Latest Breaking News On - David coles - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
brothers funding the conservative movement. a system that allowed them to pour unprecedented money into politics, drowning out democracy in america in the process. >> the supreme court has included money with speech, the more money, more speech, more influence on democracy. what kind of a system is that? it's wrong. every american should have the same ability for the political system. >> in the speech, reid said he would bring a constitutional amendment to allow congress to regulate money in conference, giving them enormous influence over elections. >> i understand the democrats are proposing something that's no small thing. not something any of us should take lightly. the flood of special interest money into our american democracy is one of the glaring threats the system of government has ever faced. >> harry reid and mitch mcconnell only too happy to fight the same war. if there's a single lone principle mcconnell stands for and has through his career, the principle of unfettered money allowed to influence elections, thoug fought for limits to campaign contributions. after harry reid spoke, mcconnell took to the floor to fight for free spending of billionaires, even if it drowns out free speech of everyone else. >> free wheeling debates about the important issues of the day, we get bizarre monologues about the democrats' latest bill. we get shameful attacks on private citizens. they're also talking about blocking constituents, now they want to change the bill of rights. >> harry reid made clearest all in, telling buzz feed he will force multiple votes on the constitutional amendment and won't walk away from the koch brothers, saying he will be on their tail the whole campaign. while constitutional amendment won't become law soon, this is the terrain democrats plan to fight on this election season. #benghazi, american plu tok chris ee on the other. strange political days ahead. joining me, chris murphy, democrat from connecticut. you support this amendment, but is this not just a campaign stunt, a thing to do to get the base ginned up? is there actual constitutional thought put into this? >> well, listen, i don't think it is a news flash that this constitutional amendment is not likely to pass. the point is we need to wake the american people up to what's happening. this is not about politics or energizing the base, this is trying to inspire a movement of regular average everyday people there, recognize that there are 190 or so people out there that are 60% of donors to super pacs, who are spending more money in campaigns than individual candidates are together. they're on the verge of taking over our democracy on the idea that somebody like sheldon aid ellison could advertise he is going to back a candidate and command individual audiences at his house, with half of the republican field tells you right now that we are on the verge of losing our democracy. aid ellison is not doing that because he has personal interest in the race, he wants to be sure his business interests are backed by the republican presidential candidate. that's what's happening with him, with the koch brothers. it is time we had debate on the senate floor, if not to pass the amendment to wake folks up as to what's happening. >> here are numbers to bear out what you're saying, that dark money is off the charts, between 2006 and 2012, this is on track to be the darkest money election in history, and every election is going to get more like this, unless something changes legally or constitutionally. what about the idea it is unfair or improper to go after what mitch mcconnell calls private citizens. the koch brothers or sheldon aid ellison haven't run for office, aren't subject to senate confirmation. is it untoward to be talking about these people all the time? >> listen, they are private citizens, but they actively decided to try to grab the reigns of government through private spending with no transparency. they have clearly subjected themselves to criticism and public debate by actively trying to grab government. the statistics are what they are because two things are happening. these guys are spending more money, but republican candidates are raising less money because all of the donors are figuring out there's no reason to make a transparent donation to an individual candidate when you can spend money in a nontransparent way through a super pac and the republicans themselves can't stop creating money. if they get in a tough race, someone will ride in to the rescue. it is a downward spiral in which there's increased dependency on a small handful of a couple dozen super donors. >> doesn't that cut both ways? heard boy tom stier, spending money on the other side of the koch brothers and climate change. i remember two years of my life dominated by george soros stories in the conservative press not too long ago. you make it seem like this is a republican party problem or republican party particularly in the pockets of these folks. convince me that's not the case. >> well, it is a republican party problem because right now the dominant amount of money is on the republican side. tom stier is a red herring in the sense that stier is working to try to effectuate policy that has little to nothing to do with his business interests, whereas the koch brothers, aid ellison and others are in this came to make more money. i am not saying it is exclusively issue of big money on the republican side, but let's not kid ourselves, when you look at where the secret money is being spent, the predominant influence is backing republican candidates, and i don't think it is coincidence then that the republicans are going to the floor of the senate in droves to try to fight bills that they used to support. republicans used to be for transparency, now because they're dependent on the money, they have walked away from conversations about campaign finance. >> when senator murphy is in his chambers by himself, you think about a tough vote over policy position, do you think about what super pac will emerge in your next election to beat the stuffing out of you based on that vote or that position? >> so a candidate or a senate or representative is lying to you if they tell you that somewhere in their mind they don't think about consequences in a vote they take and that has to do with who will spend money against you. the fact is the big commotion in washington is between the tea party and the rest of the republican party because all the quote, unquote mainstream republicans are worried big money on the tea party will wipe them out in a primary, so this does come to mind when you think about votes. luckily some of us it doesn't influence, but plenty that are influenced by it. >> thanks. >> he goes to the floor of the united states senate, day-in and day-out, rambling on about the koch brothers who are nothing more than industrialists who create tens of thousands of jobs, pay taxes, and are concerned about the future of their country. no citizen deserves this kind of treatment. >> so true. who would ever be so deranged and vindictive to wage a campaign of attack of vilification against a politically active billionaire? joining me now, nbc contributor for the upshot, josh barrow. josh, seems to me the right got a lot out of the george soros years and has done a 180. maybe we both have done a 180 about that. >> i don't recall a lot of people calling for legislation or constitutional amendments to interfere with what george was doing, they wanted to shame him. people on the right have been generally consistent in opposition to campaign finance regulation. >> what do you think about the constitutional amendment. >> i think it is a bad idea, shouldn't have restrictions on speech, campaigning is speech. >> why is it speech? >> the distinction people try to draw between money and speech are strange. what are we doing now. msnbc is a corporation, paying you and me to sit here, talk about this. the process of getting this into people's homes is expensive. money is an essential part of dissemination of speech. >> essential part is different and separable. i want to play former justice john paul stevens, making precisely the distinction that he made in his dissent. excellent one i might add. >> while money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protection as speech itself. >> what is the distinction? >> citizens united was about playing an infomercial about how terrible hillary clinton was. the question was is that a campaign ad, in which case it was illegal to place it. that was a speech activity. >> but let's be clear, citizens united wasn't founded on those narrow grounds. that was a decision that could be this is this side of the line. they didn't say that. they said the line is illegitimate. >> what else does a campaign do. they place ads, and with the direct voter. the purpose is to persuade people to vote a certain way which seems to be fundamentally a speech activity. they buy office supplies and pay for travel, but -- >> is there no recourse if it is speech? >> you could amend the constitution. people that want it should admit it is restriction on speech. lots of countries have that. we have fairly narrow restrictions on speech in the united states. >> i don't think people don't by the categorical conflation between money and speech. when you make the argument, it is not like there's a bizarre alternate universe to talk about. it is just the universe before citizens united. not like america was a place that was like, you know, struggling under the yoke of suppression of speech. >> sure. >> it wasn't the case then rich people could put up billboards about their ideas and run ads. the world before citizens united which opened new constitutional terrain was the place where speech wasn't hurt. >> i will say a couple things. this amendment goes further than overturning citizens united. it overturns a decision from the '70s. >> the first finding that money is speech essentially. >> right. so this constitutional amendment would allow spending limits, not just limiting how much to give to a campaign, could limit how much a candidate could spend in tot total in the campaign, including he might be able to raise such a large amount that even through the contribution limit he hits the limit. it would be more restrictive than before citizens united. i don't think it is the end of the world if you have restriction on speech. there are perfectly pleasant countries in europe and other places that have restrictions on speech i oppose, think are bad policy. >> but everything is balanced against some other side, right? the thing that is occasioning this, aside from whatever political opportunities may be at play, it is the idea we are headed toward a vicious cycle of olga gashingy. the decision did what critics thought it would do. there's also academic research suggesting that in america, policy outcomes are worryingly pegged to kerngs of the richest people. >> it is not clear how much money this is in directing outcomes. sheldon aid ellison poured a lot into elections and didn't get newt gingrich elected to anything. and the influence wealthy people have in politics comes from a great many channels, only one of which is political donation. >> giving them another one is my point. >> it is an open question how negatively this influences politics. i agree, i think it would be nice if we did not have this system where you had the small number of people donating arrange amounts of money, i think that's a negative effect. there are negative effects from fwr breaking the norm on speech. it opens conversation with what other restrictions the government should impose. tom stier is doing this for principle, unlike people that give money on the side opposed, they're self dealing. i don't think the senator is saying tom stier should be able to spend money and kochs shouldn't. it is the idea of figuring out which is beneficial and which is harmful. >> obviously anything that were to be passed would have to apply equally. i agree the distinction between who is doing it in good faith and seven richment -- to my mind, not that important. josh, thank you very much. come is the 60th anniversary of brown v. board of education that struck down school segregation. they're meeting with families of the plaintiffs, including linda brown, at the time, a girl denied admission to all white neighborhood school blocks from her home. we will have that interview with her next. uhhh. no, that can't happen. that's the thing, you don't know how long it has to last. everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive.. confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor can get the real answers you need. well, knowing gives you confidence. start building your confident retirement today. and we'll be here at lifelock doing our thing: you do your shop from anywhere thing, offering protection that simple credit score monitoring can't. get lifelock protection and live life free. coming up, what happens when the tea party tries to replicate occupy wall street and the arab spring. that's ahead. ...and we'll replace destroyed or stolen items with brand-new versions. we take care of the heat, so you don't get burned. just another way we put members first, because we don't have shareholders. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ carsthey're why we innovate. they're who we protect. they're why we make life less complicated. it's about people. we are volvo of sweden. tleerchlts his daughters attended. brown died after the court ruled, struck the first constitutional blow to jim crow. he is survived by his wife, lee olga a, 93 years old and his daughter. i had the pleasure of interviewing the daughters who tried to enroll in a white school and was barred. i asked why the case was started. >> it was started not because we wanted our children to sit necessarily in the classroom with whites, but the case was started because our children had to walk so far or be bussed so far to go to the black school. we thought that was afoul. they shouldn't have to do that. >> am i correct, in order to document essentially the inju injury in the case, your father had to take and attempt to register you at one of the segregated all white schools? >> yes, that is true. a part of the strategy with the naacp was for the plaintiff to take their child and try to enroll them the school nearest their home. so my dad did take me one day over to sumner school. we walked over to sumner, he tried to enroll me in that all white school, but of course we were turned down. >> do you have a memory of that? >> i do have a slight memory of that day. we walked over to the school. he took me by the hand and i was happy. we lived in this integrated neighborhood. i just knew i was going to get to play with my playmates that i played with every day, i was going to get to go to school with them. i remember walking over to the school with my dad, going up the big steps into the school, and then he talked with the principal, and they entered his office and left me outside. i wondered what was going on. and i heard voices getting louder. and as my dad came out of the office, he took me by the hand and we walked back home, but i could feel tension within his hand. i didn't know what was going on, but i knew something had happened. >> what was it like when you heard the case had been decided in your favor, in the favor of desegregation? >> oh, joyful, very much joy. uh-huh. as my husband came home that evening, i told him i was listening to the tv that day at home. when he got home, i told him. we were all very joyful, the children and i, they had a big meeting, naacp meeting that evening at the monroe school. >> the process of desegregation at least in kansas, my understanding, please correct me if i'm wrong, started relatively quickly. did you see the effects of the decision firsthand in your children's education? >> well, i saw it in my children's education, but as far as my education was concerned, i really never benefitted from the case. >> i think it was the school board decided to try divide and conquer. a letter went out in the spring of 1953, it was sent to the african-american teachers that have been teaching three years or less, and the letter was sent by a man named wendal godwin, the superintendent at the time, he said if the plaintiff succeeds in their efforts that there wouldn't be enough white parents willing to have african-american teachers for them to be retained, and they were let go. so when the case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs, spring of 1954, that fall, of the african-american teachers teaching three years of less were fired in essence. kindergarten through graduate school, never had a teacher of color. so in many ways, in the wake of brown v board, one of the things we lost was the educators. with the civil rights act, with corporate america opening its doors in other types of workplaces, african americans didn't really flock to education as a professional career. >> with the 60 year anniversary soon upon us of the deciding of this case, there's been a lot of conversation and reporting about the state of school today, particularly the dynamics of racial segregation, and there's pretty good documented evidence that schools are now approaching a level of racial segregation essentially not seen since that decision in 1954. i just would be curious to hear any of your thoughts on that trend. >> well, chris, i think on closer analysis, i always challenge people, i am not convinced schools seriously desegregated in any way we could assert that they've resegregated. i think the push back to brown was immediate. a couple of examples, three years later, 1957, when congress nearly 100 members of congress wrote the southern manifesto that basically said they weren't going to comply and that the south was not going to be encouraged to comply, and that the supreme court had overstepped its bounds. then that same year the little rock nine attempted to integrate schools and the governor closed schools and prince edward county, virginia, schools were closed for five years. the push back was immediate. and i think the push back has been consistent. what we see today is largely response to brown versus board of education. even though court orders were pretty rampant in terms of trying to encourage people to legislate people to integrate their school, through busing or whatever, i believe the push back has been strident, relentless. >> for more from the browns, head to msnbc.com. next week we will look at how the state of kansas, birthplace of brown v board, turned into a laboratory for conservative policy, what the current governor has done to teachers, how it could back fire on 2014 re-election campaigns. and the closing of marquette elementary. >> always say kids stay innocent longer in a small town. having a school is a drawing card. for a young family choosing to move here, they may look at other options. >> when a town loses its school, you lose the town. next is the grocery store closes and this closes. >> look at the towns that lost their schools and drive down their streets, and there's just houses. there are no more businesses. it is height to say bare bones bureaucracy it is. . >> next week on the road in the conservative heartland. coming up in february, the largest civil rights protest happened in north carolina. >> now is the time, here is the place. we are the people. and we shall be heard. >> now, the state of north carolina is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. reverend barber will be my guest next. [ male announcer ] what if a small company became big business overnight? ♪ like, really big... then expanded? ♪ or their new product tanked? ♪ or not? what if they embrace new technology instead? ♪ imagine a company's future with the future of trading. company profile. a research tool on thinkorswim. from td ameritrade. live in the same communities that we serve. people here know that our operations have an impact locally. we're using more natural gas vehicles than ever before. the trucks are reliable, that's good for business. but they also reduce emissions, and that's good for everyone. it makes me feel very good about the future of our company. ♪ they said they would come by the millions in all corners of the country. an uprising of patriots that had enough of the tyranny of barack obama. it started at the ranch of cliv cliven bundy, whose gifts summoned them. still on the ranch, a small clutch of patriots nochd for liberty after -- that was the beginning, soon it spread, crossing the country and eventually engulfing all of washington in flames of righteousness. there would be, quote, as many as ten million patriots who would assemble in a peaceful, nonviolent display of loyalty to the u.s. constitution. they were, quote, prepared to stay in d.c. as long as it takes, to stop the white house and congress from total destruction of the united states. it is now or never, god help us. and today is the day it would happen. and here is what it looked like. >> where you at? where are you at? we put the call out last week, two months ago, five months ago, talk about being here, where you at? because we're here! >> it didn't turn out quite the way organizers anticipated. the american spring as it was dubbed, the kind of patriots movement to storm the capital and nonviolently expose those in government that betrayed the constitution. did turn out some people, less than the planned 10 million people. actually, less than 10,000, probably less than 1,000. actually more like stretching 300. the tea party in this country, if you will recall, began as a general grass roots movement. even if they had big money behind them, they had real crowds, real energy, real organizers. people by the thousands. i remember going to the crowds and talking to people. now today, now it is gone. that is dead now. the tea party has been fully coopted by into the republican party establishment, has done much damage to the country, as a grass roots movement, no more. today, it was a kind of funeral for it. rest in peace, i guess. a house, under siege. homeowner calls in the big guns. say helto home defense max. with the one-touch continuous-spray wand. kills bugs inside... ...and prevents new ones for up to a year. guaranteed. nothing to see here people. ortho home defense max. get order. get ortho®. but with less energy, moodiness, and a low sex drive, i had to do something. i saw my doctor. a blood test showed it was low testosterone, not age. we talked about axiron the only underarm low t treatment that can restore t levels to normal in about two weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer, worsening prostate symptoms, decreased sperm count, ankle, feet or body swelling, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing while sleeping and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about axiron. take them on the way you always have. live healthy and take one a day men's 50+. a complete multivitamin with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. age? who cares. predibut, manufacturings a prettin the united states do. means advanced technology. we learned that technology allows us to be craft oriented. no one's losing their job. there's no beer robot that has suddenly chased them out. the technology is actually creating new jobs. siemens designed and built the right tools and resources to get the job done. north carolina legislature is in session after a singularly destructive legislative session last time around. the right wing rampage and the fact that barack obama won in 2008, corporate taxes were cut, earned income credit went away, taxes were raised for poor people, and they instituted one of the most extremely restrictive voter suppression laws in the country. the same people that pushed through all of that are back, this time guarding for a hostile welcome. this aggressive stance by the legislature parked some of the greatest protest movements in the south in a generation. >> i am fed up. fed up, fired up. thank you so very much. >> carolina residents took over the building monday after monday after monday. thousands of people gathered to raise their voices, be arrested, in direct response to the state's conservative onslaught. the republicans that run the north carolina legislature have come up with a novel solution. rather than moderate their policies, they're changing the rules to make the protests harder. the legislative services commission met yesterday to quote, tweak the rules, regarding large gatherings and clarify penalties for violating rules. it includes a ban on signs attached to a stick or pole, affixed to structure or equipment or used to disturb general assembly activities. an explanation came as, quote, what these rules are designed to do is -- usury visiting rules on the dawn of the next legislative session has nothing to do with thousands that have been a thorn in the side of the republican party in north carolina. they threaten the political career of the governor and u.s. senate candidate and statehouse speaker tom tillis. has nothing to do with that. this was the first revision of rules since 1987, by a legislative services commission that hasn't met in 15 years. the man behind the protests, the president of the north carolina naacp, and reverend, do you believe them when they say the rule change had nothing to do with moral monday? >> no doubt. in fact it has everything to do with moral monday, with people standing up for all different races, creed, color kinds. republican, democrats, independents. what we are saying is the terrible tale of tom tillis' political tragedy. the tragedy is they spent the year hurting the poor, attacking public education, attacking the sick, attacking teachers, young women, labor rights, taking north carolina down the road of tea party extremism. now they want to turn, and lead tyranny. block and ban people's right to protest. chris, one of the rules they put in place is that if you bring a sign in that a legislator finds disturbing, subjective, you can have removed or arrested. if you look like you might disturb. says if you present what they call imminently the possibility of disturbance, but it is not going to deter us, never has in the movement and never will. >> you mentioned tom tillis, speaker of the house, republican, running for senate against kay hagan. do you think he is going to own the full record of that north carolina legislative session as he tries to win statewide election? >> it is his record, he has to own it. he is speaker of the house, one of the most powerful offices in the state, speakers of the house across the country are powerful. they dictate and determine how policy moves. he determines what comes to the floor. it was him that made the call for the committee. the committee could not have met and done its work and been appointed without his direction and direction of speaker pro tem, but more importantly, tom tillis. we are seeing this tale of tragedy. >> you're saying he wanted rules tweaked specifically to make it more difficult for moral mondays to cause embarrass to he and his colleagues. >> he called the committee to meet, hadn't met in 15 years. the judge asked him to clarify, didn't ask him to make more restrictive. we beat them on one thing they add. the governor tried to restrict us to a certain place, took it to court, judge said you can't do that. they said for groups 25 to 200, you have to go to a certain place. now they're saying you can't protest continuously. in other words, if they're doing something, you can't protest continuously. lastly, chris, they're saying anyone who does not engage in a normal voice. you know, that's a trick. that's the kind of language that they used to use against black people, labor unions, women's rights. they would say we were being abnormal and uncivil protesting. this week is anniversary of the birmingham campaign. dr. king was called abnormal. this is the terrible form of political tyranny. know that moral monday, 5:00, we are coming back. >> that's my question. i have had a lot of conversations with you, on and off the air, seen a lot of tape of you. i don't think i've ever heard you raise your voice. you should be squarely within the new rules. the question i have for you, you have now a new legislative session and you built this moral monday movement, incredible, i read this interesting article about you trying to broaden the coalition for moral monday. the naacp pushed into traditionally conservative areas, including the mountains where overwhelmingly white crowd packed an episcopal church to hear your message and interrupt with occasional amen. what is the strategy going forward in widening the coalition? >> first of all, we have been building itself enyears, we have been widening for quite some time. in the last year with moral monday is showing people common destiny. when you don't talk about left, right, democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, talk about moral values. not asking people to go left or right, asking them to go deeper. that county is 89% republican. we have seen republican and democrats and independents come together, when they look squarely at how bad it is. how much of a political tragedy it is when people like tillis use power to undermine education, take away unemployment for people that lost their job, 900,000 people lost their earned income tax credit to give a tax break to 23 of the wealthiest families. ronald reagan supported earned income tax credit. when you talk in those terms, we are building the unit. young people are doing freedom summit. we went behind them, did 50 moral mondays around the state. the energy is not decreasing, it is increasing. people are continuing to mobilize. >> dr. william b arks rbor, thank you. there's a new book and movie deal, talk to one of the people behind the story about how much the government knows about all of us. your first breath, your first grasp, your first smile... we were there. your first roll, your first friend, we were there too. and swaddlers blanket-like softness, that you've loved since day one, is available through size 5, for many more firsts to come. wishing you love, sleep & play. pampers. is all ready the brand ofstate the year.d berkshire hathaway home services. good to know. i dbefore i dosearch any projects on my home. i love my contractor, and i am so thankful to angie's list for bringing us together. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. his conscience compelled him to step forward and disclose that the nsa has been systematically lying to congress, that they have been deceiving the american people, building a worldwide spying apparatus. >> general glenn greenwald was front and center, arguably the largest collection of exposed secrets in american intelligence history. his new book "no place to hide", greenwald tells the story of how we got here and he joins me in studio. great to have you here. >> good to be here, thanks, chris. >> okay. at what point is there diminishing returns to the revelations from this perspective. i feel like you got me. you have convinced me they're looking at all of us. one graphic released with the book, the nsa approach to surveillance, sniff it all, know it all, exploit it all, partner it all. i don't feel like every time there's a new revelation, they're in video games and this. sure, they're everywhere. is there anything past trying to know it all that can be revealed at this point? >> there are open questions, some reported but not fully. who do they target for the most invasive surveillance hein the united states. critics of the government or people one would think of as a terrorist threat. what do they do with the information as well. there are still reporting holes left to be filled that will be filled that will shape how the story is remembered beyond the fact that they're collecting mass amounts of data. it does lead to a journalististic quandary, they want to know how they're doing it in the tech sector and elsewhere, you have the obligation to report them. >> once we know what they're doing or know that they're doing a lot, trying to get as much as they can, you've said that, right, sort of a state td institutional goal. >> get everything. >> is there a practical consequence, put aside rights violations, the constitutional issues, et cetera, is there a practical problem that presents for the nsa in processing it? >> sure. if you look at the documents, the greatest challenge they have is not how do we make our way into terrorist lairs, how do you take this data, billions of calls and e-mails. even though a lot can be stored on a thumb drive, they have a new facility because they can't store everything they're collecting. >> the scope of what is being collected from an organizational standpoint boggles my mind a bit, right? how do we fix this? i think again, i am coming at this from the perspective, a lot of what i read in stone revelations makes me think we need to rethink it, even good intelligence from an operational standpoint. david cole is someone i like, he says more important agreement where you can acknowledge choices we make are difficult. there are no simple answers. he suggests nothing in the way of positive reforms, sticking to criticism. is there a way you can think of to quote fix this? >> definitely. you talk about some of those in the book. only so much you can do in a single book. break news stories, talk about why privacy matters, unveil the solution to the whole problem. i think there are bills being passed now by a very bipartisan coalition in congress to reign some of the domestic abuses in. more promising is the role other countries play banding together to undermine u.s. over the internet. tech companies in america are panicking, and start to go use their force. i think the most promising thing is for individuals to use technical products that encrypt communication and protect how they participate on the web. that's a reason to keep doing the stories, so tech companies know how to protect privacy. >> that's a perfect segue to what i want to talk about next. strikes me as a libertarian sort of answer, right? the best way to do this is for people to individually use this. and that gets to the politics of glenn greenwald, kind of a sub text for this. lots of people that watch the show that hate you frankly. >> so disturbing. >> and i want to talk about why that's the case and what your political project is after this break. when does your work end? does it end after you've expanded your business? after your company's gone public? and the capital's been invested? or when your company's bought another? is it over after you've given back? you never stop achieving. that's why, at barclays, our ambition is to always realize yours. i'm j-e-f-f and i have copd. i'm l-i-s-a and i have copd, but i don't want my breathing problems to get in the way of hosting my book club. that's why i asked my doctor about b-r-e-o. once-daily breo ellipta helps increase airflow from the lungs for a full 24 hours. and breo helps reduce symptom flare-ups that last several days and require oral steroids, antibiotics, or hospital stay. breo is not for asthma. breo contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. it is not known if this risk is increased in copd. breo won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden copd symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. breo may increase your risk of pneumonia, thrush, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking breo. ask your doctor about b-r-e-o for copd. first prescription free at mybreo.com ...we'll be here at lifelock doing our thing: you do your connect to public wi-fi thing protecting you in ways your credit card company alone can't. get lifelock protection and live life free. but add brand new belongings from nationwide insurance... ...and we'll replace destroyed or stolen items with brand-new versions. we take care of the heat, so you don't get burned. just another way we put members first, because we don't have shareholders. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ . we are back. glenn, i consider you a friend. and admirer of your work. you have a way of making people very angry at you, and you have a way i think sometimes if you don't mind my saying of alienating possible allies. not just my view, the down side of sabotaging your enemies, you make so much noise, you can't hear their sensible arguments. david coal says the book would be more persuasive, confronting the issue, not lobbing grenades at those less radical. how do you describe to the tone critiques about how you argue the story. >> a lot of it has to do with how you choose your path. when i began political writing, i didn't have a big megaphone and big corporation that gave me a hammer or platform. i had to find a way to be heard. it wasn't justifying a way to be heard, it was the message itself, one of the fundamental critique of large media and political cultures. if you make that kind of critique, there's a tendency to ignore it, sort of mock it. you have to be aggressive in terms of having the critique heard. the other thing is that one of the things that we're missing is someone who is sort of an outsider who does make unapologetic critiques of political media, the cost to it, makes people uncomfortable. i think we need an adversarial force. >> that's true, but this published by a big publisher, there's a movie -- >> it is all changed. you adopt a certain methodology for making certain the views you think aren't heard get in jekted into public discourse. once you get in, you should change the style and methodology, i think that's coopting. i think i want to have the fundamental critique that keeps me as an outside voice, not feel like i have been let into the cause and start adopting -- >> the down side is how do we build out the coalition of people that are concerned about surveillance, right? and seems to me the way the snowden story played out, part of that tone, people feel like they have to choose between barack obama and glenn greenwald. millions of people are like if that's the choice, i choose barack obama, because i like barack obama. he got a lot of people medicaid. >> but the reality of the political culture, a lot of people you talk about who watch your show who hate me five years ago loved me. the reason i was able to build a platform in the years of george bush, progressives, democrats, liberals were cheering for everything i was doing, didn't find problems with the the tone. no shortage of david coles who use tone to make certain arguments. there's a lot of those people, we need people that are making other people, particularly those with influence uncomfortable. when you do that, we always had people whose role that was, you're going to provoke a lot of animosity. i think there's value to that. >> it is not the animosity. to me more the issue is i want particularly on this issue, i think about how to make this issue resonate with people, how to build political coalitions, how to get enough people together to have a center of gravity that pushes things. i worry sometimes -- i get that. it is hard to argue results. >> that's true. >> there's a reason why the interest level in the story has been sustained globally. i was writing about surveillance eight years. you have to use innovative, aggressive strategies to make people care. there's a pugh poll that -- i would much rather have positive results, be hated by a good number of people than the other way around, loved by everybody and fail. >> the glenn greenwald bumper sticker there. thank you. that's "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts now. >> thank you, have a great weekend. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. the boston globe ran a story this week revealing information that we are not supposed to know. it is information that the fbi at least does not want anyone to know. the globe this week reported the name of an fbi agent involved in a controversial fatal shooting about a year ago. we reported extensively on the shooting over the course of the last year, specifically on the fact that the fbi only investigates itself when fbi agents shoot people. only ever investig
New-yorkUnited-statesNorth-carolinaMonroe-schoolBostonMassachusettsSwedenSumner-schoolVirginiaKansasWashingtonDistrict-of-columbia