good tuesday afternoon to you. i'm ari melber in once again for dylan ratigan, and the big story today is round 2 of the u.s. supreme court. today the court considered whether to strike down the heart of president obama's health care law, the insurance mandate. if you look up mandate in the dictionary, you'll see it's an a authoritative command, especially a formal order from an official. for health care, the question is whether the government can mandate that you buy health insurance. like any other law, the government must identify exactly how our constitution grants it authority to enact this mandate. congress and the president point to the commerce clause in the constitution. that has long provided authorit commerce. today the justices question whether the mandate is justified under the commerce power, and if it is, several justices wondered whether there is any limit on

what else congress can do with that power. the supreme court just released the full two hours of today's oral arguments. here's justice kennedy raising that very question. >> assume for the moment that this is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed. when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government and this we can stipulate is, i think, a unique way. do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the constitution? >> we think this is regulation of people's participation in the health care market, that congress has the authority under the congress power and the necessary proper power to make sure people have insurance in the advance of sales because of the unique case. >> we begin our coverage today with what will happen tomorrow, the third and final day of oral

arguments, with nbc justice correspondent piece williams. >> ari, it's impossible to know how the justices are going to write the final decision, where they will come down based on their oral argument today. however, i would say after two hours of argument on the key question of whether people can be required to buy insurance, the court is in a skeptical frame of mind. the four liberals, i think you can assume, will support it based on the comments and questions they had today. the four more conservative justices seemed to be very skeptical that congress had the power to do this. that leaves justice andrthony kennedy, who showed today he's not inclined to support the law. he said, don't you have a very heavy burden here when congress maybe for the first time doing something it's never done before, requiring everyone to buy something, in this case health insurance from a private vendor, would change the relationship of the federal government to the individual? and he had several other skeptical questions. now, the government has been

saying that it's not regulating the insurance market, it's requiring the entire health care system. and when the conservatives say, well, if congress can do that, can it do anything? the government's answer has been no, because the health care market is different. everybody has to get health care. there's really no other market like that, because even if you don't buy insurance, even if you can't afford health care, if you show up at the emergency room, the government is required to give you that care, and that's not true with buying food or a car or something else. so the government is saying the health care market is different. at the very end of the argument today, justice kennedy said, well, maybe there is something to that argument. maybe that is the health -- the health care market is different he said that's what concerns him. so i think he's sort of showing his -- the problem he has with it, but it did seem to indicate that he's open to that thought. i wouldn't say that you could conclude at the end of the argument that he supports the health care law, but that does give the administration hope.

one more day of argument on this tomorrow. two questions. if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, can the rest of the law survive? and then a challenge the states have brought to their additional medicaid requirements under the new health care law. so we'll get that tomorrow, ari. >> thank you, pete. now we're going to turn to another reporter who was inside the supreme court for today's oral arguments, mike sachs, a legal correspondent for the huffington post and a graduate of georgetown law school. hey, mark, thanks for being with us. >> happy to be here. >> you were in the room where they were queuing this up, which was a heavy burden. there are certain things that can trigger a closer scrutiny or heavier burden if congress tries to regulate based on race, the burden goes up. but generally if it's a normal piece of legislation, the burden is low. what did you make of that?

>> it's very interesting, because not since 1996 had the supreme court held a heavier burden of proof to congress to heavier regulations. if the court takes that step, and justice kennedy seemed to be the only one explicitly ponderring that step, that would take us back about 75 years at a time when the supreme court was valuable dati validating franklin roosevelt's reforms. >> another question that came up today was whether or not health insurance is a very special market. so for people who are casually listening, they're saying, well, is this how the court really figures it out? they need to decide what's special? this is really important. if you look, we have over 100 pages of the transcript here, and if you look at it, the word market was used way more than mandate on both sides. what did you see as really the key defining characteristic as a market, according to the justices who were talking today? >> well, it's uncontested that

the health care market is a nationwide market. if something is a nationwide market, congress has the right to regulate it. the issue before the justices today was whether they were going to consider health care as a market or insurance as a market. the challengers were putting forward the thought that if we look at the affordable characters regulating the insurance market, it's not an inevitable fact of life that everybody is going to purchase insurance. the government is arguing that because it's an inevitable fact of life that everyone will consume health care, even the people who don't have health insurance can be reached by the affordable health care acts individual mandate, because by failing to purchase insurance, they're shifting costs to another health care market. if the courts look, as the challenger suggested, looks at the market here impacted by the health insurance market, that whole justification that the government has that obliterates an active, active distinction

that the act is putting forward, it just -- the mandate will fall. >> judge scalea is saying if this is how we define a market that you proity then there's the marketburial s. at one point justice roberts saying, would there be a similar market with food because we all have to eat? is that one area where the critics of the law are doing well? >> it hasn't been a good place for critics of the law, because you can distinguish the buying broccoli argument because you don't have to eat broccoli in order to preserve in the food market, if you will. and you don't have to buy a cell phone to participate in the emergency services market which chief justice roberts put forward today as one of those markets. they said that's not a market, it never has been, so that doesn't fall under the clause. what about burial services?

is that a market? and they had to say it is a market, and then alito pretty much pinned him to the wall saying, what is the difference between burial services or health care? if you don't have burial service, you'll shift it to the people who do have it. so they kept shifting the arguments to the people he didn't really agree with. >> it goes back to before this case, but everybody knows death and taxes are inevitable. if they would have called this whole thing an inevitable tax, they might have had an easier time in the jurisprudence. we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. we get our take on the spin game as we continue our support coverage. we're also seeing an all-time low in public support for the afghanistan war. we're going to ask once again, what are we doing there? and finally, we're going to look at hiring our heroes. veterans who return from the

wars facing a new mission, finding a job. we're going to talk to two interesting people who are leading that fight. it's all coming up next on the dylan ratigan show. yeah, do you have anything for a headache... like excedrin, ohhh, bayer aspirin... ohh, no no no. i'm not having a heart attack, it's my head. no, bayer advanced aspirin, this is made for pain. [ male announcer ] bayer advanced aspirin has microparticles, enters the bloodstream fast, and safely rushes extra strength relief to the sight of your tough pain. feel better? yeah...thanks for the tip! [ male announcer ] for fast powerful pain relief, use bayer advanced aspirin. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, where the costs to both repair your home and replace your possessions are covered. and we don't just cut a check for the depreciated value -- we can actually replace your stuff

with an exact or near match. plus, if your home is unfit to live in after an incident, we pay for you to stay somewhere else while it's being repaired. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance. because you never know what lies around the corner. to get a free quote, call... visit a local office, or go to libertymutual.com today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? not in this economy. we also have zero free time, and my dad moving in. so we went to fidelity. we looked at our family's goals and some ways to help us get there. they helped me fix my economy, the one in my house. now they're managing my investments for me. and with fidelity, getting back on track was easier than i thought. call or come in today to take control of your personal economy.

get one-on-one help from america's retirement leader.

the republicans were fathers of the original mandate, now suddenly they want to give it up for adoption on the steps of the supreme court. >> this is the second time a legislation has been passed during the time i've been in congress. >> if we can regulate the health care market, then we can't pick and choose in the future what congress can and can't regulate. it an open door, a pandora's box, a slippery slope. >> a pandora's box. that's the warning from critics

who want them to rein in the supreme court today. protestors also gathered in front of the court. they argued that if congress has any power at all, surely it includes regulating the impact of health and happiness of most americans. we haven't even gotten to the politics yet. we bring in several informed politicos for our mega panel. susan, i want to start with you. some of your republican colleagues are already crowing that they think justice kennedy is going to sign on to a severe limiting of congress's ability to step in and regulate national economic problems. do you agree with their optimism? >> i don't think anyone is in a position to decide what's going on in the justice's mind at all, even though he asked a question that could be perceived as he would be leaning in that direction. but the justices all have to make their decisions, and it will not be something that as

much as us politicos, as much as we want to think we know what they'll do, don't know where they stand. >> but if they said -- >> there's no question, if it goes down, they get a win. if it's upheld, he gets a win. >> we're hearing predictions of a republican win. is it a clean win if they knock down the whole bill, the mandate, the whole shebang? is that a win? >> we've had two arguments today, we'll have another one tomorrow. yesterday's was sort of irrelevant, if you will. i think all the justices agree whether this is a tax or not is a moot point. today it gave us an indication of where the justices may or may not come down on that. tomorrow to me is the biggest day because of the issue of s

seg segrability. to susan owe point, something very important is going to happen after these three days of argument. the justices will go to their chambers. they will vote later this week. whichever side comes out on the majority, they will sign that opinion, and then back and forth and back and forth will be drafted written opinions by these justices. during that time, any justice can change his or her mind. we don't have a clue what's going to happen, even from their indications and their questions today. so at this point, what do we know? absolutely nothing other than we have a very highly skeptical court. >> well, knowing that we know nothing is always a step in the process. i will say, going to karen finney here, one of the things we've learned about supreme court arguments is that often the justice is asked questions the way that a father who is meeting his girlfriend's boyfriend for the first time will approach it. you can't say, oh, he's got to hate the boyfriend because he's

pushing him, they are in the business of pushing. so just as justice kennedy may be pushing a weak argument that he's about to support. is this all going to come tumbling down for the democrats? >> here's what i would say politically is really the thing to think about all this. on the one hand there is the court case, what they decide, but then there's also this sort of practical reality. you have millions of americans who are already being impacted by this legislation. so that's part of why i think you see both sides feeling fairly confident that regardless of what actually the outcome is, there are political advantages and disadvantages, frankly, for both sides. if i'm the obama administration, i can make the case 86 million seniors have already seen their costs come down. 2.5 million young people between the ages of 25 and 27 have health insurance because of the affordable care act. so again, there becomes this sort of practical question that you can pose that says, okay. what are you going to do about all these people?

so i think the politics of this are slightly different than the sort of reading of the tea leaves that everyone is trying to engage in with regard to the justices. >> karen, those are good facts. i think you're trying to point out this is one of those areas where it's not symbolic politics. it will have a big impact on how they act is what the court does. according to the latest "new york times" and cbs poll, you've probably seen this. it's a big change. 69% of americans now say they're against the war in afghanistan. that is a big drop in support from four months ago when just about half the country said the u.s. should no longer be there. what are we doing there, jimmy williams? >> not a lot, obviously. and i think that war is never easy, as i've said before. you know when you win is when the other side gives up. i think that what we absolutely

understand and the generals and the troops on the ground get is that the other side is not giving up. they're not going to give up. they didn't give up for the russians, they didn't give up for anybody else and they're not going to give up with us. you cut your losses, you get out of there, and in my opinion you do it far more quickly than the 2014 deadline, and that's my opinion. however, i think most americans would agree this is not a winnable war, per se. we defeated al-qaeda. get out. >> susan? >> going to it's not a winnable war, we still don't know what we're doing there now, and that's a big problem. now we're seeing the stresses of war, whether it's the shooting of civilians, whether it's the green zone. there's a lot of other things that are happening that americans are becoming much more aware of right now. so not knowing why we're there and seeing what's happening now in the news is definitely turning the tide. as much as we want to get out there quickly, there is still a plan we have to follow to do it

responsibly. >> so like susan and jimmy, some agreement there, and i want to ask karen, is there any concept, is there any goal at this point that could salvage this mission in the minds of the american public? >> probably not. because part of the problem that i think we have at this point is anything we're trying to accomplish -- i've said this a few times before -- we now have to factor into that for protection which again shifts the nature of the mission. you have to ask yourself, are we able to accomplish what it is we're trying to accomplish and is that in jeopardy? i think most americans are ready to get out. i think they would accept some version of limited activity in the region, perhaps relying more on intelligence, relying more on sort of other capabilities rather than having boots on the ground. >> right. while we have that debate in the political context, i want to look at another angle. we are going to bring back our panel in a moment. but first, this is part of nbc's hiring our heroes series. we're going to talk to a group

of vets that are storming the hill this week. more than 100 members of the iraq and afghanistan vets of america are on capitol hill today. their mission is to meet with lawmakers and advocate consensus about issues facing the returning troops on employment, education and, of course, mental health services. they're also highlighting some alarming statistics about many of the day-to-day challenges that are facing our veterans. with us now, tom tarantino, deputy policy director for the v. a., and tom hill. what are your messages you're trying to impart to these members on the hill? >> this week we're talking about jobs. jobs still the number one issue facing our membership and facing veterans in iraq and afghanistan. last year iva fought to help veterans leaving the service and getting into the work force, and thankfully congress answered

with the hire the heroes act which is going to inventivize hiring. we want to make sure the schools they go to and the programs they go to using the gi benefits they fought to hard to earn are not being used on programs that fra frankly cost too much and don't give vets the jobs they need. >> you talked about the high unemployment rate of veterans than non-veterans. why is that? >> this is a bunch of people who have never served in the military. not getting degrees from educational institutions that frankly aren't providing the bang for the dollars we're giving them in terms of educational benefits. we are very concerned that veterans are going to some of these institutions that are sometimes called for-profit schools and they are getting degrees that do not lead to jobs, and while they're getting those degrees, they're incurring a lot of debt and they're basically burning their benefits

and they're not getting the career-ready training they need. >> that's an important issue, i think, for all young students, if i canni particularly when they make promises they don't keep. what are you doing in the political arena, to some degree? >> i served two deployments to iraq as amarine, and when i returned home, i had difficulty getting a job as a security guard for minimum wage. it was kind of odd, which led me to eventually put the g.i. bill to use. now through the g.i. bill, i'm a student at university of california berkeley. >> let's slow down on that for a second, though. when you were looking for a security guard job, do you feel that being out of the country, being away, doing the service you did, interrupted your ability to get the job? did you feel any direct animus or feelings around that, that people didn't give you any extra

kind of hearing? obviously you were doing something most americans would say is a good thing, so what was the problem? >> i think a large part of the problem was translating military skills to civilian terms. to be able to take things and say, you know, i was an infantry team leader or i did this and i did this, and to be able to put it on a resume so people who have never been there can understand was a little difficult. in addition, i suffered pretty severe ptsd. and i was very reluctant to get the help that i needed because i feared that, you know, getting help for that sort of thing or having it on my record may limit my employment prospects in the future. >> all right. thank you for sharing that issue in mental health services as well as the job issue. they're important topics here on the dylan ratigan show, so we thank you both for sharing your views with us. >> thank you. up next, washington finally tackles insider trading on capitol hill. that's exciting news if you trust self-regulation. and we will be covering the big event that has eliot

spitzer, our own karen finney and our specialist in washington all fired up. ♪ i can change the world ♪ i will be the sunlight in your universe ♪ rs. we processed on a given day about a million pieces of mail. checks, newspapers, bills. a lot of people get their medications only through the mail. small businesses depend on this processing plant. they want to shut down 3000 post offices, cut 100,000 jobs. they're gonna be putting people out of work everywhere. the american people depend on the postal service. [ male announcer ] want your weeds to hit the road? hit 'em, with roundup extended control. one application kills weeds, and stops new ones for up to four months. roundup extended control. splenda® essentials™ no calorie sweetener

with b vitamins, the first and only one to help support a healthy metabolism. three smart ways to sweeten. same great taste. splenda® essentials™. on december 21st, polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space, which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd and you still need to retire, td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life. we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans? is the pain reliever orthopedic doctors recommend most for arthritis pain, think again. and take aleve. it's the one doctors recommend most for arthritis pain. two pills can last all day. ♪

right now the president is heading back from south korea and there is some work on his desk for when he arrives. congress passed legislation to ban insider trading on capitol hill, the stock act, and it is just waiting for the president's signature. dylanke and before removiprovid it, they removed some of its toughest provisions. they would profit by any non-public information they get at work. now, why do we have to wait for the year 2012 to ban insider trading by our own public servants? it's not like anyone was ever for insider trading, but

nowadays there is so much discussed with washington, it seems congress felt some pressure to do something for ethics reforms. better late than never, sure. but does this mean actability is catching on? tonight in the nation, some leading voices on this nation. accountability are gathering in the nation's capital. in fact, our own dylan ratigan was supposed to moderate the panel, but our own karen finney is stepping in to lead the discussion. our specialist who joins us right now, heather mcgee, the office director. hi, heather. >> hi. >> we have quite the panel tonight, and that should be exciting. the whole premise for you is the whole discussion. does something like the stock act and the level of anger in washington suggest we might have

a gallvanization for reforms? >> when something sails through congress, you have to wonder, is it ruffling enough feathers? the real way congress cashes in on their assets is when they leave office. the last ten years, we know that 45 members of congress and their staff, every single one have become lobbyists. that's how you cash in on the legislation and connections you have in washington. it's not about $10,000 on insider trading, it's about being paid by companies to rig the rules in your favor. that's really the issue. >> the last time there was a proposal for a five-year ban on revolving doors, you had members on the floor saying, what am i going to do for work? they were pretty candid. their job isn't to think about what they're going to do for

work, it's what we're going to do for work. >> i think the stock act was started with good intentioned, but it really came to life because of a scathing investigation that really highlighted the problems that existed in congress. i'm just wondering, if you could have an issue highlighted in such a way that should shed light on something, what other issues do you think we need to address whether it's in congress or in the financial markets or somewhere would you like to see investigated? >> you know, it's so funny, because this issue of scandals, it's sort of strange. the most powerful thing i think that congress could do to clean up washington, restore some a accountability, would be to clean up the in of contributions. people are numb to the fact that every day, $300,000 checks are trading hands. they did their budget and said

if we're really going to invest in jobs and things for the middle class, we don't really trust congress to be able to do it unless we enact private funding for the units. i don't know if a single scandal is going to make anyone any more upset with the way congress does business. >> jimmy williams talks about that issue so much, people say he's boring at dinner parties. he's like a one-note party. jimmy, what do you say? >> i am boring at dinner parties. look, i think -- we've been talking about this for what, now, almost two years. what i would like to see, and heather, you can comment on this, please, is us passing the constitutional amendment saying money is not speech. let's get money out of politics and let's let politicians actually focus on something remarkably interesting: policy. what does a good member of congress do with about 75% of their day? they dial for dollars.

what do they do about 25% of their day? they're ledgislating for the sae people they dialed for dollars for. should we go down this path? >> absolutely. we need to change the constitution of this court or we need to change the constitution. i'm glad you didn't say the constitution was for people because that would take us back to the pre-citizen days. it's not like our congress was really delivering for 99% of our country before then. it really has to go back to this idea that money is speech because in the end it actually is wealthy individuals. they may be ceos, but it's wealthy individuals who are giving the lion's share of this money and are really destroying our policy through congress. >> karen, you're playing dylan tonight as i played dylan today, but where do you come down on all this? >> i'm hoping in the conversation tonight, what we can get to is this question of accountability, how to be more concretely accountable, but

also, you know, i always think, and sometimes dylan doesn't like my hope narrative, as he calls it, but i also think it's really important that we point out that, sure, the stock act as it was passed is not what we wanted, but i think it's impressive that grassroots activity has actually pushed and gotten a lot of things done over the course of the last year. look at occupy wall street. it scared people in washington, and that's a good thing. they only change when they're scared to death. i think that's part of why jimmy talked about a scandal. i want to also -- i hope we also get to talk about some of the work that these guys are doing, that heather is doing, because i think it's important that people have some hope examiand real oi can actually change things but we have to be engaged in the process to do it. >> that's sort of our super half-life debate of society we

have. you have the cokoni video, and people hate the koni video. and you have the stock bill and people say it's not good enough so hopefully we'll just hang it up. all across the country, for those interested, i want to make sure you know you can watch this whole event with heather and karen finney as moderator live on line. the information for the event is at blueprint f blueprintforaccountability.org. we wish all of you luck tonight. now, speaking of accountability, some video just in to us here at msnbc, the muppets storming goldman sachs. >> hold on just one second. what is the meaning of this? >> how did he get in here? >> the door. >> and the elevator. >> yes, we used both the door and the elevator, but the time for silly questions is over.

>> security! ♪ when your chain of supply goes from here to shanghai, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ chips from here, boards from there track it all through the air, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ clearing customs like that hurry up no time flat

that's logistics. ♪ ♪ all new technology ups brings to me, that's logistics. ♪ chocolate lemonade ? susie's lemonade... the movie. or... we make it pink ! with these 4g lte tablets, you can do business at lightning-fast speeds. we'll take all the strawberries, dave. you got it, kid. we have a winner. we're definitely gonna need another one. small businesses that want to grow use 4g lte technology from verizon. i wonder how she does it. that's why she's the boss. because the small business with the best technology rules. contact the verizon center for customers with disabilities at 1-800-974-6006. so i test... a lot. do you test with this? freestyle lite test strips? i don't see... beep! wow! that didn't take much blood. yeah, and the unique zipwik tab targets the blood and pulls it in. so easy. yep. freestyle lite needs just a third the blood

of onetouch ultra. really? so testing is one less thing i have to worry about today. great. call or click today and get strips and a meter free. test easy.

a significant development to tell you about this afternoon. recently there were some pretty serious attacks leveled against an american treasure: the muppets. it all started with that famous op-ed by greg smith, a goldman sachs employee who finished with that scorching resignation letter right in the middle of the "new york times." smith alleged that clients were referred to as muppets. the implication was clear, being a muppet was a bad thing. the muppets are fighting back with this video from allegedly inside the boardroom. >> we'd like to lodge a formal complaint about gold mman sachs use of the word muppet in a derogatory fashion. >> we're not going to take it anymore. >> yeah. >> do you think you guys can come in here and intimidate us?

i've got suits made out of things like you. >> sure we call our clients muppets. and sure, we advise them against their own best interest to make us richer. but does that make us bad guys? >> yes. yes, it does. >> we also do a lot of good. we pay taxes. kind of. i passed a bum in the street today and didn't kick him. >> i own a yacht! >> how is that doing good? >> it doesn't, it just feels to good to say it. all together now -- i own a yacht! >> why are you so greedy? >> i don't know. why are you so hairy? >> touche. >> either way, here is a cease and desist letter. stop the consequences. >> these are the consequences. i'm the one with the car. you will be hearing from our

lawyers. let's go, boys. >> grrr. >> hey, i'm sorry, but do you guys validate? >> hey, kid. do you want a >> one thing is clear. you do not want to be on the wrong side of the muppets. now, we will keep an eye on this important story. coming up, hot spotting crime. the daughter of one of chicago's fearest gang leaders takes on crime in a documentary that's sweeping the nation. that's up next. nouncer ] the next generation of lexus cannot be contained. [ clang ] the all-new 2013 lexus gs. there's no going back. see your lexus dealer.

battle speech right? may i? capital one is issuing a venture double miles challenge. show us how much you spent last year and we'll give you 2 miles for every dollar spent on your travel reward card. up to 100,000 miles! hawaii, here we come. claim your miles at capitalone.com today! what's in your wallet? can you play games on that? not on the runway. no.

you're probably muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® for powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin® because it starts working faster on the first day you take it. zyrtec®. love the air. my high school science teacher made me what i am today. our science teacher helped us build it. ♪ now i'm a geologist at chevron, and i get to help science teachers. it has four servo motors and a wireless microcontroller. over the last three years we've put nearly 100 million dollars into american education. that's thousands of kids learning to love science. ♪

isn't that cool? and that's pretty cool. ♪ i need everybody from the ages of 13 to 24 to stand up. i'm the second oldest daughter to jeff ford, the ones they call the elite chief, and i'm fed up. because each and every one of you all right here, your my brothers. we got a responsibility to bring up a community to be vibrant. whatever it is that's going on, cease the fire, call the troops. >> that was our next guest speaking at the funeral of a young black high school student who was beaten to death in

chicago. as we've learned from past guests like former new york city police commissioner bill bratten, hot spotting or community based approaches to problem solving can be a key tool in combatting crime. a group known as the violence interrupters are doing just that. they liken the spread of crime to that of infectious diseases, and their prescribed method of treatment is to go after the most infected and stop the bleeding at its source by physically interrupting conflicts before they escalate. the group is the subject of the critically acclaimed documentary "the interrupters" which has aired on pbs and in theaters across the country. with us now is steve james, one of the filmmakers and anita matthews, one of the violence interrupters profiled in the film. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having us. >> alina, let me start with you.

how do you go after these people? >> the first thing is we have to stop that conflict before it turns into a homicide, so we have -- the public health model to me is so rural that i think of the antibiotic that i troubleshoot that infectious what may be a conflict or crisis and get in and stop it. >> steve, a lot of people obviously have been talking about the trayvon martin case. we've covered it. we're not going to go in depth on that in in sthis segment, bu is one of those times where many people in the country are looking up and asking questions about race in our criminal justice system, race in our school system, but these are issues you've been following for a long time. what made you go in and want to try to bring this story to a wider audience, and what, if

anything, do you think you all are achieving with the media side of it? >> well, i think for myself and my partner on the film, alex cutlowitz, we felt like urban violence is one that's been around us for decades, and of late, people seem to have kind of decided, well, we've done all we can do with it and people in those communities just do what they do. i think we felt like now would be a good time to try in our own way to refocus attention on this issue because it hasn't ghana way. i mean, murders are down since their height in the early '90s when the crack epidemic was everywhere, but they're still way, way unacceptably high, so when when we saw the work that cease fire was doing, and the interrupters like ameena, we felt these people that were active doing important work on the ground day in and day out, we felt if we could show the work that they do, maybe it

would really move peopleople's on some change. >> you talk about opening people's eyes, i want to show you a video of people that have a lot of attention on this themselves, jay-z and kanye west. at one point kanye west says, it's time for us to stop and redefine black power 41 souls murdered in fifty hours, referencing a shooting spree in chicago that left 41 people shot in two days. do you think, ameena, there is a benefit having stars like this in the media talking about redefining black power in this way? >> absolutely, i do. and the second part to that is action. you know, we can sing a song, we can talk about it over dinner, and, you know, by the time we

scrape our plates and the song is over with, we're on to our own normal life. what we have to do is we have to create action to it. this is unacceptable for our -- you know, the black-on-black crime raid as far as our young black men and women are killing each other in magnitudes. songs that jay-z and kanye did is wonderful but it's not effective if there's not action behind it. they come outside the studios with myself and other interrupters and other organizations and come out and do exactly what needs to be done, which is move, a movement. bring attention to what's going on. >> let's take a look at another clip from the movie talking about action, some of the action you were taking speaking to young people about where the desire or the necessity to engage in violence or physical violence comes from. we'll take a look now.

>> who likes to fight? >> i don't like to fight but i'll fight if i have to. >> i'll fight. i'll fight anybody. >> why are you so angry? why do you like to fight? >> because it's skbrjust the wa was brought up. i always had to fight. >> ameena, walk us through what you do after you solicit that kind of input. >> well, you know, i stay in their ear. they stay in my ear. they're in my heart, and i would hope to think that i'm in their heart, that i can get them to understand once we start that conversation and for them to understand that i really understand that you may not like to fight but you do, i may not like to do the things that i do, but, you know, it's kill or be killed out here. ameena, what is it that you suggest? i listen to them, and i get them to understand that i once was them and how i changed that

thought pattern of kill or be killed. >> and steve, last question. did you see in your work on the ground anything that surprised you? you went into this with a goal and a narrative in mind, but did you learn anything that you didn't expect to learn? >> we learned lots of things we didn't expect. i mean, i think we expected, number one, to be a really tough movie to make because of the subject matter, and it was in a way, absolutely. but, you know, the thing that really stuck with us was not only the heroism and the incredible insight that ameena and other interrupters we followed bring to the work that they do, but that these are communities that have not given up. i think we have this tendency if you don't live in those communities think they must have given up by now because of what they're up against. not just the violence, but poverty, poor education, all these issues. we found communities where

people have not given up. they're angry, they want change and they're trying to do something about it with help from people like ameena. >> i see ameena shaking her head yes. i'll give you the last word here. >> well, you know, we have to come together, and steve said it so, so, so real that we haven't given up in englewood, we haven't given up in roseland, we haven't given up in the ghetto in the united states and the nation. we have to come together and educate ourselves about what it is we want, what it is we need and how we should get it, so there won't be another life that's lost. >> ameena matthews and steve james, thank you for sharing your work with us and telling us what we have to do beyond just learning about it. coming up on "hardball," it will be day two of the supreme court's historic debate on health care. could they find the original

mandate unconstitutional? first, health care and "the hunger games" here on the dylan ratigan show. the daily rant is still ahead. to roll over my old 401(k) into a fidelity ira. man: okay, no problem. it's easy to get started; i can help you with the paperwork. um...this green line just appeared on my floor. yeah, that's fidelity helping you reach your financial goals. could you hold on a second? it's your money. roll over your old 401(k) into a fidelity ira and take control of your personal economy. this is going to be helpful. call or come in today. fidelity investments. turn here.

a little bird told me about a band... ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band.

there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪

"hunger games" dominated the box office this weekend, but is it similar to the big debate dominating washington? here is david with his daily rant. >> thanks, ari. last weekend, along with millions of other americans, i went with my kids to see "the hunger games." both of my sons devoured the book series, and i thought my younger son, ari, would literally levitate off the

ground, he was so excited to see the hmovie. i was bracing for two hours of teenage schlock, but goit to admit, that was a downright good movie. it's about post-apocalyptic where they have to send students to a survival game where only one of them will emerge alive, a fight to the death designed by the people in power. look more closely and you'll see a commentary on our own country. the people in the movie's capitol district are wealthy, pampered, living a life of luxury. the people in the outlying districts who must send their children to die are poor, starving, destitute, living in primitive conditions. it's the 99% and the 1%. now, this week with the memory of "the hunger games" fresh in my mind, i'm watching the supreme court hear three days of oral arguments on the

constitutionality of the affordable care act. whether or not you agree with it, this health care reform act is the biggest thing to try to gainey quality between the have and have nots in our state. should the destitute and poor suffer and die because they cannot afford health insurance? or should we as a nation act to ensure that everyone has affordable health care, and, therefore, long and healthier lives? should we tolerate a country in which children die because the people in power perpetuate a system that excludes them? where insurance companies can deny coverage to a child with a preexisting condition? or do we set up rules of the road where we all buy insurance so everyone has a chance at life and costs are shared in a rat n rational way. as a democrat, i would love to claim that my party came up with a brilliant idea for everyone to buy into health insurance in order to achieve national

coverage. but i can't. it was think tanks like the heritage foundation who came up with this, and republican mitt romney was the first guy who put it into action in massachusetts and it's working. but now that a democratic congress and president have made it law, it's the republican party that's turning against their own idea and calling for its undoing. perhaps the prospect of the closing of the income disparity gap in this country was too much for them to bear. i suggest they and you go to see "the hunger games" and reflect on what kind of america you want to live in. ari? >> david, we love having you there from the capitol district. real quick in your analogy, then, who is catness in the health care fight? >> catness is the uninsured, ari, fighting for survival. >> all right. we'll have to find some extra arrows. up next, chris matthews has a great show tonight.