so let's go at it. and please don't, please don't lose interest. this is a test of strength. keep your grip on this gun safety issue because the other side is still into keeping theirs. you know, with their cold dead hands. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "the ed show" with ed schultz starts right now. good evening, americans. and welcome to "the ed show" from new york. we live in a country where a teacher can have a gun in a classroom and not tell the parents about it? we're going to do something about it. this is "the ed show." let's get to work. >> teachers can carry a firearm. a parent doesn't have to know about it. >> armed teachers. it's already legal in some states. and the numbers could start growing. tonight we're getting the parents' perspective on guns in the classroom. the nra refuses any discussion on gun laws. >> it doesn't mean it's the end of the discussion. but the public wants us to act. >> the family of a colorado shooting victim stands up for reform.

and mc rove drops some truth. >> doing the dance, the karl rove dance. the dancing and talking and dancing and talk. >> karl rove blows up the republican debt ceiling ruse. americans livi in poveis y at an all-time high. senator bernie sanders is here with the outrage on inequality. junior seau's test results may finally push the nfl to address head injuries. we're taking a look into the findings. oscar nominations were released today. but how heavy will politics weigh with the academy? >> they stay here, they will be taken. probably not alive. >> david edelstein gives us the scoop. good to have you with us tonight, folks. thanks for watching. another group of parents received the terrifying news today when a shooting erupted at their children's school. at the exact time vice president joe biden was meeting with groups on solutions to gun violence a gunman opened fire at a high school in bakersfield, california about 120 miles

northwest of los angeles. police say a 16-year-old shooter was armed with a shotgun. at least two people were shot, including one student who was in critical condition. there is usually an armed police officer at the school. but he was not there today. the gunman was stopped by a teacher and another adult, who talked him into giving up his weapon. the shooter is in police custody. the storm of gun violence in our schools across the country has opened up a pandora's box. one of the most controversial proposals is to put more guns in schools. and put them in the hands of teachers. it's not a popular idea nationwide. 64% of americans oppose arming our school teachers. but those who support the idea of making their voices heard. last night we spoke with caroline kane, a special education teacher from utah who was training to use a firearm, which she plans to carry into her classroom. >> it's not so much i want to carry a gun. i want to have options for that situation. i think the world is changing. it's not safe. and we see these kinds of situations happen over and over. >> caroline kane lives in a state with the most permissive laws about guns in schools. in the state of utah a person

way firearm permit can carry a gun in a grade school and public colleges. utah's firearm laws prohibit public schools from enforcing any rules about guns. this means utah is the only state in the nation requiring schools to allow firearms. other states want to follow utah's lead. tennessee lawmakers plan to introduce a bill to allow secretly armed teachers in classrooms. ohio leaves the decision up to guns -- of guns up to individual school boards to make that decision. the state's attorney says schools should consider arming their staffers. texas gun laws allow weapons in public schools if they are approved by the school district. a small district in harrold,

texas has an undisclosed number of staff members carrying concealed guns. i asked caroline kane about the concerns people might have when you start arming teachers. >> what if you had a parent who objected to it? what position would that put you in? >> well, in the state of utah a parent doesn't have to know about it. teachers can carry a firearm and nobody ever -- they've been doing it for 12 years. i've found out more and more about teachers that do. >> teachers in caroline kane's school who currently carry a weapon are under no obligation to inform parents. i asked caroline if this could pose a problem. >> and the parents are dropping their little kids off to a school, and they don't know that there is a firearm in the classroom. do you think they have a right to know? >> not necessarily. not necessarily.

>> why? >> because i think that firearms are -- what we do know is that the bad guys come into schools. what we don't know -- i mean, we're making lots of guesses about what could happen if. and those things haven't happened. like i said, we've been able to carry them for 12 years here in utah. and i have not heard them. and they would be on the news if those things happened. >> she is torn by the culture of guns in this country. she wants to do the right thing. i don't believe caroline kane is an unreasonable person. and i'm glad she spoke her mind on this program. but it is also reasonable to be concerned if your child's teacher is carrying a loaded gun and if you don't know about it. there is a major disconnect in america between the two sides of the discussion. we can't achieve solutions until we figure out how to bridge the gap. get your cell phones out. i want to know what you think. tonight's question was tweeted

to us earlier this week by tommy christopher at mediaite. the question is would you send your kids to school with armed teachers? text a for yes. text b for no to 622639. you can always go tower blog at ed.msnbc.com and leave a comment. we encourage you to do that. we'll bring you the results later on in the program. i am joined tonight by rhonda bromley, a spokesperson for the alpine school district in iet utah and bill mcgee. he is a parent of four children in the alpine school district. great to have both of you with us tonight. i appreciate you contributing in the discussion, which is so very intense in this country right now. rhonda, does your school district stand by the decision of teachers to carry concealed weapons in the classroom in utah? >> we do. in alpine school district we follow the state law which states if someone does have a concealed firearm permit they are allowed to have a weapon with them and that does include

in their classroom and in the schools. >> do a lot of teachers carry, to your knowledge? >> you know, we don't know because as part of the law they do need to keep that concealed. and that includes not letting people know at the school that they have that. it's not something that administrators require employees to share that information. it's not something that the teachers or the employees should be talking with their students about. it's supposed to be concealed. and that includes being physically not seen by the students, but also, they shouldn't be talking about it with people and letting people know they have one. >> sure. bill, as a parent with children in the schools in that district, what's your reaction to that? >> i don't like it. i think that, you know, we've really got two approaches here. we can either arm all of our teachers and bring guns closer to our children or we can make laws that remove guns and pull guns further away from kids. and if a teacher has access to a

gun, then children have access to that gun. and if the children don't have access to the gun, then what point is it if the teacher can't get to it quickly? i mean, it doesn't make much sense. >> bill, how do you feel about not knowing whether one of your teachers of your kids is packing? >> well, that bothers me a lot. the big challenge i have is that as much as there is -- i believe probably their heart's in the right place and there's a lot of enthusiasm about solving a problem. they simply don't have the training needed to respond to a high-pressure situation in any kind of meaningful way. and i think if a scenario came up they're just going to compound the problem. and i would rather my children had a teacher that was focused on teaching instead of being an armed vigilante. >> rhonda, as you stated, the state allows teachers to carry guns in the school. but from a moral perspective do you think parents have a right to know if their teacher are in a classroom where there is a gun present? >> well, obviously, there are

different opinions, as you've heard on that. it's not something that as district officials we're promoting and we're encouraging people to do, but we're certainly supporting the state law. the superintendent in the state of utah today met with all of the superintendents in every single district, and this was one of the things they talked about. and he reminded them of what the law is and what the expectation is of employees if they do have firearm permits and if they do have weapons in the schools. so it's something that certainly is being talked about, not just because of what happened last month or even what happened today in california. this is something that's an ongoing conversation in our schools. >> no doubt. i want to play another clip with my interview with caroline kane from last night. here it is. >> the polls show that only 27% of the people think that teachers should be armed. that's a rather low number. do you get a sense from your community that that number doesn't mean anything, that

people are going to go along with this? >> in my community, yes. and that is one of the reasons i don't think it should be a federal issue. that's why i think it should be up to local -- local governments and state governments to decide. >> bill, i'd like your reaction to that. do you agree that the community is okay with this? >> no, i don't. there's certainly people on all sides of the issue. but i mean, we've had i think a trend toward electing people who are more extreme in their positions on this and i dent think they represent necessarily the average parent who i think would prefer an environment where their child wasn't exposed to that kind of risk. >> vice president biden of course is working really hard at this and is meeting with a lot of groups. and speaking of federal law, would you be more comfortable if this was a federal law that would make it so that public schools could not have teachers who were armed or do you believe that should be up to the local districts?

>> i think this needs to be a national consensus. i think we need a federal law on that. i don't -- i don't believe that -- if you create anomalous environments where those things are available, you have too much bleed thru, i think we need to have consistency across this. parents should feel comfortable regardless of where they live. >> rhonda, has there been any student reaction to this? what is their takeaway knowing the teachers in their schools may be secretly armed? >> well, i mean, you used the word "secretly." but we do have, as was mentioned, the law in the entire state of utah. and the bottom line is we all have the same goal. we want our kids to be safe in schools. and we need to work together on that. as district officials and teachers we do need to work with parents. we need to work with our local law enforcement officials to -- just to make sure we're doing everything that we can to keep our kids safe in schools. the featurer mentioned that she's doing this because she wants to keep her kids safe.

there are many, many things that all of us can do to make sure our kids are safe in schools. >> but isn't it you think maybe the responsibility of the school district to keep the teachers safe as well as the kids? >> certainly. and like i said, it takes all of us working together to make sure that happens. we meet with law enforcement officers every single month to review our procedures, things that prevent things from happening but also making sure that if something were to happen not just with ain truder with a gun but, you know, any kind of safety thing that can happen to our students, that we're prepared to handle that. but again, working together. >> and god forbid anything to happen, but what is the liability? has this been, you know, played out legally? i mean, has this been well thought out? bill, how do you feel about the liability aspect of this? >> i think that's clearly a big problem. you've got a -- let's say, god forbid, there's a scenario where a teacher feels compelled to defend herself or the children and you've got that high pressure environment, tunnel

vision, inability to really use your peripheral vision, all those things that happen in those kinds of scenarios. and you get children between that teacher and whatever the perceived threat is. and i think you've got a huge mess on your hands. the teachers aren't prepared. and there's a huge liability. i mean, and i don't want that liability to be like one of my children. >> rhonda, what about that? what about teachers not being prepared? not being professionally trained to handle a situation that was just described? >> before anyone is allowed to have a concealed firearms permit, they do need to go through training. but bill is right. somebody that isn't using that expertise every single day like maybe a law ennorsement officer is, that is a concern, and that's why that's something that we're continually talking about with our employees and what the examination is if they do have a permit. >> all right. rhonda bromley and bill mcgee, i appreciate you being on "the ed show" tonight and contributing to the discussion. i think it's discussions like this that we've got to have if we're going to make any progress in this country.

we need to do the right thing. i think everybody is undoubtedly tasked with really the responsibility to step forward and lead on this. and i think that utah is leading in a different way as far as the discussion is concerned. remember to answer tonight's question there at the bottom of the screen. share your thoughts with us on twitter @edshow and on facebook we always want to know what you think. coming up, the national rifle association promised us a meaningful conversation about gun laws. tonight they're promising to block any new legislation. i'll give you an update on the national debate over guns when we come back and so much more. stay with us. [ truck beeping ]

morning, boys. so, i'm working on a cistern intake valve, and the guy hands me a locknut wrench. no way! i'm like, what is this, a drainpipe slipknot? wherever your business takes you, nobody keeps you on the road like progressive commercial auto. [ flo speaking japanese ] [ shouting in japanese ]

we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today. old friends karl rove and tim pawlenty want republicans to stop playing chicken with the economy by trying to use the debt ceiling as leverage. i'll have the details ahead. and "zero dark thirty" had members of congress calling for an investigation. did the controversy keep the film from receiving more oscar nominations? film critic david edelstein will

weigh in. don't forget, you can listen to my radio show on sirius xm radio channel 127 monday through friday noon to 3:00 p.m. share your thoughts with us on facebook and on twitter using the #edshow. we're coming right back.

in all my years involved in these issues there's nothing that has gone to the heart of the matter more than the visual image people have of little 6-year-old kids riddled, not shot with a stray bullet, riddled, riddled with bullet

holes in their classroom. >> thanks for staying with us tonight on "the ed show." vice president joe biden wrapped up a series of meetings with dozens of advocacy groups in the wake of the newtown school shooting. biden says he'll deliver his report to the president tuesday. he's talked with religious leaders and people in the entertainment industry including our parent company, comcast. he's talked to domestic violence experts and children's health advocates. he's met with families and law enforcement and clubs like ducks unlimited. out of all of those clubs only one refused to bring any ideas to the table. only one is accusing the administration of attack the second amendment. it's the nra. >> the administration was able to check the box and say they talked to the representatives of firearms owners and the groups that support the second amendment, and now they were

going to try to proceed with what they wanted to do. >> the nra is promising to lobby congress to block any legislation on guns. they're offering no compromise. but here are some of the recommendations the rest of the organizations could agree on in the meeting. vice president joe biden says we could clarify the responsibilities of gun ownership. we should reconsider restrictions on high-capacity clips and magazines. we should have universal background checks. that means every transaction involving a firearm requires a background check. right now people can buy a semi-automatic weapon at a gun show without a background check. a lot of americans aren't happy with that. people can also buy and sell guns over the internet without background checks. in fact, only two states out of 50 require background checks on every firearm transaction. bill clinton was the last president to take on the gun lobby and win. he got the assault weapons ban passed in 1994. yesterday he restated his opinion. >> i grew crew up in the hunting culture, but this is nuts. >> this is nuts. we can't let the nra block meaningful gun legislation.

i'm joined tonight by two parents who are advocating for change. sandy and lonnie phillips lost their daughter, jessica gauwi in a mass shooting in aurora seven months ago. jessica was just 24 years old. she wanted to be a sportscaster. so she moved to colorado in 2010 to go to metro state, metropolitan state university in denver. she survived a mass shooting at a food court in toronto. but she was among the 12 people murdered in the shooting at the movie theater in aurora this past july. sandy and lonnie, i want to thank you so much for joining us here this evening and being a part of the discussion. lonnie, you met with the president, with vice president biden recently. what did you tell him? >> well, there were about 23 groups at that meeting, and i was sitting directly to his left, and he started to his

right. each member of all the groups that were there, there were a lot of very astute people, and he listened to each one of them very carefully and wrote -- made notes. it went around the table. probably 22 people representing a lot of pro -- they were -- actually, the only person in that room that got to say anything -- i was the very last one. and everything was said before it got to me, so i didn't have a whole lot to say. so the only thing i said was in summation, you have a will the of people here to help you, and they're willing to help you, and i'm willing to help you. and what i want to do is keep the american people up front, interested, passionate about this issue of assault weapons. and i think that from that meeting that he had with that group of people that it's

probably going to happen. >> sandy, do you feel like something's going to happen, that the country is headed for change? >> i do believe so. especially after newtown. any country that allows 20 innocent children to be murdered and does nothing, not the society that i choose to live in. so we've had assurances from the president. we've had assurances from vice president biden. we have seen cooperation on the other side of people who have traditionally not agreed with the exception of the nra, of course. >> do you think that what happened in aurora seven months ago could have been prevented and your daughter could be alive tonight, lonnie? >> what happened in aurora, the same thing happened in the last three massacres, was done by a person that was mentally

challenged and planned it carefully. he chose a weapon that could do the most damage in the shortest period of time. he had a clip in that gun which prevented any reloading, which would prevent anyone from stopping him. so he had -- he was a very methodical, intelligent person. and after that happened i don't think -- nothing could have prevented that because he bought the weapons with the laws that are in place now. he legally got the weapon. if we could stop someone like him from purchasing an assault weapon with a 100-round clip, yeah, it could have been prevented. >> the nra says the administration isn't being open-minded. sandy, what's your reaction to that? >> i think the administration is being extremely open-minded. this is a topic that when you

look at nra's membership, 74% of their membership wants gun reform. 84% of gun owners want reform. so -- >> let me ask you that, sandy. with those numbers what would you say to lawmakers who are rigid in old-way thinking? >> well, i think they're not educating themselves. they're not finding out the statistics. they're not digging deep enough. they're not going out to their constituency and asking. and it is going to take a groundswell of americans to come forward and write to their congressmen and their senators and even the president and say we're ready for reform. nobody is challenging the second amendment. no one. no one. and yet that's constantly thrown out there. and i think it's thrown out there to scare americans who are gone owners like ourselves to thinking that could happen or that's what's going to happen. >> sow don't want to see anybody lose their firearms? >> of course not 37 of course not. i'm a hunter. or at least i used to be.

don't hunt anymore. i'm a former hunter. we own guns. there are people that use target practice. but there is no reason to not come to the table and have a discussion that is sensible and logical and come to an agreement that works for the american public's safety. >> and sandy, do you think your dourt would be alive tonight if we'd had different laws on the books? do you think that could have been prevented? >> i do. anytime somebody can go on the internet and order 6,000 rounds of ammunition and that doesn't get flagged and questioned or looked at and yet i can't go through the airport without removing my shoes and having body scans and -- it's almost nonsensical. >> sandy and lonnie phillips, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you for participating in

the discussion. thank you so much. >> thank you for having us. >> you bet. >> coming up, republicans have threatened to hold the debt ceiling hostage, but as they start to lose the support of some big allies, i'm calling their bluff. and larkts the battle for the soul of america. will our leaders stand for the working families in this debt ceiling debate? you won't want to miss this. stay tuned. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep.

intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression,

including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

since a fiscal cliff deal was reached, republicans claim to have leverage in the debt ceiling debate based not entirely on their threat of default. but as the clock winds down, there are calls for the gop to fall in line and the calls are coming from their own side. for instance, financial services roundtable, which is headed by failed gop presidential candidate and former minnesota governor tim pawlenty and represents nearly 100 of the largest financial service firms in the country. the roundtable is set to increase pressure on congress to raise the debt limit, warning that failure to do so will make the markets go haywire. because 2011's debt ceiling showdown was an expensive game of chicken. it's estimated borrowing costs increased by about $1.3 billion in that year alone and a total of $19 billion over the next 2k5ikd. keep in mind in 2011 we didn't even breach the debt ceiling. big business, wall street, the job creators can't afford

another round. these reliable republican allies are saying basically, enough is enough. even karl rove seems to have recognized republicans are in a desperate situation. in his latest "wall street journal" column he rewrites history again, claiming republican leaders never said that they were willing to put the country into default. we're seeing what's behind the curtain. the debt ceiling does not give republicans the leverage they claim to have. in fact, even claiming leverage seems to have put them in a worse position. and made the division within their own party clearer than ever. the tea party extremists seem willing to commit economic sabotage. and the more practical business-minded republicans are doing their very best to talk them right off the ledge. there's a lot more coming up in the next half hour of "the ed show." stay with us. mcconnell says revenue is off the table. >> we've resolved the tax issue now. it's over. it's behind us. >> but bernie sanders says we're just getting started.

he's here on the inequality outrage. head injuries plagued junior seau's celebrated football career. will the nfl finally act to protect their players? oscar season is in full swing. but will controversy rule the awards? >> i'm going to break you. >> david edelstein gives us the politics.

welcome back to "the ed show." 2013. the rich are getting richer. nothing changed. the poor are getting poorer. that's really what we have talked about on this program and tried to illustrate here on "the ed show" for years. and that is what is really driving the conversation on capitol hill. and we must challenge our leaders to do something about it. hold it right there. there's this ideological grab that's taking place in america right now. and we're hearing about fiscal cliff and debt ceiling and money

here and there and cuts and whatnot. it is about what the republicans want to take from the lower-income americans. that is the issue. and our next guest, bernie sanders, wants action. and so do the american people. i was struck by his essay in the huffington post that was titled "the soul of america." so well put. because folks, this is, as i said, an ideological battle. and the deck is basically stacked against you if you're in the middle class or below that. we're experiencing more income inequality now than we have during any time in a period of history since 1928. the top 1% owns 42% of the country's financial wealth. 1% of americans own 42% of the country's wealth. as for the bottom 80%, they own only 5% of the wealth. yet despite those kinds of statistics, the republicans and the big money donors who back them are aiming for more.

we've heard all the rhetoric. we don't have enough revenue. well, wait a minute. we've got too much revenue going in. it's a spending problem. but we all know the reality of it. republican policies have grown our deficit. the deregulation of wall street. the tax breaks for the rich. the wars not being paid for. and now with a democrat in the white house, the republicans have suddenly turned into what? hey, they're deficit hawks and they want to go after the poorest americans. they want to attack the very programs that working families have depended on for generations in this country. they want to go after the big three. they want to cut food assistance. they want to cut veterans' programs. they want to cut anything that helps the folks stay above water, so to speak. and you know what? as we head into a second administration with president obama, our country is at a crossroads. we need i think our leaders to hold people accountable and to stick up for working families. the poor and the elderly.

they have given enough. we can get more revenue. we just have to have the guts to do it. we don't need our leaders to stand in front of big donors and not have the guts to make the decisions of what's right for america. the folks that have to pay more are the bush era tax cuts. those recipients in my opinion. we can get more out of them. and of course it's all about the loopholes, isn't it? well, how are we going to change tax policy? washington if we can't get anything passed in the senate? the entire lynchpin to the 113th is going to be what is harry reid does with changing the rules for the filibuster. then we can move to get to these tax loopholes that has helped the wealthiest americans in this country. it's all about ideology. what do you believe in? do you believe the lower 80% of americans should actually serve up a little bit more to make this thing right? because we never paid for the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we never accounted for the bush tax cuts, the recovery measure that's were made, and the recession that we went through

account for a third of what our financial problems are all about, which were caused by deregulation on wall street. can i have two shows tonight? joining me now is senator bernie sanders of vermont. senator, good to have you with us tonight. you hit the nail on the knead, as you always do, and i encourage our viewers to go to huffington post and see what you have written, see how you have capsuleized this. are you confident? are you optimistic that income inequality will be addressed in a meaningful way during a second term with the obama administration? >> am i confident? no. do i believe that is the moral issue of our time? yes. do i believe that that is what the american people overwhelmingly want? i do. the statistics that you have brought forth where you have a handful of people on the top owning tremendous amounts of wealth and the vast majority of the american people owning very little, and that's true not only

in wealth, it's true in terms of income distribution, is not only morally wrong, ed. it is very, very bad economics because the people at the bottom don't have money to spend. they're not going to create the kinds of jobs this country desperately needs. mitch mcconnell recently said that revenue is not the issue. he is absolutely wrong. revenue is exactly the issue. what the republicans and i have to add some democrats want to do is balance the budget by cutting social security, which has nothing to do with deficit reduction. they want to cut medicare, medicaid, nutrition programs. that is their idea of moving toward deficit reduction. meanwhile, 1 out of 4 major corporations in this country pays zero in taxes. we lose $100 billion every single year because corporate

america and wealthy individuals stash their money in the cayman islands and in other tax havens. corporations today are paying 12% of their profits in taxes, which is the lowest since 1972. in terms of corporate tax per gdp, we are lower than any other country in the oecd. >> that is just amazing. that is amazing when you throw these numbers out. and i think it brings us back to one word. americans, focus. you can hear a lot of talk about debt ceiling and deficit reduction. focus on the ideology of what has brought us to where we are right now and an ideology that has brought us here is not going to fix it in any way, shape, or form. senator, the filibuster. doesn't it really start with that? we've really got to get that fixed first. >> it is enormously important. we grew up as kids believing in america majority rules.

well, we've got 100 senators. you would think that is that 51 votes would rule, would allow us to pass laws. since obama has been president, the republicans have used an unprecedented way, the filibuster, to obstruct and to block legislation. and your point is exactly right. we're not going to have fairness in our policies. we're not going to have progressive tax reform. we're not going to have campaign finance reform unless majority rules in the senate. and that takes us to filibuster reform, and we have got to pass that. >> and there's no sense for the republicans -- i'm imagining what they're talking about in their caucus. why in the world should they start identifying loopholes? because we're going to filibuster the thing anyway. we're never going to be forced to show what i think loopholes ought to be closed as far as getting more tax revenue into the system. so they are doing a real classic move here of protecting the

corporations and protecting the wealthy. now, another subject i want to bring up with you, senator tonight. today you came up against the president's nominee for treasury secretary jack lew. why did you do that? >> well, jack is a decent guy. he's a smart guy. he's been in public service for a long time. but frankly, i am really tired of the president, and i support the president, continuing to appoint folks who come from wall street. we need people at the -- in the treasury department, secretary of treasury, who are going to have the guts to stand up to wall street. to ask why we are not, for example, breaking up the six largest financial institutions, ed, that have assets equivalent to 2/3 of the gdp of the united states. to ask questions about how we got into this recession in the first place, which has everything to do with the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior on wall street.

to ask why it is there are people watching the show paying 25% interest rates on their credit cards. those are my concerns. we need somebody at the department of treasury who's going to have the guts to take on wall street and not simply come from wall street. >> senator, great to have you with us tonight. obviously, we'll do it again. i appreciate it so much. senator bernie sanders with us here on "the ed show." coming up, new details in the death of legendary nfl linebacker junior seau. the nfl has a major problem on its hands. there is no question about that. we'll bring you the details. stay with us.

welcome back to "the ed show." earlier today james yeager, a tennessee firearms instructor, posted a video on youtube in response to reports that president obama might use executive orders to change gun laws in america. in the video mr. yeager said that he is prepared to start killing people if that happens. he also advised others to get armed and be prepared. after that video drew attention on the internet he posted another one, walking back some

of those statements. here's part of what he had to say. >> i do not condone anybody committing any kind of felonies up to and including aggravated america. and during our show tonight mr. yeager contacted us and agreed to come on this program tomorrow night to share his views. still to come, "lincoln" leads the pack in oscar nominations while some other major movies were snubbed. i'll ask film critic david edelstein if politics played a role in the nomination process. stay with us.

. . . . . . . . . . . . some football fans were upset with washington redskins head coach mike shanahan this week.

he decided to leave his star quarterback robert griffin iii in sunday's game following a knee injury. griffin reinjured his knee later in the game and was forced to have surgery on wednesday. he will heal. knee injuries can be devastating to any nfl player, but traumatic brain injury can be life-threatening. tonight there are new details in the death of legendary nfl linebacker junior seau. when seau ended his life last year, he was suffering from a brain condition known as cte. seau's family donated his brain to the national institute of health, which released a blind study earlier today. cte is a brain disease associated with athletes who take frequent hits to the head. over time these hits cause the brain to build up abnormal proteins. symptoms of cte include memory loss, impaired judgment, aggression, depression, and eventually dementia. junior seau was known for his hard-hitting style during his 19-year career in the national football league. and there's very little doubt it

played a direct role in his condition. researchers at boston university pioneered the study of cte. they found the disease in 18 out of 19 brains of former nfl players they examined. currently, there is no study linking cte to suicide. but unfortunately, six nfl players have ended their lives in the last two years alone. the facts are clear. cte is a dangerous disease affecting nfl players. every year players get bigger, they get faster, they hit harder and their equipment, their technology and equipment is hard to keep pace with the game. the nfl needs to take meaningful action to prevent cte in its players. junior seau had a terrific career and will go down as one of the greatest linebackers of all time. it's important we learn from his death to prevent further tragedies in the future. tonight in our survey i asked you, would you send your kids to school with armed teachers?

12% of you say yes. 88% of you say no. coming up, the oscar nominations are out, and controversy is abound. film critic david edelstein joins me. stay with us. [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime.

take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue.

so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪

and in "the big finish" tonight the oscars recognize some of the biggest political movies to come out in a long time but also snubbed a few of

them as well. "lincoln" took the most nominations including best picture, best director, and multiple acting nominations. the steven spielberg film was a fascinating look into the political dealmaking that took place to abolish slavery in this country. "zero dark thirty," a film about the ten-year manhunt for osama bin laden, got a mixed message from the academy. it was nominated for best picture but not best director. the movie's portrayal of torture generated controversy. documents released last year show top cia officials including acting cia chief michael morel helped the filmmakers. now the senate intelligence committee led by senator dianne feinstein of california and backed by john mccain of arizona wants to know if there was inappropriate access to classified information. the committee also wants to know if cia personnel are responsible for the film's portrayal of torture. it's not every day a film sparks a senate investigation. joining me tonight to talk about

it all is david edelstein, chief film critic for the "new york" magazine. great to have you with us. >> thank you so much, ed. >> i want to talk about lincoln first because i went to it twice. because i love history. but i knew i had missed a lot. every word, every sentence is so meaningful. i was so impacted by the second time i saw it. does controversy affect whether films are recognized politically -- political controversy, social change -- >> absolutely. it's more satisfying to talk about the oscars in terms of their politics and the politics of the voters than it is to talk about them artistically because often it's not a measure of artistry. sometimes it is. it's a measure of what will represent the academy best, noblest, if you will. and lincoln really hit the sweet spot because not only is it a celebration of arguably our greatest president but it's also at the same time kind of an exhortation to president obama, who's very popular out in

hollywood, to get down off his pedestal and mix it up with a violently divided congress. in other words, it said, listen, if lincoln could cajole, could bribe, could threaten, then you sure as heck could get in there and do the same thing if you want to move the legislation. >> ironic timing. congress can't get along here. but they found a way to move back in the days of tremendous controversy. how good is "lincoln" the movie as opposed to some epic movies that have been out there? i mean, i feel like i really saw one for the archives. >> well, it's an extraordinarily tight focused movie. you don't often see a film basically about a piece of legislation passing from level to level. it's very beautifully worked out. it opens with lincoln almost like i said like the lincoln memorial. but then he realizes he has a job to do. blacks are not equal under the law. i never knew -- i thought i was a great student of american history. i didn't know that the emancipation proclamation didn't end slavery, that it was an executive order during a time of war. and so the movie takes you through that process in a way

that's very finely tuned, very unusual for an epic. >> what about "zero dark thirty"? the director was not -- there's a controversy surrounding that. does it have an effect on -- >> absolutely, it does. the criticisms from pundits, from politicians, from people like me. i thought it was an exceptionally made movie, phenomenally made. at the same time there is no ambiguity in the film that it says that enhanced or extreme interrogation, aka torture, led to the name of the courier who would lead down the road to osama bin laden. it said torture worked. anding katherine bigelow, the director, said depiction is not endorsement. to which i say yes. and no. because the context of that depiction matters. and in the context of the film there is no question. >> any of the nominations surprise you? maybe something that was left out. >> well, i was gob smakd, i was flummoxed that ben affleck wasn't nominated.