important distinction between the various conservative arguments for gay marriage and seems to suggest not all are valid. he accepts the more libertarian impulses for defending gay marriage, that the government shouldn't be involved in our private lives, the overtly conservative belief that marriage is a stabilizing and productive social construct that should be encouraged is one she rejects outright. she writes "in the interest of expediency and bringing as many unlikely conservative allies on board, the gay rights movement may give cover to or even amplify a set of narrow values that rank married families as better than unmarried families, two parents as better than one parent, norms that continue to divide america into good people and deserving families versus everyone else." of course, it seems counterintuitive a group demanding marriage rights for so long would have some making the case that marriage either isn't the end game at all, or isn't an institution they even privilege. as a conservative who has long defended gay rights, this is where we may have a problem. while i also make the

libertarian limited government argument, i also deeply believe that defending gay marriage is defending marriage, itself. as an institution that creates economic stability, decreased reliance on the state, and provides a better environment for children than single parenthood. economic data support this belief. the assertion, then, that in defending gay marriage, conservatives are yet again foisting their norms on the rest of the country begs the question, why do so many gay people, gay coupleses want to get married in the first place? if her project is to move the country not toward inclusive marriage rights, but beyond marriage altogether, i'm one gay right s advocate willing to sa i'm not with you. i know sally to be masmart and thoughtful. she writes she is genuinely thrilled more and more republicans are coming out to support marriage equality. as such, i appreciate her upfront honesty about her ultimate cause. while i believe hers is an outlier viewpoint, it's one

republicans should nonetheless be aware of as they decide to fight alongside her for marriage equality. okay. that does it for "the cycle." karen finney is in once again your martin. thanks, guys. good afternoon. i'm karen finney in for martin bashir on tuesday march the 26th. a day when the equal rights of every american hangs in the balance. >> u.s. supreme court hears a landmark case today that could drastically change how the government handles the controversial issue of same-sex marriage. >> a water shed moment at the united states supreme court. history being made as we speak. >> there are no second-class marriages in america. >> or if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. >> marriage is between one man and one woman. >> marriage is between one man and one woman. >> more than 30 states either by statute or constitutional amendment have defined marriage as being between a man and a

woman. >> marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman. >> i believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. >> marriage, itself, is a relationship between a man and a woman. >> it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that i think same-sex couples should be able to get married. it's a landmark day at the supreme court, as justices heard the first of two cases that determine the definition and meaning of marriage and the extension of equal rights for same-sex couples. advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage gathered at the court, some waiting for days to make their voices heard. the case before the court today, california's proposition 8. the state measure was passed by voters in 2008 denying same-sex couples the right to marry. plaintiffs challenging the law as a violation to equal

protection under the law came out of the court today sounding heartened by what they heard. >> remarkable thing that happened in there was that there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay and lesbian marriage. when we are now down simply to the question of how do you establish marriage equality, i think you can see how far we've come. >> while we won't get a decision from the high court until late june, did the questions asked by the justices provide a sense of which way they may ultimately decide this case? they were tough and challenging. the rationale for california's ban on same-sex couples getting hitched. >> outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in

denying homosexuals benefits? >> your honor, i cannot. >> widely seen as the swing vote on the court, justice anthony kennedy expressed concern about prop 8's impact on families. >> there are some 40,000 children in california, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think? >> that being said, the justices also sounded reluctant about making a sweeping ruling on same-sex marriage nationwide rather than focusing narrowly on california. >> the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the soeslogical evidence you cite, for us to go into unchartered waters.

>> you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the internet? >> at question was also whether or not the two couples who are the plaintiffs in this case even had the standing to bring the case before the court. all of which may signal a lack of desire for a broad decision. or not. to help us sort it all out, we're joined by john harwood, cnbc chief washington correspondent and political writer for "the new york times," and he's with us from the stairs of the court. john, you wrote a piece about the astonishing changes we've seen on this issue and you were there when the oral arguments ended today. that was the mood as both sides came out of the court? >> reporter: karen, first of all, it's great to see you in the chair. >> thanks. >> reporter: second of all, what i would say is the people defending the traditional notion of marriage understand they're on the losing side of this argument in historic terms, but i believe what they're counting on is the inherent conservatism

and caution of the court to say, not yet, not now. either do a very circumscribe ruling or not get to it. people on the other side, advocating marriage equality, they understand there's a tremendous wave of momentum on their side. public opinion has switched remarkably just in the last several years. i think those conflicting moods were in evidence when they came out. >> now, reading the tea leaves is always hazardous. let's remember last year when we had the arguments, oral arguments for the affordable care act. >> reporter: they were going to strike that down, weren't they? >> and the solicitor general was going to be fired. but you know what, this is what we do, so drawing conjecture from today's arguments, the consensus seems to be that the justices are not showing an inclination for a broader decision on same-sex marriage. was that your read? >> reporter: that seems right, and you certainly had the statement from justice alito

about how this is so new and how can we make a decision on something where the fact basis is so short and truncated for us? and i, so i think most people expect a ruling on the narrower side rather than a broad side. but i don't think anybody can be surprised given the pace of change, given the united states senators we see turning around, given the way the president, both in his campaign, in his inaugural, changed on this issue re terr rhetorically and stant ub stant. barney frank. he said, my continued attraction to men is more politically acceptable than my attraction to government. >> he's probably right. >> reporter: exactly. that tells you how tea leaves are changing. who knows. they could change here. i think that's not the general expectation in a dramatic way.

>> john harwood, thank you so much. with me here in new york, congressman charlie rangel. congressman, thank you so much for joining me. >> good being here. >> congressman, one of the things that strikes me is the dramat dramatic shift as john was talking about in public opinion on this issue, particularly with young voters under 30 who see this as a civil rights issue. i wanted to get your thoughts on that in that broader context of this being seen as the civil rights issue of our time in some ways. >> sometimes ignorance has a lot to do with people forming their opinion. and the statement that's attached to something, everyone wants to be liked. but when they turn around after making an argument against same-sex marriage and people of the same sex falling in love, then they go home and their child who they love so much

common sense changes your judgment. this is one of those things a lot of people are saying there are so many people that inadvertently -- >> it seems like it's one of

those cases where perhaps the beam helped the members of congress or politicians to the right answer. >> got there a little bit before. >> if people can only understand. >> how many people who are so critical about it that know the name of their representative, or cares enough to vote for, against, or even to call up and complain. this is one case that those advocates of same-sex marriage really had their voices heard. >> absolutely. >> it used to be courageous to do it. >> it's mainstream. >> the lawyer advocating for proposition 8 faced skepticism on his argument, allowing same-sex couples to marry would sever marriage from its purpose of fostering responsible

procreation. and justice kagan asked why we offered marriage licenses to couples over 55. given the procreation is not going to be part of that marriage. let's take a listen to what she had to say. >> with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples, both parties to the couple, are infertile, and the traditional -- >> no, really, because if a couple -- i can just assure you if both a woman and a man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. >> now, it seems to me when you're hearing that kind of laughter and you're literally arguing about procreation, that you're probably losing the argument, you think? >> the real question is, how many people get married with the idea that the marriage, the partnership, the love, the affection, the sharing, is just based on kids? how many families can't have kids?

how many people adopt kids? and how many kids who want to be adopted are so thirsty for love and affection? and so, and my god, you know, straight marriages haven't really got a remarkable record of civility. >> most of the best couples i know are actually gay couples who are married having a more solid relationship. >> a second or third marriage. take a look at the coupleses of the same sex that have been together for years and want to be together for more years. children are not really what keeps them together. >> right. it's their love. and the commitment. >> that's right. >> congressman charlie rangel. thank you so mump. >> thank you. next, ted and rand threaten to filibuster gun legislation that's not even expected to pass. guys, your 15 minutes are about up. stay with us. >> i don't think to tell the families of those who have lost their children to gun violence that bills like this might be filibustered. i don't think that would be welcomed news. do we have a mower?

no. a trimmer? no. we got nothing. we just bought our first house, we're on a budget we're not ready for spring. well lets get you ready. very nice. you see the various colors. we got workshops every saturday. yes, maybe a little bit over here this spring, take on more lawn for less. not bad for our first spring. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. keep your yard your own with your choice, a special buy at just $8. our largest selection of lobster entrees, like lobster lover's dream or new grilled lobster and lobster tacos. come in now and sea food differently. now, buy one lobsterfest entree and get one 1/2 off with a coupon at redlobster.com. like shin splints... over here. or runner's knee... ah. i recommend dr. scholl's active series insoles with triple zone protection to help reduce pain from three sports injuries. i can feel the difference. i'm a believer !

dr. scholl's active series. i'm a believer. my patients don't know which one to use. i tell them to use the brand i use. oral-b -- the brush originally created by a dentist. trust the brand more dentists and hygienists use. oral-b. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪

[ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

senator rand paul is rested and ready to filibuster again. this time, over gun control. he and two other tea-back party senators, senator ted cruz and mike lee are threatening to hold up any and all gun legislation. in fact, they might not even have to speak at all to do it. just withhold unanimous consent and prevent the senate to proceed to even debate the issue. "we will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions." now, "roll call" however, reports the new filibuster rules adopted in january could actually thwart their attempt.

the white house was unamoosed at this attempt to silence the debate over gun control. as was one of the fathers of the victims of the sandy hook shooting. >> all i've heard is the second amendment, the second amendment. and it's not about the second amendment. it's about saving children's lives and innocent people's lives. >> joining us now, joy reid, managing editor of the grio.com, and john sultz, chairman of votevets.org. welcome to you both. joy, i am going to start with you because i feel like rand and ted's excellent adventure, they are feeling their oats. is this just bluster? do we really think they're going to do this? >> you know what, i worry that they will try, because rand paul did get a lot of sort of positive media feedback. he got a lot of attention for his previous filibuster. i think he feels like it is a way to draw attention to himself. i think we do need to pause for a moment to realize these guys are talking about filibustering, not for some great and good principle, but on behalf of gun manufacturers. on behalf of an nra that had the

temerity to robo call the newtown families. it was that insensitive to the loss of life in newtown, that they thought it was just to robo call those families who are already in pain and that community that's already in pain. this isn't about saving lives. this isn't about protecting people or self-defense. this is about protecting gun manufactures, period. >> isn't it also, though, if you believe they were going to filibuster, if you believe there was some way to prevent some portion of a vote, strikes me that part of what this is about is protecting certain members of congress from having to get on the record and say once and for all what they're for and what they're against which is, you know, despite all the rhetoric, dangerous given that you have such overwhelming public support for so many of these measures. >> i agree. you have people like mitch mcconnell not sure what's going to happen to him ashley judd wise. you're looking for some of these guys who are up for relu-electr. pat toomey, he's in a state where he should be on the side of gun control. his ideology puts him against it. it's awkward for senators.

that's why they signed up for the job and ran and are one of the 100 special people in the senate. i believe for a moment harry reid's deal he made in january can do anything to stop it. this is the reason people wanted harry reid to do real filibuster reform. another reason him not doing it was a major, major mistake. >> john, your organization, votevets.org, has a new commercial out that maybe rand paul and some of the others should see. so let's play a clip of it. >> i had to pass a background check to join the marine corps before i could carry a weapon similar to this one in iraq. here at home, anyone can purchase this weapon no questions asked. >> really powerful. you know, you have served two tours in iraq. you had to undergo background check in order to carry that weapon. what is your take on this

discussion about whether or not we should have to do background checks? >> well, they're going to try to filibuster. i mean, we went through this with chuck hagel. we had 60 votes there. you could see what the final tally was. there's a lot of political theater like joy said. rand paul is running for president. ted cruz is running for head of the tea party. they're going to filibuster. we're fighting back with ads like this. that's going up against jeff flake. we sent it out to our members today. we're going to raise money on line. we're going to expand that. we expect a fight. whether you have 60 votes, they're going to filibuster for their own theater. it's funny because the people in the military, look, we all needed background checks. yet you can buy a weapon from your friend without one. i think people who are conservative in the military who don't support an assault weapons ban support the idea criminals shouldn't be able to purchase a weapon that can do the type of devastation the weapons we carried in war can do. >> that's one of the things that strikes me. you, a number of iraq vet, afghanistan vets, a number of generals, stanley mcchrystal, a

lot of folks out there saying there's no reason to have weapons of war on our streets. as your ad so powerfully shows, that's a weapon of war. that is a very destructive machine, you know, gun, that why do we need that on our streets here in our communities? >> i think what's important here for senators like pat toomey in pennsylvania, a state that i've lived in, you know, there's parts of that state where assault weapons ban is going to be popular. and so i think the point here is that the people who understand these weapons, look, at some level, background checks is more important, because there's so many assault weapons out there right now already that anyone can buy them from their friend. anyone can go to a gun show. we're really making the argument here is, if our military, if kids who join the military have to go through a background check, the guy who shot gabby giffords, jared loughner, he could not -- he was not allowed to join the military. >> right. >> yet he could get his hands on weapons. i think there's a larger question, what we're seeing, we know what these weapons can do. we carried the weapons in war. we needed a background check to

do it. why does anyone have the ability to buy one from their friend and blow them away with them? >> joy, speaking of gabby giffords, the right has gotten so ridiculous. gabby giffords' husband, who i want to remind people, is an american hero, an astronaut, former captain in the u.s. navy. not a slouch, right? he went to try to purchase guns and the seller didn't like the idea that what kelly was trying to demonstrate was "a" how easy it is to get a background check and how easy it is to buy the gun. he's denying him the purchase. what about his second amendment rights? is it legal for him to deny him his second amendment rights? >> notice that the person who that gun was going to be purchased from, he has to have a license. you have to be a licensed gun dealer. you can't start up a gun shop and decide you're going to without going to government, the black helicopter guys to get your license. there are a lot of rights restricted by government intervention to protect the powerless. a first amendment right to free speech. if you want to broadcast, you

need a license from the government. you have a right to free assembly. if you'd like to stage a protest across the national mall, you need yourself a permit. there are lots of rights enshrined in the constitution limited by the constitution. what you do can damage someone else. as that ad has shown, what can possibly do more damage than a weapon of war that people are saying they have a right to use for what, self-defense? for hunting? what you just saw in that commercial, that is what actual guns do to real people. the rhetoric aside, that's what we're talking about is protecting people from death. >> as you brought up in sandy hook, one of the mothers, specifically wanted the governor of connecticut to see exactly what that gun, the power of what that had done to ravage that small child's body. >> yeah. >> we're sort of immune to that. you're not because you've seen it. >> we don't call them that. we call them weapons. in the military you never say, it's a weapon. we're at a point in this country where 85% of americans feel that criminals shouldn't be able to buy a weapon from their friends. criminals shouldn't be able to go to a gun show and just buy

that ar-15 you saw in those videos which is, you know, they're very similar to what our troops carry. cosmetically, that's an m-4 minus the length of perhaps the gun, too, a little bit. 85% of americans, the republicans want to filibuster background checks. they're filibustering what 85% of americans, which includes people from all swaths of our country want. i guess that's the showdown we're going to have here in the next few weeks. >> john schultz, joy reid. thanks for joining me, you guys. coming up, what lessons do chile and brazil have for the u.s. economy? stay with us. i love making money. i try to be smart with my investments. i also try to keep my costs down. what's your plan? ishares. low cost and tax efficient. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes

investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. ♪ 'cause germs don't stick on me ♪ [ female announcer ] band-aid brand has quiltvent technology with air channels to let boo boos breathe. [ giggles ] [ female announcer ] quiltvent technology, only from band-aid brand. use with neosporin first aid antibiotic. stay top of mind with customers? from deals that bring them in with an offer... to social media promotions that turn fans into customers... to events that engage and create buzz... to e-mails that keep loyal customers coming back, our easy-to-use tools will keep you in front of your customers. see what's right for you at constantcontact.com/try. of mild to moderate alzheimer's disease is exelon patch. now with more treatment options,

exelon patch may improve overall function and cognition. your loved one can get a free 30-day trial. and you can have access to nurses. it does not change how the disease progresses. hospitalization, and rarely death, have been reported from wearing more than one patch at a time. the most common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fall, loss of appetite or weight, application site redness, and urinary tract infection. the likelihood and severity of these side effects may increase as the dose increases or if patients weigh less than 110 pounds. people at risk for stomach ulcers who take certain other medicines should talk to their doctor as serious stomach problems such as bleeding may worsen. patients may experience slow heart rate. free trial offer for them. nurses to talk to for you. visit exelonpatchoffer.com. ♪ these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber.

chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore. stay with us. the day's top lines are coming up. [ in

distinct shouting ] ♪ [ indistinct shouting ] [ male announcer ] time and sales data. split-second stats. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ it's so close to the options floor... [ indistinct shouting, bell dinging ] ...you'll bust your brain box. ♪ all on thinkorswim from td ameritrade. ♪ i'm up next, but now i'm singing the heartburn blues. hold on, prilosec isn't for fast relief. cue up alka-seltzer. it stops heartburn fast. ♪ oh what a relief it is!

from old testament.

hillary 2016. to karl rove's canned ham. here are today's top lines. 70 is the new 40. >> his first trip to israel as our president. he also we know from the history channel was there about 2,013 years ago. >> hillary clinton came out in support of gay marriage. that signals she is running for president. >> republicans are getting to the point where they don't want to change their policy position. >> karl rove says the next republican candidate might support gay marriage. >> they just want people to stop noticing it. >> problem? >> well, yes, it is. >> i don't believe they need to act like old testament heritics. >> what do you mean? >> you know it when you see it. >> there are things we don't know about how healthy she is. she'll be almost 70. >> that's the new 40. >> the only votes taken since newtown have weakened gun control. >> okay. >> the problem with guns is they're just too loud. >> that's the problem? >> we loathe guns into a false

sense of skull. >> the not so funny left wing hollywood actor who drinks way too much caffeine, jim carrey. >> he's a limousine liberal with a bodyguard. ♪ the movies are no longer in demand ♪ >> it's supposed to be funny. it's just not funny. ♪ the angels wouldn't take him up to heaven like he plans ♪ >> a mask to direct our attention away from the cold, dead career. ♪ because they couldn't bribe that gun from his cold dead hand ♪ >> he gets to be funny and exaggerate things. >> ham picked the candidates. it's no surprise a pile of lunch meat chose the white bread. >> think he might need a little bit of professional counseling on his anger management. >> i am in no way encouraging anybody to stab karl rove. there's a big difference between karl rove and ham rove. put up the pictures. >> all right. let's get right to our panel. we're joined now by nia malik swrn a henderson at the

"washington post." msnbc reporter, mr. peterson. and ryan grimm, washington bureau chief for the "washington post." there's been a lot of attention today on the supreme court which comes as 52% of americans say they have a favorable view of the court. but the court's approval rating was much higher in the 70% range around the time of that infamous 2000 decision gore v. bush. is what we're seeing fallout? this decline in support for the court? is that really a fallout from that decision? >> i think in some ways it is fallout from that decision. but i think over the last 30, 40 years, up until today, if you look back at what happened in vietnam, you look back at watergate, look at the iraq war, there has been a declining positive feeling among the american public about big institutions and the supreme court is part of that. you see a declining sort of faith in the media, declining faith in the presidency. and so i think it's part of

that, but certainly i think in 2000, the supreme court jumping into this very political battle, picking a president, essentially, really tarred their reputation. and you see now people seeing them as a political body and not this sort of voice of god sort of supreme court that renders judgment impartially. >> on that point, professor, there's been criticism post-bush v. gore obviously that the supreme court is more partisan as knnia was just talking about. that has not escaped the justices. let's take a listen. >> it really enrages me to hear people refer to it as a politicized court. neither i nor any one of my colleagues votes a certain way because he or she likes this president or is a member of the party that that president belongs to. i couldn't care less who the president is. >> so, professor, this comes from the same person who's compared homosexuality to

murder, to prostitution, to incest, to bestiality, and yet he wants us to believe that he doesn't care about partisan politics? or ideology? really? >> we're not buying it, right? because, i mean, since the supreme court picked a president, maybe they don't care who the presidents are, but once you make that kind of intervention, as nia was mentioning, that's contributed to the declining popularity of this hallowed institution. ska lcalia is the last person h who can have credibility in talking about not being political. when you look back at the litany of his kind of comments as sort of conservative positions and just the way that he sort of positions his arguments and his statements has been very, very politicized and also sometimes racially charged. you know, also sometimes charged along the lines of sexism. so scalia is unfortunately not a very useful voice for us in this discussion as to whether or not scotus can become less political and more popular in the american

imagination. >> on that point, ryan, given what we've heard from justice scalia, documented history of anti-gay remarks, how are people going to have confidence he's going to put those personal feelings aside and judge this case based on law and legality of same-sex marriage and not let those feelings intervene? >> they can't. i don't think anybody is looking to scalia for what he thinks about gay marriage. everybody knows what -- >> we've written him off. >> frankly nobody cares. right. right. he's going to vote against it and that's the end of it. in oral arguments today, he brought out the harm marriage equality could possibly do to the children of gay parents. later he said, well, you know, the science is still out on that. and i don't particularly have an opinion on it. the way he brought it in, it's clear he does have an opinion. at least that he backtracked after he said it shows he's noticing a bit the country

thinks he's an angry old racist man. >> who knows what would have given them that impression. >> the fact that he called voting, the voting rights act a racial entitlement -- >> yeah. >> -- was just bizarre. it's like, okay, i understand if you want to, like, go down the road of calling welfare or something like that, i understand what you're trying to say. i disagree but i understand where you're going with that. but voting? the very act of voting? i don't think anybody's looking to scalia for, you know, how this decision is going to come out. it's just simply not up to him. >> you know, to that point, dr. peterson, i mean, that really was, you and i talked about, that was a stunning comment that this is an entitlele, not, you know, something guaranteed by the constitution here. but those kinds of comments, i mean, we can write off scalia, but still, it seems those kinds of comments really do weigh into people's feeling about this court in general and whether or not you can go to the supreme court and get a fair hearing.

>> well, again, also it's a couple of things as well, karen, because the supreme court is in the middle of the culture war with decisions they're having to make around important cultural issues. the right wing of the republican party has sort of unveiled and showed its card over the last year or so in the presidential election. they're trying to sort of cover ground and recuperate from that sort of process. but scalia is, he's kind of like situated with the tea party republicans in a lot of his social beliefs. because of our access to the documentation of these court proceedings these days, the ways in which the information gets out really, really quickly, someone like scalia has essentially established himself as a representative of the right wing in too many ways for us to forget any time soon. these issues being onboard right now are going to prevent folk from distancing himself from the court in ways which we've done in the past. again, scalia is not the right guy for us to think about the supreme court in an apolitical sense. >> nia malika, i'm going to end

you. in that context, one thing i thought was so interesting in the pew poll was that actually conservatives think that the court is too liberal. right? so politically speaking, we're sort of all over the map here. >> that's right. and that's because everyone, i think, in conservative circles, they were very surprised john roberts coming out and being that deciding vote and upholding obama care. so that's why you have conservatives now thinking that this court is too liberal. and if you ask liberals, they might think it's too conservative. this is the country we live in. very polarized. i think also if you look at the supreme court, it doesn't really look like america. surely, you know, you have the african-american there with clarence thomas, you have a latino there now as well. but all of these folks are older. they're all ivy leaguers i believe, as well. so i think people look at this institution and see it as almost separate from the way people live their everyday lives and come to understand people's relationships and the law and

how people should get along. >> although i do feel like the liberals are the ones asking the questions most relevant to our lives. nia malika henderson, james peterson. and we'll be right back. i'm going to stop you right there, mr. president. good matza? that's what's known in the business as a goi tell. unless that smothered in flutternutter or jammed inside a wich, it tastes like the box it came in. look, if you have copd like me, you know it can be hard to breathe, and how that feels. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open for 24 hours.

plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. (blowing sound) ask your doctor about spiriva. love your passat! um. listen, gary. i bought the last one. nice try. says right here you can get one for $199 a month. you can't believe the lame-stream media, gary. they're all gone. maybe i'll get one. [ male announcer ] now everyone's going to want one.

you can't have the same car as me, gary! i'm gettin' one. nope! [ male announcer ] volkswagen springtoberfest is here and there's no better time to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. right now lease one of four volkswagen models for under $200 a month. visit vwdealer.com today.

with new threats coming from north korea and new dooe tails about the nature and depth of u.s. involvement in the syrian civil war, secretary of state john kerry was in afghanistan

again today. he met with afghan women and civic leaders and even practiced a little soccer diplomacy. take a look. >> can you still juggle, sir? >> can i still juggle? you want to see this? a header. >> joining us now, p.j. crowley, former u.s. assistant secretary of state for public affairs. welcome, p.j. >> hello, karen. >> i want to get to afghanistan in a moment. let's talk about syria for just a moment. the "ap" is reporting the united states is training syrian rebels in jordan. this comes after a "new york times" report the cia is more deeply involved in arms shipments and intelligence than we've thought. do you have a sense of what our level of involvement really is in this civil war? >> well, the government has been careful neither to confirm nor deny whether intelligence assets are doing that kind of training. although it did -- the united

states did announce it is providing funding to help not only vet the various groups that are getting arms, primarily from, you know, neighbors of syria, the united states providing nonlethal assistance, but trying to make the, you know, the rebel movement as effective on the ground as possible while staying on one side of the line that the united states has drawn that in itself will not provide arms to these rebels. >> with, so i just have one question. with talk about the use of chemical weapons, you know, lethal chemical weapons and who's on what side, it's starting to sound a little bit too familiar. do we think that's why the administration has resisted direct engagement or having troops on the ground? >> well, i think, karen, i look at the contrast between syria and libya two years ago. there was a consensus in the

regi region. there were willing partners for the nato intervention and a u.n. security council resolution. none of that exists in the context of syria. a rebel movement in libya that had control of meaningful swaths of territory. that may still happen in the context of syria, but you don't have the u.n. security council resolution, so you have no authority to directly intervene. there's multiple agendas under way in syria. even among our friends. obviously iran has an interest, but saudi arabia does, turkey does, jordan does, and they're not necessarily always identical. the united states has rightfully focused on the day after assad leaves. what kind of government will be put in place. obviously there are challenges there as well. you've seen some fracturing in recent days. you have an opposition movement, but what steps they need to take right now, whether to form an interim government outside of syria, so there's a lot of work to do on this front, but most importantly, the united states is trying to make sure if there

is aid going into ssyria, who's getting it, who are they? they're trying to separate the good guys from the extremists. we don't want to give al qaeda and its like a foothold in a future syria. there's a lot to do. >> p.j. crowley, thank you so much for joining us. >> all right, karen. stay with us. much more ahead. and secretary kerry isn't the only one using his head these days. >> landon, what do we got here? >> we have a ball for you then we've got a -- then we've got a jersey for you. >> hope you guys caught that. that doesn't happen very often. conservative. very logical thinker. (laughs) i'm telling you right now, the girl back at home would absolutely not have taken a zip line in the jungle. (screams) i'm really glad that girl stayed at home.

vo: expedia helps 30 million travelers a month find what they're looking for. one traveler at a time. expedia. find yours. that paints landscapes and doberman pinschers, well he eats the liquid gold of velveeta shells and cheese. there is no limit to the human imagination. multidimensionality. liquid gold. eat like that guy you know. her long day of pick ups and drop offs begins with arthritis pain... and a choice.

take up to 6 tylenol in a day or just 2 aleve for all day relief. all aboard. ♪

so how can a tiny nation like cyprus threaten the economic future of the entire world? that's one of the big questions that confront policymakers as they try to chart a new course toward economic growth and stability. our next guest says the best fix

for our own economy could be found in the lessons we shared with the third world nations whose economies are now on the rise. we're joined by peter blair henry, dean of nyu stern school of business and author of "turn-around: third world lessons for first world growth." i enjoyed reading parts of your book. specifically i was struck by your three key principles. discipline, clarity, and trust. obviously i think those three things are missing in washington. talk us through the what you mean by those three key principles. >> absolutely. first of all, discipline doesn't mean fiscal austerity. this plin means a sustained commitment to the future, and clarity means being clear about what needs to happen. for example, in the case of the tiny island of barbados, which we can talk about perhaps. trust is really krit critical f need more trust between emerging nations and developed nations and more trust between citizens and the governments. in particular, there's a win/win

here that's out there for us if we form a better relationship with emerging nations and realize their growth is good for us. >> isn't part of that process just looking inward to the united states here, when you talk about discipline, it strikes me part of what we have been undisciplined about is actually saying, we're going to tackle this problem and not kick the can down the road. we've seen this now for several years where, you know, the fights and the, you know, what i would consider obstruction from the republicans have really prevented us from having the discipline to really sit down and solve these problems. >> yes. let's take discipline. what does discipline mean in the context of fiscal policy is a very good example. there's a false dichotomy that discipline means fiscal austerity. in fact, in 2001, the united states had a fiscal surplus. we had a $236 billion fiscal surplus we gave back in the form of tax cuts. what discipline means is you save during flush times that you have something to go back on when times are lean. the contrast of the u.s., chile

in 2008, right? they had a big surplus. because copper was booming. their finance minister was in the streets of santiago because people wanted him to spend that money. he said, no, this is money for a rainy day. they were able to stimulate their economy. that's discipline. >> how's chile's economy doing now? >> growing a lot faster than we are. >> to make the point. to bring it home. >> absolutely. >> the last thing i wanted to ask you, when you talk about trust, though, between our economy, it seems like you also mention, though, we kind of need to have a little bit of humility in that process. >> no question. if you think about it, the things that emerging economies have done to start growing at 5.5% per year, just by contrast, the advanced nations grew at 1.3% last year, recession in europe. they were able to do that by implementing the lessons we taught them. now we have to re-learn those lessons. they're not new lessons. we just need to rediscover them.

and we also need then to recognize that these countries, the bricks, that are growing so rapidly, are critical part to our part of our global prosperity. and frankly need to recognize them as part of the global economy the way we haven't. because they're 20% of the global economy, and they only have a minority share of the votes at the imf and world bank. >> thank you, peter blair henry. the book is called "turn-around." get it. read it. we'll be right back. ♪ some people will do anything to help eliminate litter box odor. ♪ discover tidy cats pure nature. clumping litter with natural cedar, pine, and corn.

mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. you know the giants don't have a mascot right mom? [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right.

none of us think bad things are gonna happen to us. i'm here at my house on thanksgiving day, and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. an artery in your heart, it's called the widow maker. and mine was 95% blocked. they took me to the hospital, and the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] aspirin is not appropriate for everyone, so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i'm a blue-collar worker. to me, bayer aspirin is another tool.

go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore. ♪ it's time now to clear the air. i was 16 years old before my grandfather would allow me to visit my grandparents' home in north carolina. that's how long it took for him to rethink his personal shame at having a mixed race grandchild. at the time my parents were married, he along with 7