however you make it, make your home a place like no other. real cowboys get customized car insurance with liberty mutual, so we only pay for what we need. -hey tex, -wooo. can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

all right, coming up in this hour of ayman, some republicans are crying identity politics over president biden's promise to nominate a black woman to the supreme court. but is thaur problem with identity or the identity? plus profit over principle. why spotify is choosing the joe rogan hill to die on. and gop lawmakers seem to love canceling culture.

we're going to dive into the very latest efforts to ban books from classrooms in this country. i'm ayman mohyeldin. let's get started. all right, so the ink isn't even dry on justice stephen breyer's retirement announcement and yet some republicans are already up in arms about his replacement. and while there's still a lot, and i mean a lot we don't know about president biden's first supreme court pick, there's one thing we actually know for certain. >> while i've been studying candidates backgrounds and writings, i've made no decision except one. the person i will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the united states supreme court. >> now, this isn't exactly new

information to be clear. biden was simply reiterating a pledge he made during his presidential campaign. but as you can imagine in washington, d.c. that did not stop republicans from falling over themselves to criticize a nominee that hasn't even been named yet. members of the gop say biden's promise will bring identity politics into the supreme court. just take a listen to mississippi senator roger wicker here. >> the irony is that the supreme court is at the very same time hearing cases about -- about this sort of affirmative racial discrimination. >> yes. >> and while adding someone who's the beneficiary of this sort of quota that the majority of the court may be saying writ large it's unconstitutional. we'll see how that irony works out. >> now, i'm not sure if senator wicker here has some sort of

psychic powers, but how exactly would he know so much about the qualifications of someone who hasn't even been chosen yet? i mean to be clear a president pledging to pick supreme court candidates from a specific demographic is not a new phenomenon. in fact, several republicans have done it before. back in 1980 then presidential candidate ronald reagan promised he would name a woman to the supreme court. he would go onto nominate the first female justice sandra day o'connor. and of course republicans favorite president trump in 2020 made it very clear. his replacement for justice ginsburg would be a woman. that of course ended up being amy coney barrett. here's what senator wicker had to say to barrett at the time. >> i have seven grandchildren, five grand daughters, and i think you're going to be an inspiration to those five grand daughters. >> so clearly this senator understands the power of representation and what it means. so don't young black girls in

this country also deserve to have that kind of inspiration? shouldn't they be able to see themselves reflected on the nation's highest court? but let's be honest for a moment, let's be clear. the issue here isn't identity politics. the court has always been intertwined with identity. from its inception in 1789 until 1967 when thurgood marshal, the first black supreme court justice joined the bench, the entirety of the court was made up of white men. so it's not really the idea of taking identity into account when making an appointment that some republicans are criticizing. it's the identity itself. it's that it's going to be a black woman. take a look here at some of the names being floated to replace breyer. these are highly qualified judges. let's consider judge ketanji brown jackson, sits on the court of appeals and widely considered

to be one of the front runners for that vacancy. you know who also served on the d.c. court of appeals before his appointment to supreme court as a justice, brett kavanaugh. we've got a lot to discuss so let's get started and bring in my saturday night panel. tim is the cofounder of she will rise, an initiative aimed at putting a black woman on the supreme court. joseph stern is a staff writer for slate, and margaret cho is a comedian and host of the podcast. you can see her perform at the irvine improv on february 11 and 12th. it's great to have all of you with us. let me get your thoughts on this. your organization has been advocating specifically for this moment. did you expect this kind of response from republicans? >> we expected this type of response but remain disappointed. you know, to be completely honest with you the conversation is being framed all wrong. we should be thinking about how is it that we are going to be sure that the senators are going

to provide their constitutional duty to advise and consent and make sure that this judge has the judicial disposition and the -- and the experience to be an excellent addition to this -- to the supreme court. we have, you know, if you just look at the slate of judges who are already before us and the names that have already been circulated, these women are phenomenal, imminently qualified. we have federal defenders. we have civil rights leaders, prosecutors. it is a beautiful and diverse slate of nominees. and frankly, if we were to take any one of their cvs and put the name john smith at the top of it, we wouldn't eveben having this conversation. >> that's such a good point and probably the most heart breaking thing in all of this, that

people are talking about these justices or potential justices purely as i mentioned because we know it's going to be a black woman regardless of what their qualifications are, and that's absolutely unacceptable. margaret, twitter was full of bad takes after this announcement including this one from the new executive director for the georgetown center for the constitution. he suggested another possible nominee on twitter, an indian american jurist but said he wouldn't fit into the latest intersection hiarkky so, quote, we'll get less black women. what's your reaction to that? >> i don't understand why we're trying to argue about this. what we're trying to do basically here is expand the diversity of the court, expand the diversity of all of these judges. i think the it's a very difficult time. and we're -- we're sort of like arguing something that's not -- it's not valid to what's happening right now. this divides us even further. i'm so excited about the possibility of a black woman on

the supreme court. this has to happen now. and this is a really important step. >> mark, your most recent piece touches on the conservative backlash. you write that republicans are laying the groundwork to single out whoever this next justice will be as unqualified and inferior for decades to come. think we're imagining things just ask justice sonia sotomayor, and it's true the way they have portrayed her as unqualified persists to this day. how can the court's history show us what we might see in the coming months? >> well, republicans have been running the same play book against women of color nominees to the federal judiciary since the very first woman of color was nominated to the federal courts in 1966, an incredibly tal wanted jurist who had argued ten cases before the supreme court, won nine of them, litigated in the jim crow south in defense of black people, risking her life to vindicate

constitutional rights. and yet when she was nominated to a district court in new york republicans complained that she was not qualified. the white men who ran the american bar association said that she didn't have the real qualifications to be a judge. it was nonsense back then. it's nonsense today. it was certainly nonsense when republicans trotted out all these lines against sonia sotomayor in 2009. and i want to be clear about something here. obama never, ever said he would nominate the first latina to the supreme court. he never said he had a specific criteria for who he would pick. but when he selected sonia sotomayor, republicans and conservative commentators immediately accused her of being an affirmative action hire, of being a mediocrity who only secured her spot because of her race and gender. this is a woman who had served on a district court, had extensive trial experience who served as a prosecutor, who served on a court of appeals.

she was one of the most experienced judges in the entire judiciary, but republicans accused of her being unqualified. i think it is long pastime that we stop taking these complaints seriously and just all agree that any woman of color nominated to a position of power is deemed presumptively unqualified and mediocre by a large segment of the population. >> kim, to margaret's point about diversity, diversity isn't just lacking inside the supreme court. it can be really felt all throughout the judiciary even though biden's actively working to change that on the u.s. court of appeals. what does this current lack of diversity tell the next generation? and do you ever see a world where this could be turned around? >> so, i have to applaud this administration for the steps they've taken, the historic nominations. however, there remains a lot more work to do. you know, black women remain

1.6% of federal judges. and it's not just future generations. it's also current, our current american people. how can we have faith in a judiciary that is not a true and accurate representation of the people these justices are sworn to serve? and i want to highlight these are lifetime appointments that are taking place, so we need to pay attention. what i really love about this question and want to lift up is while it's critically important that we have these conversations about the supreme court, we still have 120 vacancies that we need to fill. and so while we are still having these conversations about the supreme court and keeping an eye on, you know, this president's nominee or the hopeful nominee we really need to make sure we continue to nominate and fill these vacancies to ensure that we're able to make our stamp on the time we do have, to make this judiciary a fair representation of this country.

>> kim, put the justice nomination on the side for a second. let's talk politics of this. could democrats energize the base with a historic appointment? i mean, president biden in the polls is struggling right now. could this be a turn around moment at least for this year with this appointment with his base? >> i think this is our moment. and the answer to that question is absolutely. we stand ready. she will rise is the only initiative that is singularly focused on ensuring we nominate and confirm the first black woman to the supreme court. and if we increase diversity on the entire federal judiciary, and we are determined and ready to get our folks ready and on the phone with their senators to make sure we are continuing to further diversity the federal judiciary and seeing our first woman on the supreme court. >> margaret, the flip side to that is that republicans are already planning to use this

against democrats in the mid-terms. they're targeting vulnerable incumbents and tying them -- or tying to them what they've already decided is just a liberal justice. could that be a winning strategy for them? how much do you think the supreme court factors into how people -- we know it worked for republicans because trump campaigned on promising to appoint pro-life justices despite the fact that people rejected so much about his personal beliefs, yet they went along with the fact he was going to put pro-life justices on the supreme court and he did deliver for them. >> right. but i think that because of that now we understand how important the supreme court is and how these are lifetime appointments, and this will affect us for generations. and so i think that what this does really for republicans it just gives them more of a chance to show their racism, to show what they're actually thinking because when they oppose these

decisions just blindly because of race, because of gender, it really shows what they're thinking and who they are, and i think there's nothing better than the truth when it comes to that. >> mark, i've got to ask you something that stood out to me after breyer's announcement the justices released statements, these cordial statements it almost seemed they read out of a signed yearbook of a graduating high school senior. chief justice called breyer an antecdote and she can hardly imagine the court without him. brett kavanaugh called breyer a fierce patriot and praised his nonpartisan approach, and justice barrett called him a model of civility. even nbc's pete williams remarked these statements seemed especially warm and friendly. and it's conjuring in my head the departing senior in high

school. what kind of dynamic could a new justice bring in? because the truth is it's not going to change the fact you have a super majority for the conservatives on the bench. >> right. this is a one for one swap. the court's ideology will remain the same. at the same time breyer was very much a conciliatory voice. i thought when his retirement was announced he was too conciliatory and he was too eager to search out compromises and was too willing to sacrifice his own principles in order to get some kind of tradeoff with the right-wing bloc, tradeoffs that have been increasingly difficult to secure in a 6-3 court. it doesn't surprise me so many justices seem to love him. in addition to his rather charming personality, he's been working alongside some of them for more than 20 years. i think it's easy to forget that the justices of the supreme court have to see each other day

in and day out, year after year decade after decade. and i think there's just something about the human brain that develops coping mechanisms that teaches you how to like someone you would otherwise hate where you have to be constantly sitting right next to them and dealing with them in situations, so i think breyer excelled at the human relations aspelkts of his job. i think he probably disagrees with everything sam has ever said, they'll figure out how to be friendly with him, how to be chums with him. she is not willing to make those kind of compromises and so we will see what happens if a more sharp elbowed justice takes the seat. >> all right, mark and margaret, please stick around. kim, thank you for joining us tonight. greatly appreciate your insights on this. and coming up anti-vaxers were outraged after a boston hospital denied a heart transplant to a man who isn't vaccinated against covid-19. i'm going to share my thoughts on that next. plus if republicans hate

cancel culture so much why are they encouraging it across the country? but first richard lui here with the headlines. the latest on that nor'easter. blizzard warnings still issued all the way from new jersey to maine at this moment. 2 1/2 feet of snow hitting some areas in the northeast. massachusetts hardest hit, over 88,000 people right now without power. let's go to nbc's chris pollone who is in boston. chris, we spoke an hour ago, and we're not necessarily the best at math sometimes, but that number is lower than we spoke an hour ago. >> yeah, that's right. under 90,000, and richard you might be able to hear there's a wind gauge here on long wharf that is blowing pretty hard right now. this wind is expected to continue into tomorrow. and even from an hour ago when we last spoke, the temperature has definitely dropped. so that is not great news for people who get their heat through electricity, who do not have power tonight. so the power crews have made

progress, have brought that number down from a peak about 120,000 customers without power. most of those people are on cape cod and on the south shore of massachusetts heading down towards cape cod, but there are scattered outages. the governor of massachusetts thanked people for staying off the roads. he wants them to stay off until tomorrow morning so these plows, thousands of plows out there can cleanup the roads, get the place ready for school and work on monday. >> saving grace. this is the weekend. chris pollone there in boston for us. thank you so much with the latest. more ayman with ayman mohyeldin right after this break. ayman w [limu emu squawks] woo! new personal record, limu! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ right after this break they say durable is the new black. okay, no one says that. but, it's true. just ask sharon. after three years these barstools still look brand new.

even with these crazy lovebirds. [ squak ] alright i'll take the barstools! you can keep the birds. okay. y'all gotta hear this next one. kevin holds all my shirts and shorts. he even stuck with me through a cross country move. yeah, i named my dresser kevin. wow! i need a kevin that holds all my clothes. alright. i am sold. ♪ ♪making your way in the world today♪ ♪takes everything you've got♪ ♪ ♪taking a break from all your worries ♪ ♪sure would help a lot ♪ ♪wouldn't you like to get away? ♪ ♪ ♪ sometimes you want to go ♪ ♪where everybody knows your name ♪ ♪ ♪and they're always glad you came ♪

and it's easy to get a quote at libertymutual.com so you only pay for what you need. isn't that right limu? limu? sorry, one sec. doug blows a whistle. [a vulture squawks.]

oh boy. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪

they're calling for unvaccinated people to not even be treated in hospitals. we need to, like, deny these people medical treatment. we need to shame these people. we need to make these people feel bad, but they don't do that with anything else when it comes to health. they don't do that with people who are overweight. they don't do that with people who spoke, with people who take drugs. >> all right, so that was notorious anti-vaxxer joe rogan making it clear to the world yet again that he simply does not know what he is talking about. those comments were from his podcast last fall, but they've actually received a lot of attention this week after a boston man was denied a heart transplant because he's unvaccinated. but in reality this story is

much, much more complicated. and here's the thing in all of this. most transplant programs around the country have similar requirements. and it's not just that covid vaccine. the hospitals usually require the seasonal flu shot, hepatitis b vaccine, a lot more. you know what else is also required, quote, lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient's survival after trance plnitation. that's because during and after a transplant procedure the immune system is drastically suppressed. these requirements are not punitive. doctors are not as joe rogan said, they're not trying to shame a patient. this is to improve a patient's chance of survival. a transplant is a gravely serious operation, and transplanted organs are precious resources only given to those with the best chance of success. so joe rogan, people aren't

trying to shame you. you've already proven to be quite shameless yourself. anti-vaxers have made their choice. they just don't want to face any conskwnlss for them. margaret cho and mark joseph stern are also back with us. mark, the vaccination requirements are there for a serious reason. what do you make of this story? am i off base here? >> i think you're exactly right. it's not shocking to see someone like joe rogan pedaling misinformation. but i think it's become clear in recent years there is a culture of victimhood on the american right wherein many leading conservatives seem to believe they're constantly being attacked and alieniated and ostracized and persecuted when no such thing is occurring, and they are in fact retreating further into their own paranoia and delusions. joe rogan is an excellent example of this, and sadly woosh we have a number of judges on

the federal bench today who feel the same way. i wrote an article not long ago about the escalating number of changes complaining about cancel culture in their judicial opinions. almost all of them appointed by donald trump. so here we have a vaccine that's safe and effective that is being used in transplants patients to ensure they have a good chance of survival, that they're as healthy as can be when their immune systems are suppressed. and this is suddenly framed as persecuting someone for political reasons because they don't want to take this most basic step to protect their own chances of survival after an operation. if that is not a sense of paranoid victimhood, i don't know what it is. and like you said joe rogan has no capacity for shame. if he did i would just hope that he understands he is killing his listeners with his nonsense quite literally. and i hope that someone intervenes to help them because otherwise they may well die. >> and what's incredibly frustrating about this, margaret, wouldn't you think an

emergency of this scale might make a person in such a vulnerable position do what was necessary to get to transplant and survive? i mean, after all this guy -- the patient here who's getting this heart transplant, he obviously trusts the doctors enough to replace his heart. so he trusts the science that these doctors are going to apply to him. and i am pretty confident he does not understand or does not necessarily know every single drug that is going to be applied to him throughout this entire transplant operation, and yet this simple recommendation of a shot in the arm to give him a better chance, he doesn't want to take. >> it's because of the politicization of all of this, you know? and it's really crazy. and i don't think i would care so much if covid-19 wasn't going to continue to mutate unless we all got vaccinated, unless we actually all dealt with this together, that this is going to

keep on getting worse and worse. and there will be more and more variants because this small stronghold of people decided they know science and they know better. and it's not -- it's not political. it shouldn't be politicized, but unfortunately, it has been. and it's really -- it's a really sad thing. >> mark, were you at all surprised at the scope of the reaction to this story and how much it has generated particularly on the right? and like i said the fact that it was -- in my opinion it was taken out of context because this patient is receiving a heart transplant. he was not denied a heart transplant because he's unvaccinated. it's because doctors want the heart transplant to be successful. and if you reject science and you reject the medicine that gives you a chance of it being successful, they know how precious of a resource that heart is. they want to give it to somebody who has a good chance of surviving. >> right. i mean, if i can put on my media criticism hat here for a minute,

that was a terrible headline. and the framing of that story was widely irresponsible because it plays directly into these fears and delusions that many conservative leaders are actively cultivating in their followers and supporters that the vaccine is dangerous but that the government is using its power to punish and potentially even harm or kill people who refuse to take it. the ap played right into that dynamic with this headline. and as you noted and explained quite eloquently, it's just not true and not the case. all of that said, again, i was not surprised to see the reaction because anti-vaxism is not just a political thing, though it certainly is as margaret noted, it is a cult. and is so often true with cults there are certain tenants of belief here that cannot be shaken no matter how much evidence is thrown at the believer. and here, you know, we can talk all night amongst ourselves about how ridiculous and

irrational these views are, but tragically these individuals have been so deeply with this propaganda nothing it seems can shake them from it. we're hearing stories people on their death beds being asked will you take this vaccine now, and they say no because they are convinced that they should and must not and that it is worth dying for. and that really makes me worry about the state of american politics that we have one party capitalizing on those. >> yeah, and margaret, speaking of and staying just on joe rogan here for a quick second, joni mitchell is joining neil young's boycott of spotify having both their music removed due the information opvaccines on their podcast. utwhat do you make of spotify citing over young and mitchell? what would it take the company to change its mind? is it something the company should be considering? i've seen people make the point you know spotify is like cbs or any other company that sells

stuff that is harmful including junk food tit you can find at a super market. why should they be held responsible for what joe rogan is saying? i don't know i buy that analogy but peek are making that analogy, so i'm posing it to you. margaret, i think you may have frozen. margaret, are you there? margaret, you froze for a second. if you're still there i don't know if you heard the question i was making, but you want to respond to that about spotify, neil young and joni mitchell? all right, it seems like -- yeah, margaret, we're going to try to re-establish connection with you and come right back. we're going to take a quick break. we've got a lot more to talk about. coming up why the conservative attack on banning books could have lasting effects in this country. stick around. ning (vo) effects ning books could have lasting

in this country. stick around with verizon 5g ultra wideband now in many more cities so you can do more. hey, it's mindy! downloading a movie up to 10 times faster than before. oh, is that the one where the mom becomes a... (mindy) yep! (vo) i knew it! and claire in hd clarity. steve, is that jelly? this place is packed! you couldn't even send a text in a crowd before. now look at david with the connection. posting like crazy! (david) it's wild. (vo) 5g ultra wideband is now in more and more places. verizon is going ultra, so you can too.

fries or salad? (vo) 5g ultra wideband is now in more and more places. salad! good choice! it is. so is screening for colon cancer. when caught in early stages, it's more treatable. hey, cologuard! hi, i'm noninvasive and i detect altered dna in your stool to find 92% of colon cancers even in early stages. early stages. it's for people 45 plus at average risk for colon cancer, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider if cologuard is right for you. (all) to screening! (vo) for me, one of the best things about life is that we keep moving forward. we discover exciting new technologies. redefine who we are and how we want to lead our lives. basically, choose what we want our future to look like.

so what's yours going to be?

tide pods ultra oxi one ups the cleaning power of liquid. can it one up whatever they're doing? for sure. seriously? one up the power of liquid, one up the toughest stains. any further questions? uh uh! one up the power of liquid with tide pods ultra oxi.

now, have any of you guys ever seen one of these bad things for real? we've burned almost every physical book in the country. it's about time you guys grow up there won't be one book left. >> a future dystopian american like in fahrenheit 451 might not be as far off as we once thought. the idea of burning books that led one to question aspects of their life or broader society was once seen as an absurdity in this country. but is it really any different than the current republican attack aimed at abolishing any books they deem objectionable from classrooms? now, to be clear here the books we're talking about they aren't the communist manifesto or lolita. these are novels written for children and young adults that just so happen to follow characters that are gay or black or trans, books about coming of age and reckoning with the real

world problems like depression, gender politics and racial injustice, history like the holocaust or slavery. but to conservatives these novels apparently represent an existential threat to their children. i mean, how much of a snowflake do you have to be to be scared of a children's book, god forbid a 14-year-old learned about racism or trans people before they go off to college. the irony in all of this right wings and republicans, the pinnacle of cancel culture and censorship they called it. they argue teachers and parents can explain dr. seuss' drawings and put them into proper context. just to be clear here in their minds racist imagery is a-okay in school libraries but books about a young black boy who's proud of his blackness or a pair of gay teens falling in love, apparently those are obscene.

rug was perfect. okay. stop being weird. mom and daughter agreeing on something. wayfair works miracles! ooh! check this one out. this chair is so comfortable. it puts both of my babies to sleep. look at you making a space that works perfectly for all of you! i could use a good nap.

- your mom's got to go! - she's family. she's using my old spice moisturize with shea butter and she's wearing my robe. mom: ahem ahem ahem we're out.

all right, so it seems that republicans are towing the line between cancel culture and actually canceling culture. they're startling push across the country to ban dozens and dozens of books from classrooms has taken flight. and yet the only real connection between any of these dangerous books almost all of them center around characters people of color, gay or trans, not to mention critical race theory or even the holocaust. joining our saturday night panel is a youth and internet culture reporter for nbc news digital, margaret cho and mark joseph stern are also back with us. last year we saw conservatives up in arms when the seuss' state said it would stop selling dr. seuss books. here we are one year later conservatives are outright banning books about transgender

teens, critical race theory and police brutality. what's the disconnect here? >> well, i think it's very obvious there is some hypocrisy happening here. you have books that are being banned, you know, due to raising up marginalized voices. and it seems like it's a narrative that some members of the gop just don't want out there. and you see on the other foot that there are books that the gop is up in arms at. there's been a major disconnect here, and i think it's all rooted in hypocrisy. it's the narrative they want out there, the narrative they're comfortable with. and it kind of speaks to some snowflake culture. >> yeah, it's incredible. and it's coming from the right, the very people who complain that everybody is a snowflake except themselves. margaret, why are they these republicans so afraid of students reading these books? what kind of fear could they possibly have of children being exposed to things that they deem offensive? >> they just want to keep ahold

of the status quo. they want to keep controlling the narrative and keep explaining away white supremacy as being all-american, and it's not. it's not at all. and so the more we can fight this with logic and really express to them this is hypocritical, this is really ridiculous. and what cancel culture really is coming from the left is just trying to do is make society fair, to make society understand its mistakes, to acknowledge its mistakes, to acknowledge its systemic mistakes over history and to change them with language. and so they're trying to use this against us here, and it's not going to work. >> mark, i remember a number of measures like the florida bill being debated a decade ago back when marriage equality was a hot button issue. why are these bills popping up again? now you have the one in georgia that passed i believe or it's

working its way through the georgia legislature essentially allowing parents or giving parents the ability to ban books they deem objectionable. >> well, i think we have a few things going on here. i mean, first of all, we live in an un-paralleled and unprecedented time of educational polarization of the electorate where the more educated you are the more likely you are to be progressive, and the less educated you are the more likely you're to going to vote for republicans. racial injustice exists, that the holocaust happened, that transgender people are not sickos, and by banning these books by limiting the scope of childrens education i think a lot of republican policy makers are trying to directly inhibit children's education and ensure they remain as narrow minded as their predecessors and do not defect to the more ofisticated and agitated political party. i also think it's clear since the start of covid republicans have latched onto this idea of

parental rights. initially this was about schools closing and specifically about masking in schools, right? we have had so many culture wars in so many states now and on the federal level about whether schools can require children to remain masked to limit the spread of covid. and i think this book banning bonanzia is just an extension of that fight, that this is another way for republicans to draw on that same raw anger and passion that parents feel when they believe their children are being corrupted and to sort of keep the party going as it were, to keep people excited about this and angry, to keep them opening their wallets, to keep them going to the polls to vote for people like glenn youngkin who have established a tip line for educational misdeeds that parents can report, and of course he was elected as the anti-max, anti-vax mandate candidate. >> it used to be, margaret, tv shows. it used to be movies.

it seems now the front lines of the culture wars in this country are school boards, which is not something i would have anticipated in this country, i've got to be honest with you. am i wrong here that now school boards are the new front lines in the culture war in this country? >> i think so because we look out into social media -- we look at the way television is, the way movies are, the way music is. there's such diversity, such expression of so many different kinds of art happening that can't be controlled. but in the mind of these conservatives what can be controlled is education and what's being taught in schools. and so they're trying to grab whatever they can grab, but it's not going to work. it's really insane. >> let's switch gears for a moment and talk about a popular tv show "euphoria," a movie that sits at the intersection of many of the social issues these days our country is facing, drugs,

young adulthood, adolescence, all kinds of social issues. why is this show so insanely popular? and more apparently why do groups like d.a.r.e. and some conservative writers hate it? what's happening here? >> the show is an interesting look at youth culture. it is an exaggeration of youth culture, i want to really stress this. even zendaya herself has said this show touches on difficult topics and you do have to have viewer discretion which watching this show. and also told from zendaya's character perspective. it is a show that scares the crap out of many young people when they watch it in terms of drugs. and groups like d.a.r.e. who have somewhat antiquated views on drug use -- when i went

through d.a.r.e. education in the '90s it was railing against marijuana which now is legal in many states and is used medsically in many more states. so d.a.r.e. has the perspective the show is somehow glorifying drug use whereas many young people watching who take in the message say this shows the reality of how much drugs not only ruin your life but how scary they can be along with how scary violence, the dangers of casual anonymous sex. it really does show the raw reality of a lot of these things in a really interesting way, and i just think there are some groups that have a little bit of antiquated view on these issues. so they don't understand how young people are actually perceiving the show. >> mark and margaret, i've got to ask you before i let you go, i'm wondering what tv shows you loved as a teen that were called too provocative. do you think there was a show at

the time might have been deemed conservative -- not conservative but certainly controversial i meant. >> yeah, i was a big fan of "6 feet under" when i was a teen, and that, too, drew a lot of criticism from the mainstream press, from parental groups for its open and honest depictions of all kinds of struggles of violence, of psychological issues. i would also note it had very strong lgbtq themes that i don't think it's a coincidence that "euphoria" does as well. if you look at the shows targeted by these parental groups, these organizations like they are so frequently they are concerned about honest and fair depictions of lgbtq people especially teenagers who are for the first time exploring their lives and sexualities and that pay be what's terrifying these folks most. and frankly i'd love to see it because they're losing. >> i love euphoria. i wish i had "euphoria" when i

was a kid. it's made me younger watching it because it's a nuanced view of being a young person. it's not a special episode -- it's a very good, honest, take on what life is like for younger people. and i think it's think it's ama. >> couldn't agree with you more on that front, margaret, and mark as well, your analysis on the shows and criticism is spot-on. thank you for joining us. before we go, tension builds in russia and ukraine, some calling for america to be more forceful abroad but are we really in position to lead? more after the break. o lead o lead more after the break

like pulsing, electric shocks, sharp, stabbing pains, what is this nightmare? it's how some people describe... shingles. a painful, blistering rash that could interrupt your life for weeks. forget social events and weekend getaways. if you've had chickenpox, the virus that causes shingles is already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. why does walgreens offer prescription copays as low as zero dollars? ♪♪ so you won't have a medicare in the world. ♪♪ fill your medicare prescriptions with walgreens and save. ♪ ♪making your way in the world today♪ ♪takes everything you've got♪ ♪ ♪taking a break from all your worries ♪ ♪sure would help a lot ♪ ♪wouldn't you like to get away? ♪

♪ ♪ sometimes you want to go ♪ ♪where everybody knows your name ♪ ♪ ♪and they're always glad you came ♪

♪ limu emu ♪ and doug. we gotta tell people that liberty mutual customizes car insurance so you only pay for what you need, and we gotta do it fast. [limu emu squawks] woo! thirty-four miles per hour! new personal record, limu!

[limu emu squawks] he'll be back. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ before we go, yesterday on my peacock show, i responded to "new york times" opinion column by brett stevens that called on america to defend democracy and freedom around the world. my take. standoff in ukraine continues while russia's foreign minister claims they tonight want war. troops increased to 130,000. diplomatic efforts to de-escalate are ongoing. one answer to what we do is from conservative "new york times" opinion columnist. he argues that america needs to

stand up for freedom and democracy around the world. believe it or not. with regards to russia, calls for permanent deployment in large numbers of u.s. forces to front line nato states, arms shipments to kyiv, measured now in pounds rather than tons needs to be full scale air lift. though he hedges and says nato need not fight for ukraine. left with question, have we learned nothing from last years in american foreign policy? only ones benefitted from $14 trillion spent in afghanistan and iraq seem to be the private contractors. and iraq, it's not encouraging, hard to point to any u.s. military intervention where our involvement hasn't made things worse. and support for antidemocratic

countries like egypt and support for the war in yemen can't make the case for advancing freedom around the world. beyond this crisis, stevens is insufferably vague what it would take. says the u.s. must quote restore the concept of the free world, larger idea that the world's democracies are bound by shared and foundational commitments to human freedom and dignity. sounds great, but shouldn't we first shore up our own foundational commitments to human freedom and dignity here in the united states? look at horror show of recent headlines in the country. when half is intent on pushing the big lie, making it harder to vote, rejecting legitimate elections, banning books and forbidding teachers from saying things the far right find

uncomfortable, what moral authority do you think we have to tell other countries anything? and i mean anything. none of this is to say that russia is right. i'm not part of the tucker carlson school that makes vladimir putin a good guy, he's not. do a better job defending freedom and democracy here at home first. thank you for making timing for us. come back tomorrow night at 9:00 eastern on msnbc. congressman david cis illine joins us to discuss the situation in kyiv. good night. kyiv. kyiv. good night

(mindy) yep! (vo) verizon is going ultra, so you can too.

yep, it's go time with wireless on the most reliable network. ok, that jump was crazy! but what's crazier? you get unlimited for just 30 bucks.