>> and a lot of things that he taught me. he would frequently say [inaudible] >> if you live long enough, you live to see or experience everything. i've always wanted to be on the stage in hollywood. and i finally made it. [laughter] [applause] >> diane, thank you for that lovely introduction, i guess that would be book four. you touched on the dilemma when you spook about the book. this is the third book that i've

written. how much do you really tell the audience? what's that point at which you tell them too much so they won't bother to get the book? and yet that's what we're here about is to discuss the book. why write the subject? why now? let me answer the three questions, at least stimulate the hope that you would buy it. too late for hanukkah, but earlier enough for christmas.

it certainly will teach and hopefully maybe entertain. why this subject? why write about jews and money. why write about an age old stereotype? well, because it persists. because it's there and pernicious, because it's everywhere. and that's why we fight bigotry and semitism. why have to focus on the aspect of the prejudices. this stereotype goes back 1,000

years. if you examine the roots of western anti-semitism, you will find one the two basic pillars of western anti-semitism. the first being the charge of neosight. the charge that the jews not the romans killed jesus. that became a major legitimatizer, that became content, and that was the basic foundation of so much western anti-semitism. it was the foundation of the inquisition. it was the foundation of expulsions, and it made it reasonable and rational. well, the other pillar at that time was the pillar relating to who sold jesus out and why? and so the second pillar dealt

with the issue of money jews and money. jesus was not sold out by judas for theology, for philosophy, for ideology. we are told and taught, sold him out for 30 pieces of silver. and so throughout at least western civilizationts of anti-e rooted in both elements and it grew, and it grew and became more and more legitimate. well, so then the next question comes. okay. if it's there, foxman, why didn't you write about it 20 years ago? why wasn't it your first book? why now? the answer to that is what started happening in 2008. it's not really made up, but

made of certainly added to the reason. but the primary reason was that in 2008, the world began to experience an economic crisis. an economic crisis of failures. fear for the future, people losing their jobs, homes being foreclosured. and we began to see more and more on the internet in the fringe media, but also mainstream media. references to jews, jewish bankers, jewish influence. and when we looked a little bit closer, because we knew that certainly in europe, much less someone in the united states, in europe for years, last time we tested it, we polled was about five years ago and then again three years ago. that almost 40% of the european

public believes that jews disproportionally have economic power. that jews disproportionally control the economic institutions. so when this economic crisis started we went out to check the pulse of attitudes, we found that 31% of europeans believed that the economic crisis was caused by jews. here in our country where attitudes, prejudices, we're not immuned, it's a lot better than europe. almost one out of five americans believed that. and then became mr. madoff. mr. madoff, all of the sudden people forgot ponzi was not a jewish name. ponzi which has been established as the concept all of the sudden now had been replaced by madoff. we found it distinguishing if the so-called jewish owned "new york times" as we read that in

the conspiracy of the view. found it necessary for some reason we still don't know. because i've had an exchange of correspondence, when the story broke in "the new york times" on the front page twice was reference to mr. madoff's jewishness. in the full story three times. why? why importance did it have then? later it had importance because jews were victims and jewish charities. not when the story broke. not when the indictment was raised. do they write about other people's religions when someone is accused of fraud? the answer is no. but then it became of a special concern to us because the concept, the issue of jews and money, jewish greed, the con --

jews lusting to get power, power to get money, all of the sudden became an avalanche on the internet. in ways that we have never seen it before. so in the madoff story, begin to really play every single day in palm beach where much of the handiwork of mr. madoff was done. the level of anti-semetic response was so huge. they were unable to manage it. the only announcement was to send out an announcement that they would no longer entertain any letters pertained to madoff. because a majority of the letters were anti-semitism.

and in "the herald" the same thing. it's part of our subculture. it's part of our subculture in this country. how often do you hear jew hitch -- jew him down? jewing? how many times has people said it's unacceptable? it's bigotry? that's stereotype and doesn't and shouldn't be. in the anti-defamation lead, i'd be privileged to head aipac, if they asked me. but diane, one organization at a time. [laughter] >> we receive and -- we receive complaints i would say every couple of weeks somewheres. whether in the middle school, pennies are thrown in the courtyard, or sometimes at a basketball court, pennies are

thrown. why? why pennys? well, you see if you throw a penny, if you want to identify and find a jew, throw a penny, only a jew will bend down to pick it up. and these are games being played in playgrounds in middle class. we recently game across -- came across a couple of instances of complaints in basketball games. i don't know to what extent you are familiar. in europe, certain teams have been given, has been called jewish teams. nobody knows why. so when the soccer teams play against each other, it's attacking the jews, it's anti-semitic. sometimes here too, certain basketball teams are designated jewish. and several instances, primarily in florida that we have witnessed in the last couple of years, that pennies were thrown. why? to distract the jewish players on the court.

but it goes much deeper than that. there was a candidate for president three years ago. a nice gentleman, he was the governor of the state. not alaska. he was the governor of wisconsin. and he appeared before a group of rabbis, asked their support for him as a presidential candidate. and in his opening remarks, he said, you know, all my life i spent in public service. and only in the last few years i stepped aside from public service, i went into business, i was successful, and now i know what it feels like being jewish. there was a buzz in the room and a rabbi approached him and whispered something in his ear. and he said oh i meant it as a compliment. doesn't your religion teach you how to make money? now this is not an evil person.

this is not malignant. this is ignorant, infected with the stereotype, and this is a person who's a governor. who set in the cabin room, and yet, this pernicious stereotype has taken on a life of its own. so at moments of crisis, it just plugs in and reinforces. i travel. one the places that i travel both because where i come from and because to germans date of the cemetery of the jewish people is poland and eastern europe. you can travel through eastern europe, and you can pick up souvenirs. there's a new kind of souvenir. i guess it's not new.

i guess we've noticed it recently. it's a souvenir and it comes in wooden -- wooden-carved figures, it comes in ceramic, it comes in oil painting, it comes in water colors, it comes in all types of material and value. you can buy it for $1, and you can spent $500. what it does is it is a caricature, almost the german striker type of a jew. hook nose, big nose, black hat, black cap, either holding a golden coin, or a bag of money, or sitting at a table counting money. and so as i travel in poland and eastern europe, i would approach the salesperson and said what is this? some would embarrassing saying

[inaudible] it's the equivalent of kite. what for? some are embarrassed. they say it's a good luck charm. i said excuse me, a good luck charm? when somebody goes into new business, new job, new apartment, we buy this for them. we buy for them as an am ewe let for good luck. we are reinforcing the stereotype. it becomes what? goes into a home next to a religion object? i don't know. so i had the opportunity to meet with the minister of education. and i said i know you cannot ban the sale of things. but shouldn't be prepare or do an educational effort in the schools to teach the students that this is ugly?

this is pernicious? this can hurt. and the minister said to me, mr. foxman, why are you getting so upset. nobody died because of that. wrong thing to say to me. i asked him, how many locals handed over their jews to the germans because they believed that would became rich. i said to him, tell that two elan hilme's family. he was a young man that was four years ago was captured and kidnapped in the streets of paris by a gang. a gang, a muslim-african gang, who kidnapped him because as they said in court, jews are rich. and if you want to become rich, all you have to do is kidnap a jew, hold him for ran -- ransom, and you will become rich. he wasn't rich.

he didn't have the money. they killed him. people say why are you getting so upset about jews having money? i remind them of elan hilme. so that's why it's out there. that's why the timing of the book is now. because the economic crisis continues, the blame game continues, the internet is ripe with conspiracies. and then why? so why write a book? well, i wrote the book in the hope that i can shine the light a little bit to remind people of what stereotypes are about, and how painful, how hurtful, how sinister, how dangerous they are if you let them just be. and it's really a call for good

people, for parents, to teach their children. for good people to have, you know, we do -- there's a lot of work in prejudice reduction. we do it with -- primarily we start with the kids. then at some point, the kids say to us, what do you want from us? and we say to them, we want you to have the courage to stand up and say no when you hear bigotry, when you hear prejudice, when you hear racism. and it sounds so simple. and it's not that simple. look at the tragedies that we've been witnessing with cyberbullying. bullying is something that we have lived with in this country and society for so many years. bullying from our perspective is bigotry, it's hatred.

i don't like you because of your color, ethnicity, religion, because of your size, i don't like you because of your gender, it doesn't really matter. it's whatever is seen by a group as the other. and if you want to appreciate. and what is it? how many kids have the courage to stand up and say no? don't say that. they don't. that's how bullying not only scars, but now it kills because now it's from the classroom, from the school yard, now it's global. now we are seeing young people commit suicide because they can't cope with the bullying, which is now so global. and, you know, what sounds so simple is not that simple.

but it's oh so, so important and significant. and that is the ability to stand up and say it's not funny. don't say that. it's hurtful. and that simple ability to say no, don't do it, is not that simple, is not that easy. it's very, very, very difficult. and my hope is that maybe when people read it, maybe they'll have the courage next time when they hear somebody say you jewing me down? to stand up and say don't say that. i have a chapter which has been reviewed as saying it's a little bit entertaining. jokes, ethnic jokes are not funny. do you remember the period of jap jokes? jewish jokes are routed in the same type of jokes.

it's not funny. it just reinforces, it's painful, and at the end, it's dangerous. and it was also, i guess, an appeal to political leaders, to spiritual leaders, to religious leaders, to have enough knowledge, information, to be able to condemn it. to be able to stand up and say that's not acceptable. that's not the values that we want. i'm now looking -- it's not a fun book. but it's tissue i -- it's it's i think it's a good book if you buy it and read it, i think you'll feel better about yourself as having better understood something that's out there which many of us have ignored. sometimes at our peril. and it's a book that i never thought i would have to write,

or need to write. but it's a book that i think may, may prevent some hurt, some pain, some anguish. we frequently say never again, and we say it sometimes so often that i'm not sure we truly understand what it really signifies. but for me, writing this book is just another expression to put meaning into what to those of us who have survived the holocaust, has become an 11th commandment. and it's on -- coming out of jewish experience. but it's universal. and the never again basically is never again to be silent in the face of bigotry or prejudice or racism. never again to be silent when someone was singled out for who they are, what they are, what

they believe, what their sexual orientation is, whatever it is that makes them other and different never again to just stand by and ignore it and be apathetic. and that's truly the motivation for why i wrote the book. so that more people understand, and that they have a responsibility. which is not that huge of a task. but to be sensitive, to be respectful, but not only in their heart to have the courage to stand up to say no to bigotry. and that's what the book is about. you know what, maybe it isn't a bad choice for a hanukkah, or posthanukkah era of christmas gift afterall. thank you very, very, very much. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. am i on? there. thank you very much, mr. foxman, for reminding us so eloquently about the importance for respect for diversity and humanity to man, and how important it is particularly at this time of year. we'd like to know open it up for question and answer. if you all would please make your questions questions and keep them short so that we can get to as many questions as we possibly can, i think mr. foxman will be with us for a little bit to answer a few questions and then we'll be signing books i believe afterwards for any of you who would like to make that purchase as a holiday gift. who's our first question? let me see, we're going to have to send the microphone through the room. i'm sorry, i have to be reminded of that. we are on television. and we need to make sure that the questions are heard live. so i'm going to ask mr. barkus

to make the microphone around and hold it for you. anyone who would like to ask a question this evening from over on this side of the room? >> gentleman in the balcony. >> hi, thank you for being here. you probably won't like my overall question. i've been very offended by what you have done in essentially denying the armenian genocide, and unfortunately, you are taking down the ideal with you in the eyes of many by denying the armenian genocide, but fighting it's passage in the house of representatives, rather a commemorative, by apologizing to turkey, by saying that the armenian genocide is

tantamounted in this statement. these are all things are a fundamentally denied. my question is when will you correct this very bad path that you are on? you fired people and so forth. when will you correct this? so the ideal isn't further smudged? thank you. >> thank you for your question. i guess i will correct it when i stop beating my wife. but more seriously because it's a very serious question. we have not denied the armenian genocide. we have from -- as long as i'm around in the adl, described it as a massacre. we have described it as an atrocity, and we've called on the turkish government to deal with it, to face the issue, to confront the start of the history, and to engage in

discussions, dialogue, and whatever comes from those dialogues and reconciliation with the armenian people. what we haven't necessarily done is what you and some of your friends respectfully want or not respectfully want, because some of our programs have been threatened programs that provide sensitivity to prejudice. you've insisted that we use your word genocide. we the jewish people suffered a genocide. we don't insist that anyone call it holocaust or whatever. call it what you want. we have very, very clearly throughout -- i've been around for 45 years in the adl, i've been director almost 25 year, you will find an -- on our web

site, you'll find in our language, and you'll find in the materials that we teach that we have never denied it, we have always described it as a massacre, as an atrocity, and we've always called on the turkish government to deal and face. on the issue of legislation, we have an opinion. we never fought it, we never lobbied against it. when asked, we said we do not believe this issue, this painful issue is going to be resolved by a resolution in congress. we have again said this is an issue that needs to be resolved by the two peoples, by the two nations. i still believe to this day that a resolution in congress is not going to resolve it. i believe that the beginning of the process which we've seen in the last year not totally successful, but the exchange of visits between the president of turkey to armenian, and the president of armenia to turkey is the beginning of a dialogue.

a dialogue which hopefully will lead to reconciliation, which will lead to facing the past, which will lead to healing. by good people demanding that we do this and that, unfortunately, that will not bring anybody back to life, nor will it resolve respectfully the issue of history. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. and then we'll do joanna. >> that's right. let mark go ahead. >> mr. foxman, my question basically is my perception over most of my life, certainly the last 25 years of my life is that most groups that have suffered some form of oppression seems to, and you used the term several times in your remarks, you use the term good people. you use the term good people over and over again. and it seems that in our

response to these afflictions, we tend to forget about the good people. we only tend to focus in on that small group of people who know doubt inflicted an enormous amount of pain. but it seems to me that healing, moving forward, and getting beyond this is pretty much to focus on the larger group, which are the good people. that's where the solution is. but i say this as a black man, it appears to me that we don't do that. i mean when are we going to start focusing on the good people? >> okay. well, thank you. i would say i think that's what we tried to do. if i did not believe that we could change peoples minds and heart, i wouldn't go to work in the morning. if i didn't bring that we can bring about epiphany of people, educate, sensitize them, i would not be doing what i've been doing for 45 years. here's the challenge, yes, and

again, the whole -- i'm an optimism, you know, i'm an optimist by virture of the fact that i'm here, that i survived, and i know that even in the midst of evil in the holocaust, their words, as diane said, and the yugoslavia corps peace. if one can save 100,000 human beings, can you imagine if there were 100,000, we couldn't have a holocaust. but you are absolutely right. but the problem is that the bigots operate 24/7. the good people are waiting for somebody. world council, i don't know. and our challenge is to find the way to trigger the good people which are the overwhelming

majority, to, you know, it's not 24/7. to wake up to respond to do. if you would say to me, you know, so what does the adl do? what lesson for me? to let -- what i think we are trying to find are the trigger mechanisms to stimulate, to sensitize, to inspire, to -- the good people to stand up. and again, when i said stand up to say no, it's the -- it's the overwhelming majority. but we say, i got to go back to the holocaust. we saw that -- we saw and we learned that whenever good people said no, people lived. jews lived, gays lived, gypsies lived. there they were. millions of people who didn't do anything. millions of good people who didn't do anything.

the ones that collaborated were a small, small, small group. and the ones who stood up were even smaller. and yet there were all good people. and yet they were all good people. and, you know, i have a -- i have my own little dream. my dream is -- i've sort of -- i've sort of not given up, but i'm -- i used to think that we could find a vaccine against prejudice. you know, on one hand, when you think that we've conquered time and space, reached the moon, we've eradicated smallpox, polio, we've transplanted the heart, why can't we find an anecdote and vaccine against hate or bigotry to maybe, you know, maybe the good people don't need it. but maybe they do. and now i'm somewhat -- my

little dream is we're into dna. and i know a lot of people worry about dna and cloning. but maybe the dna would be able to identify why mr. corpi who could barely read and write stood up and saved another human being. what made people bystanders, what made people courageous. i believe it's out there. i believe we are going to find it some day. but you are absolutely right. we need to focus on the good people, but at the same time, we don't have the luxury to ignore the ugly people, the evil people, the hateful people, and sometimes you need to focus on them to wake up the good people. hey! to say to them you can't just stand by. you need to be educated and you need to educate. the good news is that you are

not born a bigot. the bad news is you learn to be a bigot. and the second bad news, it's much quicker to learn to be a bigot, than to unlearn to be a bigot. but it's in the hands of the good people. but you've got to motivate them. you have to find those trigger mechanisms. and i guess, you know, if you came here, you know i don't sing, you know i don't tell jokes. so you came because you care. in part what we are about is in a very simple way to say to the good people, you have a responsibility, and the responsibility is as simple as standing up. i don't think it's always simple, but standing up and saying no. if not all of them, but many of them would, the things would begin to change in terms of civility and respect in our country and beyond. >> you were pretty close to pope

john ii, john paul ii, and you had interviews with benedict the 16th. >> i can't hear you. >> i can't hear me? i can holler. okay. [laughter] >> you have met with pope john paul ii, and benedict the 16th. have you ever discussed with them their attitudes towards israel and towards the survival of the jewish people? and if so, what were their differences? >> okay. it would be an arrogant for me to say i was close to john paul. one can aspire. i've had the privilege to be with him in his presence, to speak to him on eight occasions.

the importance of john paul was that he changed 2000 years of teaching of contempt. he -- there was vatican ii made some specific very significant changes in the relationship between the jewish people and the catholic church and the vatican. but what john paul did was i would say very, very courageous. probably the most important thing that john paul did was to go to synagogue. the visit of the synagogue was the most important theological statement that the church engaged in in over 2,000 years. by the pope going to synagogue,

he basically said to the christian world that christianity did not supersede judaism. which is what used to be taught. that god's promise and covenant with abraham was not superseded by his covenant with jesus. that judaism is a bible religion, and, therefore, he went to participate, to sit, to bear witness to the vitality of jewish life. and that symbolically, if you will even theologically, was very, very important then. you know, he talked about the jews being the older brother, he talked about anti-semitism being a sin, his visit to jest reduce

almost. i will share with you the insight into the sensitivity of the man. i know the family that lived in rome. one day, it was received by the family. the pope wants to see them. they went to see the pope. the pope said i understand you are a close childhood friend of the chief rabbi. i have decided, the pope said, that i would like to visit the synagogue. but i don't want to put this rabbi, the rabbi in a position where he has to say yes. so if i would call him pope or i would write him, he would have to sort of say yes. so i've asked you tell the rabbi that i would like to visit the synagogue. if he wants me to, if he's comfortable. message was carried, the rabbi sent a message back to the pope

saying i need a week. and that week, he polled the rabbis of europe, as he left that was not his own decision. the rabbis of europe said, yes, welcome. but the sensitivity of that man to ask whether it would be comfortable and accepting. by the way, the rabbi is mentioned in john paul's will by name. you ask the difference. the difference is in style. everything that john paul did had to have the acquiescence of benedict who was cardinal roth inger. he was the keeper of the faith. he was the partnership. the pope was the public voice and figure. but any changes or any nuance in the dogma, anything to change had to have his approval.

so that everything that was done had this current cardinal's approval and acquiescence, and what was important in the sense of this -- and again it's a different style, it's a different ethnicity, it's, you know, it's primarily personality differences. but what was also important because a lot of people said, well, that was john paul because he was polish, and he was -- he grew up in poland or in the holocaust. and that's almost an aberration. what was -- what's important about cardinal benedict that he institutionalized the things that john paul did in changing the relationship between jewish people and a christian catholic world. and if you watch, he follows in his foot steps. he visited the synagogue in rome. in every country that he goes, he visits a synagogue. he was in new york, he visited a synagogue.

he meets with the jewish community. so again to indicate that this changed relationship is not at persona of john paul, but it was institutional. they are criticizing his style, not the substance of the relationship. if you look at the history of anti-semitism, the history, the most dramatic change in 2,000 years is the change of the attitude between the catholic church and judaism. because unfortunately, it was for many, many years the ones that were legitimatized it. it was the most dramatic change in anti-semitism, now we have another issue. now we, you know, we have the issue with islamic fundamentalism. that's become the new vehicle for anti-semitism, whether it's

iran, whether it's hamas, whether it's hezbollah, whether it's the extremist who have hijacked islam and it's radical. that today is the greatest anti-semitic vehicle there. it's no longer what it used to be. it's now a new challenge. but this current pope currently is carrying on the tradition in john paul in the relationship of the jewish people. [inaudible comment] >> i don't know where much about the air -- armenian and turkish situation. the first questioner was asking you about the jewish opinion of the situation. and i am asking you if -- what went -- the massacre that the

armenians suffered to use your words, what started that? where the turks just on a rampage, or did the armenians have anything to do with this? was there something that went on before that to cause it? >> respectfully, i am not a historian, certainly not a historian of that issue, i have read some books, there are various opinions, so i don't -- it's not an -- the fact is nobody challenges the fact that whatever the cause, there was a massacre. whatever the cause, there were atrocities. that's not the question. why, when, how, whenever it it , it was horrendous and as

horrific as is reported. so, you know, again for us -- it's not for us -- i don't tend to be historians, we've never denied. it's not a question for us to acknowledge. comes to the jewish people to acknowledge other people's tragedies, i understand, but i don't understand. but again if it is to be resolved, it was the jewish people that resolved their relationship with germany. nobody else. nobody else. so it's the people who were the parties, whether it's 20 years or 50 years or 100 years that's for whom it is to resolve. not for us. >> are there any other questions? please identify yourself. >> thank you, i'm gabriel, council of hungary. but i like your future tense.

thank you very much. hungary will take over the precedence of the european union. as you mentioned, there's anti-semitism within the europe, what can the european union and precedence do that? >> anti-semitism, europe, what can the european union do, et cetera? well, the most recent explosion of anti-semitism in europe occurred in the year 2000. something that shocked a lot of people. didn't shock some of us who were watching it, because the old anti-semitism was never really purged out. the country that did most in facing the history in terms of anti-semitism was germany. but the rest of europe, some played victim, austria played

victim. the anti-semitism relating to israel, what some had said, israel became the jew of the nations in the same way that historically, you know, whatever was permitted for everybody else was not permitted for the jew. now israel was singled out in the sense that all countries can, you know, defendants of israel cannot, all countries can choose their capitol, israel cannot. what countries legitimacy is being challenged 60 years after it's establishment? israel. so that added to anti-semitism in europe, you had a human conveyor belt of some radical muslims who helped. and so the biggest problem facing europe was denial. that means european leadership denied that there's a problem.

that there's anti-semitism. i remember president comes to the united states with four jewish leaders. there's no anti-semitism in france. ask my jews. two said yes, one said no, one said maybe. okay. we said president, there's anti-semitism in new york. so there's anti-semitism in paris. but as long as there was denial, they didn't do anything about it. they didn't face it. somewheres around 2004, 2005, the attitudes changed. and they changed because i can tell you where the president, he woke up one morning to find out that the night before the police stopped an attack on a jewish day school. god forbid if the police had not stopped it, france would have became a place that 900 jewish children could have been -- god forbid. he stood up and said there's

anti-semitism. we need to do it. today france is the model country as how to deal between the ministry of justice, education, interior, there's police protection, holocaust education is mandated, and it's anti-semitism is taken seriously. it is condemned whenever it rears it's ugly head, et cetera. that's what europe needs to do. europe started doing something else through the eu. we start, first of all, there's the recognition of the holocaust commemoration day, which is the say of the liberation of auschwitz, and it's been declared as a day of commemoration on the holocaust. there are efforts to continue to teach or to begin to teach the holocaust, not only as a jewish tragedy, but as a universal tragedy in a sense of the level. and the eu has had conferences

on hate on the internet, it has translated some adl materials on prejudice, we are engaged in efforts with some eu agencyies to sensitize law enforcement. police officers sometimes, they come on the scene of conflict and can either become the problem or the solution. if they don't understand prejudice, or prejudice themselves, it makes it worse. the eu can facilitate not only as a voice, it's important to have a voice, but there's need for education and implementation that say yes, there's anti-semitism. a lot of material needs to be translated, needs to be made available. teachers need to be taught how to teach. you know, i'll be delighted to give you a shopping list. but basically, there is today recognition that there is a problem. and european union is dealing

with islam-phobia as well. that's a problem in europe today. we're struggling with the issue of internet. internet is both a magnificent vehicle for education, information, and interaction, but it's also provides the superhighway for bigotry. the question is how do you balance freedom of speech, freedom of expression, privacy, how do you protect it? we are struggling with it. the eu is a good forum. we have problems of conflict of laws, because there are laws in europe which says you cannot sell, or you cannot deny the holocaust. but europeans can buy from amazon or barnes & noble or whatever. so we have issues to resolve. but again we need -- the eu is a good place, a good forum to bring countries together. under the eu umbrella, there's a conference this week in turkey on holocaust studies, which

travels from country to country. so the answer is the delighted that they finally recognized that the problem exists. and needs more funding, more attention, and i'll be delighted to sit with you or discuss it later. >> before we come up to close out the program, we have time for one more question. i'm afraid she won't do it if i don't give the question to her husband. he does have a question. >> thank you. you are a great guy. we're glad to have you here. but my last question you said god had a discussion with abraham. your name is abraham. was it you? [laughter] >> i believe so. and the question is?

>> former president of james madison and thomas jefferson are examined in andrew burstein and nancy isenberg's new book, "madison and jefferson." thomas jefferson's monticello in charlottesville, virginia, hosts the event. >> good afternoon. my name is