>> i'm talking about with a couple different projects. i'm thinking very seriously about another book on oil. remember, i wrote "black gold strangle hold." i said oil is not dinosaur soup. it's not made by fossil fuels. i'd like to advance that in

another book. and i'm morphs talking with me about another book on obama. maybe we'll write another comprehensive look of obama after a couple of years in office. evaluate the biographical details and how they played forward into the administration. >> thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> this weekend on c-span2 booktv. from new york, the award ceremony. on afterwards former secretary bill bennett. he's interviewed by walter isakson, former editor at "time" magazine. find the entire schedule online. >> a discussion now about the virtuals and limit of compromise . carnegie in new york city is the

host for the long event. >> good afternoon. i'm joanne myers, director of public affairs program. on behalf of the karen guy council i'd like to welcome or members, guest, and c-span booktv. thank you for joining us. today is our privilege to welcome avishai margalit. these were delivered as the 2005 lectures on value which are given on recognition of uncommon achievement and are meant to advance the scholarly and scientific learning relating to human values. when we talk about compromise, we often use this word to mean a meeting of the mind, striking a balance, finding the happy medium between two extremes, or meeting someone halfway. however, you may choose to

express this notion, whether as a verb or as a noun, you may find conflicting views on what compromise entails. in political life, compromise is used in the context of further one goals. knowing when to negotiation and when to resist can have far-reaching consequences. he has turned the spotlight on the morality of compromise, using a wide range of historical examples, particularly those arrangements made with the great tyranny with the early 20th century. he considers such questions as when it political compromise per miserable and when is it something we shouldn't permit, even for the sake of peace? and at what point does peace secured with compromise become unjust. as the center of the book is attention between peace and justice. professor margalit writes he's interested in the moral status

of compromise made for the sake of peace at the expense of justice. our speaker is respected for his analytical skills and moral rackments. he was born in jerusalem. since then he has been visiting scholar at harvard, princeton, and oxford, he's the george f.kennan professor at princeton. maybe some you have read "the west in the eyes of enemies." if you have, you understand how we've each won professor margalit on the philosophical view on societal issues. we received the prize for making a significant to the normative debate on society. it's not surprising that he is

one the founders of peace now, the israeli coalition for the rights for determination in their own state alongside this. at this time, i ask that you give a very warm welcome to a very special guest, professor margalit, we're happy to have you here. [applause] >> thank you so much for your generous introduction. on september 29, 1938, hit -- hitler was unique a narrow steep of land populated by ethnic germans, czech slovakia to germany. in return, he promised not to make any further tier tour --

territorial demands on europe. in march 18939, they seize all of czechoslovakia. the rest is history, horrendous history. it became the symbol of a rotten compromise. the compromise one shouldn't have signed under any circumstances. it became the label for the policy that led to the munich agreement. since the agreement was perceived as rotten, the term appeasement goes through the total reevaluation. it lost it's positive sense of bringing calm and peace and came to mean surrendering to the demand of the bully just because he's a bully. and apiece became the term he was delusional. as the saying contributed to

churchill, one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. but is the munich agreement a clear case of a rotten compromise? my answer is book is the munich agreement is a rotten compromise. but not predominantly because of it's count. if the count of the agreement is rotten, was it? it cannot be the motive that make it is wrong. there was nothing shameful in chamberlain's yearning for peace for signing the agreement. even recognizing sincerity, and i quote, no one have been more resolute and uncompromising, struggling for peace than the prime minister, end of quote. so the purity of chamberlain's motive for peace was never in dispute. the agreement cannot be rotten

just because it was based on an error of political judgment. putting britain's trust in the hands of the serial betrayer. what is rotten? my answer the one with whom it was signed and not signed. it was meant to eradicate it himself. not recognizing hitler as a radical person was a bad judgment. it's what issues me to topic of compromise and rotten compromise. by conveying to me both a strong sense in the importance of of the spirit of compromise in politics. but also by conveying the formative experience of his generation, the munich agreement

as definitive rotten compromise. we were discussing one and i complaint i i guess dig thanty by the politics. both who see chamberlain's umbrella everywhere. it didn't mean that much and ended the story. the men will sing heating fiercely on top of the wind blowing. it's like intense steam locomotives. but this is a cabin. not a locomotive. yeah, i know, but you have to kill them when they are skill young. [laughter] >> i suspect that the often using analogy with cy linnny on the night or saddam and hitler on had the verge. well, it's the young locomotive

kind. as much as i want to use the munich agreement on the uncompromise, i'm aware of it's role in political propaganda. now two pictures. the ideal political compromise is caught between two pictures of politics. politics is economics and politics is religion. roughly speaking in the economic picture of politics, everything is subject to compromise. compromise is not always desirable or proven, but it is always possible. in the religious picture, there are things of which we must never compromise. the religious picture is in the great idea of the holy. the holy is not negotiable. one cannot not compromise over the holy of -- without

compromising the holy. it's the how to politics and their ability to compromise is highly praised. the politics is the out of compromise is a tired cliche. economic is based on the ideal substitution. one commodity, replaced by another. this enables exchanges in the market. exchange leave room for negotiation and where there is room for negotiation, there is room for compromise. compromise is an internal relation to what is exchangeable and divisible. economic picture serving as the motive for politics make it seem as if compromise is always possible. not so with religious. true, religion by which i mean

religious institution make political compromises all the time. they routinely develop a leverage of justifications and techniques to carry out the compromises. but ideally the logic of the holy is the core notion of the religious is the opposite of the idea of compromise. the two pictures, the religious and economic advance two different sets of motivations to explain political life. the economic picture explains human behavior in terms of satisfying performances. where it is the religious picture brings the willingness to self-sacrifice into the picture. it is mistaken on the political thought lies this this regard of the work of either of the two picture in the belief that only one of the picture sustains peace. let me build on this compromise. it is the element of recognition

in political compromise. a clear case of the full fledge compromise suggest rather than implies recognizing the point of view of the other. compromise maybe an expression of such recognition. it concerns legitimacy on the point of the view of the other side. full fledge compromise may even involve the measure of give up from the strong side. not driving is how the bargain is good to get what it desires. it is indeed pure recognition of one's rival. and to have an image of domination. by making the other party halfway, one may subject the assemblance of equality between known equals.

the practice of political compromise subject suggest that one key form of compromise takes place with one recognizing the other side is the political move from the negotiation. sometimes recognizing the other is legitimate site for bargaining is harder than reaching an actual agreement. and by space over the shining path by the government of beirut or the working party in turkey for negotiation is difficult for spain, peru, and turkey respectively than any concession they may be required to make in order to reach an agreement. dabbing the other party a terrorist organization is regarding them as illegitimate power, as extortionist who

should be resisted. removing from organization from a terrorist list and making it one side of negotiation is usually a major concession by the party that fail the legitimacy. legitimizing site respects in return a major con suggestion by the former -- concession by the former terrorist organization. compromise may take place in the way of recognizing the parties in the bargaining. recognize multiple enemies even to recognize is legitimate party of negotiation may tray a transformative role in humanizing the enemy and acknowledges the enemy is holding legitimate concerns. it calls for empathy. and understanding the enemy concerns from the enemy's point of view. it's cause for empathy, not for sympathy. namely, identification with the

enemy's concern. so this is an element of important recognition -- recognition is an important element of compromise. but what is the rotten compromise? i see a rotten political compromise is an agreement it to establish or maintain an inhuman regime. a regime of hue millation. that is a regime that does not treat humans as humans. i use human in sense of frustration of not treating humans as humans. inhuman in the sense of cruel, savage, and barbaric behavior is only one sense. humiliation is another element. humiliation is my youth is already not treating humans as humans, but humiliation intensified by cruelty equals inhuman. usually humiliation is what human regime consistents of.

it's regime in humiliation, guides my idea of rotten compromise. the basic thing is that we should be aware of it even passively to establish or maintain a regime of cruelty or humiliation. in short, in human regimes. many bad things dropped out of pandora's box. choosing in human regime among the bad things coming out of the box is to avoid at all cost cause for justification. in human regime erode the foundation of morality. morality rest on treating human as human. not treating humans as humans undermines the basic assumption of morality. morality is about how should human relations be in virtual of using or being human and in virtue of nothing else.

morality by it's very nature is based on belonging to humanity. in the sense of belonging to the human species. assault on humanity by treating human is not human. it undermines the very project of morality. the project of telling us how relations among human beings must be. for the sake of the defending morality, we end with a stern injunction. rotten compromise must be avoided, come what may. now a few questions. was the great compromise a rotten compromise? the institution of slavery is a case of humiliation and cruelty. slavery based on racism is doubly at fault. for one it is the greater human being boast on the count of being a slave and on the count

of one's race. so let me deal with the compromises involving slavery as it test case for my count of rotten compromise. as a compromise that consistent in establishing or con doling the connection of humanity and humiliation. it looks rack extramystic to the king for adopting slavery some 4,000 years ago. there's nothing holding accountable for his acceptance of slavery. abolition for him is a live option. a live option is not necessarily the preferred option. it's an option which is on the horizon of it's members. especially if significant number of men in the society are there immediate vicinity opts for it. there is no question that during the formation of the union

abolition was a live auction. in my view, a historical society is morality accountable relative to it's live options. this does not mean that the wrongness say of slavery is relevant. but only that accountability is. so asking whether united states was founded on a rotten compromise in accepting slavery is not an communistic question. the issue here, unlike the issue in the case of the munich agreement is the content of the compromise, rather than who sign it is. as a matter of fact, the agreement was signed by exceptionally remarkable individuals who were also many of them noble people. what enabled the formation of the union and the acceptance of the american constitution makes framers was the connecticut

compromise hailed as the great compromise. the two had issues that the compromise was meant to settle the political reputation and slavery. the sticky issue for us is the compromise on slavery. slavery was recognized, though maybe some succeeded in keeping the word slave out of the wording of the constitution. the constitution didn't not bend slavery or not d not empower the congress to do so. the importation of slaves was authorized until 1808. here's constitution article four, section two is hideous. it orders the return of slaves that succeeded in escaping to free states to return to the slaves honors. that was a situation that the abolitionist faced. he said the conflict exist

because the north and south is covered with death and in agreement with hell. the institution was attacked. a rotten compromise if ever there was one. gary has the language to fill independence and spiritual ability of the group. but was he right? was it the union based on their rotten compromise? enabling the constitution to be accepted at the price of recognizing a political order that exist in deep meaning to a group of people? the union was perceived -- it was more efficient but morality

better. even i as a child in a far away jerusalem understood as we read in class the stephen bennett classic that dan yell webster what this webster keeps asking from his grave, the neighbor outstands the union, it was an echo of the belief that the union is much higher than mere political arrangement. one can go to the devil for personal gain and still be defended by webster, but no one can betray the union and be defended. well then, all of the recognition of slavery in the constitution is flying the ointment, something that spoils the dozen of them or destroy the states of the constitution. or was it the cockroach in the soup? something that destroyed the more fabric of the constitution, rendered it rotten. my short answer, it was a

cockroach in the soup. for the more interesting and more nuanced answer, you can read more in my book. now for tension between peace and justice. the tension between peace and justice is at the center of the book. compromise is the go between. i am particularly interested in the moral status of compromise done for the sake of peace at the expense of justice. how far can we go for peace by giving up on justice. quite a distance, i say. but not the whole way. this is the short answer. here again my long answer is the whole book. declaring the two terms, declaring the two terms i intention is often the way of maddening the waters in the deep. tension between peace and

justice needs to sedation. we tend to view peace as justice as complimentary goods like fish and chips. where peace and justice tend to each other as competing goods, like tea and coffee. the tension is due to the fact of the possibility of the tradeoff between peace and justice. to get peace, we maybe forced to pay in justice. the former prime minister of israel and the hero of mine had the representation of being a relentless compromiser. a full story heading that when asked whether he would like tea or coffee, he answers half and half. the idea being, that the spirit of compromise may blind one to the fact of competing goods from which one has to choose. the tradeoff between peace and justice is no laughing matter. it can be tragic.

in the sense of these tragic choice is in my book. here is the telegraphic message of the book. on the whole, political compromises are good things. political compromises for the sake of peace are very good things. shoddy compromises are made, but should be always avoided at all cost. especially not when they are concluded for the sake of peace. only rotten compromises should be avoided at all cost. then rotten compromises are mere tiny of loud and possible political compromises. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] i invite you to ask a question. before you go, please raise your

hand and wait until the microphone comes to you. and please identify yourself. >> james starkman. i happen to be a yale alumni, i want to make sure there's not compromise in your affiliation with princeton and harvard. in a nuclear arrangement, where peace is on the line, could one in any instance for the enforce a rotten compromise and the word that comes to mind is having a record of sue pressing people? >> i am dealing with -- first of

all, it's really -- i deal with it but not efficiently. but because it is really hard. and hard for me is the talking of nuclear is particularly hard. it's a indication of coercion rather than a case of rotten compromise. i don't think should you do coercion. by coercion, i mean when you get it right. all of the other con spouse. and a weapon, having a nuclear weapon without even declaring it as a threatening thing has the potential of being coercion. how to deal -- should you make deals with someone with nuclear weapon if the one runs an in

human regime? my answer in such case is it maybe yes. i mean maybe not. it depends really on the nature -- on the element of coercion and nono coercion. if it's coercionive, you do what you do. and i don't have a recipe for that. if it not coercionive, then you don't make a deal. so a great deal depends here on the facts of where they coercionive or not? and that's really a difficult case to decide. and in the case of ahmadinejad or north korea, it really depends on the facts. given the -- i was immensely always void. i think that pakistani nuclear weapon is immensely threatening to the -- to it's neighbors and

to -- and it was spread, i mean, by others. this has the potential to be -- how do deal with it? very difficult to say. really you can come up only with -- i can give you only. i don't have the wholesale answer on that, only on basis, case by case. that's the best i can do. :

a confession that she made to the other side, usually the other side tries to minimize and you try to enhance the concessions and the other side tries to minimize the significance of it and that's part of negotiation and as part of bargaining so concession is obviously part of the vocabulary of compromises. they don't use that that extensively, but now the case, what to do in particular case this as i said there we should really be very careful about the

facts. and just more random can be dangerous as it was in the case of iraq mainly been blinded by what actually happens. for example of iran is a very complex society and i won't even defy the rules of the movement in iran as a humane regime. i don't believe that is true. i think it is one -- it's too trivial to say i'm against it, but that is not in my vocabulary. maybe now it is basically oppressive and now when actually is a turning point. what to do with iran, this calls for lots of factual discussion and what are the options.

when i tried to devise is a vocabulary to deal with the moral aspect of those countries and that's basically what i took on myself. i may be wrong in many strokes of judgment, factually wrong. the point is what i provide the right vocabulary and not whether i give the right historical analysis. i may be wrong about what formed the union and when was the nature of the compromise their, what were the options there, but the point is the test for me is whether i provided the right vocabulary, the moral vocabulary to deal with the question. even if i ron empirically namely that i just got the facts wrong. >> du see -- the you see a

distinction between a compromise to end in agreement specifically with respect to the issue of an agreement underlying requirements at least as i understand is of trust and a trust being an element either in terms of the morality of the bargaining power or the complexity of the bargaining power as is the case that you cited with iran? >> i make a distinction between endemic compromises ensign green compromises. i was struck by one fact, that in the books that deal systematically and mathematically with bargaining, they negate theory. the word compromise is not

there. and i was struck, how con? voir -- concession, yes, but not compromise. did you would have expected it to be part and parcel of of the phenomenon. what they believe every agreement is a compromise. you start with you want to sell high, i want to buy low, and an ever we agree on is an agreement and a compromise between our initial positions and what we agreed on and that this the endemic use. what i try to describe it as something more akin to our ordinary use of compromise and there is a deadlock, when there is a real low texture and more

supportive more structure to the phenomenon rather than just a mere compromise an agreement. you won't say that if you go here and by a pair of shoes and agreed upon the price at the there was a compromise between you and that. not even win and the bargaining is taking more seriously and materialistic plea that to say we compromise, so that is the sense not the ordinary sense of compromise. so agreement from the is all the cases, and i describe what goes into this and green cases. one element that i describe here was recognition as an element of the same green case of a compromise. >> did you discuss the economic

motivations and the compromise between and the arabs and israel? >> there are too complex. there is conflict between israel and arab states which is an ordinary conflict among the states and about territories, water, security, and that is more in the line of the economic model. the reason now the conflict between israel and the palestinians want which is an intramural -- intercommunal strife which is the identity of the two committees. they understand themselves through the conflict.

and therefore when they use, they make they and some holy war and negotiable because both sides believe of that it touches the very basic identity of the community. it's true that actually the word moley was actually used by president said got when he came in his visit to israel. when he said the land of sinai is holy and non-negotiable he used this twice, namely the holy land. now you see for example hamas, they declare the whole of palestine in religious

endowments. religious endowments is not for negotiation. it -- you can make a truce, you can make temporary ceasefire, you can make all sorts of deals in time, but in france the most you can not and that both sides, both israelis and not necessarily the religious, it is a fusion of national religion here. both sides i think create a the nature of the conflict from the nationalist conflict that was still resolved in a religious conflict that would be impossible to resolve unless the two sides are too tired like 300 years of religious wars in europe. then you just give up because you are too tired, but as long as you can keep the struggle you

keep and i think that one of the major changes, it was a continuous change but i think it was the constant change from a national conflict to a religious conflict. national conflict or secular vision is usually going by five-year plans. religious conflicts, the sick is much higher one and the date of payment one is postponed and i think that is basically a and b will face and therefore to answer your question yes there religious conflict took over and the religious picture of the conflict took over between israelis and palestinians. i think very much.

>> thank you very much of the czech republic. i have a question regarding recognition as part of compromise maybe been here unwound. amount of the european union diplomats we had a lot of discussion about recognition of hamas, like the winner of the election but on the other side, of course, it is an organization. what you think about this? does it mean that if you recognize an organization will become more human or less terrorist? >> no, i didn't say -- i don't advocate recognition in all cases. it depends on what you recognize it. sometimes the nature of the

organization is such a there is nothing to recognize, namely you'd disagree with what they stand for. all i said there are cases where you can strike a deal and you can achieve something by recognizing. then you don't make a taboo. as to the hamas, the hamas is a more complicated and then just -- there are three hamas. there is the outsize hamas, one there is hamas of the prime minister in gaza, and there is the hamas of the military reign. mw -- instead of answering your

question i will tell you a story and see if it works. when israel left gaza, two weeks before they came to gaza, we got a phone call from the hamas people and i went to gaza to talk to the hamas people. i went with a friend. now i know it was the greatest thing to do. i was utterly and their hands but i did it. and i met the one who is now is called the foreign minister. he was a doctor who, we went to his house, well received. there were a few people there, hamas, from the leadership.

he said, look, in two weeks they are going to slaughter us, namely the hamas, and we want people of goodwill to know about it. all, right so i said to him we will send humanitarian people, and he said there are politics to its peers in. he looked to be utterly mystified indecent what are the politics of it? under islamic rule of you choose will be utterly secure because you will be protected by us by any islamic state. you're people of the book and you'll be protected because that is the islamic world so if you are worried about security you will be secure. he didn't hide anything, he said

in the worst of conditions expecting slaughtering and yet he said and gave vanhollen an year in the whole account. whether he would present to hamas or not i doubt it. he is an important element in the hamas is more complicated. just to love to gather all the extensions of hamas and to take the worst case is the most representative, that's easy for propaganda purposes here for politics i think one should really be more nuanced. >> thank you. at the end you said that on the whole compromise for the sake of peace are good things. do you mean peace in short-term or the long term?

take into account early last century the last -- and just say it could question being asked to compromise cannot really be compromised in the return of oppression or do consider that a compromise? thank you. >> you ask me success of question, each one of them is a chapter in the book. [laughter] so it is almost as if you advertise. [laughter] because of exactly dealing with those questions. i am talking about exactly compromise for the sake of these things, the way you can talk about the use and against keeping did. dight as it was called as an

option. even if you have just claimed four territories of something, and giving it that the for the sake of the termination of peace emma not about truth and not about a cease-fire. what is the difference and chile and obviously the case of khosa well was very much on my mind so i think all i can say now you have to read the book. [laughter] >> i hope this comes out well. and i'm from new york city. what i am thinking of is the watch and who and how you began and what i am thinking of is how

do we really ultimately appreciate who becomes legal and how they become evil. for example, when you open a question on the terrorists, for me they become a label, they become dehumanizing and how do we then recognize and deal with the sources, the history that makes them evil? where is morality? you know, in a sense i'm asking, where is justice in the hard and murky area? by the true cockroach. >> there are two approaches to morality. what is the psychology of morality. one is morality is about shaping better human beings, working on

their character. another is you should -- people don't have really characters, they don't have stable traits. the that is just a lazy way of talking about people in which you have to shape is the environment in which they are. scandinavia's may be better not because there are better people, they have a better environment. i'm all for this situation, many people who talk about the environment in character. so i didn't say that some of his evil by character. unwed -- but most people are not of that kind and actually it's an interesting question whether

people with a coherent idea doing something because it is evil so even lucifer rebelled against god and because he wanted to rebel, not because he wanted to do the evil thing. and that's the way rebelling. so i'm not assuming anything is a bad character or evil it terrorists because they have this character or suicidal or in human and whether the others are civilized -- nothing of this sort. i don't assume that for a moment. what i to assume it is there are in ruins and what we should do politically is shape the environment so as to create better behavior. with iowa use the word evil but not as a human trait work human character and behavior and i didn't even try to psychologize hit their.

>> matthew olson. one which you revisit munich as to whether it was a lot of compromise. at all your logic clearly but it seems to mean that they paid the price of the compromise. wasn't invited to participate in negotiating a compromise which would seem to me would indicate a rottenness. >> that's very true and most of the compromise and extent of this, almost most cases like in czechoslovakia. they even came to munich and weren't allowed to participate or even present their case so at the compromise here was

definitely on the expense of this party and that i think almost the usual case. but there are cases, of course, of compromises which are dealing only with two parts. i don't know if that is the answer to your question and war and missed something. >> please identify yourself. >> mike, when you say we should can you identify the we? and how you go about accomplishing and that happy state? >> the way you do, we the people of. we the human beings who care about morality. we the human beings who care about decent behavior. it is that we. who am i to speak of anyone? i can barely speak for myself.

[laughter] but the we see here is a fiction but important fiction. >> there was a minister in israel actually, minister of education and won a charismatic, and he said that i know that i'm crazy half of the week but i don't know in which day. [laughter] >> my name is mack. the question i have goes back to the slavery issue because of lot of what we've been talking about you have seen and i hope you won't get upset this characterization, it's been flexible, but the slavery thing you said because it's a moral issue is essentially non-negotiable. is that what she meant?

>> yes. >> well, suppose the issue can be we can solve it now but the union is very important so we will agree that slavery will be abolished in 50 years here and now you would still have these people that are being treated in in human fashion etc. what would be your position? >> i have a position in the book. [laughter] it would be to achieve just to force you to read the book instead of answering a straight question so i will answer the question in the answer is falling -- you can impose on and sometimes you cannot implement something right away. the point is what is the extent to which you can postpone a political solution? my claim is is what i call the desert generation test. it is not i am against -- this

generation will pay. in your life you on see justice at all, but the next generation will live better. that is what i think is in line want, there will be a great deal of light in the future, now it is dark, but that is only a generation that pays the price if the solution doesn't meet a generation prospect, at the end of the generation to have different life than it is untenable. now, in the case of the american constitution basically the idea was that in 1808 and just about the end of the my test, there will be a change that didn't abolish but there was a change

so have they said at that time and there would be an abolishment then i can see a very strong case for the union, but that wasn't the case. so the main point is the desert and the desert generation comes from the bible mainly moses wasted a generation in the desert because iraq incapable as slaves to go to the promised land but then the next generation will go to the promised land. it's all right for a generation for you and me to tell we are willing to work and sacrifice our life for the better life of our kids. but it's not good for anyone to impose it on us, that's basically it. some people immigrants come to this country in order to have a better life for their kids it is their decision and it gives meaning to their life, but if it were imposed on them, look, you

will be oppressed but toward children will have marvelous futures. that is no good. >> last question, this young lady here. >> hi, the steinberg. i was wondering what your thoughts were in regards to our national issues particularly about human-rights agenda want to say a compromise between gay marriage and its civil unions? >> i don't have a theory of everything. [laughter] i have a view about the question that you asked me about a marriage and civil unions. i think that this state is nothing to do with marriages. marriage should be something mainly sanctifying relations

among human beings as a metaphor, churches, whatever. states should only be concerned with civil unions for the people to decide what other significant civil unions that they want with whomever they want. so that is my position. i think people zero shouldn't fight for recognizing marriage, they should fight for universal civil union rather than universal recognition of marriage which has i think is a mixture of the state having nothing to do with it. that's my position. and another issue is people who care greatly about family values should have adopted the marriage and more than anyone else because this is the ultimate

confirmation of the institution of marriage, a family. people trying to have a family. it's actually surprising and -- i always found it very surprising that the rate of people to get remarried namely those who are divorced once and get remarried it is the same percentage of people who get married in the first place. ha, the people don't blame the institution of marriage and blame themselves in the failure and try again? why people don't in most cases when you fail at something you said the institution is a real. don't do it again? [laughter] white in the case of marriage is not like that. that is a real puzzle for me. [laughter] but then i said i don't have a theory for everything. >> well, i thank you