tavis: good evening. from los angeles, i am tavis smiley. tonight a conversation with senator brand all -- rand paul. he has been at odds with many in minimumy speaking about sentencing. they he filibustered nomination of david baron to the court of appeals over drones. then we will talk to actor jim parsons who stars in "the big bang theory here go he is also part of -- big bang theory." he is also part of "a normal heart." we are glad you joined us. ♪

>> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. tavis: senator rand paul is considered to be a front-runner for the republican nomination, although he hasn't said if he is

running. voter id laws,t and today he filibustered over thebama's choice legality of drones. glad to have you. let me start with your filibuster. a lot attention on this nominee and whether he deserves to sit on an appellate court bench seat. what was your filibuster based on? >> i think the foundation of our american jurisprudence is you innocentmed to be until you are proven guilty. you are supposed to get your day in court, and i think if we have accusations made in secret by don't --tive ranch, i executive branch i don't think that is due process. we are not supposed to be putting someone to death without a trial. don't doubti

the guilt of the people killed by drones, i would try them for treason so we can be clear they get a day in court. i think it's dangerous to accuse someone and then kill them without a trial. >> what is the connection specifically to this nominee? >> this nominee wrote memos to the president that the president has kept secret, even though the second court said these memos should be made and revealed to the public. in these memos it was noted that david baron justified why he could kill an american overseas without a trial. i think the message goes against the history of our country. the history is that you do deserve your day in court because sometimes we get the wrong people. all you have to do is think of

the movie "12 angry men." they think this kid is guilty. but one juror changes their minds. it is an accusation. it is like me saying, this guide belongs to -- this guy belongs to the black panthers and he robbed a liquor store and killed someone. he may have done that, but it's an accusation. you go to trial, and the person gets to present evidence. dentistey are at the and it is just somebody who looked like them. it is amazing people think once we think they are a traitor this all goes out the window. get your day at court, even if it's a despicable crime and if you are guilty. tavis: i want to get to your opposition to these mandatory minimums.

since this is your filibuster earlier today, how forthcoming does the obama administration need to be to the american people about its justification of the drone program? camethink one thing that out of my opposition is the president did agree to release this to the public. he didn't say when. it could be months from now. this judge believes the constitution doesn't apply to you when you're overseas. he believes that the government accuses you of a crime overseas you can be killed with an accusation. important distinction. i think before he is given a lifelong appointment the public should debate this. i have seen the memos, but that was under duress. the president is releasing them to the public, but we won't get to have a debate until the vote

has already happened. it's over now. tavis: on this issue of drones, what agency to the american people have to press back on anyone who has not been as transparent about this as they should be? how did this program get to be so robust without the american people having a say on this kind of engagement vis-à-vis his foreign-policy. >> some of this started under the last administration. they were doing so many drone killings, but they were detaining americans. candidate obama was a big opponent of detaining americans without a trial, and he spoke out against it as a candidate. as president president obama has signed legislation allowing for the killing of americans without due process, so it's really is nowas if his position the same as president bush costs -- president

bush's position was, and that's disturbing. people hoped he was going to be different on these issues, and it turns out pretty much the same if not more draconian in allowing killings to occur without to process. >> let's speak about the differences and likenesses between obama and bush. as senator obama ran for president he suggested he thought the ratio that was 100-1 should have been 0:0 between crack and cocaine sentencing. we know crack is used in the streets and cocaine is used in the suites. on this yetoff again, this racist sentencing disparity. you come out pretty aggressively against editorial minimum sentencing.

-- against mandatory minimum sentencing. give me a reason why you are so iposed. >> this is one thing have applauded the president on. he has committed some sentencing on nonviolent crime. they were kept in prison for over a decade. thesecorrecting some of problems. it used to be 100:1 the disparity but we and crack and powder. a few years ago they changed it to 18:1 but not for people under the old standards. we have too many people in prison for nonviolent crimes. there has been a racial outcome. three out of four prisoners are black or brown, but white kids are using drugs just as often, but it is a disproportionate amount of arrests and convictions of black and brown kids, so our prisons are full of kids. i think they need a second

chance. i think they shouldn't be there to begin with. we need to give judges more discretion so we don't have people in jail for marijuana for 10 years or 20 years. we need to get people back in the system. kids make mistakes. i want to get people employed again. i don't want this to be a permanent thing that prevents people from getting back in society. when you make it permanent they can't get good jobs. some of them go back into the drug trade. we are really making a mistake on this. this is something eric holder is trying to do that is good. so is the president. even though i am often critical of both of them omelet this is something i have complimented them on -- both of them, this is something i have complimented them on. >> 100:1 was wrong to begin with. it was wrong when it was written the first time. 18:1 is better, but that not addressed to me.

it should have been handled differently. 18:1 -- stopop at at 18:1? >> i don't have the exact answer, but i have been reading about the weight of drugs and how some of that has gone insane in the sense they are weighing things that are not the actual drug themselves to increase the penalty on people. the bottom line is i think the war on drugs is incarcerating too many people. i am approaching this from a lot of different levels. one thing we are looking at is trying to make some of these things they call felonies into misdemeanor so you don't get a felony record. the problem with a felony record is you can do something that is a nonviolent offense, and it fixed with you your whole life. if you apply for a job, and you say you are a convicted felon, it doesn't make it easier to get a job. i have a friend who can vote in kentucky and has difficulty getting employment because of a

felony record, but he's not a bad person, and he deserves a second chance. i am doing everything i can to try to make it better. tavis: let me circumnavigate back to your filibuster on the senate floor about this particular nominee before the senate right now. beyond his nomination, what is your sense of whether or not and when the american people will be able to engage in a transparent conversation about this drone program? these see that happening? do you see the policy change anytime soon -- do you see that happening? do you see the policy change anytime soon? >> i think the process for when they are going to decide whether to kill an american, them would say there are 100 americans overseas engaged in treasonous are we going w to decide which is guilty and which is not? what if you are visiting your cousins in lebanon and you are

an american arab by your cousins are involved in something, can you be killed because you are dining with them or visiting with them and it appears as if you are an operative? these out to be worked out in the court. that is such a renaissance men. i don't think we should kill americans who are visiting overseas without some kind of process. process ifave due you don't have a chance for a trial or a lawyer. has said theno one process is going to change, and no one said this is not going to be decided in secret. i strongly object to that. tavis: they for your time. good to have you on the program. coming up, actor jim parsons about his role in "a normal heart." stay with us. three-time emmy winner jim by 20 millionn

viewers, but this coming sunday we will see him in a different heart."the normal this deals with the earliest days of the aids crisis in new york city with denial, fear, and falsehood shattering the community. we will start with a look at ."scene from "a normal heart >> don't start on me. i was up at l view. i put a sweet, dying child with his mom. >> i haven't seen him in years. he refused to see him for weeks. in.as a worry when i walked that was a real weeper. the mom holding the son.

he's dead now. tavis: this was a reprisal, this character. in 2011. on broadway or 2012. >> when i saw it it was 2011. when you had an opportunity to play a character again, i would assume there must be something about the character you really like that convinces you your going to do this again because doing is all about something different. >> that true. in this case the premise of taking this story and getting a chance to present it in the film format, it's so different from live theater. really the only thing i felt was comforting that i had as much becausee going into it i felt more easily able to

respond to the actors involved. everything changes when you are on the set as opposed to being in front of a live audience. ar me it worked out, but it's rare position to be in. now it's mostly the reverse. the big movies become a musical. this was easily a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. it that way att the time. i love being in the play. i love telling the story. i got to meet with the director a couple summers ago. we talked about it before. he asked me to do it, and i was very excited. or threeere are two things. in no particular order, i hadn't thought about plays becoming movies versus movies becoming leas. what is behind the notion of so many movies becoming plays?

>> it's all guessing on my part. i do think more showy, event -- that ises make 4 what is selling. that is not to say there is not deep, artistic merit. driven by the is almighty dollar a lot of the time. playould go see a straight and then go, let's make a movie? "august: pen with osage county." it had a stellar cast it attractive. maybe that is coming back in vogue. that is a new play being done, and this is a 30-year-old lay making it to the screen. tavis: speaking of cast.

>> and honorable cast. matt juliar, taylor kitsch, roberts. it goes on. everybody in it. the thing that startled me most when seeing it for the first was how grounded every performance was, and a lot of the credit goes to ryan murphy. the direction he gave, the direction he didn't give an casting. tavis: this is like inside the actors studio. let me ask you whether or not there is some sort of nuance for you playing this character on stage versus playing him on film. change the way you played the character? forced to play it

differently. the story didn't change. there are couple of extra scenes, which i was grateful for. in the play version especially but in the movie to a degree, the character who played tommy withave a real light touch some sticky situations. play of times with the they end up with humorous moments. reactionthis visceral from the audience when they were actually laughing.

to know thiserent might be a moment of levity for a moviegoing audience. that was different. different people playing the different roles in the movie changed the story. it did change your approach and your reply to the other or because they were asking for something in a different tone with a different flavor, so the conversation took on a different color. larry story is so strong and the characters so well delineated that those remain the same. i think art is at its best when it empowers us, it entertains us without conflict

rising in the process. yet there are going to be a lot takeaways, not the least of which is a comparative analysis between the way hiv and aids were treated then in the way it is treated today. in so many ways one could make the argument that a lot has changed. one could make the argument not much has changed. the diagnosis back in the day, what is your personal view in what you have processed as you about how in it things have changed or not change? one of the astounding things.

especially getting to see it through the eyes of the younger audience who perhaps weren't even worn when this was taking place in the early 80's -- when't even worn -- born this was taking place in the early 80's. there was blatant ignoring of what was happening because it foran uncomfortable topic game and we were allowed to ignore. that's why all the screaming and yelling went on. it was like, stop ignoring. that was a more acceptable way to treat the issue back then. to your point, there are still people around who would be fine with that type of treatment i am sure or that level of nontreatment as it were. beis no longer acceptable to

.llowed ignoring or silence that is what has progressed. there is enough power in the hands of this minority group that you are not allowed to ignore it to that level anymore. but you are right. didn't see the sterling interview with anderson cooper. tavis: you didn't miss much. i didn't see it either. >> somebody told me he brought up the fact that -- he didn't say magic has hiv. he said he has aids, and he said the aids, which is all the more odd, but it shows so many levels of ignorance. first off, unless there is something we don't know, magic johnson doesn't have aids. he has hiv.

with medication i'm not sure what you call it anything anymore, the different levels of having the disease. the big point is what does that have to do with anything? but that it was so ready to bring up, i don't know what it says, but it says something, and it says there are people who still ties stigmas and judgment calls based on that. that is what this work has been for. tavis: with the stigma and ignorance that does exist, is there a takeaway you hope the film will provide us? >> my favorite thing about being part of the play and the movie is the more i worked with it and the more i talked afterwards and saw audience reaction, in my opinion the great success in life of this story, the reason ,t goes on 30 years after

because while it is specifically about a specific group of people and a specific disease at a specific time, it's about something much greater than that in the end. and about humanity problem like this that has happened before and will probably happen again. in my opinion the take away is we must try to appeal to our better side in situations like ignorance andze ignoring things only makes the problem like this worse and is unacceptable. and unacceptable way to deal with our fellow human beings. a takeaway would be that probably as many people who died didn't need to die but because -- iejudice, ignorance don't know the myriad reasons this problem went undocked with ndealt with for a long

time. heart" you will want to see. nice socks. that's all for tonight. for watching. as always, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. tavis: hi, i'm tavis smiley. join me next time for a conversation with massachusetts senator elizabeth warren and then a conversation with jon favreau about his new movie "chef." ♪

>> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> be more. >> be more. pbs.

announcer: "image makers" is made possible by the members of kqed.