this very basic but important question, is health care a right? >> you've said 18 things there we got to push on. what do you mean by a right? something that's in the constitution or something that is part of the social contract we have that defines our society. >> that's a great question. we need to back the truck up to that basic level, the philosophical level, of what is a right. there is are kinds of rights. negative rights and positive rights. you have to distinguish between these two. >> help us. >> negative rights involve around inaction. they solidify our action.

freedom of speech, freedom from violent crime, freedom from slavery. >> things that protect our capacity to do what we want as individuals. >> that's right. >> protects our individuality. conceptually we're together here. >> on the other hand, positive rights. they have to be created. it obliges other people to create a situation that you have a claim to. this is what the concept of i have a right to health care revolves around, positive rights. >> it's a nice theoretical distinction. i think we need to step back. that's an abstract i think everybody will agree with. it's a point where wealthy nations are saying society provides certain benefits to our kids, to our seniors. among those benefits are a guaranteed education for kids because we know that is the essence of progress. and we guarantee people access to health care. that is something that everybody agrees is fundamental to our

community. >> all fine and good as long as we term those as privileges. the semantics are important here. if it's true that what you just said, that as societies advance, you accumulate rights. merit beiadges like a boy scout. what does that say to people who live in less advanced societies? >> it means there's progress and we as a nation are demonstrating the progress of our amazing society based on tolerance, democracy and capitalism, three things i think you agree with. one of the attributes and things we can afford and provide is health care and education. >> doesn't saying you have a right to health care imply that you have a right to health? and if you have a right to health, then don't i have a right to insist that you behave a certain way in order to guarantee that? >> no. >> by the way, eliot, it implies more. think about the message it sends to doctors. doctors who spend countless hours perfecting their craft.

accumulating knowledge and education. says to them, by virtue of being born in the united states, you have a claim to all that. >> let me break a fact to you though. you practiced law for a while. 1986, the congress passed a law, president signed it, that gives people the right to health care. when they go to an emergency room and they need care, they get it. hospitals are not permitted to deny them that care. that's a different thing than saying you get cradle to grave health care of a certain caliber. you get the mri whenever you want it. but our society has said people need care. we are wealthy enough. we believe in taking care of each other enough so they get it. you're not disagreeing with that. >> you're using the emergency room argument to define a right. the emergency room argument is a privilege that we've agreed upon as a society. rights exist on their own. they are, as we say, inalienable. >> i want to interrupt because otherwise i'm never get a word in. if you say you have a right to good health and health care, that means you have the right to the best possible medical care

that is not affordable. >> no, no -- >> wait a minute -- >> one has nothing to do with the other. it does not mean you're entitled to the best. the right to an attorney in a criminal case does not mean you're entitled to any lawyer you want. it means the state will guarantee you get a lawyer. >> if you have a right to health care, it's a basic human right. do you have a right to food? a basic human right to shelter? by the way, if i have a right to shelter, can i destroy my house and demand another? i have a right. >> this is where the responsibilities come into play and where everything is a matter of balance. to say they're absolutes, even the first amendment, and i am pretty close to being an absolutist on it, but of course it is balanced against you can't scream fire in a crowded theater, the easiest example. the right to health care doesn't mean you can act in a way so injurious to yourself and say now give me health care -- >> what does that mean? if you can't act in a way that's injurious to yourself and therefore demand the right to

health case doesn't that mean the government can say, you're overweight, you don't get to eat cheeseburgers anymore? seriously -- >> we can say, you can't sell cigarettes to people under 18 or 21. there are certain -- >> and you can't sell doughnuts to fat people. >> the problem is, you can't even go to obama care because we keep blowing past go on the difference between a right and a privilege. let me just say, these words matter. these cemes these semantical matters are important. when a college kid says, i believe in the right to health care, the argument stops there. everything is obvious from that point forward. cost? there's no point in talking about cost. feasibility? there's no point because you have a right. >> you're saying a college kid who says it without thinking. let's deal with someone who actually thinks about -- >> i wish i were still a college kid. is there a right to education? >> no. >> here's the interesting thing. in many, if not most, constitutionals that the states

have in the united states of america, there is. new york state. that one i'm more familiar with. there is a right to an education. >> you're playing legalese. >> no, that is in the constitution because we believe it as the framework for our society. >> the social contract you keep evoking is a very deep philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals. >> some constitutions do actually guarantee certain things. like you do have a right to food. as entitlements. we don't have that. we have the right to pursue. we have the right to equal opportunity. and i think it gets very slippery when we say you have the right to health care, and then that devolves into, you have a right to all these other things. the responsibilities aspect of that argument, eliot, is crucial. >> i guess -- i think there's no point in talking about the affordability of obama care. >> we got to wrap. >> there's more genius coming. >> we'll give you another chance. >> all right, will cain, we'll invite you back again if you'll

come. thank you so much. we'll be right back. you were expressing your passion for this passage and you said, you know, i've always wanted to lean down from my back stoop and pluck a sprig of verbena and you took this imaginary sprig of verbena to your nose and you went -- ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] here's hoping you find something special in your driveway this holiday. ♪ [ santa ] ho ho ho! [ male announcer ] get an exceptional offer on the mercedes-benz you've always wanted at the winter event going on now. but hurry -- the offer ends soon.

[ technician ] are you busy? management just sent over these new technical manuals. they need you to translate them into portuguese. by tomorrow. [ male announcer ] ducati knows it's better for xerox to manage their global publications. so they can focus on building amazing bikes. with xerox, you're ready for real business.

princess of the powerpoint. your core competency... is competency. and you rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i'm getting an upgrade. [ male announcer ] indeed, business pro. indeed. go national. go like a pro.

we talk about education a lot on this program. one thing we all agree on is success and education requires great teachers. we can disagree about how to make one. we all recognize what one looks like. i sat down recently with one of my high school english teachers. he's my inspiration. mr. james gasgui. >> hey, darling, how did you ever get me here? i brought your courage with me. >> well, thank you so much. what is this? >> it's verbena. smell it. stronger than courage. >> goodness. >> this is some writing by some of my students at heathwood hall episcopal school.

>> thank you. i can't tell you how thrilled i am to have you here and how peculiar all these many decades later -- we want say how many. >> i tried to figure out you age. >> we're not telling. >> i know we're not. >> i remember when i walked in your class, i thought you were old and that was a long, long time ago. now we're all a little bit older. the sprig of verbena. i may as well start with that story because it's kind of the essence of our relationship. i remember i was only in your class for three months. but i remember everything about it. i'm going to start crying. we read william faulkner's the unvanquished. i remember it so well because i'd never met anyone like you before. i'd never heard anyone speak about literature or anything else for that matter the way you did. and of course the sprig of verbena -- verbena is a symbolic flower.

you were expressing your passion for this passage. you said, you know, i've always wanted to lean down from my back stoop and pluck a sprig of verbena. you took this imaginary sprig of verbena to your nose and you went -- and i was mesmerized in that moment. i thought, oh, my gosh what is going on here? this is something i've never experienced before. it made a big impression on me. i remember everything from that year. i remember we also read john steinbecks "of mice and men" and there was a great moment in that classroom when i made apparently a terrible mistake. i'll let you talk in a moment. you called on me to diagram a sentence. i'd been transferred to your classroom from a school in florida. i didn't know what that meant. i ventured a guess and the whole class erupted in laughter. of course, i wanted to crawl under my chair, into a fetal curl and never come back out. and you had your back to the class at the time.

and you whirled around and you looked at that class and you said, don't you dare laugh at her. she can outwrite every single one of you every day of the week. of course, you saved my life in that moment. i didn't know i could write. but i knew from that moment on i wanted to be a writer. so i thank you for that. and for all the other gifts that you've given to all of your students through the years. so what makes a good teacher? is it something you're born to be or can it be taught? >> i don't think it can be taught. >> you think it's just in you or it's not? >> i think you have to have love and passion and just absolutely enjoy every second regardless of how frustrating it can be. >> 50 years of teaching. how has -- how have students changed? >> that's a real good question. because of technology, and computers, everything, i teach completely with technology. >> oh, you do?

>> when they are ready for me to read their writing, i flash it up on the screen. i invade their computer from mine. and we talk about ways we can improve it. we move sentences around. we search for strong verbs. that make powerful images. and i have seen tremendous change in the way they can write. >> so that helps. technology helps a lot. >> i no longer go home with a red pen and an essay and start putting circles around it and end up with a grade on it. i just say, you've got to do it again and again and again, until you can tell and i can tell you've done your best and changed it. >> well, so the secret to writing is always rewriting. >> right. >> i have a little cousin who was in your class and he had no idea that he had any writing ability whatsoever.

and he left your class with a book of essays that he was very proud of. i think everyone in your class had a book at the end of your semester. >> that's right. >> how do you help liberate a child's voice that way? how do you get them to do it? >> they're various little tricks that i do. sometimes they write about themselves. i tell them it has to be something passionate. they just really care for a person. sometimes we go into a piece of art and they take on the persona of the person in the painting. and create a human being that has never been alive. >> so that's -- and they get to experience the act of creation. >> that's right. >> so how can we attract people to teaching? since it is such a -- it is such an important profession. it's so important we get people like you in the classroom. what can we do to get them? good good people to teach? >> you always have a family and

you have so many friends that will thank you when you get as old as i am. and i don't have to say that, kathy, people like you, i just let you do what you love. i don't know that i taught you all anything. >> oh, no, no, no, you taught. well, you -- i think your passion and -- in my case, the passion for the written word, the passion for the literature, was simply contagious. i can't thank you enough. >> jimmy. >> i can't call you jimmy. you will always be mr. gasqui to me. >> oh, bless your heart, darling. >> we'll be right back. >> this simple mortgage gets passed around over and over. more confusing than anything i've ever seen.

time for fun with politics. what kathleen, could be more fun than the mortgage crisis? >> eliot, only you could find foreclosures amusing. >> this is quite an adventure. this fella is a specialist in securitization. he does audits to track the long, winding road a simple mortgage can take. you're not going to believe what he came up with. this chart right here. simple enough, isn't it? my goodness. his simple mortgage gets passed around over and over, boxes, lines, more confusing than anything i've ever seen. it's like a how potato.

>> you know what that chart reminds me of? a childhood game of my favorite, candyland. >> candyland, i remember that one. you spin a wheel, you jump around from one color to another. this is simple compared to the mortgage crisis. the amazing thing about this is this tells you how we got into the mess. a simple mortgage sligsed and diced, passed around. nobody understands who has it. and nobody knows who owns their home. >> how in the world did it get so complicated? what happened to going to the bank and getting a mortgage and having your house financed? >> part of it is the more times it is transferred, the more fees that are paid. the more fees that are paid, the more money the banks make. it's that simple. >> back to my game. i just wish they could go directly to jail. no passing go. no collecting $200 billion. >> we are working on that, kathleen. >> we'll be back with our political party and you're invited so don't be late. >> my vice presidential candidate, and i only say this slightly facetiously, is eliot spitzer. >> oh, my goodness.

[ male announcer ] don't let aches and pains in the morning slow you down. introducing bayer am. its dual-action formula delivers extra strength pain relief, plus it fights fatigue. so get up and get going with new bayer am, the morning pain reliever. we get double miles on every purchase. so we earned a holiday trip to the big apple twice as fast! dinner! [ garth ] we get double miles every time we use our card.

and since double miles add up fast, we can bring the whole gang! it's hard to beat double miles! i want a maze, a sword, a... oww! [ male announcer ] get the venture card from capital one and earn double miles on every purchase, every day. go to capitalone.com. i wonder what it could be?! what's in your wallet?

it's time for "our political party" where we invite a cool mix of people to speak their minds. we have steve kornacki, for salon.com. simon door man is the creative director of the store barneys in new york.

>> suchen pac is a correspondent for mtv. and will cain, host of "off the page." sarah palin inching closer and closer two years ahead of time that she's running for president of the united states, saying this afternoon she thought she could beat him. let's take a look. >> if you ran for walters show. >> if you ran for president, could you beat barack obama? >> i believe so. >> wow. >> believing is being. >> wow. >> what do you think? >> that's the ultimate move. maybe that's a sign she's not running. it seems the move in politics that irritates me the most is when somebody gets out and says, if i would have run, i would have won. maybe that's a way of saying i won't run. >> she is already booked, i happen to know, at that point, to do the rael hoeal housewives

alaska. she's a cheesy television person. takes one to know one. >> what do y'all think? is she going to run or a big tease? >> she sounds more skeptical. she's like, question mark. i'm not quite sure. >> that's alaskan for hell yeah. >> little more subdued. >> you said the right answer. nobody knows. >> you don't to get to come to the party and say i don't know. >> i'm tired of talking about sarah palin. steve, you just wrote about other possible dark horse candidates. michael bloomberg, joe scarborough, who has a morning show somewhere. what are the candidates who might challenge a shame-up. >> on the republican side i keep talking about is chris christie,

the governor of new jersey. i think for the first time really in memory, the conservative base is just adamant about finding an antiestablishment candidate to rally around. we talk about palin, her liableties. i like at a guy like chris christie, he is one of the most effective communicators i've seen come along in a long time. >> let me build on that. steve, i'm going to give you my dream ticket. revolves around people who do things and say things. christie is in the the obvious groups of people who do things. people that say things are marco rubio and maybe john bolten. these are the ones i'm interested. my vice presidential candidate is eliot spitzer. >> oh, my goodness. >> well, that's good. you know, you don't like debating me anymore.

>> i take wall street reform seriously and i think wall street and banking need to be addressed. republicans are logically consistent on this. if somebody reigns you in like christie, puts a collar on you, i'd like of the you. >> who is your dream ticket? >> i'm very interested in this scarborough bloomberg thing. in the quote i read, he said, in the spear that i'm living in and that he's living in, it has been discussed. i thought, oh, that's it. that's them. because they're living in the special sphere. it's interesting. >> do you think jay scarborough's running for something soonish? >> the man served in congress for four terms. eight years in congress. he never had the notoriety from hosting a television show. to go back into politics, i don't get it. he's got the perfect platform

now. >> a platform and a sphere, you're in. >> you know, i was told this was a party, so i thought of sexy and glamorous and outside of the political world. i thought, well, who better than brad and angelina. i thought this was be a fantastic ticket. humanitarians. there's rumors that brad may in 2016 run for the senate or presidential office. >> i'm sure there's people in their sphere encouraging them. >> where would he be a senator from? >> the world. i don't know if you know it, but the plane that hoovers in their sphere above the world that's where he would rule from. >> i think you have been drinking fore loco. it's caffeinated, alcoholic, what could be more perfect than

that. you say that's more nanny state. >> if you're going to say if businesses can't sell caffeine infused alcohol, what about bars that pour red bull and vodka. jack and coke. the moving line is full of absurdity. you create this world where the government's in charge of your decisions. >> bloomberg people over here love that stuff. >> you have to admit that the most appalling things you've done you've done when you're jacked up on caffeine. me, too. >> all right. hold it there. we'll have another question for you when we come back. [ male announcer ] this is steven, a busy man.

his day starts with his arthritis pain. that's breakfast with two pills. the morning is over, it's time for two more pills. the day marches on, back to more pills. and when he's finally home... but hang on; just two aleve can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is steven, who chose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.

hello. more of "parker spitzer" in a moment. the first guantanamo detainees was acquitted on all counts except one. he was convicted of conspiracy to destroy u.s. government property for his role in the deadly bombings of the u.s. embassies in kenya and tanzania in 1988. a judge in tennessee has ruled a mosque can be built in murfreesboro. and why is anderson wearing a bunny suit? part of our series, animal intelligence, smarter than you think. back after this. welcome back.

hollywood just announced it's planning a remake of the wizard of oz. >> i don't really care. i'm just excited, as a freakishly undersized person. remember what happened the first "wizard of oz"? it was exciting for the little people. which politicians are tiny. they're the ones that should be jumping up and down. >> the stimulus package. >> that's right. the daniels duca kis party. >> simon has done the windows and barneys and they're on the theme of food and fashion. >> food and fashion, you see, because here's food, here's fashion. people think they're mutually exclusive. we decided to bring them