memory is. all that is concluded with the fact that project mogul which is a military top-secret project to loft into the upper atmosphere surveillance using balloons made out of this tin foil and balsa wood, which is exactly what it describes. you can see the photograph in the living room of the kernel that said he found it, on the front page of the newspaper , these high-altitude balloons launched to monitor soviet upper atmosphere nuclear explosions with an acoustic signature that this device would be able to record. and it crashed. farmer bonds field in roswell. so when the government said -- okay, what will we call it? who will say it's a weather balloon. then later it came out that is not true. the government's light? yes, of course. that doesn't mean extra terrestrial or super secret

soviet whenever. it just means we don't know and it's more possible that in the middle of the cold war we're not about to tell everybody that the russians can know what we're doing by monitoring the upper atmosphere because then they will do with. there are reasons for national-security secrets. that is one. that leads to the lie which becomes the extra terrestrial and five decades later eyewitnesses come out to remember what they think they saw. that is the short story according to the skeptics. >> history. >> i'm going to admit, a journalism student from usc, and i started a ufo magazine. [laughter] i apologize. i actually put all my career into it because i was one of the 90's -- i'm going to take whatever i deserve. i am no longer part of it. it still exists, so i cannot speak to the intelligence it has, but i wrote a lot of stories are making fun of.

the people i talked to were sincere. something strange happened to them. they don't know what, but i interviewed tony lilly who talked to dolphins, quantum physics people. >> you mean john seely? that often die? >> his wife. >> the thing that was weird about -- i did most of the business part, the thing that was weird about the things that i did was that most of the people wanted to keep quiet because they did not want to get made fun of. there were like, only if you don't tell my research friends, only if you don't make it public because i don't want to get made fun of. i'm a researcher, but you can't tell anybody. you can quote me, but don't tell my name or i'll be made fun of in my other field. i thought, that's not fair. if there is something you're

researching, the national enquirer should have the joke, but i want the real thing. >> the question. >> the question is do you think that there should have journalism happen -- albright, are there any stories that you think deserve to be treated seriously? >> of course. absolutely. >> what are the? >> people have to experiences that are anomalous, they can't explain it to my very sixth year , trying their best to explain what it is , absolutely. experiences that people have are very real. are they experiences out there or in here? the only difference between me and the serious ones that really get down and study every claim, they will it meant that 95 percent of every sighting is fully explicable. a planet, weather balloon, whenever. the only difference is that other 5 percent, the residue of anomaly. in science this is called the residue problem. no theory explains everything.

what do you do? nothing. assignment to grad students. that's what they're there for. [laughter] >> where in society other looked at? everyone laughs at it. >> not everybody. quite a few. one-third of americans believe that ufos represent -- >> every cocktail party at gutted a laugh. what are you doing with your career? >> well, i can send you some other parties you could get to where they really believe that stuff. >> next question. >> i'm wondering if any of you have heard of internet service provider or operator fighting a national security letter. >> fighting one? so one of the issues is that, you know, there is a national security letter without a warrant test internet service

providers for information about people , and they can't even tell the user if there were looking at you i'm not familiar with any it have fought it. i know google does turn this over. it's very different for me because i come out of a genetic medical background, and there are plenty of times where hospitals or doctors will fight for the patient's privacy rights when there is some other thing going on, a government request for a lawsuit, but i have not -- i'm not familiar with any providers to have taken on the national security letters. >> i've only heard of one. >> which one? >> make merrill, stop starting something called the caylee institute. he has a campaign for nonprofit isp concentrated on use of privacy and almost nothing else. >> and i think chris sigalert

and is also working in this area and keeping track. there is an effort by the aclu to at least get them to file it in court. thank you. 202-585-3886 now. >> for many years there's been a controversy for people being very concerned about the possibility that we are going to have a national i.d., something much broader than your driver's license. for all those years people seem to forget the fact that we all have a social security numbers which are being asked for every day in many different forms. for example, health insurance companies have their own private system that is totally dedicated to tracking you and your medical history through your social security number. though we have focused in great part on the high-technology issue of the last x amount of years nobody i've heard has

addressed any of the more low-tech things, especially your social security number and how that is being abused and what we can do to make sure that is something that does not impact us personally. >> has the stuff always been going on through that channel? >> our recent lawsuit where a consulting firm, one of their employees mistakenly put out the social security numbers, gender, and age of all massachusetts retired state employees, 28,000. merely through that use you could do identity theft. some known identity theft website from china actually access those. surprisingly the state, the people who sued did not get

relief because their identity had not yet been stolen. we are seeing even low-tech things like social security numbers that are vulnerable with no recourse until something horrible happens. some of these things where something private like that is made public erroneously or negligently or maliciously, you know, we should have a privacy right in our social security numbers. ..

provisions that actually could lead to some problems with people being erroneously cut off of the internet. there is a real question about what the government be better able to protect us over the internet service providers and the googles of the world and many people think that the internet service provider, comcast, verizon have more of an incentive in one of the people who actually have the technological wherewithal to do so? and so come to some of the claims that the need for a government monitoring to prevent malicious virus is that the former for airfare is less than

they would say. >> is a great question because i often look at the relationship at the cia has to do the rand has been very much apparel is the relationship the cia used to have but the soviet union. it took a long time for any of us in the civil set here to learn about the virus which was fascinating to me that it has happened to them and there is a delay and rumors that it was americana coming aside and russia and not kinds of things. no one in the government said anything until we stoutly and the former cia director, michael hayden went on 60 minutes and gave an interview about it. if anyone is interested in knowing that didn't happen, just go ahead and look at the interview because there is no way the former or the cia, and he was current when that happened, would tell you anything about what did happen. in fact i believe he was at the opposite because who he was speaking to was not une, butter

and. >> i think we have to wrap it up now. thank you. >> thank you so much. hot mark [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> to her is left to go out live coverage of the los angeles festival of books you buy from the campus of umc in the beautiful california. quite a lovely day here. lots of people out enjoying the festival. coming up next in our continuing coverage is alive call-in program. they nancy cohen, whose new book is called "delirium: how the sexual counterrevolution is polarizing america." so the question is do you ask in book is, why is it when we are

wired in the worst economic downturn, but yours controlled seemed to be top on the agenda. what is your answer? speed magazine shocking and ludicrous and surprising, but it's not at all surprising. what we see today is results of a historical process playing out the last 40 years. the story "delirium" tunnels is really the history behind what a lot of people called the war been in. >> host: a 40 year history that began? >> guest: village in 1972, but was kind of set in motion in the 60s with the revolution and the women's movement and the gay rights movement. and those games changed america and our a lot of people that really disagreed with that. ever really outraged and appalled that these changes in

gay coming out of the closet and sexuality. they became politically at this to really turn back the clock, turn back the changes come and go back to in many ways unimagined high when the traditional christian family kind of north america. at first they recognize against equal rights amendment and surprisingly most of the people that became involved in the movement for women, fundamentalist women have a right wing republican when it got organized against the equal rights amendment and defeated it. and then they organized against federally subsidized child care and they path. and then they organized to take rights away from gay at the moment they were starting to achieve them through bills at the local level. they succeeded in that way. and then they organized at the grassroots and local level of the republican party. and started rising to the point where they have become today really the most powerful bloc in

the republican party. >> host: this is the book, the title is "delirium." who will open up the phone lines. we'll put the book to the numbers on the bottom of the screen. send us an e-mail at otb@c-span.org or to eat at the tv. did you get get the title? >> guest: i was thinking a crazy american politics had gone no matter what side the political side you are on is pretty clear things have gone crazy. i can't really call it a crazy and delirium seemed to be the right word he says that captured both the kind of ecstasy at some of our politics recently, the joy and ecstasy of obama being elected, but also the kind of irrational anger that we've seen in our polarized politics over the last couple decades. >> host: you are an historian political commentator.

suddenly the genesis of this book. who had the idea and how did it come to be? >> guest: it first came to me during the 2008 election when there seemed to be all these gender issues and women about and play. in the democratic side, where people think that it's settled about women's rights, there's all this this stuff about hillary. a lot of sexiest stuff about hillary came out and a lot of it was coming, all the democratic party staff itself. fast-forward a couple months and you have the whole affair appealing phenomenon. the love-hate relationship, dhea from the republican party that they could take up one of those at the very, very conservative woman, which has really never been the case. and i realized there was some need subterranean and american politics about our questions about gender and about women's

rights that people thought were settled and really seem not to be settled. so they started investigating and someone found some very surprising things such as women were the ones who started in many ways the antifeminist men's and in the democratic party that is most liberal democratic man who did the most to that it hath been. >> host: who is lonnie potts? >> guest: and middle-aged single woman who taught in the churches of christ. when he found out about the era coming changed her life and she became politically act did to defeat the era. and she lived a pamphlet that went viral before we knew it bhairon buys that circulated throughout churches in the south and the southwest. and it and it was an anti-era passed that they started with god gave the privilege is the year honor to have.

the era would take away their privileges as a woman. able for see how to keep your own name and not take your husband's name. that will force you to post your children federally subsidized childcare. and so she made a defense based on what the bible says is the traditional submissive role for women to help organize thousands of women against including equal rights for women in the u.s. constitution. >> host: lots more details in the story. let's fast forward today. the net effect of the dignity of people who are hoping to conserve their view of society is about quite exciting, if you look at statistics, women are now outnumbering men in university degrees. careers open to women expanding exponentially. what effect has a story you've told had on society? >> guest: on one side of it, 80% or more of americans except

these changes and sexuality, women's roles, gender, gay having civil rights and human rights in american society. there is a small minority, maybe 15% to 20% that really wants to go back to a time when birth control is actually legal to a time when gay sex was illegal in every state. these people have been very good clinical organizers and we saw this in the tea party agitation in 2009, 2010 and the way that people who have been associated with christian writes that he rebranded tea party at various really not tell the moderates and really ought the mainstream conservative side of the republican party and struck fear into a lot of republican politicians. so with a look back at the primary where we're talking about birth control, talking about reinstating "don't ask,

don't tell," santorum says birth control is not okay. gingrich talks about setting up religious tribunals. to review all the laws to see if they are hostile to christianity. we see the effect of the base of the republican party having pushed the republican leaders very far to the right, al to the mainstream america. >> host: lets take telephone calls. the first is joshua who is watching us in long island your joshua, you're on the air. welcome. >> guest: first of all ad like to say in a pro-choice moderate and i very much agree with many of the things you are saying. but also, i think it should be pointed out that while i'm 32 years old and my age group, women out there and then and i think there's also a problem on the other end of the spectrum and i don't think enough people address that. but what you have to say to that as far as fathers rights in

things? >> guest: well, i think that one of the great advantages of these revolutions in gender relations if they raise questions about women's rights, to add opennet meant to be more involved in their children's lives and i think it's been better for men and women together that both sexes are more equal. i don't think that the gap in wages is really the result of sound animus towards men. and what we do see on a national level is a persisting gender gap, where women earn less than men. it may be made as a reflection of age because the gender gap of wages has been for women at childbearing age. and women still performed the lion's share of housework and child bearing.

that is where a lot of women kind of get off the career track and start earning less than men do. >> next up is a call for brandon and montgomery, alabama. >> caller: i just wanted to understand why today's youth has been collecting today's conservative movement. acting they are less aware and perhaps more conservative. i'm wondering to what extent of the previous generation. >> guest: so, historically yes, today's conservatives are really pretty far to the right of yesterday's conservatives. and you see there have been a number of prominent conservative leaders and intellectuals to have left the republican party and then been very critical of conservatives -- of the right wing embracing some of the wackier ideals.

president obama might not have been born in the united states. that's absurd. that's it ridiculous. been born in the united states. that's absurd. that's it ridiculous. conservatives that are very distraught. that's absurd. that's it ridiculous. conservatives that are very distraught, that their movement has been co-opted by the far right. >> host: a little bit of ronald reagan history if we could. you tell the story from your dad, that ronald reagan's alliance with christian conservatives is key to successful victory in 1980, but this is a quote. weekend resisted the pressure to overreach. what did you mean by that? >> guest: well, this is a time in the conservative movement that really was a coalition. i think right now we are in a point where we are looking more at collaboration and captives. so reagan was held primarily and the republican primary may come not so much in the general election to win for the vote of

the christian right and religious right and a lot of women with organizing in the decades. but when they wanted him to do some very extreme things, for example accommodate pressured reagan to adopt the equivalent of the person that amendments we see today, which would define a fertilized egg is a fully human being and effectively outlaw abortion and the show fertilization and other fertility treatments. reagan is like we are not going to go there. priorities are the economic issues, size of government and the soviet union. because reagan was a master politician and on the other side the group was not yet as politically adept or quite as large as it would become, he was able to navigate a more pragmatic past on a lot of these social issues. >> host: next is kevin watching us in hawaii. hi, you're on. >> guest: hello. such a fascinating program. how many of these ideas are political creations and how many are actually real?

remember the issue and the last couple of election cycles and it just seems as if that was created to marginalize people and bring out the hard-core conservatives because they were afraid. could you speak to that? >> guest: i'm sorry -- >> host: you set how many issues are real and how many are political creations to excitement phase? >> guest: i actually see it somewhat differently, a little bit counter to conventional wisdom. the issues are real for the base and not as weighty issues issues, up. so when something like gay marriage and 2004, the christian conservatives really do care about these things and they are kind of priority number one. on the other hand, looking out the election at the election statistics on the studies, these issues don't turn the election. so for example, bush won on

terrorism and national security, not on gay marriage. when we see these issues such as birth control coming up, it is really a sign of what the court republican want to see rather than politicians manipulating men. >> host: a lot of male colors interested on the subject. next is larry watching us in trend. you're on. >> caller: high, wondering why you have to legislate these social issues as is inherently divisive? is there a better way to settle issues clerics >> guest: larry, what's the better way? >> guest: at better way as education and, asking people to meet these people. but is that the way to do it? is this a litigious society everything within the course? i hope not. >> host: thanks for your call. >> guest: i would agree that

it be nicely to put social issues aside basically because for the 21st century. we shouldn't have to debate whether birth control is legal anymore. i also think he gets the final american values of liberty and pluralism. the fact is people really just her on morals about what is right and what is wrong about family issues and sexuality and gender. and if we are going to have a kind of democratic or liberal society where we respect each other, i think some of these issues have to be taken out of the political arena. now that's sad, people who support women's rights and support gay writes can't unilaterally disarm because there is a small minority in the country that will keep pushing to outlaw abortion and outlaw birth control and outlaw gay marriage and civil unions. >> host: this is your third book or the fact that writing for a day. you are very active on the

internet. you have a call and berate regularly and you also to television. what reaction to other forms of commission trena keeshan do not and what you write books? >> guest: i write books in part because the stories are complicated and may take some time to tell and may take some time to really think about to figure out what the story is going to be. so this book actually turn out quite deeply than i expected when i started to do the research and that's one of the joys of writing is the discovery. you have kind of this mystery you are encountering. on the internet when you write blogs and columns, you get very immediate reaction. but then it kind of coming in now, the next day is gone. silly book is a little bit more lasting and i hope what it is, to really get the sense of power politics have really been different than we think it's

been and to hopefully kind of change some minds about what america is like. >> host: in the course of your research, was there a breakthrough moment and something you didn't think them through a piece of research he found that wasn't ha ha, not this helps everything fit together? >> guest: and subway stairways. at the earlier part of the book where i talk about these right-wing women's movement against the era, i thought this was going to be a very short background and i thought the book might be more about democrats because although i know we haven't talked about it today, the book also looks at how these issues are played out in the democratic party and making it divided when it synoptics and overreacting. and when i discovered this movement, these women, i realized the book had to start earlier and that in fact are

understanding that the right and understanding of religious right started much earlier than we think. >> host: next question comes to gm and broken arrow, arizona. hi. >> caller: good afternoon. my comment is i wish i was president right now and my question is, what do you think this revolution is done to america, good or bad? a opinion at this worth anything, i don't think it was good because i see disease that is spread by the gay rights movements and a lot of people have suffered for that. and it's the christians against non-christians in my opinion and it is breaking up america and it makes me very sad. i have not read the book. >> host: thank you. >> guest: i think