>> president obama addressed the nation.

he said he would "not hesitate to order strikes against isis targets in syria." here's a look at some of what the president said. >> tonight, with a new iraqi government in place and with consultations, i can announce that america will lead a broad coalition to roll back the terrorist threat. our objective is clear. we will degrade and ultimately destroy isil with a comprehensive and contained strategy. we stand with people who fight for their own freedom and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity. >> the president added he had the authority to act but he welcomes congress support. joining me now is jeffrey goldberg from the atlantic magazine and a bloomberg view columnist. you know these issues well and you have interviewed the

president a number of times. tell me or take away from this and put where he is now an context of where he's been. >> where he's been for the past six years, wanting to get out of the middle east, he sees the middle east as a place where hope goes to die, a morass for the united states. he wants to think about other issues including and especially asia. yesterday it represents the kind of tragic moment, tragic realization for him that no matter how hard he tries to get the united states out of the swamp, there is no possible way that's going to happen during his tenure. and obviously, in part because he has wanted to get out for understandable reasons, by the way. he wanted to get out of micromanaging the middle east. he probably has not paid

sufficient attention to the years leading up to where we are right now. there may have been some sort of difference. right now he's in this mode of, you know what? i have to stop the islamist state and isis. unfortunately, this is where we are. one of the things the president has realized as there is no substitute for american leadership in the middle east. the israelis and the egyptians were looking at it without american participation. the arab emirates decided to launch attacks on libya without american involvement. that scared a lot of people in

washington that the leaders are making their own decisions now because they're going to go freelance, go rogue to make it even more dangerous. there is a realization even on people who do not want to realize that there is no substitute for american organization, american management. >> he can also be convinced by others that if he does not do something, and he therefore could emerge as a threat to the united states. >> he's very careful about not overselling the threat. he's not talking about imminent or concrete plans. there are two things here. he has said they have been too extreme and brutal, which is something. the core jihadist ideology is

really anti-american as we can tell from this tragic and horrible beheadings. eventually, guys like these decide that america is a great target. he's looking at history and making the assumption that if they are not a threat at the moment they will be later especially because they have so many foreign fighters with passports including those that participate in the u.s. visa waiver program. you have to stop it in its tracks. the second and more urgent issue for the president, i think, is the danger that isis poses to our close allies in the region. the kurds with an autonomous region that are very pro-american. jordan, in particular, a linchpin the sunni moderate state. if it were infiltrated or overrun it would lead to a catastrophe almost unimaginable.

the israelis would come in and try to rescue the jordanians. all options are on the table. >> what are the arab states going to contribute? there is a report that says a number will do what they can. what can they do? >> there is the profound frustration that the very well armed allies can step up and do the job of combating isis and protecting innocent arabs. they are not going there. >> why not? >> you are going to have to ask them. they are scared. they have the capabilities. they will not risk their own

princes for this region. they would prefer, as everyone would, the u.s. to go kill their enemies for them just to standoff from their enemies. that wasn't us. that was the united states. there's another issue and that there is a lot of support, subterranean support, but serious support for groups like isis. they do not want to alienate the radical jihadists in these countries. most of them live within the framework of the systems created by the monarchs. they do not want to alienate by going and attacking that some of them think our righteous muslims. a whole host of reasons why that will not happen. that said, there will be contributions of money, matériel, training components.

there might even be some training for so-called moderate forces to train isis. let me be clear. some countries play a negative effect like qatar playing both sides. they're trying to step up in a modest fashion, like saudi arabia, but the uae has come out pretty strongly and openly saying there has to be a worldwide coalition against radical islam. we have to participate in this openly. they are a small country. the u.s. has the capability, u.s. has the command and control, the special forces knowledge, all the things you need in order to wage what is already a very difficult fight against isis. >> the question becomes much more complex when you move to syria. >> it is already devilishly complex. we were invited by the iraqi

government. exactly one year ago, president obama on television talking about the need to fight bashar al-assad. one year later, talking about the need to fight bashar al-assad's enemies. it's enormously complicated. we're not going to make this to crazy complicated but we're trying to do another sensitive and important thing in the coming months, negotiating a new deal with the iranians, bashar al-assad allies and enemies of isis.

russia could make that a much more difficult process if it wanted to. and so this becomes a kind of 3-d chessboard and it's not at all clear that we have the sophistication or wherewithal to play this game out over a number of years. >> is the free syrian army up to this? >> this is one of the ironies of the moment. president obama has been saying in an interview with me and others, he's talked about the moderate syrian opposition as a bunch of farmers, carpenters and a matter how well-meaning they are, arguing that they could defeat assad combined with has below, the iranian revolutionary guard corps which is helping assad, it was a fantasy. this was one of the key disagreements he's had with hillary clinton. was there some hope of supporting these guys?

he has given short shrift to this argument and now we are in a situation where the moderate syrian rebels we spent a lot of time ignoring, marginalizing, not giving sufficient help too, now they are one of the linchpins in this grand anti-isis coalition. we are starting in the hole because we could have helped build them up a couple years ago and we did not do it. if you look at the coalition lined up against isis, it's not very impressive. the iraq he army is dysfunctional. they have only had intermittent success. you have the free syrian army and obama probably is not wrong in saying it is not as sophisticated as hezbollah. you want to defeat isis on the ground without having to resort to using iranian-allied forces. >> they have been the most effective fighting forces in

iraq, have they not? >> absolutely. they are all in. hezbollah is a hardened group of fighters and they are in a very deep conflict with them. this is why if you are president obama you are sitting there getting these briefings and you say -- really? i have to fight these terrible people and use other groups of terrible people to fight these terrible people? if i succeed against this group of terrible people than another group of terrible people will come in and take advantage? of course if you are an american president you are wary of this. that's the fundamental issue. i'm not sure you can rollback in some significant way isis without becoming, in effect, iran's air force. it depends by what you mean partner. will there be open activities with them?

>> for shared military objectives. >> it's completely plausible to imagine intelligence information being surreptitiously slipped in one direction or the other. it is plausible there will be communications to make sure that when u.s. planes are flying over that iran understands they are u.s. planes. on that level -- remember it's very important for the u.s. not to ally openly or too deeply with iran. it's crucial that the u.s. has sunni moderates across the muslim world on the u.s. side. if we're seen as making an alliance in any kind of way with iran, we lose all of the sunnis who fear iran more than they fear almost anything.

>> tell me about the mood of the president. what would you say is the mindset? >> the president obama of 2014 is not the president obama of 2009. think about the cairo speech at the very outset of his presidency. he was elected in part to reset and improve our relations with the muslim world. he gave a very optimistic speech. implicit in that speech he gave, we want good but low-maintenance relations with the muslim world and the arabs because i've got a lot of stuff to do at home. he was hopeful that his biography, his demeanor, his ideas would kind of combined to smooth wings out of it. this is before the arab spring revolutions, before isis, before the syrian uprisings. before a lot of things. now he looks at the middle east and says it is an unmitigated disaster.

he sees barbarian organizations like isis chopping peoples heads off. he sees leaders that are feckless, even among canada -- allies of the united states. he sees a shia-sunni split in half a dozen or more countries that he knows he cannot fix. no american president would delude themselves into thinking they could repair the breach between the shia and sunni. the president of 2009 wanted to make things better is now in a just kind of damage control-mode where he wants to try to keep angst from slipping further into chaos. a chaos that will over spill in the middle east and eventually come to hurt us. >> where is turkey and all of this? >> interesting question. one of the main ways these young

disaffected muslim men looking for excitement with isis, one way they are getting into syria and iraq is a that open turkish border. turkey is a nato state and you would think they would try a little bit harder to keep these young men from going to isis and becoming radicalized and returning to fellow nato countries. turkey is in a real spot. there's a lot of talk about how turkish leadership, islam must sympathetic to the muslim brotherhood and therefore opposed to assad and therefore sympathetic to isis. what's really going on and really keeping turkey more on the sidelines than the u.s. would like to see is a very powerful military. isis has about 48 turkish hostages.

i think isis has made it clear that it is capable of limitless cruelty and sadism. turkey is extremely worried about these hostages and understands that if it crosses -- to borrow a phrase, certain red lines that there are consequences to that. turkey is another frustrating from the american perspective, player and all of this. >> what is victory here? >> i will tell you what failure is. january 20, 2017, when president obama gets in the helicopter to say goodbye to the american people, if there are significant al qaeda-style safe havens across the muslim world and a large isis safe haven straddling the borders, that will be a profound national security failure. this guy was elected to refocus

america's fight against terrorism to get out of the iraq diversion and refocus on al qaeda and jihadism. that would be a serious failure. the immediate task is to stop the forward momentum. pushing them out of iraq will be far easier than ridding syria. they will try to degrade them some from the air. a slightly longer-term prospect building up the army, free syrian army, kurds that can become an actual potent fighting force. the number one goal is to stop deterioration. it does not sound dramatic in the president will obviously go out and promise degrading and destroying, but the number one goal is to quarantine the

problem where it is and not what it spread. >> jeffrey goldberg from the atlantic and from bloomberg view, thank you so much. we will be back in a moment, stay with us. "this is where i leave you" is a new movie, a romantic comedy adaptation of the best-selling novel of four grown siblings who reunite after their father dies. it features jason bateman, tina fey, jane fonda. >> three months ago i had a great job, a nice apartment, and i was in love with my life. >> one year. >> our first time. >> i imagine right now you're well into the excessive facial hair phase of depression. >> it's not a good time. >> dad's dead. >> what?

>> your father had one final request and we are going to honor it. for the next seven days, you're all grounded. >> no, no, no we are just sitting in awkward silence. >> close that road? >> it's just breasts. once you suckled them. >> what's it been? 7, 8, 9 years? >> she slept with my boss. >> that will do it. >> you need to put a baby in that woman like yesterday. >> my room is next to yours. >> who are you to come in here?

>> that's the princess cut. you guys are idiots, but you are my idiots. >> clearly she lost more than a husband. >> anything can happen. anything can happen all the time. >> life is unpredictable and irrational and complicated. i want a complicated life. >> i left the baby monitor on upstairs. >> turn it up. turn it up. >> shove a baby up there. >> the circle of life, everybody. >> joining me now is the screenwriter, the director, and two of the actors, tina fey and jason bateman.

did you think this was a film? >> i thought the exact opposite. it was very episodic. i did not actually expected to be a film. i was writing about jason's character and someone who loses everything. he loses his marriage his job, everything. i just could not get my arms around the novel until i brought in the nuclear family and in a needed an excuse for them to stay together for more than a few hours. so i converted them to judaism. >> that's how novels are born. i read that it is perfectly cast. tell me about casting.

>> i found the novel and his screenplay so vivid in all of its characters that it felt like i needed an all-star for every single role. there is no dismissible character. everyone is totally realized and therefore every actor. i picked them one by one based on who could bring them fully to life. >> it's great to see jane. >> and she is here in a serio-comedic role. she enjoyed this new breed of comedy. we were also open to improvisation. after the first week or two she really got into that as well. >> you read the script and said it was for you? >> i read the script and met with shawn. i really like the character of wendy. it was not a story i felt like i had seen before. >> what's her story?

>> she met the love of her life across the street, her high school sweetheart. something bad happened when they were young and in love that made him not quite a guy that she could really marry. he has a brain injury. he's really handsome and sweet but he cannot really function and at some point in her past she had to make the pragmatic decision to move on. she's coming home and she married a much more outwardly successful guy, a handsome businessman but she's constantly haunted by the fact that she maybe did not do the right thing or with the man she truly loved was taken from her. >> and your character? >> the previously mentioned the storyline. [laughter] my guy walks in on his wife sleeping with his boss.

he gets a phone call that his dad is dead. you got that in the trailer. and then i'm out. most of my scenes are right there. i narrate the final crawl. that's about it. i play a character not too dissimilar from that. i like to play a guy in the middle to trying to kind of figure it all out, make better decisions than he has while navigating the eccentricities of these around him mainly in the form of family. there are certainly those eccentricities present. >> what formed the development of the characters for you? >> finding out which characters would push the other characters and it started with jason's character, somebody who is

realizing halfway through his life that the script he has followed has not served him well and having to question the decisions he's made and bringing him back to see the damage caused by his family that may have sent him in that direction and having to come back to terms with that and make a new plan at the age of 40 something. >> what made you want to collaborate on this together? >> when i read the book five years ago i fell in love with it instantly. i could not get my hands on the movie version. it was looking like it might get made with other actors and directors so to console myself -- i was also doing bigger action comedies at that time. i am now officially a fan. let's do something together.

he adapted steve martin's book for me. then we worked on another screenplay, a father-son redemption story. by the time it came back around, we had the friendship and the shorthand. i hope this is the first of many collaborations that we can bring to the screen. >> jason as an actor -- this is coming to the right side. don't worry. he is so able to be fluently funny and heartbreaking often in the same moment. that is there in the movie at large. >> tell me between the relationship in the characters you both play.

you break the news to him that dad is dead. >> i play his older sister who is seemingly very invasive and opinionated. in the movie i'm the only one in his immediate family that knows that his wife has left him. >> under the circumstances. >> i torment him with that. [laughter] >> what does that mean? >> i cannot keep a secret. it's killing me. >> guess what happened? you must not have been very good because she was hanging out with his boss. >> roll tape. >> will you just take the call? this is crazy enough without you keeping your divorce secret. who does that?

you cannot tell your family then who? >> i would never tell anyone. >> this is already like a new record for me keeping my mouth shut. you're grieving. tell them. >> i will pinch you. >> where is that beautiful wife of yours? >> gone. she's gone. it's over. maybe it's not that complicated. i walk in on her having sex with my boss and my bed. it is simple, i am divorcing her. how are you doing, mrs. applebaum? [laughter] >> what shall we say about that scene? >> it was fun to do. my guy really does not get to blow his top that much. his mo is really trying to keep things tamped down. >> you like scenes like that where you can let it out? >> as an audience member, i like

watching actors and characters trying to keep things bottled up so when i get the part that is somewhere in there, i jump out at. >> seven days give you a narrative device that you could use. >> i struggled with it when i was writing the book. i did not want to do anything that i felt would limit the readership and i worried that it might be a little too esoteric and narrow. but what i found out subsequently is that family is family. whether it is a shiva or awake, everybody comes together and does the exact same thing to each other. >> there's very little religion in the film. we are at temple once. >> it sneaks out. >> is drama easy to do if you've done comedy well and you have great timing? >> i do think comedy is harder to do and i say that from the

outside. mostly i say that as an observation of working at saturday night live and seeing actors, week after week, many of whom are stars of incredible oscar-winning dramatic performances but it's a different thing to be able to do comedy. there is a secret precision. you can scream, cry, lose your mind, and access a lot of emotion. but for comedy, the underneath that, there has to be some secret precision. >> precision like what? >> hitting the right word, timing, not overlapping. >> not to get into the science of comedy, but my guess is drama you just have to be real. comedy you have to be real at a heighted level of realism.

you have to go through a believable level of execution into something that is so exaggerated that it becomes funny and that also has to be believable. >> i found this funny. is it a drama or a comedy? >> it is both and that's what life is especially in a situation where your dignity is in question. when chips are down and there's conflict, you can very quickly get into something that is dramatic or comedic on the same page. >> and that is where we found the common sweet spot. we both felt like we did not want to tell it in an overly dramatic way but we did not want to be too comedic because we wanted to be in the place where life really happens. laughing at the funeral, that is where life is. >> when you appear today as an actor, are you costly thinking about directing as well? watching and thinking about the techniques of different directors you know. >> i'm glad that i have learned even more about how this tricky process of creating a fake

world, how complicated that it is. as an actor you are in a great position to really help that process. you effect it so clearly, so specifically while you are talking. you can kind of see that camera still moving and you know you should wait until it stops rolling before you say your line. if i'm shadowing tina, i know how to rock on this foot so you're out of her light. you can really help the process. >> you're doing everything aren't you? >> not exercising. [laughter] that's the first thing that goes. there's not enough money in it. [laughter] >> i disagree. >> jane might disagree. >> a few others can make those tapes. do you want to direct? >> i really respect directors.

i respect people who think in pictures and who understand how shots and setups work. at this moment in time, i do not have a strong desire to do that. when you work in television as a writer-producer, you can do the fun parts like covering behind the director and adjust performance which to me is the more interesting part. >> as a comedic actor, do you provide a certain chemistry that others do not? >> especially coming from an improvisational background, you are used to focusing on the other person in the scene. amy and i have a shorthand that is literally 20 years now that we've known each other. jason and i feel as if we are able to access some of that same shorthand just because we are all in the same world. >> thank you for saying that.

i feel the same way about you. we just finished doing a bunch of interviews together and there are certain people where we are like dogs. there's a frequency. you can hear when the person is about to stop talking and you know that is your time to come in. it's really fun to be apart of and i certainly enjoy watching it. >> mike nichols once said to me -- i asked what he expected from actors. he says he expect the same things he expect from his architects. i want them to surprise me. i want them to take me to the place i cannot even imagine would come out of the scene or a development of a character. >> it's the truth. all you do when directing a movie is you try to set it up and create an environment where those accidents and those surprises, sometimes comedic, sometimes emotional, can take your breath away and surprise you and that is the special stuff that makes a movie great.

>> when does it open? >> september 19. >> "this is where i leave you" on september 19. back in a moment. stay with us. >> james is here, an economist who teaches at the university of texas, the author of nine books. his latest is a provocative look at the limitations of economic growth called "the end of normal -- the great crisis and the future of growth." i'm pleased to have james at this table. welcome to our program. this evolved out of a washington monthly article? >> i did something that was a suggestion that things were going to be more difficult going forward than most people thought. this book evolved out of that. >> why did you think that? >> because it seemed to me that what we were going for was qualitatively different than the ones we experienced in my

lifetime most of which caused by policy changes or shocks from the outside whereas this one had a large element of internal institutional collapse in the united states. mainly in the financial sector. it seemed to me that this was much more like 1929, 19 30's than it was like 1974 or 1982. you had to know something about the context. >> why the title? >> for most of our lifetime, particularly if you are an economist, you have a view of the future that is conditioned by the experience. this is a time for which we have economic statistics and they have a certain trend line. the other as we developed economic theories in the

post-war period giving us the notion of perpetual growth as the normal condition. we are at the end of the time where this is a guide for what's going forward. >> in beyond the title is the dedication to bruce bartlett, a brave and honored friend? >> i was the democratic staff director. he was the republican staff director. >> did he served in the reagan administration? >> under reagan and bush 41. he is the guy who had taken up very courageous positions which cost him a lot in the political circles in which team moved at one point. in some sense, his departure from bush two was that he did not find him to be a true conservative. i think that is probably correct. the fact is he took a very brave stand and i think he gets a lot

of credit for that in my book. >> you have a quote saying it's not the art of the possible. it is choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. >> i am in favor of the unpalatable. the book is a long discourse on what the unpalatable is. >> and why that is our choice. drill down on that. what is it that's happened? a lot of people -- larry summers is now writing about secular stagnation and talking about growth in the absence of demand. he has always said the problem is growth rather than stagnation. >> it is primarily psychological and it has to do with whether businesses are willing to invest, whether consumers are willing to spend, whether the incomes exist for them to do

that. i think the issues now go deeper than that. i think some post-war premises are now questionable. the stability and low cost of energy and secondly, the stability of the world system which was created by the united states and its allies and then evolved into a kind of single hegemony. thirdly, the nature of technologies and fourthly, the functionality of the financial system. >> how do you find the system today? >> it's a very concentrated system. >> most people do not think there are any more tools in the monetary toolkit, do they? >> i think that's a reasonable concern. i was involved in the oversight

of monetary policy for a long time. i was one of the people on the congressional staff who started the process of regular hearings between the federal reserve and the congress. we've gone through a time where the federal reserve was very closed to one that is really quite open and public about its goals. it uses every tool of signaling that it has available to it and in recent years it's been using this tool of asset buying. these are really very limited instruments. they are discovering now as they try to move away from the asset buying from quantitative easing that when you start and people become accustomed, it is extremely hard to stop causing massive distractions. >> so janet yellen is going very carefully. >> rightfully and her margin is much smaller than most people

expect the central bank to have or have been led to believe. >> you see mario draghi talking about the possibility of the europeans doing that. >> what draghi succeeded in doing is quelling the panic and speculative action against the countries of the eurozone. >> we simply will not let them fail. >> moving them back is a much more steady path of expansion, i do not think they have the tools by themselves to do that. >> what do we do? if we want to see a vigorous economy, what must be the fundamental changes we make whether they are structural or otherwise? >> first of all we have to be realistic about what the constraint problems are. we are not living in the world where the goal of a vigorous economy is as easily achieved as it was for the whole world in the 1940's or for the united states in the 1980's and 1990's.

we are in a more difficult time. it seems to me that we have to strengthen the social protections that we have that which played a very valuable role for us. they become much more valuable in these conditions and then we have to focus our resources on the problems that we actually have. we have gotten a reprieve on energy thanks to natural gas as there is still enormous environmental concerns associated with that. we need to put resources where the problems are in a very specific way. a discourse based on the rate of economic growth, how much stimulus, monetary or fiscal, do you need to get there is not drilling down to the questions that really need to be asked and answered. >> i remember people at the

conclusion of the economic crisis thing we would not see 4% gdp growth for a long time -- if ever. and then we are right at about 2%. and yet i'm a when the person said that, i thought that could not be true because it would switch back. it would take four or five years to get employment back to 6% but there would be growth, demand, and america's technological and innovative opportunities will present themselves and everything will be good. and now there's a lot of pessimism about where we are. >> everybody has been conditioned by economists to believe that we know what the long-term trend is. therefore when we are off of it, we're going to go back. again, that is the premise that i'm challenging here. what does it mean?

to not go back there, it means recognizing that we have an employment to population ratio that has not improved at all since 2009. it is basically where it was after the slump. let's face that reality now. we do not have a reasonable expectation that things will improve on their own. >> there is a piece in the last three or four weeks ago, here he is, a very distinguished professor at harvard and a management consultant, saying look what happened here. the only people who benefited from this economy are the very few at the top.

the middle-class is not benefiting. is that true? did i sum up what he said? >> it is substantially true. i may be a little less pessimistic than roger. when you have an economy is forward movement has been based upon the stock market and based on asset prices, people who own stocks will have the best balance sheets and the best income gains. they will be paying more taxes as they have a larger share of income. we do have social protections that have continued to function. one of the remarkable things in comparison to europe and the crisis is the extent to which people's income of the bottom was replaced by social security, disability, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance. that has kept us from a much

worse situation. if you travel, as i have, to athens, to rome, to spain and portugal, you will find societies under much more immediate stress than they are here where the social institutions, the public-sector institutions are in a state of breakdown. i wrote an early review of his book in dissent. the title of the magazine was well chosen. my review was a skeptical one. i thought his approach had a level of abstraction which prevented him from actually dealing with the crisis that we are in because it stretch things out over a very long time. i do not think that really gets to the experience that we are

actually having. i ended up being one of the few dissidents. >> what is the futility of military power? >> the non-communist part of the world had a stable framework created by the allies and that evolved into a kind of unite-polar world in which we were the guarantor. the experience of iraq and afghanistan has shown that the actual use of military power has extremely limited possibilities. especially the balance of technologies that have shifted in favor of the defenders and has meant that you cannot replicate the experience of rebuilding germany and japan after 1945 in the modern world.

>> whatever happened to the great debate about the deficit and long-term debt? >> i hope it goes away and stays away. it was in some sense a great misunderstanding, the idea that the united states needs to have a balanced budget or it can achieve a balanced budget given the u.s. role in the world where we supply capital assets to the world economy. we are a country that has to run a budget deficit, a trade deficit. we have been badgered for decades by people who say you cannot do that. the whole policy has to be to cut spending and raise taxes. every time you do that, you end up squeezing the economy. that happened in 1999 and 2000, again in 2006. >> what happened in britain

after the crisis? how do you measure what happened to their economy now the most productive economy? >> the major advantage of the british have had as they are offshore from the eurozone. they have had a real advantage as a magnet for financial activity. i have actually done some work on the distribution of income in the u.k.. there's an amazing concentration of it in the center of london, the financial zone. it's phenomenal how much the income of the region is focused in that little territory. this is clearly driven by the u.k.'s special role as a financial center. >> what is the greatest contribution your dad made to ideas in the country? >> my father in many ways framed modern liberalism. he gave it a voice and a whole series of objectives that it did not have before. as an economist, he projected

the corporation and large organization into the center of our attention in the 1950's that just emerged as a dominant force in american society and he carried that particular torch, if you like, of old-fashioned liberalism and social solidarity forward until the end of his days right up through the wave of conservativism, he never recanted. >> he was a great friend of bill buckley's. what did they agree on? friendship? >> they agreed on the magnificence of the english language. they just absolutely enjoyed the play of words and style in their correspondence, and their conversation. >> it's an amazing friendship.

>> we all love the bill buckley particularly towards the end of his life when my father was in decline. bills's dedication to dad was a true act of love. >> the book is called "the end of normal -- the great crisis in the future of growth." thank you for joining us. we will see you next time. ♪

.

>> something magical happened. >>