sale installment of this coverage. in the 1940s, and even the 1950s, even though most in the medical profession knew that smoking was dangerous to your health, you had a lot of ads like this, bought and paid for by cigarette companies looking to sell cigarettes. >> what cigarette do you smoke, doctor? once again, the brand named most was camel. yes, according to this repeated nationwide survey, more doctors smoked camels than any other cigarette. >> flash forward to the 1970s. according to a new investigative report published in "the nation" magazine by a friend of the show mark ames and his co-writer lasha levine, charles koch bought and paid for an anti-social security and medicare idea stand that involved nobel laureate friedrich hayek of austria.

according to the reporters, here's how it came down. charles koch wanted to use hayek as an expert to give his think tank, the institute for humane studies, an intellectual drive -- or an intellectual rationale to get rid of social security. but hayek, according to ames and levine, was afraid of leaving the safety of the universal health care coverage he was enjoying in his native austria b by coming to america's rigged market place system. hayek feared the cost of america's health care. so koch, according to ames and levine, responded to hayek saying, do not worry about your social security safety net, the u.s. has one and you'll be fine. mark, yasha, we welcome you. before we get too far into this, mark, why should we care so much

about something that happened so long ago? >> because the ideas that were funded and seeded then are now considered respectable ways of framing the debate. you know, you have guys like rick perry calling social security a ponzi scheme, you know, everybody on both parties, actually, is really talking about cutting these programs, medicare and social security. but these ideas, these politics, these rotten politics, they began as rotten ideas, funded and fronted back in the '70s. and that's what these letters show. is that, how did charles koch and frederick hayek think in private about these programs that publicly they've been trying to destroy for decades. and privately, they knew they worked. >> yasha, how does one go about the business of buying and seeding an idea? and why was somebody like hayek so relevant to being able to do that? >> well, hayek was -- his invention probably was to promote the idea that any kind

of socialized system or centralized system of government or a program like medical program would inevitably lead to totalitarianism, to stalinism, to fascism. it would degrees life spans, it would lead to mind control -- >> i get -- i understand the beliefs, but why is that so -- listen, i know a lot of people who think that, they're not getting paid off by the koch brothers and they're not seen as influential to ideas. why was this particular guy's ideas so influential? >> well, because he had -- >> go ahead, mark. go ahead, mark. >> go ahead, mark. >> well, i was going to say, because hayek is considered the godfather of free market economics. he's a nobel prize winner, he won the nobel prize the year after charles and he had this back and forth and charles said to him, you know, don't worry, you can come to america, you'll be fine, because, actually you had secretly paid into social

security while you were at the university of chicago in the 1950s, so you qualify for social security and medicare, so don't worry. everything's okay. you can leave austria and come here. >> hold on, mark. we have an excerpt of the letter, and i want to make sure -- i don't want to just have this float by as a dprask. it says, since you have paid into the american social security system -- this is from koch to hayek? >> yes. >> koch wrote to high yhayek, don't worry, since you have paid into the social security system for a full 40 quarters, you are entitled to social security payments while living anywhere in the free world. also, at any time you are in the united states, you are automatically entitled to hospital coverage. for further information, i'm enclosing a pamphlet on social security. and you're saying that this communication was being had between a noble laureate who was being paid by the koch brothers to debase the very thing that he was being given, is that -- do i understand that right? >> that's exactly right. >> exactly right.

>> so he's being paid to come out and front -- because the kato institute, which is charles koch's -- the koch brother's kind of leading think tank that was founded in '74, '77, depends what you believe, in any way, the kato institute is the leading outfit that has been campaigning since the '70s to dismantle and destroy social security. and this was founded by charles koch. in fact, the guy in charge of kato institute's program arguing how we should dismantle social security was the head of general pinoche social security privatization program. >> so i want to inject here on our side, we reached out to the koch brothers to respond to the revelation of the purchasing of ideas that the very people advocating them were fearful that they would be subjected to them, basically. they're saying they were trying to avoid it. the koch brothers as of yet have

gotten back to us. i should point out, we only brought this to their attention a few hours ago, and i think it's appropriate we give them a little more time to consider what their response is. but it's important that the audience understands our relationship with not only this reporting, but with our respect for everybody, obviously, involved, to have an opportunity to comment. but go ahead, mark. >> i just wanted to say that these letters, it's not like there was a hacking situation or anything. these letters, yasha discovered these letters while researching in the hoover institute. so these letters are part of the hayek collection of letters. so they were available to the public. it's just that nobody had ever seen them or perhaps looked for them before. and yasha discovered these letters and, i mean, yasha can tell you -- yasha's reacted -- >> yeah, tell us the story. tell us this. >> well, yeah, so i was at the hoover institution archives, which are at stanford, on the stanford campus, in california. and when i came across this letter, from what i understand,

this letter from charles koch to hayek, which championed social security and hard sells hayek on social security, is the only letter that i know of or that the index lists that is from charles koch personally to hayek. so, think about this. the only letter that charles koch ever wrote to hayek was to tell him to get on the social security and medicare bandwagon, and, you know, reminding him that, hey, you signed up for social security. you opted in, so don't worry about it. >> and the hypocrisy is that this man is being paid to advocate the disassembly of what he's worried about losing. how prevalent, mark, is the culture of purchasing and seeding ideas in this sense and how much has money in our political system, not in the campaign sense, but in the ideological sense, infected the entire debate framing? >> well, first of all, i would say this is worse than hypocrisy. hypocrisy is a kind of moral

thing. this is actually a scam played out on the american people. but, you know, it's interesting. when you launched this campaign, getting money out of politics, you know, you did a -- >> hold on, hold on, hold on, mark. it's caveman. get money out. we don't want to get money out of politics, we don't want to get the money out. we're talking to the 3-year-old lizard brain. get the money out. i can't even do it. go ahead, i'm teasing. >> get the money out! >> money. >> yeah. >> so when you started this, you went back in history and kind of pinpointed where the money corruption really exploded, which had to do with the supreme court's decision in 1976 which suddenly made money as free speech and allows money. and it's interesting, because right at the same time we have in the '70s this explosion of think tanks, which now dominate the ideas industry, right? ideas used to come out of universities and they used to go through a far more rigorous process. and actually, one of the supreme

court justices ruled on that decision, lewis powell. he wrote in the early '70s the famous powell memo in which he told corporations, he advised corporations, you need to stop funding universities that don't promote your corporate interests and you need to start funding only people thinkers and institutions that promote your interests. and so then suddenly you have the rise of these parallel, you know, what are think tanks? they didn't really exist or barely existed before the mid-'70s. they're sort of set up as a parallel structure to compete against the ideas coming out of universities, which they can't control as easily. >> yeah. no, it's -- you have to understand it and acknowledge it as disgusting, as so much of this is. if we're going to begin the process of resolving it. i congratulate yasha on a keen eye, to say the least. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, yasha. if you're looking to learn more about this particular piece of

journalism, you can find it at "the nation," and we hear at msnbc await further comments from the koch brothers from the discussion of the letters presented in "the nation" and we just discussed here. we take a break. coming up on "the dr show," we'll tell you exactly how you can join the more than 55,000 americans who are aligning into a wave to get money out in 2012. plus, more on why america can't get the debate it deserves! former governor jennifer granholm, our specialist. and later, an amazing night in baseball history. the triumph of victory over the agony of defeat. sorry, sox fans, you made history once again. having the right real estate agent on your side is more important than ever. at remax.com, you can find the experts you need, whether you're trying to sell of hoping to buy. nobody sells more real estate than re/max.

visit remax.com today. helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ but i've learned a lot from patients who use flexpen. flexpen comes pre-filled with the insulin i take and i can dial the exact dose of insulin i need.

i live my life on the go and need an on-the-go insulin. i don't need to carry a cooler with flexpen. novolog is a fast-acting, man-made insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. do not inject novolog if you do not plan to eat within 5 to 10 minutes after injection to avoid low blood sugar. tell your healthcare provider about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions, including if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. the most common side effect of novolog is low blood sugar. other possible side effects include reactions at the injection site. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions, body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat or sweating. ask your healthcare provider about novolog flexpen today. learn more about the different insulins available in flexpen at myflexpen.com. flexpen, insulin delivery that goes with you.

china illegally subsidizes their industries, they underpay their workers, they skirt environmental regulations, and ignore the tenants of global trade rule after trade rule after trade rule. they get away with economic murder. >> new york senator chuck schumer saying the sort of thing i might say. some rather harsh words about the chinese extraction from our economy, and well placed, in my view. he's proposing a bill along with a bipartisan group of democrats and republicans to impose tariffs on chinese imports in an effort to compensate from the advantage they get by rigging their currency 50% beneath our own, going back to 1994. this is a political home run for both parties, and you'd think

the president would be into it too, right? >> you're not sure whether you're going to support this? >> we're reviewing the bill. >> do you have any idea when you might have a conclusion to that review? >> not that i could offer today. >> a tepid response, to say the least, from a white house whose treasury department led by tim geithner has refused to engage china in the trade mechanisms available to uniquely the treasury department, in which if the white house wanted, they could acknowledge china's status as a currency manipulator and precipitate a string of intervention. the white house and the treasury refuses to do that. the senate, however, expected to take up their bill on monday, which makes us wonder, could it be the start of increasing pressure on our trade posture to those who exploit us on behalf of special interests paying into our government. well, zack carter of "the huffington post" just reported

on the latest trade negotiations, if you're looking for the state of play, a giant sort of regional nafta-style transpacific trade partnership with pacific nations from australia to vietnam. again, all of these potentially wonderful ideas, if they are not corrupted by those who are seeking to exploit that structure for their gain at our expense, as we have seen in almost every trade agreement going back to nafta. let's bring in our thursday megapanel. karen, susan, and jimmy. let's start off with the china rhetoric, jimmy. do you have any sense as to whether the senate's amplifying this pressure will ultimately coerce the president and the treasury department to get on board here? >> no, i highly doubt that. the senate's taking a bill because, a, it needs something on the calendar. bark b, everything they send to the house, they kill, and everything the house sends over, they kill. so the answer is, no, not really. and i do want to remind people,

there is a separation of power. congress can do whatever the hell it wants, the administration doesn't have to, and they don't have to listen to congress when it comes to this kind of stuff. >> which is why i point out, it's the manipulation of currency that's so influential. go ahead, karen. >> i was going to say, though, the way this is going to play out is a classic example of what you have been talking about. because who is opposing this, because they say it's going to be bad for america's economic growth? club for growth. who started club for growth? pat toomey, now senator from pennsylvania. now the organization is saying, essentially, they're going to watch this vote and they're going to see how people vote and they're going to use that in their scorecard. so what are they doing? they're trying to pressure some of the republican members not to vote for it, even though it would be in the interests of the people in their state or their district. this is classic, you know, brinksmanship. it's the, you know, casino run amok all over again. >> is the implied threat in your narrative, karen, that if you don't do what you want, they'll

either attack you with money or defund you? >> absolutely. either they'll run ads against you or they won't support you or they're going to put out a report that says, you know, you're bad on issues when it comes to economic growth for the country, which means, you know, in the context of a campaign, you've got to spend money and time trying to explain why actually this vote, why you took -- >> which raises the price, and obviously, there's a small theme that's developed. your thoughts on the china brinksmanship policy? >> it's good politics right now. china's a great enemy for us, so it works very well. >> is this just pandering? is that what this is? is this just a bunch of politicians that know, if i go talk crazy about china, that i'll have the love of the people and we don't really have to deal with this, because reality is, it's all treasury and white house they're not going to do it? >> yes. and the unique thing about it, it's bipartisan pandering, so that's the difference. >> kudos to them. >> the other thing, though, that's interesting that you muched on in the beginning is the president's tepid response. that is a problem for this

administration. he's not showing leadership -- >> politically? >> -- politically on this issue. and that's a big problem. >> let's talk about cheating, shall we? i mean, a different kind of cheating. this show has had a very big cheating theme. this is a different kind of cheating, not the kind where you have an auction-based government, where those who raise the money win the seats and set the policy. this is an auction-based s.a.t. system in which those who can score the highest scores can sell off their test-taking ability in a system where those who score more poorly can pay them, get this, jimmy williams, as much as $2,500 for the highest test scores. look at this. we already spend more than anybody in the world on education. we have this whole prestige culture that has nothing to do with learning, and now we've gone straight to an auction for s.a.t. scores. actually, susan, you were saying you grew up where they do this, or did this exist when you were a young lass? >> not that i was aware of.

>> were you ever a young lass? >> was i -- >> i don't know, it's a nice thought. >> what is interesting, it's probably the parents that paid for this. >> but you don't know that. >> well, where are the kids getting $2,500? >> the paper route. >> but when you go to the competitiveness and the pressure that these kids are feeling -- >> on prestige, not learning. >> correct, right. >> dylan, back when i took the s.a.t. in 1984, 1983, that would not be bc, that would be ad, by the way. i remember some kid in one of the lower classes pulled the fil fire alarm. they made us take our tests outside and we had to sit under the pine trees with the mosquitos eating us alive and we had to keep taking the test. today they just cheat. >> they learned from the best. washington, d.c. sets the standard, so what do you want the kids to do? >> we were just old school, man. >> we need to get back to that.

d go ahead, karen. >> given that it's education nation, having worked in education, this has been an ongoing problem, not just with the s.a.t.s, but obviously with the larger debate around testing. and i think one of the changes that needs to happen when we talk about -- it's not just about trying to get into the prestige schools, but amount of pressure and decision making that is put on one test, rather than having more of a composite view of a student that says, let's look at what their course work grades were like, let's look at their s.a.t. scores, let's look at their extracurricular activities, and that's why sometimes the essay is a good factor, to give these folks in college admissions more of an opportunity to know more about the student rather than everything coming down to one test. i can tell you, i totally -- i did not do well on my s.a.t., and that tells you nothing about my level of intelligence, i am confident. >> i did very well on my s.a.t.s, and that, too, was misleading. no, i wanted you guys all to stay. jennifer granholm is joining, or

really, in her own way, joined a long time ago her own efforts to get america, the debate it deserves. straight ahead, piercing the veil of political gamesmanship with our specialist, jennifer granholm, and her husband, i might add, and what she calls a real plan to create jobs. i habe a cohd. yeah, i toog nyguil bud i'm stild stubbed up. [ male announcer ] truth is, nyquil doesn't un-stuff your nose. really? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus liquid gels fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your stuffy nose. [ deep breath ] thank you! that's the cold truth! ♪ thank you! like so many great pioneers before me, guided only by a dream. i'm embarking on a journey of epic proportion.

i will travel, from sea to shining sea, through amber waves of grain, and i won't stop until i've helped every driver in america save hundreds on car insurance. well i'm out of the parking lot. that's a good start. geico, fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent, or more on car insurance. show me the carfax. oh yeah, can you show me the carfax?

sunglass holder... for sunglasses. just show me the carfax. before you buy a used car, get a carfax vehicle history report. see accidents and service reported to carfax and a price based on the car's history. ask your dealer or go to carfax.com. just say, show me the carfax.

well, our mad as hell campaign is in full swing here on "the dr show" and across the web. it's an attempt to break down the wall of special interest money. we want to get debate on jobs, trade, the tax code, learning, health, investment. we never get to talk about real change in those things, because our politicians are afraid to lose the money they're getting

paid to not talk about it. former michigan governor jennifer granholm knows full well the consequences of avoiding those debates. detroit still reeling from the financial crisis of '08. and as the governor argues the political talking points, whether it's on lower taxes or deregulations and markets simply ant the answer. jennifer granholm and her husband dan mullhern are authors of a new book, "governor's story: the fight for jobs and america's future." last i saw you, we were talking about the need to focus on efficiency rather than the fuel source debate as one example of the debates that america deserves that it does not get. explain to me how it is that we can get to having the debates that we all want to engage in, from efficiency and learning that health and jobs. >> dylan, the reason why we wrote this the book is because michigan's experience, really, what's happening to the nation now has happened to michigan

over the past decade. everyone's scratching their heads about how to figure out how to create jobs in america in a global economy, private sector jobs when our economic competitors are aggressively competing out there. and we've got all this rhetoric about old solutions, hands off, trickle-down, small government, lower taxes. the reality is that other governments are actively intervening in the free market. there really is, as you pointed out before, no free market. and we need to get in the game. government needs to get in the game. so we wrote this book to document michigan's experience. it's all about the data. i cut taxes 99 times in my first term, we shrunk government more than any state in the country, cut the number of state employees by any state in the country by far. if you think those were the solutions, michigan would have the most robust economy in the nation. no, we still had the highest unemployment rate. what happened? in the end, we were able to partner with the federal

government and public/private partnerships to be able to cluster development around our strengths and michigan's unemployment rate dropped six times faster than the national average. we wanted to document the evidence of that. >> and the book is that body of evidence, which is the point that you're making. and i think it's a wonderful exercise, because you're a lab experiment, in a sense, with real government in real life having real policy and real data, which is your point. and i think it's magnificent. dan, if you were to look at the writing of this book and the prosecution of this argument, how do you prosecute the argument that you're arguing, which is the bogus debate of lower taxes and markets aren't going to do it without immediately getting into a boomerang effect, if that's not the answer, you must mean the government should do everything? how do you avoid that ping-pong effect and rhetoric where you indict one body of language, but don't necessarily mean to boomerang to what the perceived

opposite is at the time? >> the point, dylan, is this is an active government, it's not a big government. and we have to be very, very clear about that. it's playing a role, but the point is not about being large and being big and in charge. we don't need that and none of us thinks we need that. and democrats don't think we need that. we know we have to do some shrinkage. what we have to do, though, is see that we're playing in a very uneven field, where singapore, sweden, germany, korea, all of those governments are not saying, leave it alone, they're not saying things are just fine the way they are. instead, they're saying, we've got to fight to get jobs in our country. we don't have that kind of sense. you know, we have a sense that things are working. and what we experienced in michigan when my wife was leading is not different than what the country is facing. the fact is, we added a lot of jobs, dylan, in the last decade. american corporations added a lot of jobs. 2.9 million abroad, they cut 2.5 million here. so i think that the corporations are on their own going to take

care of us is just folderall. >> especially when we know that the corporations are buying access to the policy making on trade in order to ensure the perpetuation of rigged trade like we have in china. there's a reason that the get money out campaign here at the show has 50,000 signatures in two days, because people know the government's bought. go ahead, susan. >> good afternoon, governor. as an executive of the state, you had the opportunity to listen to businesses and hear what they needed to do to grow in your state. it just seems now that american businesses when they're talking to the president or his job task force or federal leaders, they're not listening. they come up with a tax holiday or temporary tax cuts and that's just not what's going to get business to create jobs in this country. so don't you think that our federal government needs to listen to businesses a little more carefully and perhaps in some cases, there is overregulation and sometimes maybe we do need a lower

corporate tax. >> and to that end, how do you navigate that nuance? we want markets, we want these things, but at the same time, there's a nuance in all of this, which really seems to be the point that you're making. >> well, the point is -- i was moderating a panel of multinational ceos earlier this year, and i said to them, what should be the role of government to create jobs in america? which country does it best? who's got the best formula? and they all, to a person, said the government of singapore. and i said, why, what is singapore doing that we're not doing. and they say, they partner with business. they listen to them, they streamline permitting. they have identified their strengths as a country. they go out and get foreign direct investment, they create clusters of businesses so their suppliers and their customers are near one another. they provide access to up-front capital. they have a long-term, comprehensive economic development strategy, which we don't have as a country. states are poaching from one another, every state has got an economic development strategy, but it's all about getting -- you know, beating another state, but that's not a great national

strategy. you're just moving the chairs around on the deck. if you talk to andrew leverus of dow, he will tell you that government cannot be passive in this climate, in this global economy, because other governments certainly are not. >> let me ask you -- >> the point -- >> go ahead. >> the point that was being made before i think is so important. that we do have to listen to business. one of the ideas in this book is a jobs race to the top, where we say to the states, listen to your businesses. you know, cut regulation where you can. and we'll feed money to those that are working. on the other hand, we need -- through competition. and let the states invent on their own, by listening to business, where they're close to it. on the other hand, we have to watch business. i think the president is right to say jobs should be tied to -- tax credits should be tied to job creation, not to just any cut in the costs for business. >> quickly, what do the two of you think about our effort to get the money out? >> love it. love it. but here's what i really love. i love the fact that you're trying to prevent corporations

alone from contributing, because that really skews it. i think you have to be a little bit careful on individuals -- >> no, no, we're on everything. we literally believe that money corrupts politicians. but, i'm sorry, finish your point. >> yeah, i was just going to say, i think we should cap the amount of small -- of contributions. make them small. but if you have no contributions, then only rich people will have access -- >> no, no, how's that? if you ban taking money, if i'm a rich person, i can't contribute to myself. >> oh, you're saying no -- so, well, how does somebody get the word out? just through the internet? >> i don't know, listen, i'm here as a caveman to say this system is corrupt and we need to get money out, and then i'm going to defer to people like yourselves to talk about how we're going to do this. congrats on the book, you guys. >> thank you so much, dylan. appreciate it. >> best of luck. >> thank you guys. "a governor's story." and again, whether it's the koch brothers buying ideas or political gamesmanship

preventing the debates we deserve on jobs, we all know private money's stranglehold on our process is clear. if you want to get it out, here's what you do. rich man, poor man, no man. you cannot buy a politician, people. think ncaa rules. you can't take medicine! if you want to get money out, go to getmoneyout.com right now and sign the petition. then e-mail, tweet, text, talk. however you do it, once you sign, make your goal to be get to one other engaged person to do the same thing so we can unleash the power of mathematical doubling. anyway, we'll talk about that later. if you believe in transparency, tonight is our very first internet-based, twitter-based thursday fight night. and we want an active, passionate debate on the language of this amendment. we'll invite folks like jennifer

beg granholm and others to join us on twitter. if you have questions, what about rich people, can't they pay for themselves? not with the language in this amendment, no, they can't. we'll be taking your questions about the campaign along with jimmy williams, go to dylanratigan.com or use the hashtag, right after the show, 25 minutes from now, our inaugural thursday fight night on the language of the amendment, get money out on twitter at 5:00. but next, one thing you can always say about the red sox, boston goes big. whether it's a shocking series comeback or choking after being up nine games at the end of the season. we don't usually do sports here on the show, but today we're making an exception, right after this. welcome to the team. here's your signing bonus.

better deposit that before you get hurt! [ echoing ] hurt! hey, wha-- [ camera clicks ] oh, state farm bank's pocket agent. it lets you deposit checks right from your phone. you just shoot, send, done! boom. give it up! [ male announcer ] another reason more people stay with state farm. get to a better state. ♪ [ dog barks ] [ birds chirping ] ♪ [ mechanical breathing ] [ engine turns over ] ♪

[ male announcer ] the all-new volkswagen passat. a new force in the midsize category. ♪ a new force in the midsize category. so i got my nephew i neto build a website., i hired someone to make my website... five months ago. we are building a website by ourselves. [ woman announcing ] there's an easier way. create your own small-business site... with intuit websites. just choose a style that suits your business, then customize, publish and get found... in three easy steps. [ bell dings ] sweet. [ announcer ] all from just $7.99 a month. get a 30-day free trial... at intuit.com.

well, we usually don't report sports scores here on "the dr show," in fact, tonight will be a first, but last night was the greatest night in american baseball history, if i

don't say so myself. and as we'll get to later, the boston red sox set a new record for failure. but first, the actual games. the boston red sox hanging on by a thread for the last month. we're tied with tampa bay rays for the american league wild card playoff spot. the red sox sitting pretty last night, on their way to a win in their game with the evil yankee empire, seven runs ahead of tampa nearby. a tampa loss with a red sox win, and the sox were off to the playoffs, even if they were blowing this past month. and even if the red sox blew that game, the fenway faithful knew that the evil yankees were up and as long as the yankees won, there was not going to be a problem. and so at worse, there would be a playoff game today. as this was happening over in the national league, atlanta was in desperate need of its own heimlich as they were choking. they had a big lead on the cardinals a month ago as the red sox were postured, but by last night, the atlanta braves were

down to even. st. louis won their game in a walk, so now the braves needed a win in order to force a one-game playoff. so in the ninth inning, at home, a 100-mile-per-hour closer. craig cremeball comes in to protect the braves' one-run lead, and yet he loads the bases. the game is tied and we're off to extra innings in the 13th. the phillies go ahead 4-3 as atlanta falls meekly in the bottom of the 13th, completing their crash out of the playoffs and sending the cardinals on to the post-season. meanwhile, back in the boston/yankees saga, in tampa, bottom of the eighth, the rays nuts against the scrubs of the yank's bull pen, putting up a sixth spot. the bats alive. boston at the time, already in a rain delay up in baltimore, with

a 3-2 lead in the seventh inning, watching the tampa game unfold. boston wasn't fretting. the yankees has a one-run lead even after the surge. and the best closer of all time, marianory vero, except the yankees had nothing to play for, because they were already in the playoffs. so they sent out corey wade, a man tampa had released earlier in the year. he gets the first two guys out, and then this. >> 2-2 again. johnson hits it down the right field line. that ball's going to be fair, and gone! >> so back in baltimore, two down, bottom of the ninth, two strikes, boston's jonathan giving up three straights hit. boston loses 4-3, and literally, 60 seconds later, south of the baltimore in tampa, in the bottom of the 7th, evan longoria

steps to the plate. >> a line shot down the left field line, that ball, it's gone! and the rays win it! >> that was the end of boston's season, ladies and gentlemen. joy in tampa, silence in boston, silence in atlanta, and tomorrow the baseball playoffs begin, which will be enough of dylan as your sports reporter. now a little bit of, well, myself as your analyst. for all the fireworks last night, it is the boston red sox who have already made history for one of the longest dry spells as a team without a world series, who achieved truly the greatest comeback in baseball playoff history in 2004. well, last night the red sox made history again, as the only team in baseball history to be nine games ahead on september 1st, only to lose so many games so fast that they didn't even make the playoffs. boston loves to go big or go home. well, last night, they went big and they went home.

we're back after this. (announcer) everything you need to stretch out on long trips. residence inn.

financial advise is everywhere. i mean everywhere. real objective investing help. that's a little harder to find. but, here's what i know... td ameritrade doesn't manage mutual funds. or underwrite stocks and bonds. or even publish their own research. so guidance from td ameritrade isn't about their priorities. it's about mine. it's about mine. it's about mine. straight forward guidance, that's what makes td ameritrade different.

her morning begins with arthritis pain. that's a coffee and two pills. the afternoon tour begins with more pain and more pills. the evening guests arrive. back to sore knees. back to more pills. the day is done but hang on... her doctor recommended aleve. just 2 pills can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is lara who chose 2 aleve and fewer pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. you can call it a silent war. while you may not hear about it every day, the drug violence occurring on the border between mexico and the united states is continuous and shocking. today, no exception with the gruesome discovery of five severed heads outside an elementary school, intended to scare teachers into paying half their wages to cartels.

our next guest says, like the drugs, the war is not only coming to america, it's already here, and it's much bigger than drug cartels. we're breaking it down with sylvia longmeyer, former senior intelligence analyst in drug trafficking in border violence for the state of california. she's author of "cartel: the coming invasion of mexico's drug wars." what is your -- what do you feel is the most important thing we have to understand? >> the most important thing americans need to know is that the drug war is not just limited to the border states. people who live in montana, rhode island, illinois, they believe the drug war might as well be in china, but it affects everyone in every state of the nation. >> how? >> because drugs are being pedaled on the streets in all of our communities. the last national drug intelligence report that just came out a couple of weeks ago says that the cartels are operating in 1,000 plus cities and communities.

they're working with u.s.-based gangs to distribute those drugs, and it's happening right under our noses. >> what if we legalize marijuana. what would be the percentage reduction in criminality and what have we created the drug issue as a public health issue as opposed to a criminal issue? >> it's hard to say, but because of the way that the drug cartels are evolving, experts believe that the income they're deriving from drug sales is now only 50% of all the income they make, because now they are resorting to kidnapping and ransom, extortion, even a petroleum theft, piracy of dvds, cds, and software. and of the 50% of their income comprised of drugs, some other experts say that maybe as little assist 25% of that is coming from the sale of marijuana. so it will have a short-term impact. however, they will still be making a lot of profits from the sale of methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin. >> and the other thing, and i think the most compelling point you're making is even if you took the drug trade away from the cartels, that they have achieved such a level of

organization and power that they are able to wield power a la these extortion schemes with the murders at the elementary school that have nothing to do with drugs. >> sure. the power balance has shifted so much in mexico in the last decade. you know, before 2000, the government actually, they were the ones that were in control. and if the drug cartels stepped out of line, the government could make some arrests and say, we're the ones in charge. but that has all shifted. and now the cartels are the ones that tell the government what to do. >> so what is the most intelligent way to engage this so we don't go off all yippy i yippie-ki-yay again, so we feel good about ourselves because we shot a bunch of people, but we didn't solve the problem. >> i think part of the problem is that both the u.s. and the mexican governments continue to regard the cartels as just criminals. they've involved beyond that. they're not pure insurgency or

terrorist groups, wbut they're hybrid. and until we start looking at them as evolved beyond just criminals, it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. our strategy to counter them and the mexican government's strategy to counter them is treating them like they're just criminal punks and they're much more sophisticated than that. >> and if you look at our counterinsurgency strategy, if we were using that, it seems like we would be blowing everybody in mexico to smi smithereens with drones and making matters worse. >> some people think that that is the answer, is send a bunch of special operations forces in there to clean house. but that's not practical to do that. not only that, but the mexican government and the mexican people don't want u.s. troops on the ground. the number of mexicans who would approve of that has definitely grown over the last few years, but we have a long, negative history with mexico and we're very, very careful about keeping u.s. troops out of there. >> all right. listen, congrats on the book,

sylvia. >> thank you. >> thank you. coming up on "hardball" -- there's the book. coming up, chris matthews digging into cain's peculiar comment that we've been brainwashed into voting for democrats. "hardball," coming up. we beliee that is better than today. since 1894, ameriprise financial has been working hard for their clients' futures. never taking a bailout. helping generations achieve dreams. buy homes. put their kids through college. retire how they want to. ameriprise. the strength of america's largest financial planning company. the heart of 10,000 advisors working with you, one-to-one. together, for your future. ♪ helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health.

well, we all know it. nothing injects stress into a relationship like money worries. so what do you do when one of you doesn't have financial security? in 2011, this has become the talk in the relationship world,

and our friend, noah cass, is here to tell us how to navigate it. you may remember him, you may think quite highly of him, you might not like him at all, i don't know, but i do. a clinical director of the realization center. he's a columnist for thestreet.com and has been writing consistently provocative pieces and this is the latest one. what are you -- what's your -- what are you teaching? >> you know this more than anyone, money is never just about money. what's it about? it's about ego. it's about power. it's about influence. young couples the deciding whether they want to take a trip down the aisle for the long run, for good. they got to think about the phrase, for richer or poorer. it means something. >> what does it mean again? >> it means, are you going to leave your man, are you going to leave your women when things get soft. if you're a two-income family, are you going to still be attracted to your husband, are you still going to be attracted to your wife when they lose their job? are you going to resent them? are you still going to be --

>> what if you are? >> yeah, be honest. >> because a lot of people, i think, might actually feel that way. >> be honest with yourself, and create some gender conversations and you get out of the relationship. if you've done all of those role probing as a young couple and come to the conclusion that you're in this for the long run, you've got to sit down with your spouse, your partner, who's about ready to maybe lose their job and have an open conversation and reveal the elephant in the room. >> which is? >> that he's about to be fired, she's about to be fired, and validate this as being rationale. look, smart men and smart women marry partners who make them feel safe. so validate them being being rationale and validate them as your love as being unconditional. you're naturally going to feel competitive with your spouse, if you both work, in similar environments. if you're both workers. but you can't let that competition define your relationship. my advice for partners is to

once you've moved past the point of posing questions internally, to remind your partner of how physically attracted you are to them. remind them about the mental characteristics, attributes that you find attractive. compliment them. you know, men, they pretend not to care about being complimented, but they do. sometimes even more than women. and explain to them that they're just not just a money maker. that they can be a father or a wife, a son, a daughter, a member of the community. and all those things you value. >> what if you married them because they're money makers? >> then you're screwed. you're screwed. and that's the problem. why do people marry them, because they're moneymakers. >> they want to feel safe. >> and they don't have those internal -- >> and they want to feel powerful. >> then they're going to get what they want. their lives will be dictated by the ebbs and flows of the economy, then. because that safety, as we see, can be ripped away in a second. >> which really goes to them seeking safety and power through

accumulating money is an idiotic thing to do. >> it's an idiotic thing to do -- >> in life. >> in the long run, it's a very satisfactory thing and it feels very run -- in the short run it's satisfactory, in the long run, it will kill you. it won't lead to long happiness. as i told you before, happiness is not for sale. i just came across this wonderful quote by a wonderful playwright and he says, money may be the husk of many things, but not the kernel. it brings you food, but not appetite. medicine, but not health. acquaintance, but not friends. servants, but not loyalty. days of joy, but not peace or happiness. i assume that's what we all want at the end of the day is peace and happiness. and your campaign to get money out of politics is no different than this campaign to really help people discuss money in a rationale way, so that we don't overvalue. >> money, ultimately, is a necessary thing, but it is a product of something else. you get money because you create

value. >> exactly. >> you get power because you illustrate achievement. >> right. and once as a couple we have the conversation, then it becomes no longer the bogeyman in the room. no more the elephant in the room. then we can move on to all those things that we love about being with someone. those, the passion, that physical attraction, the commonality. >> whatever it may be. >> all the things we really care about and that's fun. >> all right. wonderful. i feel better every time i see you. >> oh, not every -- >> no, i do. i'm sure one of these days, you haven't disappointed me yet. noah kass, you can check him out on the street. before we go, a get money out update, we are just now clicking through 59,000 after what will be today our third day of beginning this campaign. we have yet to organize or formalize, but, boy, the memo is there. i'm dylan ratigan, and "hardball's" up right now. >>no