taken as a framework for smith's work as a moral philosopher and is a political economist is really quite extraordinary and is much more extraordinary than i believe that historians have realized. smith began his scores are added to his scores his own equivalent of logic and metaphysics, origins of knowledge. he does it in the most peculiar way. he does this by inviting us to attend almost exclusively to the way in which we use language. his logic, his approach to the study of knowledge is to present us with a study of language and of how we acquire it, how we deploy it and particularly the taste we show human life and

using this language in the company of others and in social context. what a strange thing to do to what has been the study of logic and metaphysics? in his moral philosophy, he builds on this. he talks about the way in which we acquire sentiments of morality, just this, political obligation, particularly aesthetics. and he does two things, which are interesting. the first is the very quietly distances about his notion that there is a moral sense. no one can doubt we have the moral sensibility, but is it

hogwild and the human personality. smith saw no reason to believe that. we have been acquired sensibility. how do we do with? essentially through sympathy with others. sympathetic relationships which are fostered and shaped by language. that is where sensibility comes from. that is where moral sensibility comes from and that is where the various aspects of said ability and make it possible for us to function as sociable animals. the moral sensibility, sense of fairness and justice, the sense of obligation to sovereigns. the sense of beauty, which attend the social virtues. the second thing smith does ms think that if privileging the sense of morality as being the primary said for which all

further different aspects of her social sensibility stand is justice. a sense of fairness, which is the origins of our sense of just this, which gives birth to a sense of justice. and so we have the sense of justice, we have no hope of acquiring we have acquiring everything i'll spirit his ideas -- his ideas of why we open a government to men of power and the men of rank is entirely disgraceful. it is contemptible as anything as turned out, anything that has turned out the enlightenment. it is simply a really disgraceful disposition to

sympathize with the fortunes of the great and powerful. a natural respect. and this is the sole -- the sole pillar on which our political sensibilities have respect for political obligation naturally rises. now, the point i want to make your visit at this agenda is really quite fascinating. through it all runs a single feet. and that is that the primary care eristic of human nature, the characteristic which renders, which makes it possible for us to understand the world

and understand ourselves and to operate affect totally and happily within it. and a last resort comes down to a disposition to exchange, to exchange goods, foods, services and sentiments. it's smith says in the wealth of nations, the habit of exchange is a habit in which we indulged in the cradle through the grave. i principle of exchange runs through every single aspect of smith's understanding of the principles of human nature as he develops enhanced philosophy syllabus at glasgow. and what of that principal

exchange has built into it is a notion that if we want to understand the principles of human nature, than actually what we have to attend to his emphatic something -- this is essentially historical as a process, within the framework of historical time, ira moral understanding of the world of ourselves is the result of experience, which is something that happens within historical time. our own particular areas. our own particular experience is within the conventions of a particular civil society. and what is more come the conventions of the civil society are only truly explicable within the framework, within the framework were futile or commercial or capitalists are

postcapitalist society. what smith was same holds together and turns and allows us to understand principles of human nature. it is something like a deep historical process. i'm what i want to emphasize here is that what is completely lacking from all of this and what makes this study in itself is enormous and even revolutionary important for an historian is that there is no mention of the necessity of religious belief smith never denies a lot of people do what they do for religious reasons. they say on every occasion you can find a natural reason, drop from philosophy and history and ask. , which will provide a stronger account of principles, which otherwise theologians,

theological principles to understand. religion has been taken out of the moral philosophy curriculum. it has not happened in northern europe, north or south. it is a revolutionary moment in history of moral philosophy and therefore a revolutionary moment in the sort of education, which was designed to prepare essentially from the middle ranks of society for life in the professions in public life. and as i say, because msn teer and no one gets a chance to ask questions, i do want to say here but if you want one of the keys to why adams met the matter to an historian, i haven't had time

to mention he to present scottish intellectuals are particularly christian scottish intellectuals with the most enormous challenge of how you can rebuild a public culture in scotland on the basis of a credible system of natural theology, not the old one that has been rejected. and i say, i do want to say in talking about this, one of the things i've tried to do and would love to do more of an will do more of in the future is to expose the huge debt that adam smith owed to his closest friend, david hume, they are accustomed to recognize david hume to partially or partially shaping the economic thinking. we know about that.

they make it when it comes to the end of david hume's philosophical life and the authorship of the political discourses of 1752. what i don't think is better has been nearly enough appreciation for the huge export tens of smith's revolutionary dutch revolution in understanding of human nature, hume's skepticism, his philosophical skepticism. and it is important in shaping hume's own agenda for a science of man. and really i am concluding at this moment, mr. chairman. i do think what is interesting is to think about smith as a man who in many risk hikes completed an extended that extraordinary project of creating a science of man, which was -- which disregarded religious principles

altogether. and it is that that i try to remember in this boat. thank you very much. [applause] >> very good. very interesting. now if professor philipson's top has stimulated your desire to buy this book. if you say man, i'd like to be but both. here is what the book looks like. this is what you are looking for. if you say to me, aren't you engaging in shameless marketing on behalf of this book? my response to you with the i don't think adam smith would mind. [laughter] on jabbar commentator. james otteson is professor at the fund for american studies in washington d.c. he was a da at the university of notre dame and advanced degrees

including a phd from the university of chicago. his help previously at georgetown university and the university of alabama. he is the author of atoms is marketplace of life, 2002 from cambridge in actual at the at the same publisher in 2006. the latter one, temples and enterprise award. he is the editor of the levelers. i know we were against them, but i guess that's probably not right. you can always get straightened out at these things. and he's also the editor of adam smith philosophical writings in 2004. his book "adam smith" will be published in 2011 and he is currently working on a book and he is very industrious, wouldn't you agree? he is currently working on a book of the moral status of

socialism. would you please welcome james otteson. [applause] .. for the astonishing growth in wealth and prosperity in the west but also blamed by many for the inequalities in wealth that have arisen in that time. so we have the interesting, and deirdre mccloskey argues that adam smith's ideas have led to more good for humanity than any other single -- i can see you

better more than any other single person in the history of humankind and we have geoffrey sax is suggests smithian markets have led to exploitation and environmental degradation. all of this accomplished by a socially awkward 18th-century scottish philosopher who wrote after only two books his whole life which is hardly enough to get him a full professorship at an american university these days, this suggests something of a puzzle. what were those momentous ideas, good or bad happens someone in an obscure place or time have brought such tremendous effect on the world? there has been quite a range of writing from adam smith in all matter of perspective that for full disclosure right contributed to that and smith has indeed been appropriated by

many people including academic discipline and political parties, schools of economics, moral agendas to serve their own purposes. you can make one wonder reasonably whether one might get a true measure of the man. where can one find an account of smith that you can trust and which sketches his ideas and tricks through development with proper reckoning in smith's time, places, friends, experiences as professor nicholas phillipson's book is an excellent place to start. i couldn't have pulled it off. it is a credible discussion, the demand of scholars for precision, comprehensiveness and of a scholarly apparatus. or demand of non scholarly readers for a book that tells a

compelling story, professor nicholas phillipson tell the interesting story about an economist which i didn't think was possible. hats off to you. in truth as nicholas phillipson pointed out smith was a moral philosopher. that is what he called himself. this moral philosophers sought to understand principles that animated all human behavior. east and a scholarly life trying to describe these principles and in so doing articulated not only a conception of social institution, and a plausible naturalistic picture of human psychology and human nature but also delineated, methodology for research about human society he not only locate human behavior

also explain mistakes from and how he departs from others. so you get smith's relationship to his teacher francis hutcheson and also fleshed out conversations for the reliance on departure from other major figures from the time david hume, henry james, adam ferguson, edmund burke whose statue is just outside, all these players fit into, allowing the reader to make sense of the constellation of stars, and what he has done, readable prose, smith's project has found expression in the lectures he gave and essays he wrote in the learned society he joined and the two books that he published.

it brilliant mind trying to understand the institutions that lead to human happiness and flourishing combined with the generosity of souls that smith had. as a person committed to using his discoveries to help remove obstacles to the well-being of the common man. it is an inspiring story. i say that in all sincerity. it justifies recommending that i read it. since part of my duty as a commander is to point out and criticize faults of a book. i spent some time looking for fault when i work through nicholas phillipson's book. i have a hard time finding any. when nicholas phillipson's interpretations are close to my own. that is a discovery that i was happy to make. for the sake of discussion let me point out a few things. maybe gentle suggestions. as a philosopher i feel duty

bound to raise the 40 issue of the so-called is/what problem. this relates to the logical fallacy of the normative statement or thought statement. from a descriptive war is statement such and such is the case or the fact. it was smith's friend david hume who articulated this in the fallacy of human nature noting the frequency with which moralist's would go from describing a certain state of affairs to immediately drawing moral conclusions or moral injunctions from. but he noted that doesn't quite work logically. one can describe all factual details of murder for example, determining any specific moral conclusion to draw from it. the moral value is something that has to be added. one can't simply go from one to the other. i raise this now because smith has a foot in the normative and description camps in both of his

two books. it is not quite clear or at least not quite an contested how he resolve's it. . smith discusses the theory of moral sentiment the impartial spectator. and they decide what to do. when you know what you are doing, you ask yourself what an impartial observer of your contract would think would such an observer approve? would such an observer disapprove? this can give you a guide whether you should do it or not. on the other hand according to nicholas phillipson, smith uses this impartial spectator not just as a description of how people make decisions but how they ought to make decisions. to be a moral person you should listen to the voice of the impartial spectator. that raises the question of what exactly is smith doing in the theory of moral sentiment.

is he a moral psychologist merely describing his empirical findings about the phenomenon of human moral judgment? or is he a moralist who is making recommendations about how people ought to live? it seems he is at least the former a bleak and arguably the latter as well. the question is how to go together. i'm sure nicholas phillipson has an answer to that but i will be interested to hear what it is. similar issue arises in the wealth of nations. when smith declares it is not the benevolence of the butcher of the borrower or the baker and recycle this line with me. it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, brother or the baker that we accept our dinner but from there regard to their own interests. that sounds like a descriptive statement and as some have said a rather cynical one. one might ask the question, perhaps that is how we often do behavior but is it how we should behave? the question again is what kind of claim is smith making? really describing the way human

beings tend to behave or is he making a recommendation? my first gentle suggestion to professor nicholas phillipson is to address the issue and try to sort it out one way or the other. there are a handful of important topics to which might one wish nicholas phillipson had given more than just cursory attention. i will mention one. that question is how can one reconcile smith's argument for free trade? indeed in his own words, very violent attack on the whole commercial system of great bearden. how can one reconcile this with as nicholas phillipson describes it, vigorous, exacting people even punctilious fulfillment of his duty as the commissioner of customs for the last decade or so of his life? how can one square the fact that smith argued for the abolition of tariffs, quotas and other

impediments to trade with the fact that when given the opportunity applied and exacted exactly those things with great enthusiasm and perhaps with relish. in 1773 smith was offered the chance to buy that tutor to the duke of hamilton. he turned it down and instead in 1778 he became the commissioner of customs. as phillips and -- as nicholas phillipson notes it was a mistake to turned down the hamilton offer because the job of commissioner of customs consumed more and more of smith's time and also negatively affected his health as well. as a result it probably prevented him from completing the great and large and tragically never published project that he had been working on at the end of his life. instead smith connected history of liberal science and elegant art as his executors' described it on which he had worked for

many years but never brought to fruition and instead is no and manuscripts as nicholas phillipson recounted a few minutes ago were burned at his direction only if you weeks before he died. so why would he not only have taken a job that conflicted with his principles but also prevented him completing projects that he loved and believe in? and i would guess that no one would be a better position to address these questions than nicholas phillipson. i would be interested to know what he thinks and on a related but more philosophical note one might ask how one should understand smith's endorsement of free trade and also his endorsement of limited government with his as nicholas phillipson describes it pervasive doubts about the competence of modern government on the one hand with on the other hand is rather long list of duties that smith in various places suggest were the sovereigns including i might add frequent public diversion.

how do these things go together? in the interest of time are have rather examples but perhaps the issue nicholas phillipson raised about religion is an interesting one. whether he retained his religion on the one hand and what role religion or god played in the theory of moral sentiment or the second issue of nations. i would be happy to discuss those in the question and answer session. another issue i myself have written about but would be quite interested to see that nicholas phillipson did not write was the so-called adam smith problem. some of you may be interested in the discussion of that or even knowing what that is. nicholas phillipson did not discuss it in his book. i would like to close my remarks by pointing out what i think is the most important and even and lightning lessons from nicholas phillipson's book. professor nicholas phillipson at the end of the book rights that -- i am quoting nicholas phillipson -- the greatest and most enduring long did -- monument to the intellectual

culture of the scottish alignment. that is quite a statement. i will read it again. the greatest and most enduring monument to the intellectual culture of the scottish alignment. if you know something about the astonishing production of human knowledge in a whole range, virtually every area of human learning that went on in the scottish enlightened and locate that book is the greatest achievement, that is quite an important and strong statement. what i would like to say about that is nicholas phillipson's book shows it is not unfair to say the story of the scottish enlightenment actually parallels and reflects the story of adam smith himself. the story of the scottish enlightenment is a deep and profound sense the story of adam smith. given how profoundly our own world has in turn been shaped by the ideas that came out of the scottish unlike and i guess we can say smith's story is the story also of us. to understand adam smith is to

understand ourselves. nicholas phillipson's book describes a deep and for a picture of the complex life of adam smith. and in this astonishing period of the scottish unlike men. it provides an illuminating and surprisingly timely window onto our own place in the world today. thank you. [applause] >> we have had a very good forum here today. this has been extraordinary. we will cap off with a great question and answer session. as a look at that, raise your hand if you have a question. please say -- indicate your name and affiliation also and wait for a microphone to arrive so we can get the sound throughout and finally, please have your comments in the form of a

question and if you want to direct them to one or the other indicate so. the gentleman here in front had his hand up first. >> the need is steve hankin. no real affiliation. i want to ask both of you whether you think in any way adam smith could be considered a forerunner of the austrian school and when i say that i mean the kind of method of deductive reasoning that the austrians embrace reverses the experimental models that have come up afterwards. the question is do you think that he pretty much embraced deductive reasoning metd method?

>> bose gentlemen. first the arthur. >> the short answer is no. whether he can be seen as a forerunner to the austrian school of economics is not to say that they won't get the end of the day agree on many aspects of what the proper scope than function of the government is for example. but smith was anything but a first. he did not begin with first principles and deduce from that. the principle of government or economics. he was much more of a grounded and empirically oriented philosopher. that is one of the main characteristics i would argue of the scottish enlightened or scottish historical method. emblematic of. if you want to know what sort of government you should have or are human societies work go and look. after all, the panoply of human experiment there have been, offer quite a range of human

experiments. go look at them and see what has worked and what hasn't worked. that typifies the approach of adam smith. that is not to say he wouldn't be in agreement with historical figure. smith read john locke and the second treatise, was fully conversant with the tradition that john locke would have represented whereas certain principles of human nature to deduce from that, the proper scope of government. that wasn't his approach. they have agreed in any conclusions but would have arrived at them in different ways. >> one of the things that is often forgotten with the wealth of nations is the consequences, the sheer richness of the book. it tends to encourage speculation about what might smith have thought about something as well as what smith

did think. i make that distinction because smith it seems to me is extremely careful methodologically and as an executive in writing the wealth of nations to produce and analysis which explains why we have got in western europe, in french and british civilization to the stage we have got at present. is this a doesn't allow him to for nearly principles any more general than that. the human underpinning of his thinking, the historic character of his reasoning does not allow him to explained anything more than the dilemmas and problems of governance that exist within his own society. the trouble in doing that, he

praises all sorts of general questions which may or may not apply to the experience of civilizations beyond his own region. it is very interesting. one thing i tried to do, riding which after on the wealth of nations was too strict the analysis back to what smith was claiming he could throw light on. as a political economist with a sense of public duty, he is very careful about stopping the argument. the point beyond which only the imagination can take us and levy utopian can go. in that respect i don't -- a port economist. i don't so much c smith's affinities line with the vienna school so much as lying with --

i am afraid, canes. [talking over each other] >> a new set of hands have guns of. the human mind has more in common with maynard keynes. >> the gentleman in the second row from the aisle right here. i had and to go at random. there is no plan there. we did get more and. >> i am not affiliated. nicholas phillipson, what things did you learn when writing this book that you did know previously or things that added to your understanding that surprise you? >> the relationship with david

hume. i have always been intrigued by the relationship between david hume and smith. has anyone is bound to be. it is the depth of that relationship. the thing that i must say really got the text moving as far as i could see was when i tried to present a smith as an extremely friendly and intelligent critic of david hume's project for science of man and set out in the treatise of human nature. it is very interesting to reflect on what is at the beginning of his career. and continued in glass go. to read these as developing fame

is that we don't really know about. why is there no theory of language in the treatise of human nature and? david hume's science of man depends on a theory of language which will privilege and understanding of this course. doesn't produce one. smith does. the fact that david hume has an understanding, that our ideas of justice and morality and obligation and everything will vary in different types of civilization. hunter gatherer, futile and commercial. but doesn't work it out. he makes these distinctions in his early work but they are not developed. smith came over to me from someone who was developing in

the most friendly and brilliant way. that was the most exciting faint for me to develop and carry that through. it is an interesting question. >> the woman right here. >> i have a theater reviewer for dc the theater. i just survived candied which had a very successful run here. a musical which bernstein continuously revised what voltaire was trying to say. that is my basic question. do you explore what was going on in france. especially between 1750, and

1770. tell me out here with the optimist. there is a movement -- this idea that you can guarantee individual liberty but not the result. there is the delightful numbers, the best of all possible worlds. he makes outrageous fun of this belief, ridiculous belief that came out of the enlightenment that this is the best of all possible worlds. when there's an earthquake in lisbon, people are in dire poverty begets turtle what is the use? this honest endeavor at being so clever if you just have to pass it along, pass along, pass it

along. >> i wish i had seen this version of candied. it was approved by bernstein, it was vastly intriguing. all sorts of things happened but i am not sure bernstein's candied is -- i think it is a pretty free go at full fare. what voltaire would have said i don't think -- it would help undoubtedly have been memorable. the point is adam smith, is important to remember although full fare does not appear on the surface as a player in any of his debates with fringe, let alone -- he does not play or talk but that does not mean will chair is not there.

smith phoned and bought, he met voltaire and talked with voltaire and once started to criticize full fare and said there is only one full share and he bought a magnificent bust of him. what a that reminds me is this is smith on full fare. nil and 5 clerical. it is very interesting that in this classic confrontation between unlike meant and religion, the classic implications, all of that, that does not appear on the pages of smith at all. david hume's anti clericalism, religious skepticism is constantly resurfacing in his writing.

smith never is. one of the interesting things to ask is why when he has adopted a philosophy which is -- which in fact argues for the irrelevance, philosophical irrelevance of theology, when there is free little doubt that he was alarmed by the consequences of clericalism of david hume, voltaire or anyone why he does not allow it to intrude into the center of his philosophy which he doesn't. >> i think he does. in the following way. he does mention will fare. the answer to your first question is he does discuss the connection to the french enlightenment. there's quite an important way in which will tear figures into a lease part of smith's political and philosophical program. i would suggest this for your

consideration. at the end of candied, i have not -- one of the lessons is to attend to the garden. this is a powerful inside and it figured mightily in smith's the clasping of political philosophers. the extent to which our legislators should no longer imagine that they can apprehend the good with a capital g the way plato imagine the philosophers would do and organize the entire state from top to bottom in terms of conception of the good life. what we ought to do is create a framework in which individuals tend to their own garden. we can become a nation of shopkeepers and that is all right. you manage your life in the best way you know how to the talents and opportunities you have and the values you have wherever they are. the state's job is to provide a framework in which you can do is add to the degree possible

unmolested by others you don't want to be molested by. that is in a sense a transformation of the idea that whereas god might be the mark in the next realm and voltaire once to get rid of that as well. will we're doing in this realm, and the legislators, what secular does and -- allowed to have a framework. that is a powerful idea. will chair might have been one of the sources of this idea. >> the want to say more on that? >> you said it elegantly.

i don't see -- it belongs to a family of views -- [talking over each other] >> if i were to track the making of this thinking, i don't dreadful fear into it. >> there may be other reasons for that. >> we don't care as long as canes doesn't show up again. >> smith was a studied mercantilism, e release studied capitalism and also of originated the today she have to export. we see today that china is the principal exporter and the u.s.

is tremendous deficit and balance of trade. would you say china is a great follower of adam smith and the u.s. is a poor follower of adam smith? >> adam smith is certainly read in july. i live in the hope of getting a transit -- chinese translation of my book. i very much doubt whether the present government or the government of the last half generation in china has actually been sitting there with copies of the wealth of nations on the desk. i think the intellectual history of policy formation and respect of management and trade in china over the last 25 years is much more complicated than that. us suspect extremely interesting.

i am no economist. it is a much more multifaceted and not necessarily exclusively pragmatic approach to the management of trade. that is from and economics amateur like myself. >> may i say something to that? i would suggest in the last 30 years or so, china has been surprise. chinese communist leadership has been surprised the extent to which adams smith's ideas work. areas in which smithian markets have operated giving people property rights, allowing them to do with their profits as they would like and to exchange surplus value and good that they would like and look of the astonishing growth in production that that has enabled. is the chinese communist

government turning into a smithian style if you like liberal government? no. are they coming perhaps grudgingly to see the power of markets and the good that they do? >> may i make one more comment? one of the things we don't take enough account of in this mess is precisely what he means by markets. if you look at the modeling of his discussion of markets, he is taking an essentially or original view of the market and thinking of the interplay between town and country. >> also between countries. >> the notion of moving -- these are the two goals on which he operates but it seems to me

there is a real ambiguity and interesting ambiguity about what he means by a national market. i suspect although this is speculative that there are good reasons for that. was there a scottish market in the scottish economy? was it legitimate to talk of scotland as a particular market? it was in some respects in relation to be workings of the tobacco trade but on the other hand, just what the nature of that market is. when you move between the market that is recognized by a simple path of interchange between town and country and a sort of market that is determined by customs regulations, i find myself wondering just what smith meant

by market in that respect. for someone whose thinking is as precise on these matters i find that is intriguing. i don't quite know what to make of it. >> this gentleman right here? >> i am sorry. my name is a veto. i have a fourth coming book. i had to discuss some of these issues. i have just one comment and one question. the comment is the view that adam smith had a very limited role of the state and, is not correct for the time. enormous extension.

what he wanted was away from their country with more efficient rolls. that is my comment. the question is adam smith has a lot of confidence in markets. this is very central. and the same time he was very skeptical about lots of statements and the wealth of nations and so forth so my question is if you were leaving today after two years, what role would you assign the state in terms of regulation? >> one addendum to your comment, he was quite critical of merchants but he was critical of many classes of people, professors, and other people who used to certain social institutions to their own advantage. that was the crux of the criticism he was raising towards

merchants. the problem with merchants was when they joined hands with ministers of the state to protect them from competition to give them special privileges which certainly would enrich those protected merchants and usually in -- indirectly those who gave protections but also at the expense of the common man so it wasn't just merchants he was criticizing but anyone who tried to use various kinds of social and political economic apparatus to enrich themselves at other people's expense. [inaudible] >> i agree with your comment and most of jim's -- the important thing is that smith would not have designed their was a role for regulation.

the question of regulation was one that would have to be taken seriously. the interesting evidence of that is smith on a roll of banking in the wealth of nations i got particularly interested in this because he spent some time on scottish banking and ghastly banking crisis in 1772 and the housing crisis is really quite ridiculous. the question he has in the context of 18th-century banking is these credit shops should be allowed to talk. that is a comment but the point is worth making that he regards this question of regulation whether there should or shouldn't be as a highly serious question and he does not give a universal answer to it. his answer is historically defined by the limits of the

existing system and he took the question seriously. he delayed completion of the wealth of nations by 18 months while he attended to it. i read smith as beginning, middle and end a pragmatist in the matter of regulation but always and always accompanied by an extraordinarily acute sensitivity to the way in which interest groups operate in relation to government, civil service and industry. >> one other thing. this may be a difference between us. i think smith would be agnostic with respect -- to see what regulations we are talking about and what are the effects but he

is not neutral. his reading of human history is government intervention tends to reduce productivity, tends to have various kinds of bad consequences. much of the argument in the wealth of nations is shifting the burden of proof. we want to assume that human being allowed to lead their own affairs and without tty otrs reading, right? in our house we read all the time. got a call him the vacuum cleaner because he knows fact about everything. you want to the fact people? you have got to read in order to do that. we will start by reading something fun. secretary duncan and i were big dr. seuss fans. do you want to talk about your reading exploits? >> we have two children at home builder than most of you guys but if we had a nickel for every

dr. seuss books we read we would be rich. the more you guys are reading for fun at home. turtle turn those tvs off at night and leave the video games alone, read not for her work but for pleasure. if you become lifelong reader is you can do anything you want. i will tell you a quick story. my parents were a little bit crazy. guess how many tvs we had? we had zero. i had to stay with my friends to watch tv and my parents read to me and my brothers and sister every night and didn't always understand that but did instill in as a love of reading and we are thankful for that. so reading for pleasure, stories are mysteries or adventure or comic books or nonfiction, whatever it might be, if you do that you will do very well rest of your lives. he want to hear a story?

green eggs and ham. ever-one before? i am sam. i am sam. sam i am. that is sam i am. i do not like that sam i am. to you like green eggs and ham? >> i do not like them, sam i am. i do not like green eggs and ham. >> would you like and here or there? >> i would not like some here or there. i would not like the many where. i do not like green eggs and ham. i did not like them, sam i am. >> would you like them in a house. would you like and with a mouse? >> i do not like them in a house. i did not like them with a mouse. i do not like them here or there. i do not like them anywhere. i do not like green eggs and ham. i do not like them, san i am. >> would you eat them in a box?

would you eat them with a fox? >> not in a box, not with a fox, not in a house, i would not eat them here or there. i would not eat them anywhere. i would not be green eggs and ham. i did not like them, sam i am. >> would you, could you in a car? eat them, he them here they are. you may like them. you will see. you may like them in a tree. >> i would not, could not in a tree. not in a bond. you let me be. i did not like the mailbox. i do not like them with a fox. i did not like the in-house. i did not like that with a mouse. i do not like him here or there. i do not like them anywhere. i do not like green eggs and ham. i did not like them, sam i am. >> a train! a train! could you, would you untrained? >> not on a train, not in a car,

please let me be, i would not, could not in a barn, with a fox, i will not be done with a mouse, i will not need them in a house, i will not eat them here or there. i will not eat them anywhere. i cannot like green eggs and ham. i do not like them, sam i am. >> in the dark, would you, could you in the dark? >> i would not, could not in the dark. >> would you in the rain? >> i would not, cut it in the raid or in a car or in a tree. i did not like them, can you see, not in a house with a mouse or a fox. i will not meet them here or there, i do not like the many where. >> you do not like green eggs and ham? >> i did not like them, sam i am. >> could you, would you with a

goat? >> i would not, could not with a goat. >> would you, could you on a boat? >> i will not, will not with a go. i will not in the rain, at john huddy then on a train, not in the dark, not in a tree, you let me be. i do not like them in a box. i did not like the with the fox. i will not eat them in a mouse and i will not be them here or there, i do not like them anywhere. i do not like green eggs and ham. i do not like them, sam i am. >> you do not like them so you say. >> i am trying to tell you this. >> try them, try them and you may. try the man you may i say. >> if you let me be i will try

them and you will see. >> is she trying them? >> i like green eggs and ham! i do! i like them, sam i am! i would eat them in a boat and i would eat them -- i will be them in the rain and in the dark and on a train and in a car and in a tree, they are so good, so good, you see. i will be the mailbox and i will eat them with a fox and i will be that a house and i will leave them with a mouse and i will leave them here and there and i will lead them anywhere. i love you, sam. i do like grenades and ham. thank you, saying you, sam i am. >> give a round of applause.

[applause] >> i love green eggs and ham. i have some other special guests for you. do you think that might be? president obama is not here but someone else, taller than president obama. the cat in that hat. the cat in the hat could be here? where is the cat in that? where? tell him to come out! come out, cat in that? oh my! oh my! look at that tale.

all right! now, with the cat in the hat and thing 1 and thin 2, all of us together, we want to do a reader's pledge with you. are you ready? got to raise your right hand. raise your hand. >> raise them high. let's see all of them. >> when you hear me say something i want you to repeat after me nice and loud. ready? are you ready? all right! i promise to read. >> i promise to read. >> each day and each night. >> each day and each night. >> i note it is the key to growing a brain. >> to growing up right. >> i will read to myself. i will read to a crowd. >> i will read to a crowd.

>> it makes no difference. if silent or loud. i will read at my desk. >> i will read at my desk. at home and at school. on my beanbag or bad, by the fire or the pool. each book that i read >> each book that i read. >> puts smarts in my head. >> because brains grow more thought. >> brains grow more thought. >> the more they are fed. so i take this oath to make reading my way. of feeding my brain when it needs every day. all right, everybody clapped!

. >> thomas kristy, director of operational test and evaluation will talk about the pentagon labyrinth. the book is a short collection of essays written by experts with years of armed service experience and is intended to help readers understand the challenges decisionmakers face when develop national defense strategy. visit booktv.org at 6:00 eastern time on march 9th and click on the watch icon above the program description in the featured programs section of the page. here's a look at upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. booktv will be live from the tucson festival of books. the topics will be climate change, immigration and women in politics. visit booktv.org for complete coverage information and a schedule of events. the virginia festival of books will take place in charlottes ville from march 16th until the 20th. booktv will record several

programs at this event. to find out when the events will air check booktv.org. from march 17th through nineteenth, the sixteenth annual patchwork tale storytelling festival will happen in south carolina. is there a book festival near you? e-mail the web site to booktv-c-span.org. also visit for more 2011 fares and festivals. pulitzer prize-winning author gordon reed present a biography of the seventeenth tuned