bertha louis, and joseph stiglitz, thank you for joining us. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. advertisement for the shows, they're a totally separate group of people from us who actually make the shows. but the nice people over at promos kind of gave us a present, they essentially congratulated us for turning five. it was totally unexpected. we didn't know they were doing this. and it has a particularly good ending, that i ended up being fixated on today because of this story. watch what they did at the end. this is very great. >> i have a snuggy --

>> you're taking it out of context, rachel. >> no, i'm reading it from your book. >> do you agree that homosexuality is a choice? >> it is not a hypothetical. >> the governor turning the folksy factor up to stun -- >> thank you, we couldn't do without you. >> here is to five years of the rachel maddow show, on msnbc. >> is this weird? yes, of course, this is weird. that is the whole point. the reason i was wearing a space suit in that bit at the end there, i was trying to explain newt gingrich's proposal for an american colony on the moon. and of course, there is not a colony on the moon that you can take pictures of and put on tv. so in order to create a sort of visual interest to show you that story and not just tell you that thing that i was talking about, we busted out the space suit. one of the material challenges

of our weirdness on this show is that we frequently report on and talk about things that have never been on television before. and that maybe should never be on television, because there is no way to show them. there is no visual element whatsoever. like for example, something really important in american state politics that happened in 1913. how do you show that? i don't know. but it turns out that we are in the centennial. we are at the 100-year anniversary of the first-ever recall of a state in the united states of america. it was a california state senator named marshal black. and he was recalled from office. that was the first time a state lawmaker was ever recalled anywhere in our country. he was recalled after he was convicted of embezzlement. we think this is a picture of marshal black, the first guy ever to be recalled. but honestly, how do you fact-check that? who knows? we might just as well do a google image search for guy, circa 1913.

in which case you may get a picture of this guy, this guy, or this one with the little dog. it was not designed to be told on television. these guys get to stand in for marshal black, who really was recalled as a state senator. we went a long time before anybody was recalled. they track these things, you you can see the time line. it all starts in 1913, way back with marshal black. he was the first one, and over the centuries since then, there have been a smattering of these recalls against the state politicians. but it doesn't happen often, it usually happens while getting convicted of something in office and refusing to step down. might seem like it happens a lot but it doesn't happen all that often. so a recall was once in a blue moon thing. but something has happened in

our very recent politics that suddenly has made recall drives very, very popular. in the history of our country, state politicians have only been put up 38 times. that is all states combined in all the years we existed. it never happened before. 38 times total. but only half of those times have been in the last two years. over the entire history of our country, 45% of all the recall elections for state politicians ever have happened since 2011. and it is both republicans and democrats who have been putting people up for recall in the last couple of years. but if this becomes the new normal in our politics, it will be because republicans have crunched the numbers and started to figure out that this is really good for them in particular. that when there are recalls, broadly speaking, republicans win and democrats lose. there are definitely exceptions, but broadly speaking, republican odds for recalls are great odds. and that is because of a basic fact of voting life.

more people voting, better for democrats. fewer people voting, better for republicans. and yeah, on either side, when either side sees somebody as a particularly villainous politician, they vote. but you can't just count on people who live and breathe politics. that makes for a fun rally for -- rally for democrats, they need people who breathe and live politics. frankly, they only regularly turn out more in presidential elections. you cannot count on huge numbers of people turning out in say, october, 2003, which is when they recalled the governor of california.

you can't count on it in the summer of 2012, which is when most of the recall efforts of the republican senators, and the big recall of scott walker went the republican's way, despite all the activism. and then in september, 2013, same deal, in an off-year election, in an odd, odd off-year election in early september, the republican side won two seats yesterday in the recall elections in colorado. they replaced two center left to progressive democratic senators from democratic leaning districts and replaced them with conservative republicans. republicans who most importantly for this race are fundamentalists against gun regulations, but who also prefer things like personhood for fertilized eggs, those who would ban not just abortion, but birth control.

the off-year advantage that republicans have in any off-year election, in this case in colorado, was bolstered particularly when the recall side got a vote banning by mail. voting by mail is really convenient and the way that colorado is used to vote it. they have had it for a long time in that state, it is really popular. part of why colorado elections have usually good participation rates, but there was no voting by mail in this election, thus reducing the voting even more than it would be in an off year. the republican side and the sort of gun fundamentalists side, they originally tried to put four democrats up for recall, because of their votes on gun legislation. the two of them who took the ballot, they were those who lost those seats. but the legislators who lost their seats, and liberal activists groups in colorado, like this one, progress now

colorado, all of those are super bummed about those results in colorado. the practical impact of the democrats losing the seats is actually minimal. the colorado house is still under democratic control. and the colorado senate, even with losing those two seats is still under democratic control. so the only thing that changes now, the democrats will have to pick a leader in the senate to replace the one who was just recalled. and it is not like they're going to replace him with a republican. they're going to replace him with a democrat. looks like they will replace him with a democratic senator who is more to the left than he is, and is a strong supporter of gun rights. her state senate includes the aurora movie theater, where a crazed gunman killed people in the movie theater, using in part this huge drum magazine that holds 100 bullets.

the kind of magazine that was banned and remains banned under the colorado gun reforms that so upset the right and that set off the recalls in the first place. the colorado gun laws, the universal background checks and the ban on the high capacity magazines, those may have inspired this political backlash. but the successful recall effort won't effect the law at all. that is still in effect. and it wouldn't affect the legislature at all, except maybe to make them for liberal in the state. but this was not what it was all about. they keep talking about the symbolic effect of taking out these two legislators. but when you look at the way it is being talked about by the people who waged these fight always brought about these recalls in colorado, it seemed from the beginning that they were going less for something like symbolism and was more about making people scared.

>> so what they're going for in colorado is a wave of fear, a wave of shudder, fear, and if that seems like the feelings of one group in colorado, consider this celebration today from the rocky mountain gun owners in colorado, they sent this around, putting the two recalled senators on tombstones, to show this is what happened to anti-gun politicians in americans now. you get killed and end up dead.

and people with the military-style assault rifles celebrate and bragged that they killed you. so the argument this is about symbolism, is not just a symbol, but a threat. maybe that is how they want to be thought of. but that is how it played out in colorado. that kind of radical politics is not only happening against backlash politics, it also just the way the gun politics work now. what used to seem like fundamental politics, it is how they're treating the issue. in missouri, there is a democratic governor but a republican-controlled legislature. and the republican legislature earlier this year passed a bill that would defy all gun laws passed by the federal government.

missouri's bill would not only declare invalid any federal law about guns, it would make it a state crime punishable by up to a year in jail for any federal law enforcement official to try to enforce a gun law in missouri. it is not like there are that many federal gun laws. they include things like making it really hard to own a machine gun and having to pass the background check when you buy a gun at a gun store. and not being allowed to have a fully plastic gun that you could sneak past a metal detector. there are not that many federal gun laws. the ones we have not been that controversial for a long time. but the ones we have in missouri trying to enforce the restrictions could send federal law enforcement officers to jail. the republican-controlled legislature passed that bill in missouri back in may. the democratic governor in the state vetoed it a few months later saying it was blatantly unconstitutional. but they went about overriding that bill.

to enact the nullification bill, so it now moved on to the state senate. the republicans are working on actively making it a crime to enforce the gun laws in that state. to throw law enforcement officers in jail for doing that. republicans and even a lot of democrats have always thought that pro-gun politics were good politics. when does that stop being true? when does radicalism on this issue start to hurt you politically, or is there really no limit? joining us now is steve schmidt, a republican political strategist, former senior strategist to the 2008 john mccain/sarah palin campaign. steve, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> is there a point at which pro-gun politics start to look bad? >> well, this is extreme stuff you're talking about in missouri

when you talk about nullification of gun laws, some of them involving the statutes involving weapons on the books for decades. if you go back to the recent history of the nra and go back to wayne lapierre, and talk about precipitating the resignation from the nra by president george bush 41, there is a lot of extreme stuff out there. and at the end of the day it may we will come back around and hurt republicans in a state like missouri who are doing that stuff. because i assure you, whether it is missouri schools, its economy, there are other pressing issues in the state of missouri beyond the nonsense that they're engaged in on that. but i do think on this issue in colorado and other places, in just the same way that you've seen the referendum and the initiative process abused by special interests, you're going to see these recall processes increasingly abused. and we'll have not for purposes

of a criminal conviction but for disagreement on a vote, we'll have a constant stream of recalls in these states that have them. and i think you will ultimately have to see reform of that. >> do you think that republicans see themselves as having a structural advantage in recall elections. because a recall starts whenever you make it start. you can always make it happen in an off-year election. you can always make it happen when there is nothing else on the ballot, thus ensuring the low turnout of a special election -- >> it is not only the turnouts, the schwarzenegger special election in california, the turnout for that special election was about 10% higher than the 2002 election that gray davis -- >> the recall -- >> yes, the same time. it was a higher turnout election. it was a younger, less politically active first-time voter that comes out in that recall election. i think the issue with the recall election is who has

intensity on their side? and the side that has the intensity in an election that will usually, but not always skew lower turnout is usually the side that will win. and in this case, i think one of the powers that the gun lobby has is the ability to turn out its vote. if you watch this debate take place in the congress, you and i have talked about it. how is it possible that 95% of the country supports common sense changes? we're not going to have 100 round magazines. we ought to have background checks before somebody goes and purchases a firearm. 95% of the country agrees with that. there is an awful lot of republican voters out there that are part of that 95%. but it died in washington. it died because of a lack of both republican and democratic votes, because in washington they understand the power of the gun lobby. and it is incumbent on pro-gun control legislations, to go in there and win them.

mayor bloomberg con convened, and was responsible for dennis cordoza losing, the side that is able to project political power and to end political careers in precisely the way that your video suggested with the man talking there, that is the side that will control the outcome of this. >> were you surprise that had bloomberg was not able to have his effective desired in colorado? >> when you look at the colorado springs district, you have somebody -- you have a member who just became ideologically out of step with the district. not just the issue on guns, there were other issues involved in there. there is an opportunistic process, if you want to make

progress on the issue of gun control you can't afford to lose elections and can't afford those new york city headlines. because they have an instinct for survival. and there are very, very few of them in either party that are willing to give up their seats on an issue of conviction and conscience. >> steve schmidt, former strategist for mccain and palin, and as i mentioned, thoroughly reasonable, despite the fact you're wrong about so many things. steve, good to see you. >> good to see you. all right, we'll be right back. [ jen garner ] what skincare brand is so effective... so trusted... so clinically proven dermatologists recommend it twice as much as any other brand? neutrogena®. recommended by dermatologists 2 times more than any other brand.

now that's beautiful. neutrogena®. ♪

so there is breaking news tonight on the new york times website, not an event, but a very, very provocative opinion piece just published by "the new york times," regarding vladimir putin, called "a plea for caution for russia." say they should not act unilaterally, president putin says it should be a body to take action to uphold the international law. putin writes that his relationship with obama is marked by growing trust. he encourages the u.s. to try to work with russia to try to solve the crisis in syria. but this is a very direct and very powerful peace and it is not a love letter to the united states. check this out. he says, it is alarming that

military intervention involving conflicts is common place for the united states. is it in america's long-term interest, i doubt it. they are relying solely on brute force, with the slogans such as you are either with us or against us. this is the way he ends the piece.

vladimir putin, lecturing about policy and democracy and new york times. it is up now, sure to stir reaction from the white house and across the country, starting about 30 seconds ago. we'll be right back.

have you ever found yourself wondering about say, a really sensitive issue in the middle east? questions about intelligence,

weapons, america's credibility in the world? have you ever found yourself wondering about those things, and suddenly, you are struck with a desire to know what karl rove thinks about them? no, no. well, at the fox news channel, that is just who they have been waiting to hear from. >> the toughest president for the question will be this one, bill, does he ask for authorization? >> i think he has to do that. >> he has to go to congress. >> and he will get it, because what politician wants to be labelled -- >> he has to go to congress, because karl rove says to repeat what happened in libya when president obama authorized strikes there without the congressional approval, that would be a disaster, he has to get approval. and so he must have been psyched when he did that thing he needed to do. shortly after he announced that,

president obama said he would seek congressional approval, just like karl rove said he should do. karl rove was not psyched? >> i thought he should have taken it to congress, but in retrospect, that was a terrible mistake. >> i must have been wrong, because you did what i said, and once you did it, suddenly i hated my own idea. >> i thought he needed to take it to congress, but in retrospect, that was a mistake, this was an unmitigated disaster. >> so the idea that karl rove said was a great idea became an unmitigated disaster, as soon as president obama actually did it. amateur hour. he is not helping the role, that is not just coming from the peanut gallery at the fox news channel, it is also coming from congress, from some of the people who are supposed to be

playing a key role in setting our policy. take for example, john cornyn, texas senator, he mentioned his approval on the military action in syria. >> if the vote were held today, i would be against it. i don't think anybody should be under any illusions, people should be debating about people fighting in the middle east where people have been fighting for generations. >> war weary, he also cannot a military strike in syria because president obama is not proposing enough war. >> i could support a resolution if it involved the use of decisive and overwhelming force without self-imposed limitations.

>> so it is too -- also, the international community, john cornyn said, needs to contribute here? >> the international community needs to contribute to the effort to hold assad accountable. >> except, not the international that is contributing. >> i would caution all of us, the american people, and all of our colleagues to be skeptical for good reason at this lifeline that vladimir putin has now thrown the administration. >> no other countries are involved here. we can get involved, but no other countries? you know what? we ought to be really suspicious, there are other countries involved here. senator cornyn went on to say that the administration's wishes are guaranteed to fail. you can go against the wishes of the obama administration, you just cannot hold every position

of the obama administration all at once, you cannot say it is crucial for them to go to congress, and then call it a disaster, you cannot say that military strikes in syria would be too much war, and in the next breath say that the military strikes would not be enough war. you can't say the united states needs to get involved and then reject the parts of the world that are getting involved because you are suspicious on them getting involved. you cannot do all of those things all at once. back in may, oklahoma senator james inhofe wrote about what president obama should do in syria, he cannot just wish away the syria crisis, we might just have to do something drastic. our next steps must be calculated and informed with the best intelligence and the best military advice our defense community can provide. and even though the joint chiefs

made their case on the policy, senator inhofe said oh, listening to you guys, i can't possibly support this. >> i would oppose going in and having military intervention against syria. it may sound real easy when people like the secretary kerry say that it is going to be quick and we're going to go in and send a few cruise missiles wash our hands and go home. it doesn't work that way. this could be a war in the middle east. >> right, this could be a war in the middle east that you said we should start. you were the one that said no fly zone, boots on the ground. the stuff is archived, we know you wrote it. through google. the policy of the republican party right now is to nonsense any debate about this into irrelevance. which may not be surprising regarding president obama's agenda. but it it still a surprise when

you hear a sitting member of congress saying that the president's military policies overseas are guaranteed to fail. of course in the last hours it has been taken out of congress now it is russia and france and the united nations trying to work on getting syria to give up weapons. secretary of state john kerry heading to geneva to meet with russia's foreign minister. they will talk about how the world can get syria to give up their chemical weapons to avoid a crisis. it could be hard, maybe impossibly hard, but will syria actually get rid of their chemical weapons? is that within the realm of possibility? and is the debate any less nonsensical than what we're being treated to here at home? it is good to have you here tonight, thank you for joining us.

>> hello, rachel. >> first tonight, we learned of the op-ed by the russian president, vladimir putin in "the new york times," saying he wants to speak to the country about acting alone. >> i'm not sure that vladimir putin will be seen as a credible commentator in the eyes of the american people. that demonstrates sophisticated world in which we live. not only the interview with assad, but the full debate on what to do about syria. >> in terms of the american politicians and the american citizens, i think distrust of vladimir putin which may be as dyed in the wool, because of our long relationship between the countries and the specific putin. do you think he actually might move american public opinion or the opinion in the opposite

direction than he intends to, simply by publishing this? >> it will be interesting to watch the reaction. but i do think that in that piece, vladimir putin, don't have to like him or trust him. he is a very rational actor. and i think he did outline how russia sees the situation in syria, the concern that they have that with the growth of extremism in syria, that certainly can affect his provinces, and the caucuses. russia has a well-developed idea that what happens inside any country is nobody else's business but that country. you know, china has that same point of view. i don't think he is going to necessarily sway any opinion one way or the other. but you do see that potentially, emphasize potentially subject to negotiation of the details that russia does have an interest in seeing this chemical weapons agreement or proposal advance. a lot of caveats on what they

will be able to put on the binding resolution. there are a lot of caveats that they will have, for it to ultimately be successful. >> obviously, the devil is really in the details in terms of chemical weapons in syria's arsenal. but do you expect if there is progress that it will be likely to come through talks with john kerry and russia and the u.s., or do you think it will more likely come from the u.n.? >> well, i think more importantly, this conversation, if successful, it places the u.n. back in the game. back in the game of syria and the crisis. that is something that russia has opposed for the last two years. there is a lot of commentary that putin is eating obama's lunch. i think this puts putin on the hook. he will be the one that has to deliver syria, the guarantor that makes sure if syria signs

up to the agreement, it will potentially live or abide by the obligations. of course there will be many opportunities to test this early on. you know, can you get a resolution that russia will support? can you get a credible accounting of what syria has and can you secure the participation in the war zone? all the heightened agreements, at any particular time, you know, this conversation as meaningful and consequential as it may be, will take time. >> very helpful, thank you. >> thank you, rachel. >> we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] are you sensitive to dairy?

then you'll love lactose-free lactaid® it's 100% real milk that's easy to digest so you can fully enjoy the dairy you love. lactaid®. for 25 years, easy to digest. easy to love.

then you'll love lactose-free lactaid® it's 100% real milk that's easy to digest so you can fully enjoy the dairy you love. lactaid®. for 25 years, easy to digest. easy to love. so the state of florida kills a ton of people, kills a ton of its own citizens. i mean, nobody can compete with the state of texas which kills more than the next five states combined. but florida is right up there. since it became legal for states to kill their prisoners back in 1976, florida has killed more of its prisoners than all but three other states.

even states in general are really slowing down on the pace at which they kill people. the governor does not bear the responsibility alone, of course. he was also elected alongside and sworn alongside a new republican attorney general in the state of florida, too. her name is pam bundy. and before she was elected florida's new republican attorney general, she was a tv lawyer, somebody who would talk on cable news about things like "the runaway bride," or the new prescription drug scandal. and then florida elected her to be attorney general. so when the state of florida kills its prisoners now, the governor gives the ultimate thumbs up or thumbs down to the execution chamber. but pam bundy gives her signoff, as well. and even though pam bundy and rick scott have overseen the deaths of eight a people since they have been in office, they

have championed they should do it faster. pam bundy has signed the florida justice act, which is designed to have prisoners from filing so many appeals. the idea that they're delaying their deaths. that florida really wants to kill them faster and they should stop being able to appeal to the court so much. so florida can get on with it. so rick scott and pam bundy have already okayed eight deaths since they have been in office. last night was supposed to be the ninth. but the lawyer for the person who was to be killed tomorrow, got a call saying the killing would be postponed. the man said he asked for more information about why the execution was postponed. but the governor's staff would

say only that it was at the request of the attorney general, which is kind of weird, right? i mean, rick scott and pam bundy have advocated they should kill more people faster, timely justice, it is being done too slow. we want to do more of these. so finally, they were set to kill number nine last night. but pam bundy delayed that one, to be stopped. why is she delaying it. well, let the headline do the work here. pam bundy had a fundraiser. so change the execution date for that. attorney general pam bundy persuaded rick scott to postpone the death, because it would kick start her election. >> do you think it was proper to delay an execution because of a fundraiser. >> we try to comply with -- when

another cabinet member asks for stuff, we try to work with them. >> thank you. >> thank you, can we stop -- we don't want to take questions about this. thank you. >> rick scott, republican governor of florida does not want to talk about this for obvious reasons. he is not apologizing or anything, he is just putting it on the attorney general, saying it is pam bundy's fault. the republican attorney general put out a statement saying the whole reason she changed the date on which they were going to kill this man is because she takes the process so seriously. look, in light of the seriousness of any execution, she takes the process so seriously that she rescheduled the execution for a fundraiser. she then put out a second statement, saying again, that she really takes all of this very seriously, noting she has been responsible for the killing of eight prisoners since she has been in office, and saying well, she shouldn't have rescheduled the date of the execution for her fundraiser.

so rick scott and attorney general pam bundy did not get to kill their prisoner last night. and she got to go ahead with her fundraiser at home in tampa, where presumably she slept great.

sometimes we get nights like this, we have more breaking news to report, legitimate breaking news, i'm not kidding, i mentioned at the top of the hour, they were debating a gun measure that they passed before. that they had passed before. but it was vetoed by missouri's governor. the bill they passed is an amazing piece of work. this was passed by the full legislature earlier this year in missouri. their bill would have declared invalid any laws about guns passed by the federal government. it would make it a state crime for any federal law enforcement official to come into missouri to try to enforce a federal gun law. the law on machine guns or something like that. if a federal law enforcement official wanted to enforce the law in missouri, missouri republicans said that, that that law enforcement official should be arrested and put in jail for a year. the state's democratic governor vetoed the bill after missouri

republicans passed it. tonight republicans in missouri went about frying to override the governor's veto. as we reported earlier in the show, the missouri house did go ahead and vet to override the governor's veto. that meant if the state senate voted the same way, the bill would be become law despite the governor's objections. within the last few minutes the effort to override the veto failed in the missouri state senate. missouri republicans fell one vote short in the senate. of overriding that veto. it was expected to be a close vote tonight. but republicans in missouri came up one vote short. so again the news at this hour. the missouri governor has held off a republican led effort in his state to declare invalid all federal gun laws and threaten to jail federal law enforcement officers. so second civil war averted. we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] we lowered her fever.

you raise her spirits. we tackled your shoulder pain. you make him rookie of the year. we took care of your cold symptoms. you take him on an adventure. tylenol® has been the number 1 doctor recommended brand of pain reliever for over 20 years. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more. tylenol®.

♪ and i'll never desert you ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you yeaaaah! yeah. so that's our loyalty program. you're automatically enrolled, and the longer you stay, the more rewards you get. great! oh! ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ won't let nobody hurt you ♪ isn't there a simpler way to explain the loyalty program? yes.

standing by you from day one. now, that's progressive. this is the view of brooklyn. looking, looking from manhattan toward brooklyn. when you think of views of new york, you tend to think of looking at it the other way around. looking from brooklyn at manhattan. looking at manhattan's famous skyline. but brooklyn of course is its own place. one of the biggest cities in the country. brooklyn alone, not new york in general, but just brooklyn, is bigger than philly. brooklyn is bigger than dallas. brooklyn is bigger than houston even. brooklyn alone is bigger than

every other city in the country. aside from chicago, and l.a., and the rest of new york. brooklyn is huge. it has been huge for a very, very long time. starting way back in the 1830s, the great american poet walt whitman lived in brooklyn. he was born all most 200 years ago now. he was a surprisingly modern guy. walt whitman used word like stuff in his poems. he said things like he/she in the time of the civil war. he wrote racy, sensual, scandalous stuff that even your best high school english teacher did not read to you in school. in school when you were lucky enough to get whitman, instead it is, greeting card stuff. like opening lines of when lilacs last in the door yard bloomed. but today of all days, kid the same guy, that same unnaturally modern guy writing about brooklyn, writing abut taking the ferry home to brooklyn in years before they took the

brooklyn bridge. writing about the ferry. writing about being able to see from here to there not just in space but in time. whitman's genius was the way he saw from where he was in the 1850s and 1860s ahead in time to where we are now. in a way we recognize it when we read his word about us. despite how long ago they were written. on the ferry boats. hundreds and hundreds that cross returning home. are more curious to me than you suppose. and you that shall cross from shore to shore, years hence, are more to me and more in my meditations than you might suppose. walt whitman meditating on us, right? pressing his face up against the glass of time. and seeing, or claiming to see, or imagining to see us. us, 150 years later. way over here. hi, walt. today in new york city, and around the country, in shanksville, pennsylvania, at the pentagon, building in

virginia. at the center of it all in new york city. we think about this very dark day for human beings. the crystal clear views of what happens in lower manhattan that day. the ones that could be seen, just by regular people from just turning your head and looking. those crystal clear views were from brooklyn. to which so many people made the crossing that day in fear and shock. you could see the towers on 9/11 better from brooklyn than from anywhere in manhattan. here in new york city beyond the official history of the attack, the official history and national response and what all the leaders did, there is the human history among us of people walking home. walking away. crossing the east river. crossing the hudson river. walking of and down the spine of manhattan. but wherever you were, that day could seem dark in a way that few other days could. and it still does. even this many years later. walt whitman wrote about that idea too in the same poem -- "it

is not upon you alone the dark patches fame. the dark threw its patches down upon me also. he goes on to talk about how he sort of feels about his own sins. he talks about feeling ruined. his point that's we have all been there. sometimes we are all there together. everyone together. it is 12 years on which means that we now have a whole jen ration of kids around for whom that day has only ever been history. the way old walt whitman is history. or, the civil war is history. or the civil rights movement. you know? rosa parks. 12 years on now our memories of the day are getting older ever day since. for those of us who are old enough to know it is our responsibility not to just remember for ourselves but to figure out how to explain it, to those who did not see it. who did not live when it happened. bet who now live in a world changed because it did happen. something happened to us on that day 12 years ago.

but what kind of history it makes is up to us now, moving forward, with the way we tell that story evermore. good thursday morning. right now on "first look," a new report that the cia has begun delivering weapons to sir yen rebels secretary kelly speaks to the russian and president putin speaks directly to the new york people in the "new york times." north korea appears to have started a nuclear reactor. the 9/11 tribute provides a powerful reminder of exactly what happened 12 years ago. plus, an update on a school bus crash involving seniors, the had and a rare sighting of a smoke-nado