on the field and mckay said he was all in favor of it. [laughter] i did have one question, roberto, i wish he would ask during your prosecution could you ask whether the defense believes that professors of finance, economics, optioned seeley and derivatives were conflict in writing and discussing a potential for a crisis given that the same professors were earning hundreds of thousands of dollars from our biggest banks and hedge funds in the form of speaking engagement fees, on various, expert witness fees and trials and consulting and business partnerships with some of the worst offenders on wall street. today i want to address the real

causes of this crisis because if we don't get that right there is little chance obama suggested reforms will be affected in either in the crisis or preventing something like this from occurring in the future. into those of you who believe the crisis is over, i have some swampland in florida i would like to sell you. first, i would like to caution you against the leading those with very simple and easy to understand explanations this crisis is very complicated and unfortunately some of our brightest are seeing some of the stupidest stuff about what caused this mess. you have alan greenspan and other defenders of completely unregulated markets suggesting such a downturn as normal, that it's part of a normal business cycle, the devils completely unavoidable arguing that it was almost like an act of god as random and unpredictable and natural as a 100-year-old flood to use greenspan's language. there is nothing abnormal about

the world is experiencing today. to suggest otherwise smacks of a let them eat cake easily to some that shows alan greenspan is far removed from the pain and suffering the crisis is causing the average american family. similarly, be suspicious of those who try to blame capitalism for a crisis. capitalism has done more to create growth and reduce poverty and inequality in the world than any economic system in the history of the world. let's be careful not to throw out our baby capitalism with the bathwater. global capitalism knows no country borders. and recognize is no national boundaries. so it is not surprising that it has helped -- is this working? it is not surprising that it has helped the poorest of the world in china and india and asia the

most in peacekeeping poverty even if it meant greater hardship to the middle class in u.s. and europe. but if you look past nationality what is wrong with helping the poorest of the world first? finally, always told last as an explanation of a situation you don't completely understand and accusation that those who participated in or caused the crisis worse on how irrational were even stupid. i worked with these folks on wall street for ten years and i can promise you there are many things but they are not stupid. similarly, to blame the crisis on wall street by calling wall streeters greedy to me seems to miss the point. greed is what wall street does and has always done. there is no wall street without greed. why else would someone which his life disappear as he watched a 19-inch computer screen only to

grab a morsel or crumb of profit and try to get rich off of it? greed has been in our genes for hundreds of thousands of years. the jeans have not mutated suddenly in the last years to make us more greedy. and to those behavioral economists out there who are quick to accuse others of irrational behavior i can think of no greater public pronouncement of your own inability to identify this problem than trying to label all of those around you as irrational. it is a very dangerous game and you're playing because it lays the seeds of an argument that says what we need is greater protection from our irrational selves and who is always there to offer this service? an elite class of bureaucrats who pretend to know more about what makes me happy than on a note myself. if behavior is ever able to prove that markets are most participants are irrational it will be a very sad day for those

of oster-loth and hold to your individual freedom, our individual to waste, and our basic rights as humans. if the key participants in the current financial crisis for a rational, please help me identify who it was that is irrational, who we are talking about. was it the home buyers real-estate earning 20 to 50,000-dollar commissions with no risk but only if his or her client was the winning buyer? do you see why was in their interest to get their buyers to bid more, not less? certainly unethical and unprofessional but not irrational from their perspective. with a vast number of financial middlemen irrational from the appraisers putting out crazy high appraisals for a fee to the rating agencies paid billions of dollars to call john securities aaa to the congressmen who took bribes to lose an industry

regulation to the investment bankers paid hundreds of billions to peddle this stuff to the mortgage brokers who falsified mortgage applications to guarantee approval again, highly unethical and in some cases completely criminal, but not irrational. what about the home buyer himself? certainly he was irrational to pay 60% premiums more than a home's true worth but what if i told you most of these home buyers were playing with other people's money? that they had borrowed all of the money they need to or 3% with no down payment of their own funds. >> certainly a terrible way to arrive at fair price for a home but such a buyer would be motivated to the by the biggest home he could as he would want to maximize his upside profit in a booming market. he'd be in sensitive to price as he knew he would enjoy all the upside but if the market turned south he could avoid any loss by allowing the bank to take

property back in foreclosure. sounds pretty rational to me. if the borrower is getting such a sweet deal surely the lender, the commercial banker, was acting irrationally and giving him alone. but the world of commercial banking durham ackley the last 25 years. banks today don't sit on most loans they make. they securitized them and sell them a stream to the principal investors like pension funds, sovereign governments, municipalities and insurance companies. the commercial banker has few rational reasons to care about the quality of the load he's created. if it defaults he bawled lose anything. we now know some of these banks did position some of this toxic waste on their own balance sheets and their losses turned out to be huge. large enough to bankrupt many of these firms.

sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? but what if i told you the same banks were making tens of hundreds of billions of dollars in profits from their mortgage operations and their bank managers had seen their bonuses increase from last than a million dollars a year to something sometimes more than $50 million per year. now it doesn't sound so crazy or stupid, does it? so at the end of this on ethical, fraudulent most likely criminal food chain stands the pension fund or insurance company that got stuck holding this worthless paper. certainly he/she has to be stupid or a rational to have made such a poor investment. actually, no. while many of these institutional type of investors are not the sharpest minds in the drawer, they did do what modern finance theory told them to do. the diversified their holdings but they did it so well they

held so many different investments spread all over the world that they couldn't possibly find time to properly evaluate them or analyze their value and certainly didn't have time to supervise the individual managers of each of the underlying companies and assets they held. in addition, their most trusted advisers were telling them that these were safe investments and all three of the rating agencies were giving these investments the highest rating, aaa. to call the effect of such a fraudulent attempt to deceive a national would be like calling the victim of a home burglary or of a car theft irrational. we may not like or approve of such behavior but that doesn't make the victim irrational or necessarily stupid. so maybe there are real reasons why this crisis occurred as have not yet been discovered and was fouled will prevent us from throwing out our beloved baby

capitalism or calling those involved either stupid or irrational. maybe there's something about the banking industry itself that makes it different from other industries and makes it is unsuited for the type of competitive capitalism that seems to create long-term sustainable values and other industries and which competition is encouraged and allowed it to foster. bank deposit insurance guarantees were instituted in the 1930's to stop runs on banks during the great depression. but they may have created the very moral hazard that is causing today's financial crisis. quite ironic, isn't it? banks today can dramatically increase their leverage, shift into risky assets such as derivatives and businesses like investment banking and they won't lose depositors and they won't even see the cost of their debt funding increase because of the guaranteed provided by the federal government to the

depositors. in the 30's, when a depositor insurance was introduced, everyone understood that banks would therefore have to be aggressively regulated by the government since the market no longer could. unfortunately overtime this lesson was lost or forgotten. the banks over the last 30 years have used their increased lobbying and political strength to undo and eliminate most of the original legislation meant to effectively regulate them. in 1999, they got class -- glass-steagall removed. in 2008 successful in ensuring the derivatives business would remain on regulated. ayaan 2004, they lobbied successfully to remove restrictions on how high the leverage might go. and as we have seen the leverage over the last 30 years has increased from about eight to one to something like 30 or 40

to one. over the years, banks have used their size, power and political muscle to a rewrite the rules of the game to benefit themselves, that the same time threaten the entire financial system with collapse. did i mention that the same all powerful banks also owned and controlled the federal reserve system and its board commit eckert supposed to be regulated. these banks are sold large as to be too big to fail, *close quote*, which violates the first promise of capitalism that badly performing businesses must be allowed to fail. because of their heavy involvement in the credit stifel stockmarkets these banks are also too interconnected to fail. the credit the bald swap market makes everybody important and too big to fail because of its huge complex network of default

guarantees. it also violates the precept that markets must allow failure for creative destruction to occur and because of this the credit defaults swap market needs to be shut down immediately. banks as we have said are also high leveraged that it becomes when you are so high leverage rational for their management teams and shareholders to begin to act like option holders worried only about the upside rather than equity investors who must also be concerned with downside scenarios and the risk of insolvency. i believe if we make just one change, if we let leverage of the banks in the world to just 8-juan we would eliminate the major cause of most bohm st meeting us and avoid almost all future costs, recessions, crises and depressions. we have new leadership in washington of course and they were elected on a promised

platform dedicated to change. radicals like me will never be happy with the pace of change especially as innocent families suffer as a result of this crisis. if it were me, i would attack the biggest problem first. the corrosive impact that money and lobbyists and corporate power has in our nation's capital. but i would most likely fail. the powers that be congressional incumbents of both parties, big banks and big corporations and their lobbyists and the corporate owned sponsored and controlled media would swat me away like the emmeline past, authors and true investigative journalists can be. but barack obama has a different approach. his years of community organizing experience tell him that to accomplish real meaningful change especially against an entrenched and powerful opponent you take small steps first. you move gradually.

you move incrementally. nothing builds a group's confidence like success. you can build a new powerful majority of three involved citizens by winning small battles first before taking on the big battle against the machine against the system. then once you have real power and other is no power greater than people united then and only then do you accomplish real reform and bring change to a corrupt system. thanks so much for listening. ixl'd like to open the floor for questions and please remember there is no such thing as a stupid question especially given how complex this is. if you listening would like to get involved to figure out how we can organize to throw the lobbyists up of government, please contact me at my e-mail address, johntalbs@hotmail.com.

i've got some ideas but i would very much like to hear yours. i will open up the floor for questions now. >> i don't think it's working. he says it is. >> anyway i will talk loudly. >> he says it's working. >> okay, i'm sorry. my question is twofold and completely disparate. one is obviously you think glass-steagall should be reinstated. number two what is your concern about inflation in light of all the deficits that we are incurring? thank you. >> i absolutely think glass-steagall ought to be reinstituted, something even stronger because the world has changed in 70 years. we have to have prohibition

against banks getting into risky businesses. it makes no sense for you to deposit your money in a bank expecting that you could get it back and find out that the managers of the bank have gone in debt on derivatives and investment banking and hedge fund activities. so absolutely something even stronger than glass-steagall needs to be reinstituted. the second half is a good question. i am a big supporter of the theory you can't spend $4 trillion guarantees on 13 jolie dollars of assets and not have significant government cost going forward. and if the deride has significant cost going forward it's not clear where they will get the money by their own projections they are showing 2 trillion-dollar deficits each year and that forecast allows 4% growth from 2011 and on. i just don't see how we are going to get back on that record so we are going to find the basic operations of the country we are going to be putting all

$2 trillion a year of new borrowing and then we have all these guarantees that might come back to haunt us and so it looks to me like the banks haven't finished with all of their losses yet so it seems it's clear the government is going to have to come up with a lot of money. it's not crazy to think they are going to print some of that rather than borrow and if they start turning on the printing we're going to have inflation. warren buffett said when treasuries were yielding 2% it was the next mania or bilmes and was crazy for the country of the world to be lending to the u.s. government at 2% and now that rate has jumped considerably, so i think it is going to jump considerably more. what it tells you as an investor is be careful if a bond salesman tries to move you out of the stock market and into the long corporate bonds or treasuries. they have price risks to them as inflation comes back.

>> i think to be easily argued the majority of the populism of the nation don't even slightly understand the complexity of economic situations, wall street, what have you and that the way the media presented it just ends up schering more and more people into believing what ever is the scariest myth so how do you propose going forward that we handle the media affect on the populations and how do you propose i guess at least educating the majority of the people on a basic level understanding where their money goes and what happens? >> you know, we are also different than other countries of the world right now. unfortunately the countries we are so similar to our the developing port countries of the world. we've become argentina becoming like us and if there's 100 advanced countries of the world

and 50 very poor countries of the world and what almost all 50 countries that are poor share in common is a dictator or somebody military controls their legislature so it's very hard for the people to write reform legislation and he controls the media. i don't mean to suggest there is some dictator in the united states that controls both of those appearing as a broad class of the wealthy and most powerful corporations who do a good job controlling those entities and they don't do it as if they meet late at night with their commissions. they don't have to. the have same motivation to make profit so when you turn on any cable news or network news program other than pps, it is corporate sponsored. they can't say anticorporate messages because the corporations are finding their entire program, and they are corporate owned and the corporations are some of the biggest lobbyists in washington not necessarily on the finance front, but clearly all the issues important to them as

media companies with regard to concentration on the market whether they have to pay for free air time etc.. so, it is a dairy difficult battle if you think of the corporations of america be a very strong and government being very strong and i think of almost equal for third leg of the tough trinkle is the media again very powerful and the individual sort of how do we get up? we can have endless elections on and on and which republicans to decide of big business and democrats take the side of big government and nothing changes. so we have to break out of destroying a goal and the good news we have the methodology to do it and that i believe is the internet. the internet so far hasn't been taken over bye corporations although they tried three times and it allows for individuals to communicate with each other and organize. the question you have to ask

yourself is why haven't individuals organized today? these had lots of opportunities. i used to think they were stupid and didn't understand the issues and i thought the media for them. i no longer believe that i travelled the country. i talked to people all over the country. my good friend and kentucky is a tenth grade education and he can explain this better than i just did. they know they are getting ripped off. they know big business is ripping them off and credit card companies are ripping them off and banks are ripping them off and governments are ripping them off. i think they are at this stage asking themselves what can we do, how do we organize and that is what i would like to get at next. >> you have another question here. >> on, you mentioned in your book, "the 86 biggest lies on wall street," i'm curious for you at of the 86 biggest lies which is the biggest and why do you think so? >> it's funny because you try to

anticipate questions you will get when you get talks and unfortunately i never anticipated that question and it's not the way i wrote the book. i didn't write the book with number one ally be the worst for the most offensive. the way i wrote the book was the first two chapters try to explain the current crisis and the lies that got us into the crisis. the second tries to identify a lie is preventing cost from getting out of the crisis and then i take a big broad view of general lies on wall street that prevent us from doing what we want to do which is invested make money so i look at stock investing lies and bond investing why is an alternative so i don't have any one favor. i will tell you why number 21 because i think it is a good one and that is diversification has been held up by modern finance. all of wall street as the reason why and how you ought to invest held assets are valued, how the risk is valued it's a foundation

of the modern finance. i think it's wrong. i think it's wrong. i don't think you end up saving money by diversifying and i will tell you why. a german pension fund who tries to diversify in germany in up holding three or 5% of his assets in california mortgages. he's never been to california. he's never read the mortgage. after the crash he tried to find the mortgage and nobody has it. the investment bank doesn't have it. nobody knows where it's filed. the judge says you don't have ileana two can't find the security. so what happened was this german pension fund thought he could hold 3% of 33 different assets around the world and be protected though these assets were much more correlated and he felt they were and he didn't know whether he paid a fair price for any of them because he never had time to do the analysis. he depended on middlemen who themselves were conflicted to decide the price paid and

finally if you wonder why maybe american businesses and other businesses around the world are also tightly managed as you would hope they would be it's because the shareholders are just like this german pension fund manager. the each have hundreds of investments around the world and they don't have the time to monitor any of them so this theory of diversification sets up beautifully for middlemen to come in and tell this ignorant pension fund manager what's best for him except they don't. they say what's best for themselves and their own cash flow so it turns quickly into a very corrupt system. yes? >> we have seen major reductions in the stock market it's down 30, 40%. a lot of bonds are deteriorated

in value. people can up with subprime mortgages obviously if you have a mortgage with three for cent backing or 4% backing you have a change in the value of the property you are in the water very quickly. first question is do you think the market here has reached a level that asset values are attracting and why? >> it's funny to be giving the stock because we are in the middle of this suppose it recovery and it's a funny recovery. citibank stock went from 57 to one and its backup 2.5 or three. but it is true the last three months the stock markets have rallied some 25%. they are still considerably off 40%. but i don't believe it's sustainable and i will tell you why. darrow were something like $60 trillion of wealth in the

world between homes and office buildingsubv and the stock mart values of companies. and that decreased to $30 trillion. there was about 65 trillion in debt just in the united states and that hasn't declined hardly at all, the banks have written off about petroleum i'm sure there have been others we don't know about. and so what you have is unsustainable world where the assets true value, market value has dropped by half yet you have this huge debt overhang and how does that overhang get taken care of, either banks have to continue to bite down and take further enormous losses which is very bad for the banking system which is very bad for the economy, or people have to struggle and with much less income and higher unemployment and much lower asset values continue to pay the debt and the debt overhang will cripple them for years to come. on the housing side it is true

the housing is adjusted just about the percentages i predicted in a book i wrote in 2006 called sell now the end of the housing bubble. i had to predict that santa barbara and san francisco and the los angeles would come down some 30 to 50% and that the country as a whole would come down some 25% and there are towns in california that are off 65, 60%. so there is a chance certain towns are starting to reach the bottom but not all of them are and the reason is these banks used to land about seven, nine, ten times the combined income of both spouses to buy a home. they realize now that was a mistake and they are going back to lending 3.5 times your combined income. unless you want to put up a substantial down payment it's hard for that bank credit evaporation to support the types of housing prices we have seen and it's funny the poor neighborhoods in each of the cities or the middle class

neighborhoods are the ones that adjusted the quickest because they had the most foreclosures. middle-income people don't have other assets to sell. they don't have other income when the bank comes calling to foreclose their mortgage. but the wealthier areas along the coast of san francisco, of san diego and l.a., they have adjusted somewhat maybe 20% declines but they haven't seen the full decline because they haven't had this foreclosure we've but it doesn't mean they won't adjust. when they had the largest depreciation, the wealthy neighborhoods had the biggest percentage increase. they saw 500% over the last 15 years. so the too will adjust downward and the way the adjustment will work is you will walk out of your mahlon dollar home in la hoya and looked on the street at five similar homes with for sale signs and one of them will tell you he sold for 500,000 you are not going to keep paying your million dollar mortgage i don't care what interest rate they charge if you know that your home is worth $500,000.

.. with i don't believe so. it short-sellers, where the oil was writing this. they saw it was made money in

you can accuse somebody else will play for that to hear and know, the reason why people get the idea that these commercial bankers and real estate players where ignorant force stupid is because all of us know that if you go to an individual and down ask him to verify his in, come a don't ask to verify his job, don't make a phone call to his employer, if you don't even ask him to fill out an application you know who that is planned to the track is a client base and all know that is likely to default so it must immediately conclude the person who extended must be immediate but when you're not seeing is what he did with that piece of paper created when he lent his signature with and that his he didn't hold it, he immediately sold it and who was crazy enough to buy it? they traded instrument called a cdo, collateralized debt obligation in which they put a whole bunch of this worthless paper and a pool in the town

there rating agencies convinced that if the worst offenders with the biggest default person going to the lowest of this pool that the upper trudges may be as much as 65 or 75% of this junk paper would be rated aaa. so it is a question of mathematics and you have to ask yourself questions of how bad the world can get and what the default rate is going to be buck the me tell other people bush in this paper and taking of these enormous fees and know what the worst-case scenario was. the risk analysis guys, their worst case scenario they could imagine was one of three listed on the increased 5% a year for the next 40 years. not one of them and have a friend who invested in six of the biggest bank, not one asked one if real-estate prices declined an offer 1% and never asked one of the decline of 30 or 44% and that is an important question when dealing with

mortgages because when house prices are going up and somebody has a medical emergency or loss of john and i have to default on the mortgage they don't because of the home in price every year has committed equity in the property so what they do rather than putting the home is the cellhouse, take the profits and pay off the note that now imagine that same person has a job loss and a declining real-estate environment. now he is under water, and now he has no incentive to sell the house in the private market because he will be working for the bank because the proceeds go to the bank and will climb back pretty so he does what is rational, e-mail's the keys to the bank and says it is been nice sprinting to you. >> i wanted to ask a follow-up on a german examples used on his question -- i'm sure you're not implying but does that mean global investments are doomed ventures?

just not a good idea on hold? >> globalization has been pushed on us as a great idea, and can you have to examine to see what other shortcomings of it. one of the clear shortcomings which nobody analyze it in france was one ever value was created from increased trading there was going to be a huge cost to the working poor and the middle class of a dance countries who were going to put in competition for jobs with indians, low-wage chinese among low-wage south america and mexico, and so i don't care how hard you work in america people in these countries are going to work for a dollar or less per hour and it was going to hurt your lifestyle so in aggregate the total wealth of the u.s. might have increased over the last 30 years but i can assure you the lower 30% decline so that is one problem with globalization. the other problem we are seeing now which is when there are these unanticipated crises that we don't predict which are very

highly correlated across a lot of asset classism countries they hit everything, they can't be contained. in is as if it fires broke out in africa and the other containing to a small village in treating its because of globalization and widespread use of air fares increase pressure on the world for the the the most recent mexican virus -- you can see it started in mexico within two days it was in every country of the world so globalization is dangerous in this regard but a farm economist and understand economics prickly and politicians don't know how to plan the future perfectly and there is always uncertainty and risk we are no longer exposed and to just one state or city or country, we are exposing it to the economy and that is dangerous. >> a few questions -- number one with the debt overhang issue,

isn't the only possible solution to create inflation in order to decrease the real value of the dead? >> that is the conclusion i came to and how disturbing to read in the paper today that ben bernanke went to congress and promised to them the one thing he would never do is delete the currency. he is reading of a plan but that is 30 years old. we know that inflation is very harmful and we found that out during the carter years but the onetime inflation might do some good is when everybody has to much debt. corporations, businesses, and governments, municipalities, individuals -- everybody is and so is almost swear to go ahead and inflate and not back those debts. you can argue the holders of those would be upset that they bought too much debt and never should have invested and that

should probably be trading in 70 or $0.80 on the dollar. the other way to get rid of some of this debt and on to be happening and is not is a the companies and banks in trouble we ought to be restructuring them. fannie mae and freddie mac over the weekend basically went bankrupt without playing in basically came out of bankruptcy on monday morning without ever going in and their creditors got paid at $0.100 on the dollar. well, the creditors $1.6 trillion of creditors, 500 billion had in china that paid off: -- how? the u.s. government taxpayer came in and gave them $400 million and the clock is still thinking and could eventually pay a trillion but it makes no sense to me and so all of these bailouts, the wall street bailout, the auto bailout's etc. as long as they're happening in the punishing certainly the shareholders but also that investors and just writing checks for the taxpayer is not fair demand that is actually my

second question -- i read about the debate about when the banks were nationalized. why the bond holders of the banks were protected. what, in our opinion, is the reason for that? what did that happen? >> in a complex world of this is an easy answer because they love your government and what is amazing is a lawyer government when they had market valuations of 100 billion to $200 million. for a while there when citibank stock was at one to $2 that have market capitalization south of 10 billion here and i would have thought that would have taken some of their muscle away but they weren't stupid and the moneys they took from the government they did not cut back on their lobbying effort so they continue to lobby strongly in washington and i think it is a very simple explanation why they're getting away with that. he meant it seems like there are so many other lobbies. why would bondholders and bonds

banks would be special as opposed to holders of bonds than any other corporation? aren't the bonds held by the mutual funds and the pensions? >> you're right there are lots of lobbyists in washington but as far as i conceive of a having problems. they killed the global warming initiative, they have set back any sort of public alternative discussion for health care, they basically emasculated the credit card reform, they had a vote in the senate of 7225 to put a cap of 15% on credit cards because the companies are charging 33% so it is hard to imagine there being enough hours in the day for the congressman to meet with all these lobbyists. and lived in washington when i was six or nine years old and was a small town, it was a small town less than three and a thousand people in them a greater maryland and northern virginia washington area is 4 million people, the two wealthiest suburbs of america are both of washington d.c.. other is no industry there. they don't make anything.

the only people there supporting themselves are lobbyists and it has become a very big business so is the answer to all. i can also write a book about the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital industry, the health care problems and it is all about lobbyists controlling. >> [inaudible] thank you, welcome. in the field that obama will have any success against the three headed monster of corporations, health care and lobbyists? and you feel that the clinton administration went up against him at all and was part of the scandals involving in an effort using an old word military industrial complex to quash that type of activism? >> you won't hear this very

often because most people are either democratic or republican and i have to be independent people on the liberal side as i am are slow to say anything negative about the democrats but there is one democrat i have to mention and that is bill clinton -- he was a very capable smart man and try to accomplish good input but when he was most interested in it was raising money for campaign commercials. he understood because he was smart, that's the way you get elected and to his credit we may never heard his name if he did not figure this out but as a result of figuring this out he ended up selling the democratic party to big corporations because back then there were 90% of the money contributed to a campaign. the republican party was already controlled by big corporate money and so the world after 1992 became republican for money for says democratic corporate money and again increasing since then there really hasn't been any debate against the parties.

i think also create debate on issues that some people care a great deal about that they aren't important to the world economy and the u.s. economy and our livelihood of welfare on a daily basis and allows these big corporations to basically still money from us. the average wage in america has been flat on real terms for about 20 years. union membership has gone from 35% 29% and never need discussed the great majority of americans have been asked to put in competition with not only low-wage workers but most from a communist nation that prohibits labor unions, it is your daily job and will take you up back into you and that is not an exaggeration so we have changed when ever moral balance we have between money and the people that we develop from the 30's and '50's. we have changed radically toward a corporation and now we need to

take it back whether obama will be successful he has an indicated he will to date so our only hope is that he is being stealth. he is building momentum and trying to build a coalition of all the people because it is going to take all the people to accomplish this and we hope and another year and some point he then put some pressure on. it would fit his modus operandi because it is high committed to organize, organize the people first before you take on the big issue with and so i'm hopeful that is what his plan as. he certainly is much smarter than i am so he has a plan. >> we are going to take two more questions. >> good evening, i'm not sure if you cannot answer this question, but obama pass a law recently that will be an effective

february 2010 at the omega hard for young people to get credit cards and and kind of confused because young people like myself who are responsible, how did they expect us to establish credit cards wants the bill is passed for the ones that are responsible with their credit -- it is kind of confusing. do you have any suggestions? what is going on with that? >> i have not read the bill so i don't know all the details. i can tell you the problem he was trying to address, the credit-card companies had been invited onto our campuses around the country and the reason they were invited is because they made big donations and the universities and ended up putting their emblem on the credit card letting them set up a sign the bookstore and giving credit cards to the students. again, he might think bankers are stupid. when i tell you that they were giving three and $5,000 credit

lines to students who by definition had no jobs, no income and no means of repayment. be careful, the bakers are stupid and what they did was let this did not only charge of 5,000 but let them continue to charge seven or $10,000 and some have better stereo's than i ever saw on my college days and graduation day came and the students wrote and said i don't really have money, i don't know why you have a given me this credit card company and they wrote back and said that is okay, our next letter is two your parents. they wrote to the parents saying your son or daughter has run of $10,000 of credits and if they don't pay us back we will destroy their credit for the next eight years and did i tell you credit rating is the first thing an employer looks at. so i think it was a massive game and that is what obama is trying to shut down. i will bet you probably didn't go far enough and i wouldn't worry, i am sure the credit card

companies will protect you and allow you to get credit one. >> i'm wondering if it is unfair to put blame on lobbyists when andean of the day they are not casting votes he mack that is a fair question. when i first identified this problem 15 years if you go back and look at my six or seven prior books regardless of the title i always have a chapter about lobbying, either that or i am obsessive about it but until about two years ago and focus my attention on cleaning up government. at the government was the problem for having taken this and then i realized something my sister would teach me where is the power, follow the money. it is not these congressmen, they seem powerful to you, they are inconsequential compared to

the money behind the lobbyists and corporations and so if you're going to change washington you can try to accomplish the the vote but i believe you'll be unsuccessful. i believe not only if you run for office to clean up their congressional district you run into ending, with 10 to $15 million of money to run campaign ads. some strikingly against you, you would not recognize when they get through to end if you run for senate they have 25 to $30 million but in addition to that they gerrymandered and reorganized their entire congressional district so is all republicans now and to allow that -- and so the real action is inevitable. so i don't think there is any beanie in comments, our vote doesn't mean anything so i am going upstream and calling the money and going after the corporation and the question is how can we get corporations to

see it is in their interest to get out of the lobbying business and quit giving money to our government. >> to you want to take one more? >> one more question. >> one about asia liquidity, underprice asian currencies relative to the u.s. dollar? in any of this have been possible if the liquidity from asia and not been available britain to be put to use in the united states and europe? >> this is one of the great warning signs that economists messed. for 10 or 15 years we have this great inflow of money from china into the united states. where was it coming from? the average chinese was making $1,200 a year and saving 40 percent of it. the average american was making

$45,000 a. had -- savings. this is the first time in the history of the world i know are the poorest country honors whistling 40% of its income to the richest country on earth. that should have set off alarms in this or that nobody would tell in the media because there are sponsor supported is that it is clear that americans are on a consumption binge and they were buying anything that moved because they weren't spending their money so the chinese are making this product cheaply. a lot of the products to go into water and i would cost 10 times as much if not for the chinese but you not only bought the product, you bought a lot because you are buying with their money so they gave you the financing and the low-cost product. so i think it is a huge warning signal. i'm not sure it was cause so that it was fairly indicative of this status seeking binged the u.s. and europe or on the last

15 years. >> and gunsight we have taken it debated the standard of living in this country and rehab 1 million college graduates a year, however, this college graduate in the economy and what can the federal corporations do to help this major problem? >> is a big problem. i wish there were 30 years under. if you remember in the '60s they said don't trust anybody over 30. i'm not quite 60 ads but i am with over 30 and i don't know if i could lead the revolt of the young people but they need to get in the streets because when you look at what we've done to them on every front we have caused the collapse of the system by ignoring its warning, not repaired inadequately because we go out unfettered access to our congress, we have

bart 13 trillion from these young people and to guarantee our problems and we have spent 4 trillion of their money. we are running $2 trillion deficits which they will have to pay and social security is at $25 trillion in deficit in medicare is $72 trillion in deficits. again we're passing the cost of the care of our elderly not to us but our children and grandchildren so we know why they get stuck with these things because they're too young to vote been even now for the first time they have come out in big support of obama. they have registered to vote in big numbers, but they still aren't in the streets and have not been part of this discussion as to what to do with this collapse. it doesn't make any sense to me that we would spend $15 trillion over children's money so that our style of living in status level doesn't have to decline

two or 3 percent. have party said it unsustainable levels because supported by phony debt to an phony lending from the chinese so i would love to be 29 income and trustworthy because i can lead that revolution. thank you so much for coming. [applause]

coming out next, booktv presents after words, an hourlong program or we and i hit guest host to interview authors. this week on time talk-radio program author brian jennings

discusses his book "censorship", the threat to silence talk radio. he explains what he believes will be the back door path to reinstating the fairness doctrine and silencing conservative talk radio. he discusses his book with a nationally syndicated talk show host monica crowley. >> host: , i'm monica crowley, a political and foreign affairs analyst for the fox news channel. i'm delighted to welcome to the program brian jennings, he is one of the nation's top talk radio programmers, he served more than a decade as a national vice president of top programming for seven of broadcasting. he's an authority on talk radio, everybody in the industry knows him and respect him widely and according to talkers magazine is one of the founding fathers of conservative talk radio.

wellcome. we're here to talk about your outstanding new book called the "censorship" -- the threat to silence talk radio, the new fairness doctrine expos and here it is. brian, and began with a personal bit of background on myself. of a nationally syndicated radio host. >> guest: and a good one. >> host: thank you remind. i am increasingly alarmed as in a lot of people are, people in industry who listen to talk radio when she read about and that is the threat to the first amendment right to freedom of speech. >> guest: it has been going on now for more than two decades actually even before president reagan lifted the fairness doctrine and 87 but when he did conservative talk radio came advocates like wildfire. it was amazing to watch. i was in there at the time and work 20 years under this before, i worked 20 years outside of

this before and i can tell you that it was a night and day difference in what we can do on the airwaves and for the first time we have stations accepting talk radio as a two format and proof of the pudding is that in 1987 there were only 1253 decisions doing talk radio and add are over 2000 and so you can't tell me that lifting the fairness doctrine was the wrong thing to do. >> host: muskett into the fairness doctrine, it is. you're subtitle. of must go back a little bit and time. tell us what this fairness doctrine was. >> guest: this fairness doctrine was an fcc federal communications regulation, 1949 established, it was established to force broadcasters to reach out to seek out opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. back then in 1949 there only

2,000 radio stations in america, there are only a few fledgling television stations in america one and a glimmer of hope for a television network. there wasn't so much me back then. of course, we didn't have the internet and the diversity of media today so it could be argued to some degree that the fairness doctrine was a fair thing back then because if you overloaded one media with a pinnacle ideology it could sway opinion of question with the lack of media that we had back then but today there are 13,000 media stations in america. caris the internet, we have dozens of cable news channels. we have networks, tv stations, we have many more newspapers and magazines, there can be no argument for need of diversity of the point. we haven't he dropped at a hat. >> host: given a contemporary context the phrase fairness

doctrine is a misnomer. >> guest: absolutely orwellian term, that is so disguised and so unfair actually in this day and age managed never be used for some democrats to hide behind it and use it is absolutely disingenuous today has wracking mention it was dropped in 1987 and president reagan was a leading force in all of her and forcing the fairness doctrine -- why did that come back? >> guest: the supreme court in 68 of value in a case against iranian station and suggested that that time that the fairness doctrine might very well be unconstitutional. and as a result of that several federal communications commission chairman mcdata and commissioners over the years but it wasn't until rain and that they took it seriously and president reagan, of course, was a broadcaster from his early days had who radio in des

moines, iowa. he knew what the free marketplace meant to free speech. and therefore is fcc repealed by a four to one vote back and. it was the best thing that ever happened to free speech in america. for the first time broadcasters on an equal plane with a printing brothers. >> host: after in the end of the fairness doctrine in 1987 what happened to the radio airwaves? what kind of menacing one assisted to see? >> guest: it was instant. i was involved in a talk-radio station in seattle, back in 1988, a very liberal radio station i might add in we get into that story later but immediately the first one at of the gate was rush limbaugh. he fully understood what was to be able to pin made freely on the airwaves. when he was in sacramento he had to live under the fairness doctrine guidelines.

when he located in sacramento he told me that it was amazing that there was nobody doing political talking peace and this is a cakewalk and then he had to succumb to the fairness doctrine by giving an hour and a program to somebody in this committee who is concerned so had to move over and said it was the most boring our a real and ever done in my life and that is what was happening back then. when we sought immediately was all of a sudden we could put commentators on the radio and half free opinions. we didn't have to act as moderator's anymore. talk radio was so boring in the 1980's you could report your lost dog or record any time in a matter like that but it was sheer your affair recipes and

there were some private memories. u.s. scientists to raphael and they did some wonderful programs not political. quote we stayed away from politics like a plane back then. >> host: it is amazing when you think back 21987 pre cable tv, they do have a wide audience they have today. with pre internet and green blob so when rush limbaugh came on the scene right after the lifting of the fairness doctrine when he was able to pioneer and i love the below talk-show hosts like me pretty will to see the conservative point of view was not being expressed in any other media outlet one and so it really gave the conservative voice in place to be expressed finally and the reason that turn into a commercial success one is

because half of the country you could argue maybe a little bit more because we still are a center-right nation felt their views were expressed in the mainstream media and all of a sudden we have this new form of media for their views are being expressed articulately by rush limbaugh and others so you have half the country and maybe more thinking we are not alone, with we are not isolated and we are validated. >> guest: no question. i was one of those conservatives with to the '80s was told i should not think the way i think uncertain should not speak the way i spoke. when roush came out of the gates and remember thinking to myself, he is saying what i think and what i feel and yet he is brave enough to say it. what is wrong with that picture? the fairness doctrine was lifted and we can all of a sudden to

exactly that. it was an amazing time to watch conservative grow so quickly because you are right in there are many research from projects that back this up that most media is so liberal that conservatives felt for years they have no validation in the media and that is why they are so loyal to fairness doctrine, talk radio. in the field fox news is the only avenue for their validation and so they support it. that is why it is so strong in america today, but you can go to many research projects, the pure research center, this last election clearly showed that the press favored obama. the media research center over years from shown to many studies that whitehouse correspondents in know, over 80 percent of them have been democrats. this last fall even the woman

for the washington post wrote in her paper that her paper favored on, clearly more mccain and there were some instances of media bias and now. talk radio is the only opposition to that bias and that is why it is done so well. if it hadn't been for talk-radio we would not have known the other side of the iraqi war. we would not have exposed the perils of national health care. we would have most likely have an immigration bill passing through our congress and senate and without conservative talk radio there will be no opposition to this and clearly that is when the obama administration wants. >> host: the ideological ingle is a part of the equation and the other part is in the commercial part because of what the liberals don't want to deal with us conservative talk radio when it came on the scene and even to this day is a huge commercial success in terms and

of ratings and revenue and it it makes money. in the private sector economy and that is still what we have which is arguable but one of the things they want to talk down is this private sector success. >> guest: that is what's so scary about this effort. there is a statement made by the acting fcc -- cogs has stated that if a market cannot produce what that market wants in terms of the diversity of that market the environment has a legitimate role to play in regulation of speech. this from the fcc. to me this is one of the most arrogant statements about the free marketplace and the free public determining for what it wants to hear me and see. been in for major bureaucrats to not understand that the free

marketplace determines free-speech in america. it is absolutely incredulous in my opinion. >> how did they score that circle? there are certain and very limited limitations on free speech. you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, it can't in silence even now there is a speech loss on the books but it is very limited circumcision here on free-speech so how rna -- how are they getting away with this in modern times when we have so many of these other outlets for a liberal speech conservative speech and other forms? >> guest: is out of. i think we have to go back to the history of why they heat conservative talk radio and they do -- there's no question. the felt the conservative talk radio is too powerful and how to usher in the republican revolution in the early '90s for

congress. >> host: which it did. >> guest: it helped defeat the democrats in 2000 and 2004 no question but they hinted that. when george bush won his second election they found that they would take talk radio down and when the white house back in 2008 and about that time 2004 there were many and organizations formed, media matters for america, far left organization that has won intent today conservative talk down. the user stevens, they taken completely out of context and misrepresent them and embellish them what what they think is the truth. if that organization is unbelievable. i have been a target. >> host: as have i.. >> guest: as most talk-show have. i was in a radio station in reno nevada citadel for the station

has been number one rated for eight years. on the afternoon host gets into the immigration issue any major way in and he uses the word a legal media matters' gets oliver him. illegal immigration, they even went as far as sending e-mail blast is one of their tactics to their constituents to protest to this and other radius' station so we have a few protesters on the sidewalk and we have other people calling and cop out calling advertisers to get those off the radio station. here is the irony of the whole thing. most of those people haven't even heard the program and on what it is. they are like sheep and i think media matters is an organizations -- they have their rights to free speech but so do we this mack this is what is discerning about which you describe that in the u.s. in the year 2009 and a 20% sure that we

have this kind of intimidation tactics and strong on taxes -- tactics to sounds people with legitimate point of view. no one is yelling fire in a crowded theater, and we are expressing a point of view and and we have now is this thoughtfully going on and coming from the left the committee mentioned or a million, or you feel like you have to wait every word if you come out with a joke among those who do three hours on the air every day five days a week from a sometimes six days a week but he find yourself wishing every word, maybe restrain herself and hold your tongue because you are efrain the thought police might come at you or say warping which you have to say, some form of perverse content, plastered all over then you will lose revenue or your radio station might get hurt. >> guest: i have given up on that. i just did what i feel and i

have been attacked over so many years. i received literally hundreds and hundreds of hate letters from the far left when i programmed iridium station in seattle that perhaps is the first of conservative radio station in america. alan tape those letters and put them on the bulletin board for everybody to read, they are so incredulous and it was like a coach in a football team at halftime. here is what your opposition is saying, let's beat them. we went from number 23 in the market to number one in the radio station in less than three years. but the far left absolutely comes after conservative talk radio and is it interesting that we don't advocate the same kind of intimidation on the left. we believe in free speech rights but they come after us and tried to shut us down the regulation and that is exactly what they're trying to do with and at the center of this whole debate is

the center for american progress, the report who authored by john podesta. the transition chief for president obama. the caps report is basically the play book right now for the fcc and their regulation of radio and they're going to reregulate the media and have stated in their 2008 platform that they need to clarify the public interest obligations and president obama favors to distinct means of doing that. one is a diversity of media ownership into his localism and and of the localism manner that is where we need to be careful about this. >> host: was talk about those. talk first about localism -- tell us what that means. >> guest: localism is a requirement in a regulation that the fcc has had for years. it is good and it is a good name, radio station should reach out and be local but what the

fcc is contemplating doing is requiring a certain amount of programming and involuntary by their previous station. in other words, in a small community that cannot afford to pay for in local personality that cannot afford to be some 50 percent will go or what ever the requirement might be for that rainy a station would be put at a business because they can't afford that. the market may not berra and so i think the fcc pass to be sensitive to this. again that is a form of censorship because it pushes the ability of that station to syndicate a program and forces into localism and the fcc is an that is not any kind of censorship whatsoever i don't understand how they don't understand that or they don't bash deny it but it is a way of moving over a syndicated conservative talk-show host in

favor of more localism. i agree that station needs to be local, as a program director i regard it of the stations and supervised but it has to be something that is voluntary and then when free-market place in america. >> and one about being commercially viable. you mentioned that there were many times local programming that was morning as can be and everyone would turn off the radio because somebody was talking about in canada. and nobody cared about that so it strikes me as only inappropriate that the federal government would come in to some of these stations especially the smaller ones but even by w. a. c. in new york and los angeles and tell them that next time it needs to be devoted to local programming when perhaps for those stations that might not be commercially viable for them on.

>> guest: and interesting like he sank it is hard to find good local talent, there is no question. but again i stress that issue back out of this area because its regulation of speech and press them not to admit that bore understand that is incredulous. again i think this is an effort by the firm left to not say we are going to advocate a new fairness doctrine, but go through the back door one with requirements of. >> host: when do you think that this is all part of an orchestrated attempt by the obama administration and democrats at large want because when i look at the landscape and talking about commercial viability what i see is a massive government intervention into every nook and cranny of

our lives and the government intervention is unprecedented. we saw the government takeover gm who thumb, orchestration of chrysler bankruptcy among garment in the financial center with the banks and shaking down over the term money, next up with the government intervention in the health care system and the list goes on and on so is this what we are talking about here part of a multipronged approach that none of this is random, none of this is off the cuff but all orchestrated to go all and one time so that all of our rights and abilities exceed or achieved and the private sector been tamped down. >> guest: and thank you have mailed it. i think what this administration does is it tries to act so quickly with so many things that we don't have time to discuss what is going on, we don't have

time to measure the consequences adequately and this is going on under our noses. i will tell you how important this is to me and i hope to many americans is that if we regulate speech in america thought what other rights to have at that point? whether rights matter because all rights that we have as americans come from one thing and that is our free ability to speak and if we reregulate radio speech for a television speech or any way regulate speech at all we are giving up our most import right in america, giving up our heart and are so at that point. that is why the book documents so many efforts that are intimidation practiced that i have a hard time wondering why these people can even call themselves americans. i really wonder and i've come to

a conclusion that these people hate conservative values so much they want to destroy them and when they can destroy them is to destroy conservative talk america. the cut the head of the snake off so to speak and i am very afraid that we're giving amorites and happening under our noses. we are in peril at the end of tyrrany. >> host: one of the ironies is that the left like to pride itself on the concept of tolerance, that they're tolerant and they expect everybody else to be and that is what the nation was built on. yes, it was ententes but what the left actually exercises and practices is intolerance. >> guest: it is hypocritical. when i was attacked in the '80s and '90s even by my employer back then and of the word

liberal, what does it mean? a liberal is a person who is open-minded about thanks, and least that is the definition i have always been told in use. there is nothing open-minded about going after a conservative viewpoint with intimidation. >> host: does that strike you as a material sense of a fundamental insecurity on the part of the left that they believe that their ideas are so weak or so vulnerable perhaps this country is center-right and ideas will not be supported that because they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas they feel they need to put first amendment in a bias and shut down conservative thought and expression? >> guest: no doubt about it because i truly believe that most americans when it comes to core values have some conservative values and predominantly conservative. i sign in seattle when i program at their. i was told by many that

conservative talk it would not work fair and of the most liberal areas in the u.s., but you get outside and that korea of a downtown hong, immediately turns more conservative because people are on to the norris, they understand what their tax dollars are doing and that they have to make payroll, and as soon as the outer edges of the city start listening to this conservative talk-radio the rating skyrocketed. i'm absolutely convinced that most americans have a core principles and i think that is another reason why the format works so well is because it resonates with meaningful things in their lives a year ago i was attacked viciously in seattle and back and remember indistinct telephone call coming from a friend of mine who was the bureau chief of the associated press when he first went of talk on tv i and he said you can't do

that. that is not allowed. you can possibly do that in america, the fcc would disallow that and i said to him you are misinformed. fairness doctrine was repealed about two years ago, whenever the time frame was back then, but they could not believe that in america we can have absolute free speech. it is a very scary thing to the left i believe. they don't feel secure at all and because we are successful in talk radio and they don't have a piece of that, they have all other me at which they fail to recognize by the way interestingly enough, but they have not been able to compete well in the talk radio circles. >> host: you mentioned at the base station in seattle that to program and in the immediate vicinity the immediate urban neighborhood people thought

there is no way that conservative radio could thrive and yet you are seeing in the suburbs was the signal got out beyond that immediate liberal corps and the urban center of those suburban areas billy started listening and that is where you're ratings were essentially driven. you think that holds true for most of these big city conservative stationed? donna shaped? >> guest: i do, the core power structure of an inner urban area is predominantly democrat-controlled but once you get at that it turns and and sort of the heartland fica . i see that happening in most cities. i have seen it happen for the last two decades that way but i think that is why conservative talk radio does so well because it reaches where people are real people of. >> host: that's right and the signals and some of these big city stations are extremely strong so it can go over the

heads of the liberals would speak and really reached the people you are talking about and that must also drive the liberals not. >> guest: number one these are powerful stations. there is a reason these stations are running this type of programming. it works, simple as that, they don't want to admit the success because they have not been successful in talk radio. then he did because conservative talk is very listen to, very successful. so far liberal talk radio has not been. in the book i encourage all my liberal friends keep turning away. i am a champion of free speech. why don't they say the same thing to us? >> host: and and if they honestly believe in a marketplace of ideas than certainly the it might take you up on your offer and have tried on the airwaves and when we come back from the brink i want to

get into why you think liberal or progressive talk has not succeeded in america and i also want to delve deeply into some of the back door initiatives that the left is trying to push through and now i suspect when a democratic president and the majorities in congress perhaps they are, and certainly dangerous. >> guest: locked and loaded. >> host: and have their resources and then also i think to understand that the political momentum will be with them for so long, that politics in america moves in cycles and they are not calling to have this kind of political capital for much longer and that's why we have to watch. we will take a quick bank and have more with brian jennings and his phenomenal new book called "censorship". back, right after this

i'm monica crowley and we're back with brian jennings, his new book is outstanding and is called "censorship", the threat to silence talk radio, the new fairness doctrine exposed. brian, when we left off we were talking about the marketplace of ideas and how the left seems to think of lease based on their behavior here that their ideas cannot compete, that their ideas might be weak or motorboat or perhaps because we still remain the central brent nation cannot survive without the potential is trying to build into the system. one of which is to try to silence conservative points of new. of what has been the track record of a liberal or progressive talk in america? >> guest: from an organized and point bismal. for our successful liberal talk stations in america, one in san francisco, kgo is generally

considered liberal and others, but air america for instance was a dismal failure its first time around. they are trying to reorganize. they went into bankruptcy and are trying to recover now. and has been absolute disaster. i china as a programmer to establish a liberal talk on half a dozen stations in my career, of failed and it wasn't just failure, it was total failure, is that when a liberal voice is heard on the air alone and had a secondary if you compare a liberal voice with conservative voice? i know because i was part of that experiment on conservative talk stations and cable the works and it doesn't seem to work just like a dozen or a bad way and all when you combine the two back-and-forth because liberals don't hear conservatives and conservatives don't hear liberals. the reason that we have all

conservative stations and/or of liberal stations is because that is a formula that's used to work best ratings in america and we have to generate drainings because so far we on a free-market economy in america and half to generate drainings for advertising revenue. i china early in my career to be, in fact, use the fox three's fair and balanced, i use in seattle and in did not work. i really gave in an effort and had rush limbaugh on the air and fell with a friend of ours from a alan colmes a dear friend of mine in he is a great talk show host. i value him immensely but it did not work there because the conservative audience with bostick around. as soon as we figure that out and started the programming the waiting music programmer one you don't mix country music with jazz, you don't mix of urban with pop, whenever it may be we

put conservatives on the lineup and suddenly we have the conservative listeners from rush limbaugh listening to of the day in the ratings took off. on the stations i try of liberal talk on we have treated the same in diamonds up against the conservative station in paled here know it wasn't even close eighth. part of my job as a national program director is two keep tabs on radio nation's wine and i look at markets where there is a liberal talk, air america or other avenues of talk and the stations are oftentimes rated 28 or 30 or 34th in the marketplace. and you can exist at way. that really drives liberals not. they can't admit that their ideas failed in the free marketplace there for what they do, they run to daddy, the government and the want regulation. >> host: very big daddy. >> guest: and they want --

give us fair, we can't believe that an of diverse america that our point of view doesn't work, we don't accept that and that is even contained in the center for american progress report headed by john vanessa. the patent -- iraq and america is remark is where i do 16 or fail and we have to value that. >> host: of the liberal point of view doesn't succeed in talk radio that is just one medium and that is what they're focused on because it fails there. however, the left has cnn, msnbc, washington post, new york times, pretty much every newspaper the exception of very few in america plus time and newsweek. ..

at that point we are just puppets on the stage. it is orwellian a game. there's a country that is trying to do this right now. if you read, the country of argentina. the president so angry at your media companies for the criticism that she wants to force more diversity of media

ownership and that is exactly what our government is trying to do. >> host: and that you write about this in the books of 11 and you talk about these international examples of what is happening in america. you do write about candidate and it says it looks like what canada is doing the hemmel leading the way for the left in this country. >> guest: my word, the canadian situation scares me to death. the canadian human rights tribunals. they even call them that. very powerful. our friend, mark stein in his book america alone when he road through mcclean's magazine and the canadian islamic council protested and went to petition to the human rights tribunals, costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in court and legal fees. i am not sure how much it cost him but it certainly did costs. it was an absolute affront to free speech in canada. it took months to clear that up

and it wasn't just one human rights tribunal, it was british columbia, it was alberta, it was the others, saskatchewan i believe as well and the national human rights tribunal. that tribunal or those tribunals have censored pastors, have censored canadian citizens, find them for what they deemed to be hate speech. speaking out against homosexuality and marriage and so forth. we are seeing the same thing creeping into the united states. absolutely we are. plus could do we have any evidence brian that the obama administration, the democrats in the congress are looking towards these international examples? do we have some concrete evidence that they are watching what is happening in candidate, argentina and western europe and they are literally taking that as the model for what they want to do? >> guest: i absolutely believe that to be the case. the recent example of the united

kingdom banning michael savage for his bombastic speech against radical islam. it is incredulous that a country that purports to value free speech would even consider that. in fact i defend michael savage in several instances in the book so i would presume that the united kingdom should ban the book. if they really follow consistency, you would think that would be hate speech as well. we are seeing many examples of other organizations and an assault gun free speech not just to the fcc by other organizations such as hispanic organizations and especially in los angeles where the chicano studies group at ucla, where they allegedly isolated and 80 minute tape with three different shows, michael savage and who works with your net org and also

lou dobbs. in net 80 minutes of tape they claim to have 334 instances of hate speech. well, first of all who defines hate? you know, there is a saying that one man's cup of tea is another man's poison or something like that. who defines that? who defines what is hateful and what is not? i found it really interesting the hispanic groups that are suggesting this state that they tell you free speech, but, but. >> host: there is always a but. >> guest: whenever you see that or hear that the very, very careful. free speech can only be free without that but. >> host: talking about court political correctness and when that runs amok like this it does turn into a form of censorship and i think to the example of don imus ameyde that now

infamous crack on the air. people's broadcast on msnbc while doing in nationally syndicated radio program and that kind of political correctness came down on him. the lot got him out of there as fast as possible. the advertisers were squeezed and that was just one example of many of exactly what you are talking about in this gets into the backdoor approach that the left is having to try to silence voices they disagree with. >> guest: there have been many of those examples around america and don imus is probably the leading example. yes it was a stupid comment. he apologized profusely for it. i think he was hartsfeld in his apology. he is back talking, where he should be. he dove has his free-speech rights. i think most conservative talkers understand what that common sense is all about. their liberal talkers out there who are vehement in hateful themselves and if we wanted to be the same as liberals and

charge that we would do that, but we are not. we believe in free speech. >> host: brian what about this idea of the double standard? don imus does make a misguided and stupid remark. he does apologize the boy does he pay the ultimate prize, loses his job and his radio show. some unlike wanda sykes, can stand up at the white house correspondence dinner and wish rush limbaugh death and she gets laughs. she does not lose any gigs and even the president of the united states laughs at that so this is the environment we are dealing with. >> host: exactly come it is very hypocritical and as you noticed rush did not comment on that. it tells the full story of what the far left really wants for america and they don't want conservative views. they hate conservative views and they want to absolutely kill conservative views around

america. therefore the guess goerss direct talk show host. >> host: let's talk a little bit about the hard censorship you write about for could you think this democratic president with these big majorities in congress will go at a full frontal reinstitution of the fairness doctrine or will they approach it from a different angle? >> guest: if they do, they can expect to tea party that is incredulous. it will be the biggest tea party this nation has ever seen. >> host: you ain't seen nothing yet. >> guest: no, they are not going to go to the front door on this because a lot of-- especially as the new president was coming into office in power earlier this year. former president bill clinton for example expressed his desire to see some kind of balance in fairness on talk radio in many other democrats launched into a. there been many efforts to do the same thing. it has been going on basically since the early '90s when they

were wanting to return to the fairness doctrine but no, they have figured out and they knew all the time it would be found unconstitutional in our court system. at least you we hope it would be found unconstitutional because it is and then we are not the nation we thought we were. therefore, they want to go through the backdoor and address the fairness doctrine in new clothes so to speak and that is what they are doing. >> host: why would they fairness doctrine only apply to radio but not cable television or newspapers? >> guest: it would have to apply to television, broadcast television. >> host: and table-mag cable television? >> guest: there are many democrats who would like to take the fairness doctrine to cable and satellite as well, no question about it. they are the speech centers of america. so what they have done, they are going into the backdoor to these majors called localism and diversity of media ownership.

the diversity of media ownership is intended to do one thing, force liberal viewpoints into conservative talk america. it is absolutely for that purpose in that intention. again democrats will not admit that. they will not be truthful in their goals, and but it has already started. it started in may with hearings that were organized by the acting fcc chairman, michael copps. they have a group of 31 advisers who were there to try to figure out a way in which they can take media licenses from one group and give them to minorities and women. i think that is fine to have diversity in america but it has to be turned to the free marketplace. i am a free marketplace person and you cannot tell me that taking a license away from one group and giving it to another does not impacts beach. it absolutely does. maybe they can, claim that it does not impact freeze beach.

>> host: this is a form of affirmative action. >> guest: forced affirmative-action. >> guest: let me ask you, with the new fairness doctrine in the forms you are talking about apply to national public radio? which is taxpayer funding-- funded. so, npr is exempt from all of this? >> guest: absolutely. >> host: why? >> guest: it is their own bailiwick, their own turf. of course it would apply to them in a legal sense. they could not pass a law or regulation that would impact just conservative talk radio without impacting in the air. >> host: maybe you and i can get a gig on npr. >> guest: i will be there with the shoulder to shoulder and be demanding equal time. >> host: doesn't this strike you as upside down, alice-in-wonderland craziness were npr which is the government ran into the on talk radio which is very far to the left paid for

by taxpayer dollars that they would essentially be protected from this kind of imposition of fairness and whatever they want to stifle free speech? >> guest: our dear friend, allen kohl, his mail that. he says we have to be careful for what we ask and he is absolutely true, and bright because of what impact national public radio potentially and all other media potentially. let's face it, they have control over most of the mainstream media. their thoughts permeate most mainstream media so i think they are on slippery, slippery slope and then the eyes. >> host: you mentioned president obama and he has got a bit of that track record in talking about these issues and certainly he is a smart politician to the extent he will put people in place will do the heavy lifting in the dirty work for him so he can look like a good cop as opposed to say john podesta or the head of the fcc

who will be the bad cop in these situations. first of all is there a public statement on the record by president obama on the fairness doctrine? >> guest: yes there is. he says he does not favor the fairness doctrine. however, he does favor diversity of media ownership and diversity of viewpoints on our airwaves, which we already have and he favors localism in a radio and tv, which by the way we already have. and the free marketplace determines that. he is very much on record for these two new fairness doctrine like regulations. without having to come out for the fairness doctrine. let me say this too. i think this is very important. i have been accused the paranoia. i have been accused of manufactured controversy. i have two words for manufactured controversy, global warming. and i think those are serious

words to take into consideration but you bet i'm paranoid about speech. absolutely i am. there's nothing better to be paranoid about that free speech in america. it is our most important right. i would not be as paranoid it house speaker nancy pelosi would allow a vote on the broadcaster freedom act which would forever banned the fairness doctrine, but she has not permitted a vote on that for two years, and she is on record, quoted as saying, our caucus, the interest of our caucus is in the rivers. nancy pelosi stands for regulation of speech on the airwaves. i think that america should turn the heat up on her office, call her out on this, because if you are not for free speech, and she is clearly not by resisting this broadcaster freedom act, which is sponsored by congressman mike pence and greg walden, two former broadcasters who understand what is at stake

here. if you are not for that than i don't know how she can look at yourself and the mayor. >> host: are there republican members of congress who are speaking out forcefully and we have legislation either enough copper ore being considered here for and against what we are talking about? >> guest: the two gentlemen i mentioned there the chief spokesman for the conservative talk radio side and that is congressman pence and walden. and there are others. is there regulations or legislation that would prevent it? yes, they would queue up legislation but it would be shot down by the democrat-controlled majority in both houses, no question. the only thing that we really have here-- we don't even have a filibuster. we won't have the filibuster in this matter. the only thing we have is a court system and the court system is skewed up and there many legal centers cued up ready to go if we get back to regulation of speech.

one is the thomas moore law center in detroit. they are representing michael savage did this point on the u.k. controversy where he cannot travel to the u.k. because he is too hateful in his speech. by the way he has never advocated violence, and yes he is bombastic and many of the state tone it down michael a little bit but he has got free-speech rights. >> host: that is right. let me ask you, the general listening public, what should there ears be attuned to when they start seeing this kind of movement? are there radio stations who are already anticipating that this might come down the pike pretty soon and you agree it is going to happen within a year or a year-and-a-half because the democrats realize they don't have much time, right? >> guest: certainly by that timeframe, yes but i think they'd even sooner because the fcc is-several commissioners that obama must replace but it will soon have a three dear

democrat majority on the fcc and when it does, i expect that in the next at least two months, maybe more but i think in that timeframe. you will start to see at that point movements toward redefining the public interest obligations and the new chairman , and old school harvard chum i believe the president obama. he led the digital effort for obama's election campaign very successful in what he did because he cornered the, helped garner the youthful bode, the young vote. this man absolutely is in the mold of diversity of ownership, diversity of opinion of localism, no question about it so this will be the two efforts led to the fcc so i think is right round the corner. >> host: will this be a creeping kind of thing or will this be instant and the you see

radio stations already starting to build an localism or put on liberal's in anticipation? >> guest: no, i don't see them putting on a literal's says so to speak. clear channel communications has come is trying to get out in front of this said that by establishing programming advisory boards, which the fcc clearly wants to get done through their localism mandates. and, they want to be there doing it themselves rather than having government regulate it, and to me programming advisory boards are a very scary thing in america. it is clearly-- >> host: and/or raleigh in. >> guest: it is very early in. i read a 98 page rulemaking report from the fcc which was issued january 24 and in its i counted eight reverences to establishing programs more community advisory boards for

stations and they leave language very, very great and nebulous. they say, should these members be appointed or should they be elected? and, then they state that stations that already have a formal advisory board would be exempt from this. just by stating would be extent means they are going to mandate it for anybody who does not do this right away. the free marketplace dictate what is popular and what is not. we already have far board of advisers as radio talk show host. they are your listeners. the ray youth your arbitron services and if your ratings are bad, you are gone. that is just the way it is. and to establish a board of advisers at the very least is sphere looking over the shoulder of a broadcaster, for fear of what he may say and what you may say. at the very worst it could be censorship because of who was on

that board. who appoints those members? does the radio station or does the government? >> host: their potential conflicts of interest all over the place. let's try to give proactive in our remaining minutes. what can any of this do to stop this attempt of putting the first amendment in-- and begin with radio management. >> guest: radio management needs to stand up for the first amendment, number one. they need to talk about the rights that we as americans have. finally, that to me and i said listen like to say something about this. i am in a position where i can say something about this. i have no conflict of interest whatsoever and i can speak out loudly. we as americans have to realize this should not be a fight of conservatives against liberals. it should be a fight by conservatives and liberals against anybody who favors regulation of speech in america and i would hope that number one in america would realize that. not allow it to happen under

their noses because this administration acts quickly in a stealth manner in which it can happen and we don't even know it has happened. until it is too late. we have to be very aware of this. the second thing is, there are many groups out there right now which are leading the cause to protect our speech rights on the airwaves. one is the media research center. the media research center i have a lot of faith in. brent bozell does a fabulous job on our behalf and has a petition drive which can easily find online. they are going to deliver or have delivered at this point of these 400,000 signatures on line. there were others. there is on fair air.org which is a great organization to resist any kind of regulation in a speech on the radio and there are others, don't touch my dial.com i believe it is. that is another organization which is representing our rights

as americans, said there are avenues that you can protest through with an online petition. it the other thing that i would suggest is that we have to demand that the broadcaster freedom act receives a boat, a stand-up vote in congress on the house floor and i think that we have to aim our criticism and our desire for this boat to nancy pelosi who is not allowed this vote for the last two years. i think it is reprehensible she has not done this. it is a simple matter. if you believe in free speech rights on the airwaves there's no reason whatsoever to get in front of this bill and not allowed a vote on it, so those are some things we have to pay attention to. >> host: i can understand why people who are devoted to conservative talk radio would be passionate about this. my audience, your audiences over the years. the general public, have you been hearing from the general public, liberals, moderates,

independents as well as conservatives? are you hearing from the general public since about rage or is there a general sense of-- >> guest: i think by the mainstream public right now, there is a lack of awareness of what is going on in this regard. i think among conservative audiences there is a big awareness of what is going on. i have been at many rallies in america. i did 820 market tour on this book for those rallies where absolutely huge. albuquerque, reno, boise in portland, oregan, hundreds and hundreds of people turned out to talk about this issue and you hear about this issue. it was very gratifying to see their interest in their depth of knowledge on this issue. liberals for the most part than the book as we expected and that is fine. but believe me, if we lose any

free-speech rights in america through regulation in the public interest through the fcc liberals are going to lose those rights as well. because what is good for one is good for the other. it has to be that way. >> host: final question for you brian. if we lose conservative talk radio, with the listen to whitter not come out with do you agree with the conservative point of view or not, what do we lose? >> guest: our hearts and our souls. were no longer america, a symbol of that. was the one of the great ironies here is the founding fathers, the reason they began this great american dimmest credit experiment was based on two things, freedom of worship and freedom of speech and this is why it is so vital to protect talk radio and in particular conservative talk radio. >> guest: government has no right to sit in the editor's chair or to control content through regulation. >> host: this is about protecting the first amendment, the bill of rights in our

constitution. brian jennings thank you for joining us. the book is called "censorship," the threat to silence in talk radio, the new fairness doctrine. i am monica crowley. thank you so much for being with us today.

>> these places remind me of modern cathedrals that donors would build wings on hoping they would go to heaven. >> walter cairnes, crenson class of '83 would like to see a few changes to the higher education system. >> i think princeton philosophy should be on the web. i think that these wonderfully concentrated islands of talent and wealth and airy addition should be opened up to the larger society and not called this lee kept separate, which

they still are and i can understand why. >> walter kern, the other education of an overachiever on q&a, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. yuca nolle solis non-xm satellite radio oradell inlayed this c-span podcast. speak journalist and author nicholas basbanes has written seven books about book culture, book people and book places. his first work, a gentle madness, bubba's in 1995, has said 20 printings. his most recent books are every book, it's reader and a world of letters, yale university press, 1908 to 2008. booktv visited the north grafton massachusetts home of mr. brass bane's khator his best collection of books and to learn about his writing habits. he is currently writing a book on the history of paper.

>> hi. >> how are you doing? >> good, come on in. welcome to the abyss. >> thanks for allowing us into your home. >> thank you for having the courage and fortitude to come and take a look at some of our books here. >> so, i understand you have books and almost every room in the house. >> no, we have books and every room of the house. we are surrounded by books. we are engulfed by them and surrounded by them and they are very much a part of our life. >> where should we start? >> well, we just came in. i guess we could start with the books over the fireplace here, because my very first book that i wrote, a gentle madness, was the book is ostensibly about the passion to collect books over 2000 year period or so come and the books that kind of got me started as a writer of bibliomania are the books in my

own collection, so if you were to look at these books, and it is a small selection of this particular subset of books, and to look at them you would say what in the world do they have in common? there is the book by david halberstam and there's a book by isaac cazelot and a book by chuck yeager. the couple of books down here by tom wolf and david mccullough and sue miller, the novelist from boston. we could go on and on but if i were to open one of these books and you just take one at random here, let's take the tom wolf and there are a number of tom wolf's but this is a great novel of the 1980's and if you open it, you will see that it is inscribed. it is, a great to see you again. i have to read some of this wonderful handwriting, but talking about my writing style.

tom what, november 2, 1987. every one of these books is inscribed by the author, and for a good number of years, 22 years in fact, i wrote a weekly literary feature which at first appeared in western massachusetts, not far from where it lives in north grafton massachusetts but over a period syndicated in its many as 30 newspapers nationwide. from the very beginning of this procedure i used to go out into these interviews in boston or new york or wherever these authors would be. all weiss without exception at the end of the interview i would ask the author to inscribe my copy of their book, so this was shaped and formed. this collection and as i say these are some of the high spots. there is no way you could put them up on this little mantle. i think there are in excess of 1,000 copies of these books.

that became conniff the incentive for me to begin research on a book that became a gentle madness, my first book which was published in 1995, and the subtitle was bibliophiles, people who love books, people who are maniacal about them in the eternal passion for books is about a history and some journalism, quite a bit of journalism about 2,000 years of the passion to not only collect books but to gather them, preserve them and pass them on and in the process preserve a portion of our history, our culture and their literature. ..

the dexterity, the work that goes into them, the imagination is fabulous. in a piece i'll be writing for an annual survey of what is new in pop-up books and i would say there are perhaps 300 or so never take pop-up books throughout the house. i am writing a book about paper and will talk later about that but i found very interesting about this is it is handpainted and this is a book that is done entirely the pages no printing

on it but it is all cork, not paper. when i saw that i thought i have to have that. it is a lovely painting on there, i think it is greek actually. i'm not sure. here is the instance of a bookcase that is kind of dedicated i guess to two subject areas. what you see here, on the releases of the library of america which is now 26 years old, i guess it is 130 or so books, double shall tear back aft as we used to say in the navy and i find these essential. one of the most remarkable publishing programs in the history of the united states. absolutely wonderful. authoritative editions, what constitutes the canon of american literature and i find

them so useful the time. i never know what i'm going to need somebody by abraham lincoln or henry james or longfellow. i did a piece on longfellow last year for smithsonian magazine, quoted some abraham lincoln letters for a piece i wrote about abraham lincoln's reading. they're marvelous books and then the other books on this bouquets are largely, not entirely but i would say mostly literary by our faith books about authors an primarily about their writing and i will say that a for however many there are here i would say there are a couple hundred. the release three times as many additional volumes and that other writers in very section of the house. um so here we are in the

library. i do some of my riding in here. here is the computer and e-mail. i would say i write, and a reviewer of the los angeles times, and migrate pt james fan. when i am not reading from my work every turk entertainment and pleasure. i kind of give our these things. i just finished it, and just turning to read the review but this little shelf is the nicholas basbanes shop with the exception of a you over here because there are a few spaces, but there is "a gentle madness" hard cover. this thing weighs about 6 pounds but this is the caribbean addition of a "a gentle madness". of the chinese edition in the works. my second book is "patience &

fortitude" right here. behind these you will see eight or perhaps even 10 copies of "a gentle madness". i know that looks again like a little ego serving back there but it is really not. those books have a purpose. there were a different editions of "a gentle madness" and when you say in addition is different from printing because sometimes and you have a new edition and there is subtle change in textural changes and have to go into the text and they can change and make a correction and put something in said ever a distinct editions of it "a gentle madness" so i had one of all the dates back there and each. there were two copies of each edition. >> in went from patients and among the dead man and then "a splendor of letters" parent why do i have a brian lamb "booknotes" because he had a very nice interview with me

shortly after "a gentle madness" came out in 1996 in this was his first volume and i'm so thrilled that when he decided to put various writers in different categories and, of course, i'm trying to find a table of contents. he put me under storytellers right there. kind of cool, i like that. on the cover of this book you've got what looks like a would cut. what is that? >> it is, in fact, they would cut come a very famous one. it is 500 years old, executed by in the book fool, and it was the original ship of fools and the first rule of coal and navy at the helm was a big deal mania and i have always loved that particular and graving and i chose it for the dust jacket. >> if someone buys this book which sells for $35 what do they

get? >> they give a book i hope that they will keep in july and pass on to others. i think they will have a record of his passion for collecting books, not only collecting books but preserving knowledge over 2500 years. >> or did to get the idea for this? >> asked often if i am a bit leo maniac and i am on the cusp of but one review of my book recently suggested nicholas basbanes might not be a bibliomania, but he is under arrest and have committed to the books all my life. i'm a professional journalist and a book review editor for 13 years. i have interviewed many authors and i have always loved books and read them and treasure them so it is the natural thing to write about his passion.

>> them into related so much to help this book take off and the very first printing was 5800, base that it really was expected to sell a lot to been sold out within two days and by the end of the month we are at in our third printing. the last i heard we were well over 20 printings and 120 printings in printing and one that is not bad. i love this book because the time and never thought anyone would want to publish. why someone would think that my literary journalism over 20 years, i have been writing about books and literature entering criticism, but this particular volume covers 20 years of my literary journalism of various magazines in new york's times, the washington post, and it is kind of fun. i edited and spent a lot of time

bringing it up to date. this is my latest book published by university press. i was approached and commission to write a centennial history of the university press and i really enjoy doing this because, i say it kind of tongue in cheek but one of the factors that attracted me to doing it is the fact that everybody has such low expectations of it on the service. you'd think that the history of the university press over 100 years would be very boring and tedious but they have a thrilling likely exciting history at yale in my view, an outstanding university press and the u.s. and it was fun. i think a very worthwhile book because we are in a time in the early years of the 21st century with the whole future of scholarly publishing is being discussed. in a 5 percent of the university presses in north america operate

in the red. hillel operates in the black -- have they do it? it was part of the focus of what i did and i really believe that every book in this house even if i haven't read it and they have owned it for 25 years, but i'm pretty much know what i have here. i know where it is and how i can lay my hands. and may not always be able to do it right away, i knew you were coming over today and i said i'd better take a look at what's behind these shells. i have gone over here and here is a body of secrets, i have been looking for this book for two weeks. it was back there and now so thrilled and i went to one of my library in boston and i brandes, i said i can look for it, and i have here but instead of wasting the time looking for its i will borrow it and i was preparing myself for the rebel and found

it. it is about the national security agency in in this book i'm writing about papermaking which we will talk about later. i have little breath on the nsa and the cia last year i went down to fort meade and the national security agency and it took me four months to get clearance and approval to go in there. they said it would you want to go there when you're writing a book about papermaking, well of the nsa has this huge enormous unbelievable paper building plant. this is pulp and they gave me a back of the processed highly classified and, it is still moist and they gave me this little medal of the national security agency.

that was my little memento but this is pulled, all of this highly classified documents which wants pulled like this are declassified in they do i don't know how many hundreds of pounds a day of this, but then when it is completed like this is phillip to wire hauser which in turn makes pizza boxes and bathroom tissue i am told us so you never know what kind of a product can accurately are in your library and you have told me that these books are all double shelved so my question is, how do you know, double shells these there are books behind but how do know what is behind the books in the front? >> this library has been here for 20 years and i don't know if it is particularly related have

been somebody once asked charles lamb who had and many books in his library and they're all about similarly with the same kind of uniform binding, how can you tell one from the other any said have as a shepherd know his sheep? i cannanore all my sheep are especially if we pull down list back of books here the rate this kind every violist's my collection of tennessee williams. i love tennessee williams and i love drama. i love to collect material that is written for the stage but as it appears on page one so this is a really wonderful first edition of the glass menagerie, collectors will tell you this is really just a marvelous. look at the clock on this. a superb copy of this book and

first edition. arguably his best known play. and you go here and you'll see that absolutely is the first printing right there so that is a pretty nice copy of this book but equally as scarce, it is common for this particular title is the son on this pioneer. the paper has faded a little bit on this so who ever owned this before me have it toward the sun and a kind of faded but most copies of this are much worse than that to and he had to cram books so this is an outstanding copy and a far better than most. it is a very good copy and in wonderful condition. a famous book jacket designer. this is all tennessee williams'

back here. cat on a hot tin roof, babydoll, the red devil. i really love reading him, i love his work and we have everything that he did in first edition. one of the reasons this stuff is behind really i started putting behind because it is mainly to protect the spine of this book, i did not want any son to get on the book. it is not about to get any back here so we just put his other books up their when and stay nice and safe month back there. >> enzi this scrapbook here on the table and says government exhibit 12 on that, can you tell me about this? >> what you are looking at are the scrapbooks' maintained by the notorious book the eighth stephen blumberg the, this is my first book of "a gentle madness" and there are pictures of steve

and that i took him when i was out attending his trial in 1991 in des moines, iowa. here is coming at of a dumpster down below and in the upper left he is in a book called the california room in his house. steve jenna that was quite an unbelievable is turning a figure. in addition to having stolen something in the order of 25,000 rare books valued at a conservatively estimated $20 million worth over 20 years he had collected, produced a collection with a collection and within these were these bookplates entered into evidence at his trial here you are wondering how in the world did i get these bookplates. i got them legally and paid for them after he was convicted

because his defense was not guilty by reason of insanity and he went to prison but after he went to prison when have been left of the library they could not determine where all the books that come from. these were leftover benard fax or donated to creighton university in omaha because they helped the fbi who owned these. and a lot of them were sold and the bookseller who acquired them called me and said if there's anyone who should have stephen blumberg book plates in his nicholas basbanes so here they are and everywhere he went in the united states, these are not all of the bookplates, but everywhere he went with he would remove, after he took books he would remove the bookplates and he capt. them. >> is a common term for you but for the layperson is a mark of

ownership? >> is a label. there are people who collect bookplates and i'm sure there are collectors who would go crazy over this and given when it represents year is a bookplate. he went to stanford university and these are bookplates that he stole from stanford and he put them in this cram book. a very famous collector who gave books to a number of institutions want. there are two volumes, really quite remarkable and you go through here and you're really appreciate the kind of cultural felony committed and realize everyone represents a stolen

book, actually removing something from society, from people who have a need and desire to see these books and used them. >> the books he still, how many recovered? >> they were all recover the day he was arrested. what was quite remarkable amount stephen blumberg what made him interesting to me as a writer not that he'd just go books, there have been a lot of book thieves and manuscript the use and certainly very worth while steady in writing about but was particularly interesting about stephen blumberg is he stole books to keep them, he built a collection of these 25,000 in his house in iowa. he did this over 20 years in the day he was arrested only

95 percent of the books he had stolen and were never known to be missing until the day he was arrested so it became an interesting story. it was stewart a story in bibliomania an examination of the book collector who literally falls off the cliff. this is kind of where i read over here. my reading chair. these are the books that i'm working with now. the bottom line is a library book but these are books -- i like to read books in tandem. i am not a person who has to start one book and go through all the way to the end before i start another one and so this book by simon winchester which i put up in new york is about a great china scholar, so i am

very interested in in his take. this is a book that both my wife and i are enjoying simultaneously but this is a remarkable book. this is kevin his book about thomas jefferson and his reading in the books that shaped his life. this is a brand new book from yale, reading matters. and hitler's reading, very interested in this. i wrote about this fellow and one of my books, supposedly an illiterate but was a remarkable figure of pottery and he would read these little messages one of the pieces that he made. it is very interesting. these of the kind of books that we are playing with and reading. before we go downstairs of like to show you a few things for

fun. 95 percent are for work and represent some aspect of my life of but there are a few things here that become targets of rapid twoonie money see them and you have to have them so and saw the first huckleberry finn. and this is a first edition of huckleberry finn. isn't that lovely? this is a book that made reed, transformed me into a book collector. i have been writing about books and doing these interviews but i think i really began to develop and acquire an antiquarian sense where i found this book in a

garage on martha's vineyard. my wife's parents had lived on the vineyard and acquired the this house with contents and the ground had a whole book case of old book senate to. so i went out there one day, opened up and is not in the best of shape i have to say, but you know, we have a first printing of arguably one of the three or four great american novels of all time, a scarlet letter by nathaniel hawthorne. you have something pretty interesting. it has a little loose tent and you want to leave it just the way it is. in his will lose, but again that is not a bad happened to start your book collection with. to others i will show you briefly. this also found on cape cod, my wife and god bless her, you haven't met her here today but she has always been supportive

of this. we bring down on the cape and as got to be 22 years ago that we had two very young daughters in the back seat in their little chairs. i stopped off at a secondhand bookstore, connie was out with the girls and i said you're not going to believe this but they have a first ogled, cavan in there. and this is again totally first of all the points are here. look at the shape of this 1852. we go through a number of the bibliographies and a point by point, but trust me, this is a first printing of all gold tom's cabin in remarkably good shape. and then these 3i like because when i was researching "a gentle madness" i love to write and do my research from books that i own. i am a devout user of libraries.

i have 12 library cards which i use all over the place and i borough burks and return them but when i see books i want i feel i have to have them so now is writing "a gentle madness" it became important for me to on the books and is using to build up my bibliography so iran across was known as the bollea graphical want -- the person who actually coined the word of bibliomania. this is a book that is a three volume, i don't know what the limitation is. probably a couple hundred copies. 1817, the biographical the camera on, pleasant discourse the manuscript and subjects connected with the early but we are very by the rev. thomas and i thank you ask anybody in the globe books these are all original with tents. what he did after printing this and published it in 1817 he

destroyed all these cuts there to ensure that it would be very scarce. >> he did mention that you have books in some way places in the house that you actually have them in the bathroom. >> well, before i take a right to go down the stairs let's take a right to go in here. my wife has kindly left the door open. i put these up. in fact, this is what would happen to the floor, and would become a boat. that is not only double shelled, it is a couple mice pops up there two. >> is there a certain category that makes it into the bathroom? >> there are big. of necessity when you have this many books he shall according to the space available. as i said, if you go into outside storage sites at yale.

they shelled a strictly by size. and the trick is you know you're doing a good job when you eliminate most of the air this, but i'm afraid as we go any higher we will have a situation on our hands. so we are going down into the abyss. i call the whole house of the abyss but this really is an abyss. this is a good old new england the cellar and i guess you could say i have converted it. it is one of this but most of my working library is down here. i like to regard this as the book warren. all of these books over here what they have in common is that they have all contributed one way or another two several of my recent books. i would like to move them

someplace else and make rep. for the books on paper but as you can see spaces for consideration and these books still are relevant in a number of different ways. many ways i don't even know yet but there comes a moment when you want to your hands on it. the oxford english dictionary, i use it all the time. other volumes are down there and then back there, but those of the supplements of the lower shelf and the american english original english dictionary down there but the other volumes are back here so in this funny and was just writing about identity and was looking for the war and 70 which is why it is out here. unlike the big books from i

don't really know how to use it on-line so this is fine. here is another book on the nsa so this is stuff, archives are of figuring into the paper but vast collections of paper in history of this is what i call the book warren, it keeps going around. it took my wife and i, she actually put up these baruah shelves and are in the basement which is a very reassuring because there are no possibility of a house collapsing which i think it happen if you have all this weight. these are kind of, not all but many more literary biographies. "a gentle madness", my first book, this file cabinets, this whole file cabinets: this will file cabinet -- these are really transcripts.

and in about 250 interviews for that book, these up here are transcripts of interviews. a lot of is the archival information, or a history is forest "a gentle madness". the book took eight years to write and as you can see there is an awful lot of research that went into that. these are my old buy line files from my days as a reporter. the newspaper used to clip files, i never collected at clippings but the paper did it for me. you want to see what you did in 1943 and users of my earliest paper pieces. it is going to be hard to richard canner in here but there is some significance to this bookcase. and i other than that a paperback copies them and every one of the books in here appears

in the bibliography of "a gentle madness", pretty much all of them were all useful. and our are more but this is one as place to gather them all together for my first book. more of the same over here, double shells. i don't know if you can do this, but reference books. there are a lot of reference books here and i have hundreds of cassette tapes. >> is that how you do your interviews? >> hundreds, well over a thousand i'm sure because all the interviews, memos were taped. i have all those tapes and transcripts. women's history in terms of literature, very nice books and reference books appear and books on new york city, architecture,

history, all sorts of aspects of new york city. books on libraries, library history, civilizations, archaeology and in another lifetime i could happily be an archaeologist. these are reference books. i think a series of oxford companions, african american literature, and you can see this represents a spot i have gone in and out a useful. again double shells. for every book in front there is another behind because where else will you put them. the same applies over here. i don't know how many people in america can claim to have a complete book collection. this is really a great

quarterly, published in the u.k., established back in the 1950's and have an incomplete -- four of them here and you get double shelves starting wingback. and i have been so useful. a waterfall article, review, and if you want to know what is going on in the book world these views have been indispensable. this is a shelf here really is an assembly point, and gathering point for books that will have some reference to the book on paper. if you are looking at books that i pick up a secondhand bookstores and awfully markets, increasingly on-line, but books that i think will have some reference of the book on paper. i am having a chapter of paper and the creative process and, so

of course, you have to have a leonardo da vinci. this from the sketchbooks of the great artist drawings, of prince and people, so remember the old television commercial this is where we make time to make the donuts. and this is where i make time to make doughnuts. we're in the basement, we are in new england. we have a nice new england woods across the street, in nice view out back, but i'm really very comfortable working down here. it reminds me of my old days of the aircraft carrier when i had my office way down on the third deck and i have a certain comfort level in here being, angst my staff. >> you're telling me a story

about this note booking your office before i started rolling. >> the smudges are clay, i have been working on this chapter on paper, a trip i made to china in october and november of 2007. again i was going out to these relief remote villages in sichuan province down by the papermaking villages which are down and remains were up in mountains with a pure water is in any case one of the places we were going to visit was knocked -- was on a pretty good hill, there was a red clay. i was going downhill and may even have a mine digital recorder going and i fell right on my but.

isolated and you can hear the thing if we can find a spot. and had my ninth camera in the air, my notebook on the right side and i slid all the way down so to see here is red clay from that experience in china. this is paper samples that i picked up. is a chapter that i am working on now with this book on paper. a typical day is to get down here as early as i can and have several cups of coffee, but really try and get down here seven or 8:00 o'clock, certainly before eight and meles to go over when i did the day before. i tried to keep a log bna. related and work, i need to say

anxiety but i like little attention then i get them from the deadline. i have to be pressed so i keep a log and a field that i have to produce a thousand a public show words monday. i might write 2,000 words a day but come the next morning i might kill a thousand of those so like to have a net advance so i will come down here and go over when i worked the day before and pick up what feels right. and now a book is going nicely when all the chapters from our in progress and i read the way i like to read. use of this back upstairs this to my reading chair. i like to be going on a number of things simultaneously so never feels right and that the regular day today feels like china and the last couple days

has been so i take a lot of photographs, the digital camera has become an essential tool in when i do. there thousands conventionally shot photographs i have taken. in the days when i was doing the common they use to send photographs and these are pictures that i have shot. the rule of benedict so this is in the years before the digital camera became so important to me, but i still have all the pictures i took for my books are

finally appear. but with the digital camera and you can get a memory card and put 15 or 1700 images on one card and if you carry your laptop you can download aaronite. i shot 3,000 pictures and china and so i am working on this chapter here so i've got my recordings. here is a gentleman i am writing about, 86 year-old man whose family has been making paper in this village in china and a place called jade for 600 years. his son makes paper and and we were there in november the swiss we learned after 600 or so years the next month they were closing down the operation. they are making paper by hand

commercially and obviously mechanized papermaking is 99.9 percent of all the paper made in the world so this kind of fun when i am writing about the man and here it is other than a tour of duty the boundaries of the old man 85 years on earth were pretty much defined by the time he spent is a maker of paper not far from china's border with burma. the name of his village translates into english -- we are working on it now -- translates into english as jade spring and not to the translucent mineral mine in the region for centuries in the peer water that flows essential for that task at hand. he spoke no english and all, our

words translated by a professional botanist who led the way to this extraordinary anachronism in the heart of the province where paper have been made commercially by successive generations of the same family for 600 years. so i will be talking a little bit about this man and his decision to get out of the papermaking prison and the reason is china is awash in money and the 21st century. progress is taking over the country like a tidal wave. they have a grandson but he's not interested in making paper. he was working in the mountains building a highway so it makes for a nice entry and then we will we talking about handmade paper and, of course, paper was invented in china. one of the great foreign conventions the chinese claim to be theirs from antiquity.

gunpowder, the magnetic compass, printing and paper. >> to use torture first draft on the computer? >> yes however while was traveling and take notes. one idea hits me some ideas come to a maximum of that may have been in your notebook? >> very definitely. i can say the way it appears here with the andean -- where there for 18 days into provinces and i probably meant 30 or 40 papermakers. why did i choose this man? it does strike me one morning and never really did adapt to the time changes then used to wake up early and i haven't a bunch of these notebooks in and said this is where you start with this man who is nice and

couldn't speak english and making paper all his life. >> in writing this chapter what other things are using now? >> this is a book, history of the technology in china. i can't get a copy of this, it is like a $300 book and i have to justify to want to spend $300 for a book i can get from the library -- unfortunately most of the library's round. central massachusetts have it. they believe boston where i do a lot of reading have a copy of so i burnet's. >> that is why that is sitting here? >> i am using.

mulberry paper is the principal fibre that they use in this particular province of china. tibet, and feel that there really is so essential. all of these books are not about paper but behind you there are books about paper -- these two cabinets all have material on paper related subject in there are paper samples. this is a form of handmade paper, but within -- look at this paper. look at the fibers there and supposedly it is made from a plant that is poisonous to insect. it is a very complicated latin phrase but one of the reasons this paper is prized by governments and bureaucracies for record-keeping because the

insects can to damage the paper. this is spirits paper that she burned and make offerings your ancestors. this is what is known as a high quality artistic paper. this is bamboo paper and these are all different samples that i've gathered during the trip to china. i just got back from japan and spent a week there interviewing papermakers. this is handmade paper. i will be opening at this when it comes time to write that after about japan. i am really excited about this. i haven't taken it out yet. the person who made this is a living national treasure papermaker in japan, and spent a day with this gentleman talking

through an interpreter about paper. his approach to paper, the meaning of paper and so is gathering these artifacts. i got this in japan. this is a fellow who was a conservator. you wonder what the heck this is. i opened it like fats, and if polls like that. it is called a paper hint and this is how the japanese and also the chinese and koreans use different forms but is a paper hint that allow for the making of screens. window doesn't come into japan until the 19th century and this is very strong paper with starting fibers. i don't think a metal hinge could do that. he gave this to me, very decent give him to do that. >> you are traveling basically all over the world now, how are

you able to do that? >> i have a contract from cannot but so is a book that has been commissioned to so i have an advanced to do that boy, but in addition to that was recently awarded a national endowment for the humanities research fellowship which has greatly assisted this. allowed me to take this. do focus on the research but to read a lot of books and i transcribe all of my own interviews. in is very time consuming and is kind of what i do and i'm tired at night when i'm too tired to write notes transcribed interview and i think i love having daschle recording because it can beat a year since you did it but when you replant in this

fresh and i have the pictures to give you some visualizations and it really does all come together. i think in narrative emerges from its. >> five years of research, all these seven elements. how to you keep track of it and keep an organist so you can pick your fingers on which two need? >> in the beginning in was impossible. i lost two weeks looking for stuff beer and i always prided myself as having a good memory and run it across the passage in a book, this is wonderful in fabulous. just assuming will know where to go back and find it is so frustrating end up setting coming you can spend a day looking for something and woods where it is in this book so now i find stuff i use. i use these little post is and i

try not to write in books that i think have some value but i will come here and obviously there is something important. i remember what it is and it is something really important and will create a file and write-down of the little segment. and have a lot of nice riffs in musical terms, they really come out of the notebooks. i know it is a mess but all this on paper harkin it broken down by chapters of working on. i didn't do that, everything was a mass and would spend two hours looking for stuff. really a waste of time and when the book was done i think it took me six weeks for ever to footnote to because i was in such a rush to write a wasn't

making note of where i was getting the citations. i will remember where it was right. the when you go back and say i've got to read the and the notes would i get this piece of information and i am a stickler for citations and i can't find of the passage comes out. but it took forever so now i put it in the body of the text on the computer company if you take the time he might break up the flue but as soon as you pull something out of resources, but you cited in you put in the full citation so when it comes time to gather your citations' together is a piece of cake. there is a title in "a gentle madness" with a history of collecting and britain over a thousand years and not the

beginning why was a 100 and 50 times and when i found with that particular chapter because i did have the first one but the one i finally capped was darn near the first one. so often would you feel the very first shot i find more often not the best one. everything i have learned has been wonderful and i am in love with the research so i do have to say enough, it is time to sit down and write your book and the answer is probably longer than i should have but there is a richness to the material and i think a hat to under 50 hours of tape for "a gentle madness" and their use all of it. i became more efficient and finally with every book unless train book i use 95 percent of

everything i gathered. it is pretty good. for the yale book i use everything i gathered enough for the paper book is going to have to go back to "a gentle madness" easily three or four times a material and gathering but that is okay because you have to have a critical mass and you have to know i felt a need to know 10 times as much as what i'm going to arrive in the article. i can't know just as much as is going in the article and have not 10 times as much and i think i'm approaching that with this book. >> finally you are busy writing this book. how long are you going to be busy writing before it is actually printed? >> it all depends on how much work it means. i cement pretty clean copy and i'm proud of the fact that senators would don't have to spend a lot of time on my

material. so the answer is should i submit in june let's say a 2009. then we can expect to see its in in the spring of 2010 or certainly no later than fall of 2010 and that is my goal. >> nicholas basbanes, thank you. >> thank you, great pleasure.

on thursday in the federal communications commission home this meeting on high-speed internet. we will also get an update on the recent transition to digital broadcast. new fcc chairman julius genachowski leads the proceedings in this hour-and-a-half meeting. .. ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] >> well, good morning. and welcome to the july 2009 meeting of the federal communications commission. this is the first commission meeting that i have been two

since 1997 and i am very happy to be back here doing is great to be here and see some of familiar faces in the audience. i'm looking for to becoming reacquainted with old colleagues, meeting nuanced and listening to in learning from this agency of outstanding public servants and communications experts. before beginning the meeting and have distinct honor and privilege to swear in commissioner robert mcdowell, his first term and then yesterday or the day before. in the day before. and i am very pleased to be able to do this. his wife jennifer is here and you will children who i will lead to introduce and so everyone here if you could indulge us for a minute we will proceed to the front and swear in it commissioner robert

mcdowell. if you would raise you're right hand and repeat after me, i robert mcdowell do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of the united states. against all enemies foreign and domestic. that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and. then i take this obligation

freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and. and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which i'm about to enter. so helping gone. >> well done. [applause]

that was an honor and privilege, the first time swearing-in is an awesome irresponsibility and a great pleasure to welcome you to the commission for your next term. two either of my colleagues have opening remarks to begin this meeting? >> very briefly mr. chairman thank you, that was an honor and a terrific way to launch the julius genachowski era at the fcc. you have done great so far by the way. [laughter] but i do have many people to think and i have four groups of thank yous. i will try to be as brief as possible because i know we want to get on with the business of to get on with the business of the day.