>> host: when did you write that book? >> guest: ten years ago. >> host: a whole decade without controversy them. >> guest: right. i got a lot of hate mail on that. >> host: push back now? >> guest: hate mail, yeah. we live for that; right? i mean, if you're a journalist, you live for that. you can't do anything positive for the world as i mentioned, but we can upset people, and that's always a pleasure and stimulate questions. >> host: it's healthy. healthy skepticism is great, for a science writer, that's important. what's next for you? >> guest: you know what? i want to do a big book about puppies and kittens and how adorable they are and see if i get hate mail from that. i elect to stay out of the vortex for awhile.

>> host: very interesting to talk to you about the book. its full title is "the undead: organ harvesting, the wise water test beating heart cadavers how medicine is blurring the line between life and death." >> guest: nice meeting you. >> host: nice having you. that was "after words" authors viewed by journalists, policymakers, legislators, and others familiar with their material. it airs every week on booktv on 10 p.m. saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. saturday, and 12 a.m. on monday.

you can watch online at booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book and series topic list on the right hand side of the page. >> there was a plaza, and a day care center in the plaza, some killed, others injuredded, but during the recess period, they'd always play ear in the plaza, and you'd hear their voices, and that left a lasting impression when they were silenced. my son, a dear friend of his in high school, she just garage waited and worked in the social security office, and her father was a great friend of mine, and that morning i had three messages. first of all, wanting to find out about his daughter, and secondly, it didn't look good, and third message, he was

crying. >> explores history and literary culture of oklahoma city with special airings the weekend of may 5th and 6th on booktv on american history tv on c-span3. >> next on booktv, former senator, arlen specter of pennsylvania talking his political career and split of the former party and members supported by the tea party. senator specter is in conversation with mike castle, former delaware governor and u.s. representative for a little under an hour. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. there could be no better place

to have this discussion than in the constitution center. the three key words of the constitution in the beginning, "we the people," and i'm delighted to have my colleague, former member of the house of representatives, mike castle, join me as david characterized it, mike and i are members of the 30-year club which is not too easy to come by. takes awhile to get to that kind of seniority. this book, "life among the cannibals," was designed to come out in the midst of this election season to try to acquaint the american people with why washington is what it

is today, and that is gridlocked and dysfunctional, so that if the electorat is properly motivated, now is the time to do something about it, and the title with the cannibals is by deliberation for motivation and for accuracy because that is what is happening. it is really cannibals devouring senators and representatives, and i'll be very specific. starting with bob bennet, senator from utah for 18 years, 93% conservative rating, wasn't

pure enough to be re-nominated by the republican party in 2010. mike castle in delaware was defeated in a republican primary by a tea party candidate who had defend herself on television after being called a witch, and the same texture applies on the democratic side where a topnotch senator like joe lieberman couldn't win a democratic primary so what has evolved is a great worry on the part of members of congress that if one vote is passed which calls us a party to fight in a primary where there is a very low turn

out, that's the end of the political career, and there's few prepared to put their political careers on the line for a vote nowithstanding what the public's interest is, and this book goes into great detail as to my approach to being in public service, and the votes that i cast and the one critical vote which was the end of the association between the republican party and me, and i think ronald reagan best put it when he said years ago when he was a democrat -- did you know that ronald reagan was a democrat? well, he was; and as roomed reagan put it, he didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left him, but

let me assure you the republican party in 1980, when i was elected to the senate, was a vastly different republican party than it was as we moved into the 21st century. when the stimulus vote came up, i was cop vipsed that if we did not have -- convinced that if we did not have an infusion of funding, that we would be heading for a 1930-style depression, and we had seen a few months earlier when george w. bush was the president that he came up with a $700 billion package to assist the banking industry and the

automotive industry. well, $700 billion was a twin brother to what president obama came up with a few months later with $878 billion in the stimulus package. the house of representatives voted down the bush, and the target dropped 700 -- and the stock market dropped 700 points in 2008. the republican caucus was organized, and vice president cheney came to talk to us, you know, dick cheney, and cheney says if you don't pass this pack aiming, you're going to -- package, you're going to turn george w. bush into a herbert hoover, and a majority of

republicans voted for it including bob bennet, and that's the end of his career, but when president obama was legislated shortly thereafter and came up as his first legislative initiative to have a stimulus package, suddenly, the republican caucus was out for his scout. demanipulate, jim demint, senator from south carolina was heard to say we're going to turn this into obama's waterloo. mcconnell, the republican senate leader said, the republican senate agenda is to defeat obama. this was three years and 11 months before the 2012 election. nobody in the republican caucus except for olympia snowe, susan

collins, and arlen specter would talk to the democrats about the bill. i had been a child during the 1930 depression, and i didn't want to see another depression. my father who was a russian immigrant in 1930 founded -- he called it in yiddish that's fair, hard way to make a living. we lived in wichita, and my father packed up the family and headed east to philadelphia where he had a sister. in depressions, that's what families do. they move in with one another to survive, and those were really, really tough times, and i had

been there, and it was plain that the vote was going to be highly procare yows, and it turned out to be just that, and that single vote out of 10,000 turned out to be the problem which i had, and that has created a situation where, for example, senator collins and senator snowe wouldn't cross again, the line. we had a case called citizens united which is pretty well known where in the supreme court of the united states decided that corporations and unions to make up limited financial -- unlimited financial contributions. actually, unlimited anonymous expend -- expenditures, independent expenditures so-called, and they

left a narrow opening, that is that congress could legislate to require disclosure so if at least you would know who was putting up the money. if one wanted to buy south carolina for newt gingrich for $10 million, you'd at least know who was putting up the money. i think he overpaid for south carolina, but that was -- [laughter] that was his choice. 59 senators on one side of the aisle, myself included, voted for what we called cloture to move the debate forward. not one republican senator, which stands up to provide the 60th vote. neither collins nor snowe. they saw what happened, and they were wiser, and that wouldn't down to defeat. today, you see the emergence in the giants super packs,

anonymous contributions, wrr the mudge coming from. where's the chamber of commerce getting the money? foreign corporations? nobody knows. the law doesn't require disclosure, but that sort of paints the picture as to how gun shy people are about crossing the party line, putting their political careers on the line, and seeing the e mother jeeps of the tea party, you have seen or what has happened in the town meetings, right here in conventional hall in early august of 2009, secretary of health and human services sebelius came to talk about the president's proposal for the affordable health care plan which was before the supreme

court last week, and the tea party was out in force, and had we been in this room having this discussion, we wouldn't have been able to hear one another talk there were so much noise in the joining room, but a few days later, i started my august town meetings. every year in august, while i was in the senate, i would make it a point to visit every county, and usually in lebanon there were 80 or 90 people. on this day, i got 1200 in a rather famous town meeting where they had the replay again and again and again of the ram rambunciuos crowd of one fellow who charged up and came within a

few inches of my nose, fist waving, and made the front page of the "new york times" the next day, or so did i -- [laughter] , but he was the star of the show, and he became a major perp -- person of television personality, but the tv was up in arms, and cantor and president obama made a mistake, unloading too much too soon with three million dollar programs. one for cap-and-trade, global environment, and health care, estimated at one point to be $1.6 trillion, and almost a trillion dollars on stimulus. it had been more than a trillion until it was paired down just slightly to $878 million.

where do we go from here? my book provides aned idea for the future, and the idea centralizes around the experience of senator from nebraska, and senator mother -- was opposed by a tea party candidate, led my senator demanipulate, -- senator demint, and they cannibalized her and defeated her in the primary. lisa came back in an extraordinary move to run a right hand campaign. if you know how hard it is to write in her? ? you spell it with a "y" rather than than "i," your ballot is thrown out. if you use an "o" rather than a

"u," your ballot's thrown out, but she won. if you educate the public sufficiently and motivate the public sufficiently, you can reenforce what's outside this building, we the people. the power is in the people. the power is there. it has to be exercised. you know how often people say, well, one vote doesn't count, but that's replicated millions of times, and the non-voters control the process, and the extremists on each side control the elections, and if you want to win the iowa primaries, you have to stay up until the middle of the night to be in the caucus. couple of final notes, the book

has some lighter sides to it. i tell about an experience with senator kennedy, and the senate gm, and i was relaxing in the hot tub one day, the whirlpool, great experience, and in comes senator ted kennedy. hello. i worked with him closely for a lot of yeahs -- a lot of years on civil rights and other legislation, but not this closely. [laughter] there's teddy, 285 pounds. he comes to the edge of the hot tub, sort of like a diver, just plop. add 285 pounds, and you know the old saying rising tide lifts all

the boats? well, my head damn near hit the ceiling. [laughter] a story with a different line, but it attracted a lot of attention. [laughter] when john mccain and sarah palin came to campaign in neighboring delaware county, i was asked to introduce them, and before we went on stage, mccain said, arlen, give me some political advice on what to do here in swing territory with the up dependent voter -- independent voters so john and sarah pais lip and i went back in an area at a conference table, very, very close quarters. as i started to give him some advice on embryonic stem cell, and i knew sarah pais lip --

palin was against embryonic stem cell research, and she didn't say anything unintelligent because she didn't say anything. [laughter] but the relevant part is not the substance of the conversation. the relevant part was sitting knee-to-knee in these close quarters, and you know the length of sarah's skirts? almost everybody does. and, you know, when you sit down, the skirts don't go down. and she's very beautiful woman, very sensual, and i wrote this portion out very discreetly. it's attracted more attention than my ideas on how to solve

the nuclear issue with iran. [laughter] well, i'm really delighted to be joined by mike castle because mike is a bloodied warrior like arlen specter. mike served with great distinction in delaware as lieutenant governor and then as governor, and terms in the house of representatives, nine terms, taking tough positions inside a tough party apparatus. when he was in his caucus as i in the republican caucus and the senate side, it's a really rough go at it, and delaware and america lost a great public servant, and from the point of

view from the republican party, the party lost a seat. mike was a shoe-in to win that seat. joe biden had given it up to become vice president and his son was in line to run, but when the younger bide p -- biden looked at mike, he said, no me. mike's too tough with his record and stature in delaware. sure fire man. the tea party candidate emerged. i don't know which witch, but -- [laughter] quite a few people voted. she won, and the seat changed hands. i'm really pleased to share the podium, the box, with the

representative, and i look forward to his comments. >> thank you, arlen. i'm very, very pleased to be here. thank you for your political comments about my political demise, i could about cry, but that's a different experience. i want to ask questions about what we've been involved in. we've been termed and self-described as moderate republicans for a long time. there's been a complete taking apart of the moderate wings of both the democrats and republicans in the congress of the united states. it may differ state-by-state, but in the congress, it's clearly that way. i'm trying to determine the cause of it because when they take polls, the soft description by most people is they are moderate something, moderate liberal, whatever it may be, versus any other description, but the parties managed to

separate that out because they tend to be more extreme, if you will, in terms of the views of being liberal or conservative, and it becomes very difficult to get people elected who are going to be in the middle. i'm trying to determine the cause of all of this. i think part of it is the political parties who had the aid and ability to take the ability you mentioned and destroy a person's voting record on that basis, but part of it also is the media we tend to overlook. there's been a big change in the media in the last 10-15 years in the country that it's become more polarized. not just talking fox news, but there's msnbc and others, but if you will, to offset the conservative side of this, and a lot of the political pundits that do a lot of the writing on the very ideological basis in this country tend to be the ones who are also on the air doing a

lot of this talking, and i think that's been the part of the demise of the moderate wings because there's not a lot of moderate answers to them. i only had a chance to skim the book, but i'm curious your view to the media's role in terms of this sort of changing of the political balance in the country and the moderate balance. >> you put your fink l on the political -- finger on the political aspects. it's talk radio and talk television that whips the fringes into activity. i think the money is at the hands of those who are willing to finance people on the outside, the coke brothers, the wealthy who really have more extreme positions, but i think

ultimately that the moderates lose because so few people come out. of the people who come out are those who were most interested or the zealots who were really the enthusiast to come out, and the general population has the attitude to apply and say my vote won't make any difference. i think that's the principle cause. >> let me ask you can question on all of our minds right now is what's happening in the presidential republican primaries going on and going to go on for apparently some period of time, and you've been in both political parties, you have a good sense of this, but what are your thoughts about that, no not so much who the nominee will be, we assume romney, we don't know

forture, but it seems that way, and for the negativity, and, again, you have wealthy individuals with super packs and the citizens united case that occurred in the country, but how this is going to play out in the public. is this something a republican candidate will be able to rebound from or is the damage seen done in terms of the negative advertising we're seeing so prevailing that it's going to be very difficult if not next to impossible for the republican candidate to swing back from that? >> oh, i believe that romney is going to have a lot of ground to make up, but it's an open question as to whether he can do it. the republican primary has cause to romney to move so far to the right that he's off the board. you have ten candidates

appearing in new hampshire. they have a question. the question is would you agree to $1 in taxes for $10 in cuts, and anybody in the civilized world -- well, maybe now that i say that, maybe that excludes those candidates -- would say of course i'll give you $1 in taxes for $10 in cuts. not one hand went up. not huntsman, not anybody. it was a well-kept secret. i ran for the nomination in the 1996 cycle. [laughter] i was in new hampshire. there were nine people where the question was how many of you promise to abolish the department of education? eight hands sprang up instantaneously. ridiculous question. you can't abolish the department of education, just can't do it,

so here you have herman cain, michele bachmann, and oh -- one after another pushing romney so far to the right, and senator santorum, 5 worker that covered all the counties, played right into his strength with the evangelical right, but as soon as the people of america found out about him, like the people of pennsylvania, there he went. ..

>> you will have the tax cuts. obama extend it. i spoke out against it. then you have when he appoints this commission cochaired by alan simpson on national debt. he didn't pay any attention to that. how about romney? well, which romney is going to

appear? which etch-a-sketch will we know? the answer to your question, in my opinion, is that the primary process, the republican nominee to the right, he will have to make a sharp u-turn, a persuasive one. >> let me ask you a double-barreled question. it is about health care. i am curious of your views as to what you think the supreme court will be with health care. in addition to that, i am curious -- and i thought about this, what is going to happen down the road with health care? i think that is very dependent upon the election of the president and upon the house and the senate and the double power part of this is, what your thoughts about where they're going to go in terms of the

house and congress and democratic senate, which is very tenuous in terms of its numbers in this election. if so, what influence will let have -- even if obama is reelected, on what the future of health care will be regardless of the supreme court? >> my sense is that supreme court following the conventional wisdom will strike down the affordable healthcare act. my own legal judgment is that it is constitutional under congressional authority. under article one in the commerce clause. the wait has been interpreted. there have been many programs, social security and medicare, medicaid and others, which serve as real precedents. but you have a very ideological court, this is essentially the

court that elected bush over gore. this is the ideological court became down with citizens. there's there is a tendency to have a swing vote. i participated in the confirmation in 1998, and kennedy has a tension for kennedy court. in the argument of the mandate, he said a couple of things both ways. one was that the mandate certainly goes far toward an encouragement on limiting. suggesting that he strike you down. later in the argument, he left himself some wiggle room, saying it people get their health care at the emergency room, it is just a burden to everyone else. you can't be sure.

if they strike it down, i think it will be a very confused situation. there are somethings that have arty gone into effect. some parts, our exchanges, for example. some covering minors or children or on their parent's policies. i don't think you can keep the elimination of pre-existing conditions. i don't think you can compel the insurance companies to take everybody if you don't have a mandate what will congress do? i don't think congress will agree to any of it. just nothing. if they strike it down, it will leave an anonymous number of unanswered questions to be litigated and in the district

courts and courts of appeals, which will take years. meanwhile, people are sick. it will be very -- it will really be a terrible situation for the country to the supreme court of the united states is so far gone on ideology. robertson, alito, testified about congressional intent following fact-finding. they start decisiveness. they disregarded 100 years of precedent and efficient chip. one thing that has been emphasized, maybe it will be in this campaign. roe versus wade is in jeopardy. when you have a 100 year president, and you have a 1990 case called austin, where the

supreme court upholds limitations, and then congress enacted in the law, and then the supreme court upholds it in 2003, and then seven years later, you come along and with the flick of a pen, you declare it unconstitutional. there is no precedent that is safe. if ideologically, the court disagrees with it. now, that is a real problem. >> it is your turn. there is a microphone here. you have to get in line and come up to the microphones. everyone else who would like to query the senator can get in line. we will try to go through this as rapidly as possible. get as many questions in as we can. please keep the questions as brief as you can. he is a senator.

>> i like the first two questions already, because if see that they have books in their hands. >> my question is i am a member of no labels. i have been to washington four times, including two weeks ago at a hearing before senator lieberman. we have a bill before congress about no budget or no pay. i don't know if you're familiar with that. but i wonder what you think about no labels. more portly, does this country need a third-party? could we form a third-party with people like you, and people who have been scrapped out of office by extremes and somehow coalesce to have a moderate middle, of which i think is the majority, taking control of this country.

>> i went to new york when they first announced it in those kind of things. i am also familiar with what you reference, which is if they don't pass a budget and congress, the members of congress will not get paid, which is very politically popular, although i'm not sure it's a very political scene. having said that, no labels, it is not a political party, it is a movement to say that you should not oppose the politics with labels. you shouldn't be too republican, democrat, extreme. you should be able to work together to get things done. it is a movement in that direction. it is people with political backgrounds who have been involved with it. it is actually a very good movement, which will be positive things in this country. it has raised a considerable sum of money. a lot of people have taken a great deal of interest in it. having said that, there is a third -- i don't want to call it

a political party, but a third movement. it has gotten on the ballot with almost every state -- all 50 states. when you go to vote for the president this year, you can do one of several things. you can vote for the democratic candidate, the republican candidate, or the candidate of this other particular group, who is going to be nominated by some sort of internet nominating process. the president and the vice president will have to be of opposite political parties. so senator, this might be your moment, i don't know. [laughter] >> there is a movement out there that we need to do something a little different in this country. no lables is a part of that. at least talking to each other and getting things done make sense. >> i think your idea of no budget no pay is a great idea. i just don't know how you get congress to pass that.

>> good luck. [laughter] >> since they would be the ones that would get no pay. i think if you put that on the referendum, you would have a pretty good shot at it. >> we have senator heller, who is running for reelection in nevada. he has done his own polling, and no lables has done the polling. over 85%, over 90% of the people are in favor of no budget, no pay. senator lieberman said he won't be surprised to learn that the same polling figures don't take place in congress. if we can get congress to do the same thing as the american people, maybe something can happen. >> try a referendum. [laughter] >> yes, sir. >> senator, i'm proud to work in the public programs in the department here at the constitution center. when d.c. -- when d.c.

camaraderie in my lifetime, my children's lifetime, and my grandchildren's lifetime. >> i'm hopeful the day after the 2012 election. if you throw enough of the rascals out, and you make the incumbents shaken their shoes about keeping their seats. it depends on one week, the people, raise enough hell. it is also fourth in the book. [laughter] [applause] >> i'm getting a little worried about the libel and slander. he is called him on turned them libels and scoundrels and campbell's.

>> i am a writer and editor here at the national constitution center. i have a question for both of you. actually, i think part of the problem i find the politics now is that i don't find that there is enough candidates that i like. or that i want to vote for. as to longtime political leaders, what is the inspiration you have for people who want to run for office. young people feel very disillusioned. what words do you have for people who want to go into politics or the leaders today and what advice would you give them? especially women, obviously. there are not a lot of them done in office. >> personal, there are an increasing number of women, and that is important. there are more women attending college now than men. there are more women coming leaders in the private sector who will eventually spring into the public sector. i think it's very important to

understand the significance of representing people. but also the enjoyment of it. i was in government for a long time. i don't like the way it ended, but i enjoyed the experience immensely. i enjoy helping people. my staff enjoyed helping people. that was a part of it. you don't think about it much, he did he get those calls about social security and health care and you are able to help them. that is a feeling you don't get in most of the private sector places and positions when you're out there. i think it is very rewarding. i believe that anyone can do it. i started at the state house of representatives when i was 26 euros old -- 26 years old and i talk to people. they were happy to see people like me. not many people did things like that. they supported me, and i was able to get elected. that was a springboard to what i did later on. i think young people can do it. i would never underestimate a good enthusiastic young person

with good ideas, in terms of their ability to do it. the political parties are very perceptive young people doing this. they are generally looking for candidates in areas where their parties are not doing that well. that person can go out and get the job done, as far as getting elected. i think it is a very rewarding career. so many people tell me that i would never do what you do, or i would never -- i couldn't imagine undertaking that or whatever. but they can. and you could. anyone can. the opportunities are there. i would hope that our good young people, whether they be well educated or not, sometimes people are not particularly well educated but very pragmatic and reasonable and can contribute a lot to the public discourse out there that runs this country. those are the people that we need to get involved. it can't just be those of us, excuse me, who are like we are,

but those young people who will be the future of america, we cannot discourage that. my hopes are that both parties get more and more young people. >> i think you get your motivation around the kitchen table. crazy specter is sitting here next to john. she became the chairman and the republicans. she and i are trying to talk about things around the kitchen table to produce another senator or president out of the specter family. i got my motivation at the kitchen table from my father. he lived in russia in 1911. he was 18, and the czar wanted to send him to siberia.

he wanted to send all the young jewish troublemakers to siberia. to avoid a revolution. he wanted to go to kansas instead, it was a close call. [laughter] >> he emphasized the importance of government. and how important it was in our lives. that motivated me. i became a democratic committeeman down here. i became an assistant da. i didn't have any money, didn't have any powerful friends. once in big cases. i was asked to be one of the young lawyers on the warren commission staff. what an upset victory for the the da. thirteen primaries to win a republican primary. like i say, if you work at it. i motivated by those ways.

>> i am a volunteer server that you mentioned an ideological core. would you support the constitutional limits, in terms of eight or 10 years or something like that? >> well, i think it is worth considering. i would not put an eight or 10 year limit on it, but i think you might have a cutoff of age. what we really have to change is the confirmation process. i invite you to come to washington. we are having a 25 year retrospective on wednesday on judge board. and where we go on the confirmation also. i don't want to talk you much about it today because that is my next book. [laughter] >> and i want david to invite me back.

>> i will give you an idea that i would share. anything that goes to my mind, and i'm not advocating this yet, but something to be thinking about -- maybe members of the house of representatives should be elected for four years instead of two years. that business of running every two years makes an extraordinarily sensitivity to fundraising and being open-minded to what they are doing. this fund raising business is a tremendous problem in america today. not just because it influences things so much, but the time it takes from the work waiters must be doing in terms of representing the people in congress. i think that that rapid turnover, which we see in the house, you don't see this much in the senate, but we see it in the house, it is pretty germanic. it is very often that someone

defeats someone else in an election, and the opponent says i will run again next time. the race is still on. it never really goes away. that is a bit of a problem in america today. something to be thinking about, i think, in terms of where the country would go. good luck making that change, which is but just something to put out on the table. >> i'm a retired school administrator. i'm a volunteer here at the national constitution center. i would like to say first of all how much we appreciate you coming or and sharing your book with us. it is really an honor to be in the same room with both of you. i look around and i think about things that have just happened in philadelphia, the port authority, nonsense that is going on with people who are being less than honest and less than moral. i start to wonder when i look at

education, and education -- it feels like we have so much he emphasized civic and social studies in favor of passing tests in math and reading. to me, it seems like that has a correlation to lack of a moral compass that so many people in congress seem to have and so many people in the public realm, serving as -- supposedly as servants of the public. i wonder what you think. either of you or both of you. >> i will leave it up to the senator to handle this one. [laughter] >> well, education would certainly be a big help. there is no doubt that the schools do not emphasize government and they do not emphasize a civic

responsibility. and they don't really do much to inform the students about what goes on in washington d.c. sandra day o'connor, who has spoken at this podium, in the constitution center, she decries the facts that students don't know anything about government in washington. that is a first step. a moral compass is a big and significant factor in education. so much of it comes back to the kitchen table. what the parents do. i mean, a lot of the emphasis is placed on no child left behind, which is the respective law with the secretary of education, which is demanding of the students to pass and be able to read and write and do math.

as a result, other subjects are being ignored. first of all, i think that is a little bit faulty. i've been in every school in my state -- small state. [laughter] >> and, i have seen the good principles and i've seen them put together schedules and figure out how to work other things into it. even when you are dealing with certain aspects of learning in no child left behind, i agree with you, i think there should be more of that. i think there should be more basic economic education too. i think there are things that need to be done. this race to the top business is, perhaps, the next generation of no child left behind. perhaps we will try to address some of those issues. i believe the educators themselves need to look at how

they manage it. ultimately, it has to be a local decision. that is what we have to keep in mind. the federal government will put some money into it, but the bottom line is that it is a local educator and educators who will make the decisions. as to how we would get there, i am not certain. i think i'm being given the signal that we are done. senator, we will give you 30 seconds to sell your book. [laughter] >> i would like to make one addendum to that question. i would encourage high school students to go out for debate. go out for debate and a quaint yourself with the substantive issues of the public arena. it teaches you research, analysis, and public speaking. those are key ingredients to getting some place in politics. >> let me thank the senator very

much. let me thank all of you. he is going to be here. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i'm sure if you want to purchase a book, he will be happy to sign it or whatever it may be. i think he will be out here. >> don't forget "life among the cannibals." this book was written to try to influence what happens in america's america. i don't care about the premiums and the royalty, but i do care about people understanding how vicious the scenes are in washington, and how do partisanship has destroyed the public interest. and if there is an answer, and we are here in the constitution center, with the big letters across the front of the constitution center, don't mention cannibals, but mention we the people. we the people can eat and devour the cannibals. read the book.

[applause] >> thanks, everybody. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> is there a nonfiction author or book that you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at otb at c-span.org. or twitter us at twitter.com/"book tv."

>> there is a little something for everyone here. in a little celebration of the written word. >> greetings from the campus of usc in los angeles. welcome to day two of "book tv"'s coverage of the los angeles times festival of books. we will be here with nonfiction panels and authors of the latest

nonfiction books. let's take a look at a rundown. coming up next, an interview with eric alterman. his new book is called "the cause." that is followed by an interview with lori andrews, who has a new book on social networks and the death of privacy called, i know who you are and i saw what you did. in an hour and a half from now, a panel session from usc in the los angeles times, three others including edward hughes, anna sklar, and peer leaves. kareem abdul-jabbar has a new children's book. three hours from now, another panel session live from usc. it is called surveillance and secrets. lori andrews, our earlier guests, is part of the panel. four hours from los angeles, a

live call-in program who has a new book called delirium. then, our coverage continues with a panel called support our statements. final, our program and a call-in show from elizabeth price oley. the tea party principles. all today on both tvs live coverage of the los angeles times festival of books. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are at the campus of usc which is the home of the los angeles times festival of books. "book tv" is here for two days. this is a full day of live coverage of nonfiction panel sessions. also interviews and call-in programs with authors of nonfiction