>> that's what you want to fight for. that's the primary thing. you don't want to get too caught up in polits and twitter that you miss. read "lord of the rings," it's all about the shire. okay?

and the orcs are in the shire now. [laughter] [applause] >> and we look to all of you to be frotos in the years and decades to come. ladies a gentlemen, please join me in thanking our panel i think for giving a wonderful pal discussion. [applause] >> thank you again to our panel.

>> . mo than a dozen words jonathan kozol has analyzed the public education system. next sunday he will take your questions live. >> chris mooney best selling author of the "the republican war on science." he claims the scientific illiteracy of americans is thatening the futurof the country. the university bookstore in seattle, washington hosts this event. >> thanks, everybody. i'm fortunate to get to come to talk to seattle a bunch. i'm glad to have so many

sponsors, and i'm glad to see all of you here. let me tell you how the book came to exist. you hrd that in the year 2005 iublished another book that a lot of people know, "republican warning signs." i do like to disclose, there was no intention on the part of the ill traorred that image of the elephant and my name. the new book is really the sequel to that. granted, i wrote a book in between. but is is sequel. it's written for the obama years in much the "republican war" was written for the bush years. we've gone from 2007 when the elephant has trampled the test tube of science to twin where

the test tube is still broken but the cause is not as obvious. i think dhat does summarize the difference and the progress between the two books. let me say how i got from one to other. the republican war argued that under the last m scientific knowlee was under attack. that was occurring on a wide variety o issues of the policy, climat change, embryonic stem cell research, reproductive health, so on and so forth. the book was popular. iad to speak to crowds like yourself. in my ely talks, my strategy was to unvail the litany of announces, all the different ways in which the bush administration messed with science. this way of communicating had an effect on the audience. the effect was this. there was a lot of outrage

generated in my science friendly crowds. and at the end of the talk, all the hands would go up, all of the audience members many scientists or people who care about science said okay you've made me angry and punch a wall. i can't believe this is going on in my government. but you haven't given myny release. you didn't tell me what to do about the problem. the answer was buy the bookas not sufficient. so i started looking for new answers and solutions to what was a broad science/politics soety disconnect. i started asking myself questions like this, how did the bush administration get away with it? was something about culture or media and the w it treats science the core issue? was a new way of inking about science communication possibly the answer? in other words, i was starting to think about a set of underlying problems of the sort that were going to remain with

us inevitably long after bush's party was thrown out of the white house. at around the same time i teamed up with a young marine biologist who came to the guess log and she was so popular, i said please stay. so two years later she's m co-blogger. she added an dimension. she made me aware of what it's like to be a young person in science today. and she made me awar of the growing number of young researchers like herself and maybe like a lot of people who have taken increasingly common career departure and not following in the foot steps of their professor to become academic but want to take their knowledge out into the world in some way and use it context of contributing to society. not tt scientists don't, but use it in the context to reacng out to nonscientific america. and i worked with her on

initiative on a chapter in the book and that is science debate 2008. and some of you heard of and some of you signed on to support it. basically, sheryl, myself, screen writers, and a couple other people had the idea. one guy in popular, matthew chapman, it was his idea originally,he president should talk about science. there should be in debate many in which they talk abo science. and it was resonating for the community. we had no trouble getting scores of university to endorse a long list something like 38,000 individual people signing up. we became a movement. and we were really psyched. look at wt we've done. we've rallied the world of science around a cause. then we learned the harsh lesson. if you build it, that doesn't mean the politicians will come. and so that experience gots thinking again in the direction of the book.

why ist that politicians don't want to talk about science even if all the greatest minds ask them to do so? why ds that scare them perhaps even more? unscientific america was t result. it was our attempt to understand the problem, not why we don't get answers but why we don't get answers through to nonscientists to the pple who often need them the most. and in discussing that problem, i guess let's start with some data. the data is probably familiar to many of you. you've heard these factoids before. there's something like a scientific literacy problem. if you ask people surveys about science topics they were supposed to study, you often get dismal answers. something like half a people will get wro like does the earth rotate around the sun? how long does it take to do it? yeah, it's not funny. ditto with what's larger an at

tom or electron, the universe began with a big explosion. same thing wit evolution, 46% of americans not only reject it but think that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. and on and on. this is bad and alarming. you don'tant this in the science center country. but we argue pretty quickly in the book that it is not just about people not knowing the facts. that doesn't really describe the nature of the problem. although they should certainly have much more fact cut knowdge. i think it's significant when you consider science and society that scientists aren't looked up to. something like 44% of americans in another survey, they could not give a name for scientific role model. in other words, they are polled and cannot answer. among those who do answer, question who? bill gates, al gore, and albert

einstein. what's notable is they are not scientists or not ali. [laughter] so americans the good news, there's goodews. americans don't hate science. these surveys also show they have positive views, they think science makes our lives better. and they have trust. but they don't know anything about it. they don't know what it knows. they don't know what scientists are like. they also don't know the names of government science agencies. 's not that they hate it,ut they are not engaged with it. it's not at all central to their lives. when you consider how much science and policy and the future. that's what really worries us. another way of saying this is the problem we're trying to address is not the pblem of generating knowledge and science

which you know given adequate funding we kw how to do pretty well. we have a good scientific establishment. but rather than the problem of translating science into different spears and context. and such translati is a critical problem today. not just becau of the new generation of science policy coming down the pipe, and i don't know if anyone heard me, but we were talking about aboutgeoengineering. so new issues coming out. but also knowledge translation, ienceranslation is critical because we live in a time where science journalist are vanishing from the old media. it's not at all clear who going to be there to take their place in order to bring science to the broad public, not that they always succeeded in doing that before. but nevertheless, they were better positionedn past decades than they are now. in ts context when the other science translator are having

trouble hanging on to the jobs, the new science translators might have to be the scientists themselves by default. and if there's a key thing that's different, think when it comes to these problems of translating scitific knowledge into different context we don't, we deliberately do not point the finger and say it's the other guys fault. we don't say people in politics are cynical and that's why they misuse scientific information. we don't say they are stupid and that's why they don't get science. and that's ghy they don't accept evolution. instead sort of the in honor of the 50-year anniversary. we adopt that kind of analysis. and we say there is a divide. there's the people who get science and the people who don't. and if you have a divide between two groups of people, youould do two things with it. you could say i'm on this side, they are on this side. they need to come closer to me.

you could say i'm on this side, they are on this side, let me think about how i can go closer to them. the answer is they are both going to happen, of course. we focus in, more particularly, the divide in sciencend society and more closely on how science doesn't get through to more sectors and the news media, entertainment media, and then the religious world. and i'll discuss just briefly. the book goes into more detail why it doesn't get through. science 2008, science not getting through to politics, it was a classic example of the world view that scientist share. we and science, i'm sort of in science in the sense that i follow the science world, and scientist in the support of the initialtive tught what a great idea. we'll have debate about

science. we will educate the electate. they thought are you czy? i'm going to get some questions of subatomic particles wrong. the press is going to be talking about it for a week and i'm going to lose the election. so how do you convince politicians not that the suld out of some sense of moral obligations because all their editors that are like i'm sorry there's many things we don't do everything we're asked to do, how do you convince them that it's good for them and what they want to chaff. because that's the only way they are going to begin to make it happen. that's one the kind of questions we try to address in the politics. and then journalist. we are broadly united by the

search trh. they go about trying to uncoffer their versions of truth very difficultly. and often there are a lot of clashes as the process unfolds and scientists have before down in the media and how the media cover scientists. wergue in the book that one of the reasons we're 20 years behind is clearly the press. and their creation of the false idea that it's controversaal when in fact it's not controversial in science today that we are causing science change. even bigger than the scientists and journalist that create aot of disconnect and clashes, now it's not clear what journalism about science is going to look like. the need ya has changed. we tell the story and how with cosmos we could reach 5 million

people around the world. we are fragmented, and people get their science from fox news, and some people get it from npr and they get different versions of scientific information. and the phenomenon is only magnified where you have the pro science, anti-science whic@ are equally pular, and everybody else never going with any of them. so what is science communication going to look like? how are we going to get past the fragmentation that is the whole story of the changing media for the last 20 years driven by technogil change and really economic forces tt are bigger than any one person? and then we discuss the divid between science and entertainment. why is this importa? well, first of all, there's a lot of inaccuracy. and it's not a huge problem in

fictional story to have factual incuracy. definitely there's some hollywood science. has anybody seen "the core." ok. do you want your money back? the plot of this one is that the earth's core stop spinning, or starts to stop spinning, and as a result the planet is desieged by deadly microwaves which destroy the golden gate bridge. but the characters go to the center of the earth and they are going to restart the core with nukes. how do they get there? they use a material called unobtainyum. here's another one, val kilmer, "red planet."

not as many people have seen that one. it gives the classic scientist speech. and it's something you get in movies. over here i'm the nerd and you will hear from me for the rest of theovie. he says i'm a geneticist, i study a, g, t, and p. good, you guys are good. and we watch the dvd many timed to be sure that that's what they said. and that's what they said. the film makers have not seen gatica. all right. but is is not a huge problem. explosions in rpace aren't a huge problem. what is a huge problem is that we live in the country where only 18% o people know a scientists. and all ofhe rest have to go on the basis of someind of stereotype. people in my generation, we mit be able to name a living scientists, but we now who doc

is from "back from the future." and to some extent the stereope is the nerd, socially dysfunctional, orr the scientists is dr. evil and the bad guy. there's evidence that these stereotypes show up. when real scientis go to their classrooms to talk, this is not a real scientist. real scientistsre like doc or dr. evil, this is a normal person. so this stuff, and i mean how could it not? this stuff does get through and contribute. and it maybe changing. because there's lot of new interest and science. but i don't know that it's documented anything. so that's when the important divided. and then the most devicive and hardest thought,he one that has gotte me in the most trouble is the divid between

science and religion. here i will ask you to set aside only temporarilyhe question of what's true. it's important and i have views on it. set it aside and view t phenomenon. you ve the scientific community and studies have shown that it's much less religious than the rest of the united states. okay? objectively, it just is. and the rest of the united ates is muc more religious. so you have scientists who do not know, and is not all scientists, but it's many scientists who do not know what its like to have religion as a core part of your identity. they can't see. it doesn't work for them and it's not part of their identity. it sets the stage for a lot of uncompreheion. he talked about the incomprehension between them. it's exacerbated by battles between the extremes. sort of firing missiles across the culture war.

so you have the anti-science creationist, intelligent design is the newest verse and there was an older version. and they reject science and it's clear that they are motive is a religious motive. and you have on the science side the new atheist that are reversed in the following science, in a sense that they reject religious and science proudly speaking is their reason for doing so. so the groups fight and fight and fight and attack. and it turns out that much of america would really like to have reconciliation. most want to have their science and their religion. but in the press it's always a war. it's always science versu war. the extremes do crowd out the middle. so we talk about that and how that keeps us poor -- polarized. the book is resonating,

especially with some people in science who are saying, thank you, because we wanted to communicate more. we've been saying this for some time. it's about time that we realize scientific priorities to communicate more. but the books cause you some controversy as well because some peop don't want to thi, we've been accused of blaming scientists which we are not. they are a lot of problems, a lot of reasons that science doesn't get through and all we're saying that scientists are at the dance as well. they are at the dance wit the other groups. and they are stepping on toes just atheir toes are being stepped on. so everybody is to blame. but insofar as so people want to break down walls, i think it's because where we find ourself today. for 52 years in the united states, magnificent research has been done. there has been incredible

innovations that we are all proud of, landing on e moon and so on. what are we not proud of? over the years, much of the blic clearly didn't come along on the incredible odyssey of discovery. and the scientists didn't learn nearly as much as the public as they learned about nature. and the idea here is just that maybe that's an imbalance that it's finally time to address. i'll end by catching a couple of our ideas for how to do that. we really want to have a discussion rather than give answern how to do it. all the answers require money anyway. so obviously we have the gup scienceducation and it's topics, it's not healthy in the united states. and that'soing to be critical part of any solution. i'm not going to get into any detail because fixes science education is beyond my

expertise, but it's a critical part of the problem. obviously we have this problem where increasingly the people who already know about science and the people who read about science and nobody else tunes in at all. and how we' going to reverse that trend is again a huge problem. but we have to startnnovate visiting and using the new media because there's nothing else to use to reach people. but we are way behind on that. so far the world hasn't ten the beyond all doubthat it needs to invite in this area. -- innovate in thi are we focus on that a lot we have long heard concerns about the united states falling behind i sence and international competitiveness. it's a rearview mirror argument. china and india are cominup fast, we are aad of them, but

our gas is running out and they have a rocket engineá we're not always going to be the world leaders in science. there's definitely a lot of data to support that concern. the answer is let's keyuate more scientists. and you heard that aot but less heard is this incredible fact. we're not creating opportunities at home for our talent either. only 7% of age 35 and under can expect to get tenture track facility positions. the rest need to take their scientific skills into history or into teaching, media if there's any positions left, somethg else. something where they can actually given their knowledge and backgrounds they can do a lot thelp connect science with the rest of society. so our argument in the book is coul't we kill two birds with one stone, couldn't we create new vows in what's cled the

science pipeline for the young sciences who want to become a group of experts in outreach to the rest of america. coulde create jobs for theto do s nonprofit jobs, that you want want funding from government and fill anatropies, also this book sells a million copies. then we will contribute. some are them are going to the 2012 election. we have a lot of talent. people who know about science and know how it is getting through and would like to do something about it. and they only want to be told how. and -- there are solutions to that we can talk about a science action committee t elect

people. me things have never been tried androbably would have a real impact. this idea of a science core which is part of the proposals for what the young scitists can do. some government programs send them out to america to use their scientific skills not only to get to know real peopleut to help them out in their communities. thesare the kinds of things that i think will help bridge the divide. and what kindf world do we want to live in? if we can get all of these things going, will lve you with a quote, a screen writer in new york city, he say it ould be like this. instead of being geeks or nerds, scientists would b seen in the explorers of the unknown. they should get more money, more publicity, better close, more

sex, and free rehab when the fame goes to their heads. [laughter] >> thank you so are you going to do the q and a? >> i would start. and i would like to ask everyone since therere people here if we can have it be brief so we can get as many in as possible so we can open it up. >> i was waiting for you to talk about the day after in terms of science and moves. >> you know, thas my third example. > understand. i wanted to talk about since you know so much, wha the science requirements are in high schools in the various states across the nation. not to date myself, but on the east coast, everybody had high school had two years either

biology, physics, something. there was alwayswo years of ience. and you know if that's still trueoday in the various states across the nation? i think the states requirements differ. the flori institute did a study on this. i'm telling you all the requirements. but i will tell you that i know a lot of science teachers when they -- when they are talking about why they think it's hard, they say we've got to teach to the test. we have to teach to standardized test and teach them all these faoids, and it turns off students because they think science is memorization, which is what i thought and i was good. i beat the system. my interest in science didn't come untilfter high school. the teachers say we'd like to be more creative. we'd like to teach in a way that would make science have more meaning. we have to dot the is and

cross the ts to make them get the teachers are constrained. that's one the problems with science education in the u.s. but too little room for creativity. >> you know, i have to tell you i don't know if i saw it. i saw it, but i didn't see it. do you know what i mean? >> yeah. >> i know that i've seen parts of it. but i never sat dow to watch the whole thing. >> well, it's different. put it that way. >> yeah, i hear. yes? >> sure. the two divides, is it - and in problem has been around for a long time. not just in the u.s. but i mean

even when you go back in history, what society really has allowed science to get to a point where it's really everybody is kind ofn board. and look at, i agree with what you said that the one point there that if scientists on one side can kind of go on the other and you really need kind of a whole nothing class right in that middle to -- because these two are not going to get together. >> no, absolutely. let me answer what society has done. i d't think we're ever going to live in a nion with phds or that's realistic. i don't think any country in t world has a citizenry that i

fully scientific literal. some do better and some do worse. but you can have something slightly different than that. whichs you have a society that focused on science from a perspective of policy and what maers the future. what that means is that the leaders, the people we elect, you know, the elites, the people in the parts of the society, have got it on the radar and reale it is important. in the united states was like that for cold war reasons in the '50s and '60s. other countries, singapore, india, china, are like that now. so in those cntries, i'm not saying that everybody is going to get 100%, but i am saying that the decision making is proceeding on the basis of knowing that science is where it's at for their countr. and that we were once like

that and we're notike that to the extent that i would say we should be now. >> yeah, what do you think about the popula mia or the science programs or tv. you have yourself like the living planet and quantum universe and let's go look for u.f.o.s and noah's art. my nephew just texted me about big foot. what do you think about big foot? don't you think the science channels could do a better job. >> sure. so the question is what about science on television? what about the contrast between on the one hand you've got, i think you are talking about discovery. you have science shows combined with sort of par normal shows. this is because it's a dollar-driven business. judgment has been made that this

stuff enttains. haunted house, let's go ghos haunting. then let's leif it on the note at the end. of course we ow what's going on here. right? so there's a judgment. >> unless they don't get their money, science alone is not enough. it's not entertainments enough and interesting enough. and 20 or more years ago, more like 30, we proved it was entertaining enough. i think there's some closed mindedness inhe industry about what you can do with real entertainment. but at the same time i ao cognize that given that they

have to make money and please shareholders and so forth that to some extent information and education is not really their buness. so we got to open up min in th media industry about the fact that science can be entertaining. and w have to make science entertaining. >> do you see a effort on the part of certain science groups to get together to like put together a marketing plan or pr an tha would kind of address the issue of how kids are forming the opinions of science perceive scientists and what scientists do? >> so to rept the question, are any sen groups doing the pr marketing research that the pr marketing people do every day? and the answer is surprisedly,

yes. they a sort of dipping their toes in the water a little bit. it i seen as a weird thing t do. we are the people with integrity. we put it out there and you use it. we're not going to try to package it f you. but, you know, se scitific institutions and societies are clearly thinking thatore creatively right now about how to reach people. so, you know, i'v been fortunate enough to, you know, and i don't want to single out some groups. i'll probably leave the people out. the american institute, i've spoken there, they are interest about learning new ways to communicate. american meteorologist society is constantly having the channels. so i mean, if there's a -- the book is speaking hopefully to the -- among others the people

in science this is becoming increasingly obvious that it can't be neglected anymore. those people are out there and growing number. there's also some sort of a backlash in science against it. it's both. it's a divided community right now. but there's a lot of people that think it is something that we have to look into more. we're just carly not getting through. >> i have a few more questions or so. in the gentleman inhe back. >> you say most americans want to have their scice and their religion. i agree they can, assuming their fans of cognitive distance. i see the issue that religimn teaches you t have po standards of evidence, science teaches the exact opposite. is the middle of that having okay standard of evidence what we want or what we have to

settle for? >> well, so here's my issue with that. i'm an atheist and to me it's cognitive distance. can't believe anything on anything other than evidence. that's my view of reality. but i think it's something else to go into the minds of other people and say whether or not they are being 100% rational. i think that's, you know, that's a judgment about how people create their identities. and i think that we all frankly are to varying degrees irrational at varying times. so to me it is a kind of compatibility if somebody says that god created the world and evolution happened in the world god created. it worksor them. i can see how you can create a

have a constructive argument about why, is that really what you think? how do you know god exists because you don't have evidence for it? in some sense the evidenc for god is just the same a evidence for any other supernatural entity or what have you and you can't prove any of it. you get into a discussion and that's fine. but i think you should -- we should respect the fact that it rks for a lot of people. and given how many penple are not in this place but are in a place that i'm throwing out science because of my religious, i'dather move them to the middle ground. because i don't think they can go all of the way to atheism, not many can, some of them can, most of them is too much movement to ask given their starting point. that's the argument. and i realize that it's heavily debated philosophically about

the extent to which science and religion are compatible. but individual people, and we compose their identities in individual people, they can be compatible in a way that it works for them. >> the last question will be the gentleman in the orange. >> yes, georgia talk. we began the talk we referring to presidents of the candidates. if there was yea ago, the president was thomas jefferson. thomas jefferson was a scientist and a very good one. he was also an architect interested in the arts. he reflected dying embers of the renaissance. and the eightment saw a radical increase that really took specialization. so balance, renaissance person, i'm interested in poetry, physics,nd the same person as

opposed to i work 16 hours a day ing math problems and physics or working 16 hours a day doing research. all right. so specialization took hold in the 19th century. occasially we see courses and colleges in the like. but i don't think we're going to see any real problem fundamental change until we return to a mor unified understanding of knowledge. natural philosophy is what science was called until the 19th century. >> absolutely. >> how can hyperspecialization which is fueled by both commercial and e and career motivations be counteracted to get more to the balance renaissance person, harmony that would be interested in both and create and insre a middle ground. >> this is a great question.

the question is -- >> tension shoppers university bookstore will close in ten minutes. please begin making your final selections. >> so the question is routed in the history of science. the story that you tell is very accurate. basically the universal man who knows everything starts to die off or humboldt that's sort of the last one. they try hard and it becomes impossible. and they don't quitechie it either. and so -- and you have to admit that a lot of progress has been made through specialization which is why it happened in the first place. nobody in science can know everything in sciencd much less all of the knowledge. so what do you do about that? well, you know, all you can do because specialization succeeded because it's important and it works. soou can ner sort of turn it ba entirely. but what you can do is you can

create people who are more disciplinary. and you can have government programs to fund courses that are interdiscipline their. we have the nional science foundation. that's what it's for. so we ought to increase those programs and incentives and reward people who show the communication. you can make change with t rack deed ya. -- rack deem ya. >>we'll end on that. [applause] >> thank you. >> he's going to sign book at the back table. thank you. let's give chris one more round of applause.

[applause] >> okay. should i make this out to anne? >> jerry. >> are you from arod here jerry? >> i afour months of the year. i'm a big fan of your dads. but i wasn't old enough to vote for him. >> well, minnesota is a great state. yeah hubert humpey was a good president. in tho days, itidt

matter. it didn't matter whether was democrat or not. they got along together. that's one of the problems that you have today is that the congress, their anger is mean. >> i'm a retired cpa. our firm did the taxes from the guy i brought the firm from. thank you. >> my uncle was a good friend. >> hello,ir, very proud to meet you. i don't have a book, but i have a shirt and it's going to be donateed to the library. and they are going to put it on display. i thought i'd have it sign it right there. i'd rather sign it -- >> okay. you want to sign it right here. >> i'll close my eyes. [laughter] >> thank you. i've worked on it quite a

while. 's the last hooray. wait a minute, i'm running out of room. >> you know, i can only give so much. >> i think youre doing gre. >> thank you so much. >> okay. that's terrific. >> thank you. >> my uncle was a good friend of your fathers. he was a lieutenant in the air force and he played a lot of golf with your dad. when he was chief of the personnel, he promoted your dad to major general in the air force. do you recall seeing a picture that sir onny in whiche received the star? >> yes, i have seen that. >> i could write you later about it. >> this is a very public picture. it's been around a lot. see me after this. >> i would like it to be

addressed to my father david. and my father was on the chair for the two-time committee for don goldwater. >> that's terrific. don is doing a good job there. are you in school? >> yeah, in high school. >> okay. that's a good age. that a great age. 14, what was i doing when i was 14? i know i was in trouble. >> i would like you to keep this. he can probably share some goldwater stories with you. >> i will. thank you. >> can i get my picture? >> yeah, sure. why don't you come around here. who do you want me to make this out to? >> jack. >> we'll go back.

i really enjoyed your speech. >> okay. thank you. >> i voted for your dad >> you didn't vote enough times. >> i know i dn't. i was in the navy. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> very nice speech. thank you for sharing it with us. >> i enjoyed it. >> i m your dad i think in '84 in chicago, they had a reunion. and he was there. >> yeah. okay. that's where it all started was in chicago in959. >> can i come around and get a picture with you? >> yeah, se. >> okay. we'r taking it. >> let me stand up. >> very good. thank you very much. >> who do you want me to make it out to? >> to rogger, it's r-o-g-g-e-r.

>> all right. home state of north dakota. >> you wonder how a lot of people got to the midwest. it a long ways from nowhere. >> it is. 's the center of the couldn't -- continent. >> till. that was a hard track. you think they would land inning san francisco or new york and that's as far as they cod go. >> thank you. i met your dad when i was 13, when he was running for prident. you know, he changed my life. >> that's nice to hear. >> the program bill he pass and support t got me through law school. >> who do you want me to make this out to? >> susan. >> is this your -- you were in the air force and --

>> i wenthrough law school through the education program your dad funded. >> are you a lawyer? >> i'm not packing now. >> well, law school is not easy. >> no. >> well, it's fun though. thanks for participating in the campaign with the teenager and myself. >> thanks terrific. well, susan, thank you. >> thank you for being here. >> hi. howre you doing? >> just fine, thank you. this is for my father. >> okay. >> this is my daughter. julia. >> i like julia, that's a nice name. what's your father's name? galser. >> okay.

he loves this book. >> well, that's very nice of you to give it to him. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> how are you? >> i'm fine. >> i'm from richard and kimbel, you may have heard of him. >> yes. do you want me to make this to you? >> yes. >> what's he doing now? >> he still runs it. >> there in phoenix a they? >> no, they have an office down here in los angeles. >> oh, okay. well, jake, thank you for what you're doing. >> yes. >> stay in the buggy. >> first of a, i have to tell you that my uncle was sectary for kennedy administration.

james carr. >> uersecretary of agricultural? >> no, undersecretary for the interior. >> that's great. >> so i thought after hearing your father's story it would -- he's a art conservative. and he knows about this. but i did love your talk. >> thank you very much. >> and i agree with a lot of your work. > do you think that i talk too long? thank you. are we okay? do you want tosk anything? >> hi, i'm judy mott.

we have tied. your dad is all over our house. >> okay. what's this? >> your dad and my father-in-law, hi father-in-law was his pledge trainer at the u of a sigma chi. >> my father was kappa sig. >>o, he gave this picture to my father-in-law. and he signed it down here. it's in our house right now. >> this is probably one of the originals. >> you can have it if you want. >> i'd rather have the real mccoy. >> oh, you would. >> that's good. he did a lot of the grand canyon. >>ere the story on these is that we have 12 dining room chairs made. you said you pick x to my

husband. your dad, ronald reagan, all of the conservatives. >> that's great. who did the painting? >> would you put happy birthday, tom. that's my husband. and he wted to be here, but he is picking up his high school friend and they are celebrating their birthdays together. >> well, they are probably having fun. we don't ask where they gent or what they are doing. >> not yet. he's just picking them up. now this isis friend, happy birthday, bob. >> wow. you are pretty creative. >> they are going to really love me. >> that's terrific. do we know wt they are going to be doing? they are going to be speing their whole birthdays reading this boo >> i know it. >> who's this? >> bob. >> how can we fd out when you're going topeech about?

he would love thear you. >> you know, i just don't know. i don't even know that. >> you don't want this, huh? >> no. >> but it is the grand canyon. that's one of my dad's picture. >> okay. anyway. i enjoyed your speech. >> thank you. >> on the first sunday we invite one author to discuss their entire body. it also includes a visit to see where and how they write their books. that's what you are about to see. >> can i ask you if there's a young person watching who wants to write their first back, what advice to you give people like that? >> don't make the mistake i made

of spending three years in paris thinking that because i had studied writing in good creative writing courses at harvard that i had wonderful teachers. don't make the mistake of thinking you can just go and write a book. if you haven't lived through anything that's worth writing about. there are an awful lot of novels in which i'm sure most of them are going to get published which are basically, what e they going to write about? write about what it's going to be in creative writing class. you have -- i mean i essentially decided to give up writing when i left paris and came back to boston. and that's the -- and the following year i was in classroom. and it' interesting the year i gave up writing is the year that

i wrote "death and early age." because suddenly i was doing something that actually tore at my heart. and it was worth writing about. i mean i took myself so seriously. young writers always do that. there i had been in paris and i thought well her i am. and i'm being givenentorship by older writers bill stiren was therat the time and took me and fed me on numerous occasions. it's the only time i ever got to go to a nice restaurant. and richard wright was in paris at the time. i literally, physically bumped into him at the booksto. and others.

to i came back and i thought, well, you know, i must be a writer. but i knew the craft of iting. but i hadn't lived through anything that matters. so i was very pompous. i remember i was going to go back to grad school and do it -- my folks would have liked at that time in my le. and i was always theoice of dr. king and the death of his young volunteershat changed my life. i remember i gave up partying in cam bridgen which i formall announced to all my fans that i'm giving up writing. i' not going to be ariter, as

though there was terribl loss to american literary history. pompous young people. and then that year just gradually as i s the nightre of a rism had done and was doing to these children in front of me, since i had that year at 12 different subs before they put me into that classroom to be eir permanent teacher. i just started keeping a journal. this isuh the kids do, keep the journal. and they are reading out of it. i write down what happened that day. and suddenly around may my girlfriend said to me, you know,