65% of the american population would be casualties. years later, chief of staff sherman adams said what surely applies to president obama today that the real reason a president wants to run again, ad ms -- adams said, because he doesn't think anybody else can do a good of a job as he's doing. >> you can watch this an other programs online at booktv.org. >> and now, stephane e hessel discusses an outrage he wrote about the governments and economic markets which the author contends inpends upon freedoms. it was inspired by a 2008 speech gave to commemorate the french resistance. it's about an hour and a half.

[inaudible conversations] >> okay, can you hear us? so, welcome to everyone here. we're so delighted to have this special event this evening with stephane hessel. we're happy to welcome so many of you here tonight, and it's a great honor for us to welcome stephane hessel to talk about the english translation of the book which has been translated into english as time for outrage and has been published by 12 book group. he has, of course, led a long and rich and very engaged rife. i can only hit on some of the

milestones of that remarkable life in introducing him. he's 93 years old, turning 94 next month. [applause] he is born in germany in 1917 in the midst of the war in the same year of the russian revolution, which was perhaps meaningful for what would come in his life later, and he moved to france with his parents and brother in 1924. he grew up in a very artistic household, family, friends. he was nationalized as a french citizen in 1937. though his citizenship was taken away temporarily in 19 40e when they -- 1940 when the government revoked citizenships when issued in 1927. he had just entered the school

when the second world war broke out. he was mobilized at the outbreak of what's called the phony war captured by german forces after the french defeat, escaped, and found his way back to family members. there, he befriended the american fry who managed to arrange u.s. visas for his new wife, her parents, as well as hups of other french intellectuals, and he left france via algiers to go to london and join forces. in early 1941, he was captured by the gustapo in a resistance mission in 1934. he was entered first in the world concentration camp where he nearly escaped a death sentence and was then

transferred to several other camps during the war and managed to escape from a train in april 1945 where he met up with american troops and rejoined the fight. after the war, he joined the ministry of foreign affairs and began a accomplished career as a dip mat. his first assignment was in new york with a newly founded u.n. where he participated in the drafting of the universal declaration of human rights, and he's held a variety of diplomatic positions including french ambassador to the u.n. and then appointed to a number of key government commissions including the high authority for audio visual communication and human rights. his distinctions include grand officer of the legion of honor and north south pride from the council of europe. he's also always been a fierce advocate for human rights and for social justice. whether this is advocating in

favor of the documented immigrants or the homeless, and he has taken up the cause of palestinians living in gaza as a human rights issue as well, and a forceful critic of israel and treatment of palestinians. he has become front page news as the author of this initially inspired by a speech about the french resistance published in october last year. the initial run was 8,000 copies, but it became a run away best seller more than nearly 2 million copies sold in france, translated into 30 languages, and sold almost 4 million copies worldwide. this little tone struck accord in every country it's been published in. it's up spired youth protests movements around europe, maybe it will inspire one around here,

movements taking this up as they motto, and his book speaks to the younger generation, which it's nice to see so many students in the audience tonight. joining me tonight to interview him is nikil saval of n plus 1 magazine in brooklyn, the best greater burrough in manhattan -- or new york, excuse me. [laughter] freudian slip. it's a legendary mekkah of the u.s.. glad to have him here. [laughter] he's also a proud graduate of columbia. he holds a ba in english and comparative literature from columbia in 2005. i'd like to thank brian and 12 books for publishing this book, and for suggesting that we

invite mr. hessel to columbia this evening, and i thank the business school for accommodating this many people. before we begin, we do have another special guest who wants to say a few words about mr. hessel's book and it's importance in the united states. katrina vanden heuvel was the publisher and editor of the nation and first to write about this book in the american press tone to bring it to american readers, so thank you for joining us. [applause] >> let me be very brief, but it's a great honor to be here with a voice of humanity and conscious at a time when such values are so imperilled. in february, the nation was so proud to be the first to publish in the united states this

remarkable manifesto, time for outramming, and i would like to -- outrage, and i would like to tell you it was my wisdom as an editor that led me to this publishing coo. as you heard, he'd already overtaken the best seller lists, rising to the top, but the moral here is simple and universal. listen to your parents. [laughter] especially when you have a remarkable father, as i do, with the great fortune to be hessel's colleague in gee knee that where he was the french ambassador, and my father was his counterpart. it was my father in 1978 after being released from a hijacked plane, and he introduced me to she was who had been at my father's home given friendship, and meeting him that night, i knew there was goodness in this cruel world. decades later when my father told me this, i moved heaven and

earth to publish this because his message is woven into the fabric of the nation, a magazine founded by the abolitionists, published words of martin luther king jr. and albert einstein, those who fight for a just and peaceful world. you inspired 93 years old, younger, than any of us, you have forced us to look at today's world and to look at the repatienceness and to understand that we must engage actively in the defense of human and economic rights, and your words inspired. i love the women in italy carrying your book in protest against the corruption or those in the squares in greece or spain, and to those in our country in wisconsin or on wall street, and i would just close by saying one of the great things you have done as a citizen of what i think of as

the united states of am amnesia, i am so especially grateful to you for calling upon us to remember the best in our history and to defend its highest achieve. s in our case, you give strength to those who are fighting the forces in our country who are intent on repealing the new deal, the great society, even the enlightenment and reason. there's a new spark in the world lit by you, and we await your next book. [applause] >> would you like to answer that? yes, by all means. >> i can't go up there because i'm bound here. i'll stay here and that you hear katrina and bill and so many

people i'm sure that i've known and met. it is a great moment for me. i can tell you frankly that in these last six months since this book appeared and has been translated in 30 different languages in five spanish languages, for instance, my spanish editor -- [applause] my spanish editor is one of those that make me run all day all along, and he said i must have it in spanish -- [laughter] the book is there. what strikes me is that this book, which is small book quickly read in 20 minutes you've read it, it is not really expensive, three euros in france, i don't know how much it would cost here, probably not very much more.

it hits a moment, and that is why i think i can be proud not to have written it because that was simple, it was simple lang, but to have found editors and marvelous young french editor to whom i owe a great deal because she really worked on it with me and gave it the form that made it a great success, and then to have katrina translate it in the nation was, for me, a great moment, and now that 12, an excellent editor, is putting it out in a nice format, it's useful format, all that reads to the fact that the ideas express the in this short -- expressed in this short little

appeal come as an important moment for many countries and perhaps particularly for these united states of america, which have been since the beginning of my career, the country that has most interested and fascinated me because it has great grievous responsibilities in our modern world. we cannot do without the united states, and we must have them as forward looking, courageous country, with people who know that the problems have to be faced and have to be solved, and when that is not the case, one must, i think, be worried and that worry can be held up by a young generation. for these reasons, for the fact that the book came out at a moment where we did not very

well feel, we, who is leading us, is it the government or is is it the lobbies or the various groups that run our society, and if so, what can we do to bring back something that we can be proud of? of course, i started the book and the ideas thinking of my country of france. i read what the resistance was in france and how it said that it was not acceptable and that the new french government should come out after the war was over, and i still feel in france, we, at present, have a bad president. we must get rid of him

obviously. [applause] we must bring back in the french public mind progress and ideas of welfare of security of social security and that of police security only, and there is a lot to be done for the french people, and i'm glad that in france, the book has, indeed, been a great success, but what strikes me and what surprised me greatly, i must say, is the appeal to this book in so many other countries, argentina, australia, south korea, japan, brazil, germany, sweden, and then i have to travel to all these countries. [laughter] tell, tell the people who come who gathered the marvelously as

you do this evening, and i'm very thankful for what you have done to bring all of these charming people in this big room. it's an honor for me, and to tell them just one basic message, never give up, never be indifferent, never think that things are running in a way that cannot be helped, that can want be changed, no. when you are as old as i am, very, very old, even one year more than now than what is in the book. the book says i'm 93. now i'm 94. [laughter] having lived that long, period, together with marvelous people, but mostly of all, having been the witness of the one great

american president who has done to the 20th century, given its most important mark, i'm thinking, of course, of frankly roosevelt, to whom we owe the existence of the united nations. without him, there never would have been a united nation, neither churchhill or stalin wanted it, and roosevelt put it in force, and that is still for us, the central piece of the way in which 193 countries can live together. the surprise for me was that not only in france, not only on the basis of the french resistance and the french welfare state just after world war ii, but then many other countries, the time seemed right to look at

things, to be confident and brave, confident because things can be put into better state and brave because the things that fight are strong. the lobbies are strong. even the governments do not resist to lobbies anymore, and therefore, the citizens, women, at least as much as men, have to raise their spirits and to bring up the strength that will force the government to be more effective and the lobbies to be less up -- influ enissue. that's all i want to say because now i'm particular and happy and pleased to have an interviewer or a colleague to speak with in the name of nikil saval, and

i'll try to answer his questions whenever he feels free to put them to me. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. i'm very very honored and very humbled to be your interviewer, and i am sorry after that inspiring speech to be asking a very, what might seem like a very depressing question which is about the united states. your book is addressed to the many young people around the world and asking them to, you know, to never be indifferent, to find their source of indignation. in the united states, however, i would say that friends of mine

on the political left feel that unlike the rest of the world, the united states has not seen the kind of outrage that we see in the u.k., in greece, in france, in north africa, and i wonder -- there's exceptions that are failing in the midwest and in wisconsin and ohio and on wall street for the last ten days -- >> that's good. >> i don't know if anyone here has been, i hope that you will speak up in the q&a, and i wonder what is going on. i mean, what is is there something wrong with the united states, as americans, what -- why do you think americans have not mobilized in the way that people elsewhere have? >> to me, that is really a very important question. thank you for putting it to us. what makes it that this great

country is accepting a series of lack of success. i mean, yes, we can understand that the ten thirsty years the presidentship of george w. bush was a moment of great anguish. there was 9/11, which struck hard in this very city where we sit now, and one can see or write in these years, there was this war raised on iraq and then on australia and on both and that was a movement to which the citizens of this country could sort of accept to bear it, even if many disagreed, but then came an extraordinary election, and

indeed, i would say that during the campaign of barack obama, i had the feeling that the american people were moving, moving in a determined way really, wanted to have this president, and it wasn't easy because after all, we must admit that he is black, and that sounded to be a difficult reference, but in spite of it, this movement to bring him to the white house was something to us who watched it with great interest. we had the feeling that is really our america, and this is going to be our america tomorrow, and then we suddenly felt that it didn't materialize. why? was it for lack of support? i'm not sure. was it for lack of enthusiasm?

perhaps. i think, this is a very difficult country to govern, and anybody who is at the head and who is not free because there is a congress and even a very able president can want draw all he wants, how does the population react? i'm afraid up until now, the three four years of the presidentship, there is a lack of feeling of who is the enemy against whom one can enter? that is where i feel that my generation has been very fortunate in a way, sounds, of course, paradox.

fortunate for the young people to have a clear enemy. we knew whom to fight, and those whom gave up the fight, many of the frenchmen did not enter resistance, only a very few did, but those who did knew what it was, what it was caused, and i wonder whether that is not what is lacking now in this country. who is responsible? can one be with the tea party's that their responsibility lies with this unfortunate president in that which he should be forced, but that's not a very popular fight. it's not a fight for freedom and for progress. it's the country it seems to me, so there is a lack, it seems to me, of getting together in all that you bring, i kind of change

that one feels is needed. i have no explanation, i don't know the united states well enough, but my feeling is that the great american movement even in the past movements forward, the new frontier, the new deal, for instance, was something to my mind was gave enthusiasm to the americans and also to the rest of the world. now, there is a lack, it seems to me, of aim. what is the aim? what should united states -- which united states do you want and we want also? which united states do you want? do you know it? do you know why? i think that is where the message of my little book, after all, let's speak about the

message about this little book -- that makes it sell more. [laughter] the message, i think, is to say, look around you, anyone of you, look around, look at what really frustrates you, what really makes you curious, what outrages you. you will find something, and when you found it, then commit yows -- yourself, and so many people, unfortunately, do not commit themselves up until now, but that will change like all the bad things change into better things. and the wall street thing to my mind was an interesting moment, didn't last long, but it did say that is something that outrageous, why shouldn't we run by the speculators of finances.

>> the message to speak on president obama for a min, but he was elected, i think, specifically on a platform that was against the kind of message conveyed in your title. obama and people around him spoke very much about consensus, about moving past partisanship, and, indeed, i think that angle and range is cheen in the american context as an equivocal political emotion to have. people feel that it has actually done damage, maybe, to the political discourse. i mean, what would you say? how would you respond to that charge that indignation is, in fact, the problem and not the solution? >> i understood, as you just said, that the obama wanted

consensus, and i also felt from the beginning that he also wanted definite change. he wanted consensus on the necessary change. he didn't want to impose change, but make it acceptable by all, but he wanted a change, and particularly, i think, he wanted the definite change against what president bush had committed during his two, his two presidential terms, and he wanted, for instance, and that made us all so happy, he wanted a new approach to other cultures in civilizations, and particularly, to the islamic world, and his peach in cairo made this all really happy. here, yes, he didn't want to impose it. he wanted consensus.

you're quite right. he was -- but he wanted change, and what makes me sad is that change, he did not achieve it. he wanted, for instance, change, the great change he wanted is to bring some social security to millions of americans who i must say if one looks at america from outside from europe and one thinks in america, social security is limited to large and accepted by large number of americans, it sounds crazy for the country that is a rich country to have so many people who are not being supported, and i think obama felt that he had to do something about that, and he did do something, but not quite to the end, and so, again, my answer is that indig in this

case, indeed, is not the word he would use, i think, because he would use "consensus" or accident -- "seeking con consensus" but which is acceptable, and among them i quote the situation in the near east, a situation that are unaccept l, i think he was -- unacceptable, i think he was willing to try to change them, and where he apparently did not reach that change, there also, he did not call, it seems to me on indignation of people pushing him in that direction because that was not his way of looking at things. there, perhaps he is wrong. >> do you feel that he stifled

those movement or there were these feelings and there was indignation that he did not harness? is that -- >> he did not harness, that's the right word which you just used. i think he tried to get things going. i don't know i'm not in his mind. i can't speak for him, but as far as i see what he's doing, it seems to me that he does not harness the public support that he did achieve during his campaign in order to overcome the obvious calls which he wanted to -- obstacles that he wanted to overcome by negotiation, but where he found that his election had been the making of the great movement, but not of the whole of the united states, and

therefore, somehow instead of harnessing those who had brought him to power and leading them stronger in the direction of major changes into solving important problems, he seems to me to have given up, and that, i think, is all the more unfortunate as the book that we all read with enormous satisfaction which he called by an important title, "the o -- the odd asty of hope. that is not consensus. [laughter] [applause] >> so i mean, in your book, you mentioned, well, actually, i would like -- in people that i know, especially on the political left, have also feel

obama's given up. they have given up not just on obama, but electoral politics. there was a moment when it was very inspiring, but that's dispated, certainly on the left, and so in your book you speak highly about nongovernmental organizations, and the importance of extra electoral politics. do you see hope in that sector i mean, here and then abroad or are there dangers as well in extra lek -- electoral politics of this kind? >> yes. you bring up to my mind, a very central problem. how do the young generations, particularly, react to the idea of politics? what do they put behind the word "politics"? are they still convinced democrats? that is, people who feel that

politics is there to bring less power to the -- and more getting up into the society, to the underprivileged. that is what democracy is supposed to do, and one believes that young people will feel that that is the way that their country, which other countries is, should go. now, they have the feeling in france as well as other countries and i suppose also here that politics is a game that is played by people who search for power, but are not really interested in the well being of their countrymen. it's exaggerated amount of costs. there are politicians.

i've known one, for instance, who definitely did not care for power. he even gave it up very quickly, but he did care for the population of france, and i must say once more that i feel that was also the case of franklin roosevelt, and i think that the new deal, for for instance, was a real effort at bringing more privilege to the under privileged and less power to the lobbies and the privileged, but the young generation, i'm afraid, has a tendency to say, well, 245 will not be a-- that will not be achieved by political party, and therefore, let's turn to other groups. let's take advantage of something that this, indeed, are a new important aspect of modern life, the possibility of getting in touch quickly with people all over the world, all of these books or what you call it.

i don't know anything about that, nevermind, internet and all of that, and they say, let's make a big movement. if that terms them away from politics, from a democratically ran administration and government, then it is dangerous, and one should tell them you can want change democracy without being inside the democratic aspect, that is the political parties. in france, for instance, it is relatively easy for me now because a new little party has come up with an extraordinary title, eelv. it means europe ecology -- never mind, but there they are useful,

and they are brave, and they say, yes, we are of the left, and we are a little more different than the socialist party, but we'll work with them and be a party, and therefore people will be able to vote for us, and not only to go into ngos. that, i think, is the way the little message of my book should be interpreted, and a time for outrage, but not outside of politics. it must be inside politics. it must change politics from inside, not by indifference to the political life thereof. i don't care and i'm moving 234 a different -- in a different destruction -- that, i think, is dangerous, and

therefore, i agree with that going only in the way of ngos, even if that's important, we are looking at problems, one must blink it up with an actual partisan commitment. >> that's -- >> i hope people who listen to us will agree to all of that. [laughter] [applause] >> that's for sure. [applause] so, i wanted to speak about maybe one of the successes or ask you about one of the possible successes of a kind of movement based on at least partly on indignation, and this would be the movements in the so-called arab spring, and i think that -- but not just the arab spring, but the movement

you've also -- your book has inspire the or seems to be in concert with movements in spain, the protest to defend the welfare state in greece. what -- i mean, do you see these -- i'm curious what you think they found in your book, but also what you see as a value into the future of these movements? certainly in europe, many are defensive. they want to protect. in north africa, maybe they want to create, but anyway -- >> yes, yes, i do feel, again, that there is a question of luck. i must say i consider myself as an exfor the record their luck -- extraordinary lucky person. my life has been succession of strokes of luck, including the one that saved my life. after all, it was a great moment of unexpected luck that we

managed to save three of us from hanging. when one has felt that luck, then one feels that luck is something that surrounds you. luck has surrounded the little book because it could have had 8,000 copies in france, that was the beginning of what the editor thought, and one might have thought then that, yes, it was a moment that evoked the french resistance, that's always something an event that people like to hear about. [laughter] and one spoke about the universal declaration, also something many heard about. [laughter] it could have been a good thing for the french people, but strangely enough, not only it did, but it fell over the frontiers, and it was,

therefore, the lucky moment to come and speak with so many different people. i never expected that. it came as a surprise, but i must admit as a very lucky surprise. i found it a great piece of luck that even in germany, such a disciplined country, the idea of this, the german title, it's at least a strong of time for outridge, and in germany, 400,000 copies in one month, so that, i think, goes to the fact that we live in a moment which is, perhaps, much more important than what we believe. it may be that our societies, they have become global

already. that is a change. one can no longer try to bring important change in one country in solvania where i've been recently, without bringing it to many other countries, and the whole global human society, is perhaps facing what i call a threshold, a moment where deep changes, which we do not even yet envision, are going to change the selfishness, the negativivity, wanting more and more of all forms of not only of finance, but also of power and also of science. one goes further and further in science. without considering whether that is ethically something important. maybe ethics suddenly arise in

our human society, and in the world ethics, i put one word which i use because i find it better than sympathy. i call it compassion. maybe we'll reach an age of compassion where all of us will be more interested in seeing to it that the others also have a good time and not only we more than we ever have felt that. it may be a change. my friend, to whom i always refer, when people say, it's our right, but what do we do about it then? i say you read and everything. [laughter] indeed, his book together with

what they wrote with what this has brought forward, there are a number of important minds who have shown the way and they call it "the way," and for humanity to phase, perhaps to enter, perhaps a new phase of its development, that needs some very radical changes, not only political changes, but ethical changes, changes in humanity, and i, again, have the good fortune to work with a number of important people, mischel has been the co-chairman of the things of which we called for a reason that is present in this room. we called it the international ethical scientific and philosophical collegial, the

french thought they could call it college, and fortunately, bill vanden hueval was with us saying that wouldn't be good. give it the title collegian. we say, yes, yes. [laughter] well, this group, it's a group where we find extraordinary interesting people like maybe robinson and others, all members of this collegeon. ..

be if it is a way for the university research, always very angry at the way the faculties are separated from one another and what becomes special for something and doesn't know much about the rest, more overreaching knowledge that has to be found and has to be brought into use. but more importantly i would say if anybody, any young person looks around him at society as

it moves, he has good reason to be outraged. he may have the feeling that he himself may be responsible for some change and his responsibility may go in the direction of being ethnically more aware of what can be considered good and what considered wrong. it is difficult to get a generation out of the pure surge -- search for money and employment and a good car and a good home and even a good wife is not the thin one looks for. better to have a good wife and a bad wife, but the interest in

material goods is overreaching. and reflection about what does it really bring? maybe to believe more in traditional values. that may come as a static movement. what happened to religions in the past? they had to remember how religions start. i am struck recently by the enormous importance in those countries of the profit. when one asked them where is your belief, they say obviously it is clear. we have the koran and the profit and that hasn't prevented them from having a terrible tierney -- tyranny and corruption more

than another countries. but there's a basis. i am not calling for a new universal religion. i don't believe in monotheism. i am an enemy of monotheism because i think there motto is against the other models and that is not the way to reach consensus. they are closer to obama. better real utopia, real dream, a real vision borne by poetry, if you are not careful, sooner or later i will begin to recite poetry. if you are in viewed by it, it

makes you feel the necessity that is utopia. and i think maybe the new need for people to think why should we not believe in something much more satisfactory to the mind and the heart than we are living now? not only try to grab something from what is possible but let's get here or there, that is not very amusing. it may take some time but doesn't need to be a real human person. why not try to bring them to become a human person? [applause]

>> on that note, can ask you to talk about have your own personal history in forms these ideas? particularly your book is among other things he returned to the ideals that fuelled the french resistance and maybe you could talk about your experience and have you think the values and principles of the french resistance were so formative for you and are still relevant today. >> somebody want -- >> going for him? okay. >> is it all right? should i answer your questions? [inaudible] >> we will work on it but just

project in the meantime. [laughter] >> i feel that i have had the good fortune, and will put it as an opposite to an old friend of my father's and of myself, an important german philosopher who was terribly and successful during his life. he never even reached a university doctorate although he was much more intelligent than those who refused to give him a doctorate. i met him at a time when the french resistance was still very, very small in 1940. we had just been defeated as widely as france had ever been defeated in june of 1940. it was a real destruction of our

army and our people. it was a very bad moment for france. i had come through it having been arrested by the german army but i fled and came back to the south of france and have met him and i said we are going to resist. i am going to try to meet mr. gold and continue the fight. and he said i am also trying to go over to the united states but i don't believe in it anymore. i see history as something getting worse and worse and worse from one catastrophe to another. we are now in the most sad moment of democracy. he called it the net year of democracy. the soviet union had a pact with

the germans. very careful not to go into the war. it was very important. britain resisted. a small country could be invaded quickly. he was despondent and he killed himself a few weeks later. but i said no. i believe that we lost the war but we haven't -- we lost the battle but haven't lost the war. we can continue to resist. finally he was wronged and i was right. and so that brought me to the idea that this french resistance, one must exaggerate its importance. general eisenhower once said that the french resistance was

the equivalent for him of 18 divisions. obviously the war was won by others and by the red army. much more even by our western army. continuing this idea of the resistance, the message of the resistance seemed to be valid, not only because it has always been a belief in the moment of when history where people were active and fighting and proud but also because this group of physicians worked, gathered together under the leadership of their ruler and sat down together and drafted a program for the future of france and they drafted it bringing all

those who had an common not any political party but the idea of resistance and out of that a very interesting program. in one of the copies of my book, the program is -- i don't know which language it is that never mind. it dealt with such problems as social security and independent press. the end of the finality of the financial economy. all these problems which were very much inspired by the rich in great britain and by franklin roosevelt's new deal. those who came up in this program are the french resistance. 60 years later in 2004, a number

of french who were former resistance responsible people in the resistance that together and said we are not happy with the way in which france -- not happy about the way in which france keeps the message of civility. let us bring that up and make a call. let us publish again this program of the resistance and tell our french friends if the french government is not going in that direction we must oppose the french government. that is what has happened and we had a moment -- so indeed, that was your question.

it is a small moment of french history but is it significant as something that can lead you further into making the opposition in politics, not just -- but resist. and that i think is perhaps also what could be the message now. we mustn't police think of what is wrong but the way in which it could be effectively resisted against. there you are. >> you say in your book for reasons to get angry may seem less clear today than they were in your generation and. what are the things you see around you that make you angry that you think are deserving of indignation that need to be responded to as a matter of

social justice? >> indignation is an important first movement but the next movement is commitment. another little book has been written by me and by a friend which we call commit yourself. it has come out -- very nice. he is a very good person because he is a specialist of the youth movement. and this was not directly aimed at the younger generation. it is aimed at everybody. that is why it is a great success. the other one has certainly less but it is definitely aimed at the younger generation and you must commit yourself on what? that just raises the question like we said before. in my generation, in my youth it

was easy to see where the enemies were. today, where are the forces against which one should commit oneself? that does come out a little bit in this book, "time for outrage" and in the other little book and it comes out very much also in books -- they at least indicate three very important challenges to our global society today. i tried to indicate them in the book as terribly important challenge of poverty and richness. there have always been poor people and rich people in the world but never until the last 20 years has there been such a

spread. the rich are over rich. $100 million a year is not -- to not have $2 a day to survive is the fate of millions of people in the world. that spread is inseparable and i think anybody who watches it must not only be indignant but outraged, but must be committed as possible. many people do something about it. many people are working with organizations and movements and so on. to make a little except, what is the real organization that works

for that steadily? with great or not great success? the united nations which has its headquarters in this very city of new york and is not supported sufficiently by the united states. [applause] so that is the first challenge. let's go on to the second. the second challenge is even more obvious but much more difficult to encounter and that is the deterioration of the planet. what does it really mean? is it the climate? is it the water? it is the energy? it is all of that. we are overexploiting our little

planet. we know now that our little planet is a tiny little bit within the great cause most but it is the only place where human beings can live. not even on venus or mars. therefore we must be careful. we know more and more every day that wait it is going in the wrong direction. it is overexploited. who is really holding it back? we are going to have in the next year, in rio they janeiro after the conference of the environment a new conference on the environment with copenhagen in between but governments do nothing much. not sufficient. there is the second big challenge and there are have some hope. i have the hope that young

people when they are informed about that may become more outraged than on any other subject and they may feel that really they have a responsibility to do something, the little party in france -- goes in that direction. already in a year-and-a-half it has been putting up -- ten people and delete -- only three before. ecology in its general name is very important challenge. and it can be cut up into a variety of specific challenges whether it is drinking water or

climate and so on. that is an enormous challenge. the third challenge which i see and which we have not been able to appreciate is terrorism. on that also there is more passage in my book but a very good book about terrorism, people are writing and doing things. how do we approach terrorism? certainly not in the way that it has been approached after 9/11 by president bush. the afghan caliban was not a result. picking a war in iraq was a bad mistake. but there should be ways, there should be intelligent ways of thinking where does terrorism stem from? what are the circumstances where

terrorism gets a hold of the minds of people? the circumstances should be addressed and hopefully changed so there's another big challenge but i have no answer. [laughter] >> i think we should turn to questions from the audience at this point. would you like to ask one last question, nikhil? or are you ready for questions from the audience? >> we should try to go for the audience. >> a few more questions in a reserved but a lot of people here who will have questions to ask. we do have microphones so you can be recorded. please speak into the microphone.

>> thank you. in your book, you are an important offer -- author of human-rights. could you say something about the relevance today particularly of the call for guaranteed jobs and guaranteed income and guaranteed social services as a universal right for a humanity in general. could you say something about your role in writing those and what you think about their relevance for today? >> that is to me a very important question. i am considered to be overenthusiastic about that. but i think the text deserves

overenthusiasm. i always say it was drafted at a time when there was still an enormous belief in a utopian future. it was a moment when we thought we had behind us the worst thing that can happen to human beings was the second world war with terrible things had to happen. we must now put the accent on something which has never been put into international language which is a human rights. it was founded to prevent war and tried to have peace. it failed. but never thought of bringing up something like human-rights for all human beings. it was an extraordinary

ambition. it was not only the result of the charter of the united nations which foresaw declaration charter on human rights. it was also the work of the lenore roosevelt who chaired the commission which dropped that text. in that text if it is looked at with sympathy and not a critical view it could be criticized. if we look at it, we will find everything that we still need. there isn't a word to be changed. if you take the articles on social rights, the right to social security and the right to a job and the right to school, it is all in there and under the

pressure of the eastern countries which at the time were members of the united nations even if some of them abstain from voting because of civil and political rights, not entirely satisfactory to them. but if you take the text as it is, it is still the basic instrument for anybody in the world who is now living in a dictatorial country or a corrupt country to say i want these rights and they are there in the declaration. they were carried into the two pacts and there's a council on human rights working and of them had a marvelous high commission

for to human-rights to south africa and working on it too but the declaration contains to my mind all that we accept. at that time we did not realize the situation of the earth. nobody thought at that time that there was a danger of overexploitation of the earth and that came further and struggle continents and the united nations comes and and now it is with us. but apart from that which is absent of the situation, all the rest is ended and all the rest you find an article for everything. there was an article perhaps that was already doubtful at the

time, the right to property. i don't remember. articles will perhaps. the right to property. property has to be protected and made secure against every danger and perhaps the objective will not easily be achieved. we have to live with that. [applause] >> i have a louder voice. >> it is better with the microphone. >> would you comment about the diminution of resistance?

i recall being in france many years ago where there were demonstrations every week. people in the streets everywhere. wherever you were there demonstrations against the war. and also here as well. now people are rather casual about the fact that the wars continue and people are dying and children are suffering and the enormous amounts of money are being spent and yet columbia univ. i remember -- demonstrated nothing. very little now. >> you think about

demonstrations against such wars as the one in afghanistan or libya or iraq or elsewhere. i am afraid you are quite right. these wars are considered sort of unavoidable and that is very sad. one protest to get job or good schools but one doesn't protest sufficiently against arms, weapons. believe people who did a marvelous job, handicap international protested strongly against personnel mines. that is a very minor problem after all. you are quite right. it is taken for granted now that

there are wars. what can we do? that is where perhaps we have to look at the basic reform of the united nations. i always come back to the united nations. the united nations were set up for human-rights but also the vision of peace and when wars break out, my friend brian gave them the name blue helmet. i always recall the story when the first blue helmets were sent, he said to his friend he was in charge of that. how are we going -- to make some different? somebody said let's call the blue helmets. the wars going on now, very few

of them, blue helmets have been effective. there are some cases. cambodia and timor were blue helmets have been useful but the united nations has not been able to set in action a real security council without a veto and security council with strong authority. my hope i must tell you was after mr. moon who is an able official but not an inspiring of great visions if he were subpoenaed by the brazilian

president mullah, that would be a very important change. [applause] with all the important thing is being done by the united nations in dozens of important fields, in the field of preventing war and securing peace they have failed. the greatest failure is, stalin. why has that problem not been solved? the security council, there is a veto by one country, don't remember which it is. and therefore no progress has been made. [applause]

>> somebody have a microphone? sorry. go ahead. >> i have been involved in -- >> you must speak louder. >> into the microphone. >> i have been involved in the wall street protests for the last week or so and i am very grateful for the chance to hear you speak. your book has been a huge inspiration for all of us. i was wondering if i could ask your advice on one issue we are facing. some of us feel demands will help the movement grow a defector, >> reporter: and others feel it is more effective to remain sort of amorphous and connected to indignation or outrage and this will help attract as many people as possible and keep it

horizontal. there are two parties and i was wondering if you have any advice or input on this debate? >> have you understood is clearly? >> the question, she is protesting on wall street and the movement faces an issue of demands. whether they should remain amorphous in order to the democratic or should they focus on a few sets of demands. they have reached the crossroads. they feel inspired by your book. >> the one of thing and i think should not be the result of indignation and that is violence. the temptation would be to say

we have been indignant and now we are going to hit the people that make us outrage. i think the message of the book tries to bring forward that success is achieved more by non-violent determination than by hitting back at people who one considers one dislikes. but that is always very difficult moment when one has gone on the streets and one has been strong and wants demands and one goes home and what is next? that is where we tried with the

second book. to say once the manifestation has shown the outrage and discontent, then one must try to find nonviolent methods strong enough to be felt by those against -- in action and what can you lose for that? one of the most important means, the media. journalists. working with journalists is very important. it is necessary that journalists remain independent enough to be carrying forward and indignation. if you have a good journal i

understand there is one of which i lately heard in this time called the nation. a great journal. a journal like the nation can carry forward beyond the immediate movement something that will be felt more widely. to answer your question, what do we do next after we have been indignant? we try to get good journalists to continue the fight. [applause] >> two more questions. stephane hessel arrived from paris this afternoon and it is very late for him so we will take two more quick questions and then we will thank him and let him get some rest.

a question back here. >> i have a question. you sort of the number in the declaration of human rights you talk about property in the original declaration of human rights. it seems that the idea of property in the ruling recently that a capitalist corp. is a person by the u.s. supreme court strengthened the position of capitalism and property and all these sort of things. how can an engagement deal with the problem of property? i see the other points you mentioned in your book. poverty and richness, the environment and terrorism all related to that. how do you deal with the problem

of excessive greed and how do you move to compassion and engagement and move from indignation to effective action? >> basic question! let us start with property. is it true that this article in the declaration of human rights was brought forward and supported by the market economy. the market economy cannot work if property is not protected and at the same time market economy into a speculative finance and is also dangerous to property. it must be considered as something that gives you responsibility for the property

of others. you should be made secure in your property only if that property is not extended beyond the normal reach of the proprietor. it is true that when we drafted the universal declaration, countries which worked on market economy and capitalism were needed to ascertain their views against those who already lived at that time in administered economy is because they were not present in the rule. now i think the feeding has grown. that not only communism is dead

after the war and the fall of the berlin wall, but socialism is also in danger because maybe to administer the economy and we must protect the freedom of the market. there we can go beyond what is ethically acceptable. is not administered economy we need but we need social democracy. we have a real need for the protection of the underprivileged. i always come back on that. we live in a world where there is such a difference between the privileged and the underprivilege that any government that wants to

consider itself democratic, having a feeling for the demos and not only the oligarchy, must have a social policy and limit the power of the market and not let the market grow wild and create what we call in these last years the washington consensus. where milton friedman and others -- that was going in the direction that we can no longer accept and support. [applause] >> one last short question. go ahead. >> thank you. being african i am more concerned about africa. i would like to ask your perception of the situation in

africa. and security in general. in 2007 africa is fighting hard. but according to you are the major issues that impede our country's? >> the most important to my mind thing for africa is that the aid given to africa which is normal land needed because africa is the poorest part of the various areas of this world but that aid can be more dangerous than it can be useful. if those who receive it are not masters of the way in which it is being distributed, we have

seen periods where aid was channeled through heads of state in african countries and these heads of state themselves had been secretly brought to power by outside powers who were happy to have their persons with whom they could have good bargains for themselves. now more than ever the african union fortunately understands that it has to get rid of presidents that are not really concerned with the well-being of the people but more concerned with their own power and their own wealth. that is what is needed. no country to my mind can become

affluent rich with only help from outside even if that helped sometimes can bring important elements and can be humane and useful for under -- under like the world food program. but the coming up of a strong africa begins -- a country like gotta is good or mozambique. son countries begin to understand in which they could develop. but we still have a lot to learn about her to be useful partners of africa. not only what the chinese are doing at present which is buying

land and dangerous for africa because land has to be used for agriculture. and not for bioenergy. the problem of africa is one that has given me most thought. i have traveled a lot in africa and therefore my answer to your question is all too brief. we could have a long conversation sometime but not today. [applause] >> every weekend booktv offers 48 hours of programming focused on nonfiction authors and books. watch it here on c-span2.

>> all eight of your book about liberal. is that fair to say? >> yes. the first book was on grounds for impeachment of bill clinton. slander on various way liberals why. the column book how to talk to a liberal if you must covers everything under the sun including dating tips in washington. >> host: slander, trees and, "godless," "demonic". are they fighting words? >> guest: if the titled. i was thinking of calling this book "demonic" or even legion or my name is legion but a small slice of christians would understand what i was talking about. i want people to understand my book. i think they're interesting and you learn things. i think you will see the world in a different way and understanding in a different way. we give them as it be titles and

put me on the cover in the black cocktail dress because it annoys liberals. smiling. >> host: if democrats had any brains they would the republicans could be referred to as the best of ann coulter? >> guest: more of a quote book. >> host: environmentalist energy plan is the repudiation of america and christian destiny which is jet skis, stake on the electric grill, hot showers and night skiing. steven in utah, you are on in depth. good afternoon. >> caller: thank-you for all you have done. i don't really have a question but some comments about religion and being conservative and liberals. there are conservative principles that have acted upon or conducted a social, spiritual and economic well-being of individuals as well as nations and these principles came from

god himself through moses and formed the foundation of civilized society and commonly referred to -- what the liberals have done the last 50 years is turn them into the 10 inconvenient truths. go back to lyndon johnson in the great society and the welfare program. under your father and mother in to honor your mother and big government. you see what it has done to a lot of families. have you ever read the keynote address by obama? >> guest: no but you need to read my book "godless" which makes this point. it is not an inconvenient truth. the platform of the democratic party is breaking each one of the 10 commandments one by one. you shall not murder, what is the most important issue of the democratic party? abortion. sticking a fork in the head of

little babies sleeping peacefully in their mother's will. you shall not steal. the entire tax policy to generate and steal money and redistribute wealth. certainly put no god before me. they put every god before the real god. i don't think there's a living liberal who wouldn't give up his the turtles 0 for the vanity fair party to be cited favorably in the new york times and a lot are published in the new york times. the worshiping of titles is port. it is the religion of the left. their religion is breaking each of the 10 commandments one by one. >> host: from "godless" you write about dishonesty about abortion begins with the left's refusal to use the word abortion. these approach wasters treat abortion the way muslim street mohammad. it is so sacred and must not be mentioned. the only other practice that was

defended and unspeakable in america like this was slavery. >> guest: that is true. even in places where slavery was accepted and it wasn't in many places people would not let their children play with slave traders the way people to they wouldn't let kids -- one thing to say i am pro-choice but a different thing to let your kids play with a child of a local abortionist of which there are not many. is a repellent practice but it is peculiar that they pretend it is a constitutional right but you can't use the word. you don't have the rights groups refusing to use the word guns. it shows what a hideous thing they know is. >> host: why doesn't obama just take the same speech and have the run it every night? luann in wisconsin.

>> caller: good afternoon. i just finished reading your book and love it. basically i am here from the home of joe mccarthy and paul ryan and bastille days. just read your book and i asked people why are we celebrating best deal they? we have a lot of fun with that. i want to know my main question because i watch all this back and forth and all this stuff. so many times that if we would just follow the constitution we wouldn't be in this mess and one of the main thing this article 1 of the constitution. hall power vested in congress. not this bureaucrat. what are we going to do to bring back that and make people understand? to get our power back from we the people. >> guest: so glad you asked.

this is a very important point. democrat policies are so unpopular democrat had to stop promoting them themselves. releasing child molesting murdering criminals for example. instead they just nominate judges and assure the judges are very moderate and they get to the supreme court and suddenly discover in this 200-year-old document we found one. there's a right to gay marriage and abortion and we must release criminals from california prisons. a recent united states supreme court ruling. now they get the courts to do their dirty work and tell us it is a constitutional right and the only way to rain this in, we have the method we have been trying for the last 20 years, elect a republican president, wait for vacancies on the supreme court and get a nominee

who doesn't hallucinate when reading the constitution. that didn't work out so well. we had three republican appointees, sandra day o'connor, justice kennedy, all voted to uphold the heart of roe v wade but not the precise holding of roe v wade as antonin scalia said. don't know how that is following precedent. in any event what we need to do is get five of our supreme court justices. this is one of my friends as a laugh to engage in conservative judicial activism to hallucinate the sort of rights equivalent to the rights being hallucinated by the liberal justices so that we have a right to a flat tax, a right to own a rocket-propelled grenade, a right to free champagne for blonds. all kinds of fantastic rights i can think of.

we will declare the withholding tax unconstitutional and justices admit it was a joke because liberals never understand how heinous their policies are until it is done to them and the alternative plan to -- we need a republican executive to say in response to an insane supreme court ruling for example the guantanamo ruling under president bush i wish he had just said thank you for your opinion. the constitution makes me the commander-in-chief. i am not giving special constitutional rights to terrorists grabbed on the battlefield has happened in guantanamo. thanks, supreme court. >> host: a tweet by scott wagner. i like the way she flings her hair. can she said dvd of that while she read "demonic". e-mail, tim johnson. ann coulter lays about the line and all who disagrees are in her

words stupid and demonic. >> some are misguided. mostly it is the worshiping of false idols. it is a desire to be considered cool and not have to think about anything. >> host: her public appearances are an avalanche of snarl words and sirius conservatives want to be taken seriously the first thing they have to do is distance themselves from the likes of glen beck, rush limbaugh, grover norquist and ann coulter. >> guest: don't know about the other guys but not at all for me. this is what i said about joe mccarthy. what are you disagreeing with? what is the snarl word? that was not sweetness and nice in that e-mail. this is how liberals avoid

talking about the issues. it is racist or sexist or ugly or mean or don't listen to this person or don't leave this person, danger. if you could argue on ideas you could do so and if we were despicable ensnarling we would not have so many fans. >> host: in trees and -- trees and --treason you wrote about how you could not attack certain people. that was maybe in guilty. >> guest: what it billed the? i remember the scene. i think that is "demonic". it is sort of the reverse of what i just sat on democrats' new techniques. it drives them crazy that conservatives have their own media. talk radio and the internet and

fox news where you can occasionally see a conservative. they send out sobbing hysterical women to make their point. you can't respond to the jersey girls or joe wilson. data relative died. you can't respond. they are allowed to voice the left-wing agenda on a less. >> host: next call for ann coulter from jordan in kentucky. >> caller: such a huge fan. i am a former college republican president at mary state university and former reagan scholarship recipient. >> congratulations. nice to meet you. >> caller: that was back in 2007. really i have two questions for you. i am reading "demonic" right now and i think it is my favorite of your books. i have led every one since high

crimes and misdemeanors. i read it in eighth grade. >> guest: you are a fine american and will go far. >> caller: is it true that your mother is actually from kentucky? >> guest: yes she is. i was down there a couple weeks ago. we had a family reunion. i was kind of busy with the book. >> caller: when i heard that i was so excited. i lived in lexington but went to murray state. very conservative. second question, i haven't been able to make it to any of your book tours. he made a huge impression on me in terms of your christian faith and telling things like is. i have been wanting an autograph of my book "demonic" and can't figure out how to send it to you. >> guest: you can get it to me through the philip foundation. >> host: what is the fall of