interest in hustling the guy as he was interested in perform some act of terrorism but most of the transcript suggests he would say anything until the 50 grand ended up in his bank account. of course a degree never came and they got involved in the terrorism plot. but in the case they gave a note to al qaeda. they seem to move along with whatever the informant wanted and that evidence suggested they wanted that money. >> we are running out of time but i think it's safe to say that trevor will be happy to hang around and talk to you individually. i want to thank you once again for doing this, you, gigantic project. it's from these kind of investigations that we learn about the mistakes we might be making that had to do things better. i want to thank all of you for coming out, and if you haven't picked up a copy of traversable jet, now you know why you must then grab a copy of "mother jones" while you're at it and support this wonderful venue.

>> thank you so much. "mother jones" has been huge part of this. i'm really flattered and honored. thank you so much. thank everyone for coming. i'll stick around and would love to meet everyone, so if you have time to talk, i will be here. [applause] >> and no booktv, patrick james expense international relations using themes found in the book "lord of the rings." this is about half an hour. >> and welcome to the scholars circle. the "lord of the rings" trilogy and its prequel the hobbit have collectively grossed billions of dollars in sales, and now companies are planning to exploit it for think parks, video games, slot machines, other properties. but in the "lord of the rings" actually act as a means to understand complex politics and

international relations? our guest with us today says that it can, and he's recently written a book to just show that. patrick james is a professor at university of southern california. and a director for the center for international studies. this book is like a cold "the international relations of middle-earth: learning from 'the lord of the rings'" it's great to have you. so before we get into the actual politics of middle earth, why the "lord of the rings" rather than another narrative to try to explain the series of internationalism? >> the short answer is, it's extraordinary completeness and complexity as a world. if you took all of jr tolkien's writings and put them together, hyou have the most completely specified fantasy world that has ever been great to for example, full language that one can speak, details so accurate that

you can chart faces of the men at different points in the storyline and they're absolutely correct. so the reason i say that is that the complexity of the story is enough to rival human history itself. >> so now the "lord of the rings" had i think he wrote in the book 49 which is. how many different species and story lines and themes? >> oh, the answer is depending upon how one would measure such things. literally thousands, within the movies, right, which collectively and extended versions which are something like 11 hours long, major significant interest in characters and plot lines are literally not even mention at all. it would probably go on as a series for several years. >> let's talk about those things. justice and order, that's a pretty big theme in international relations. our these are simplified in the "lord of the rings"? >> it is a constant struggle between the two.

often the more of when you have, the more orderly thing you get, the more unjust and vice versa. and look at particular story lines and situations in the earth to see how those things trade off. because a person reading the book if you will come anyone picking this up and saying i'd like to get a sense of what international relations is about, the very kinds of conventions and trade us, can give examples if you like, that we struggle within middle earth, the characters do, are right there for you and me in the real world. >> for example? >> let's get in a time machine, it's making it for. you are william jefferson clinton. you are extremely popular yourself, but you're in trouble with the public and congress is in the process of falling to the republicans. you do the right thing to rwanda or to sell and -- which is sending a force to shut down the genocide or do you forego justice and preserve your own

political position by instancing out of rwanda and remembering that the public is still pretty mad about the debacle in somalia. that question answers itself. justice and order trading off against each other. >> anand what about and about? >> in the book we see an extraordinary and very black and white struggle. this is not a book for people who like shades of gray. there are very villainous villains and very virtuous heroes, but at the same time there are flaws. and while there is an ultimate struggle between good and evil in this book, there are really interesting characters who act lists and turns in them. and if we want to concentrate on someone, probably the right place to start is gollum, arguably the most interesting and master character in the book. >> okay. so first of all let's address the black and white issue. i think it is unfit, scholars like me, we want to get our audiences to think about things in great.

does this black and white i do do that? >> it's a wonderful throwback, maria, to a world, and much of this was written in the first half of 20 century. iis in some ways an assault on moral relativism. you will see that the characters are often tormented, who wants to preserve the safety of his people in the land, but is also struggling with doing that. in his case, for instance, finally gives in to his darker nature. he pays with his life. he endangers the entire mission, if you will, of the so-called fellowship of the ring. and there we see giving and if you will to evil resulting in a very bad outcome. spent so you mentioned column and using the example of eyes --

>> the example of eyes within i think human nature that there is no absolute determinism. that all of us have the potential for good or evil. and column by the way of course is, most of our viewers or listeners will have a sense of who gollum is, that he is this extraordinary high-tech character who has a jekyll and hyde personality. snowbowl is we once was a ritual. he is akin to the delightful hobbit creatures who are among the most important protective. he also has a darker side of the column who is obsessed with a very evil ring of power, jeopardizes the safety of the entire world. and often throughout the story, osha developments go back and forth in terms of whether the other part can see strong enough to assist the fellowship members, a character we can talk to, or whether regrettably the darker side of gollum takes over

and threatens the world. >> okay. so now you've also written a book about a gollum represents a certain paradigm or model in international relations. it's the imperialist model. how is that so? >> yes, that's right. and the storyline very briefly, calling the murders another character who is a friend when you're phishing. he finds the ring. the first act as evil the ring causes because of its own inherent evil is the murder of them. what does that have to do with colonialism? simple creatures who live by the river, like to fish. we never heard anyone. yet when this high-tech device arguably in a fantasy world of middle earth, the wing is a wmd. the weapon of mass destruction. as soon as it is injected into the simple location of the river folks, what happens? he murders his friend to he is obsessed with the ring.

the use of his magical powers to disappear and he becomes cannibalistic, arranges, and ultimately over 500 years of financial extended life due to the fact that he has the ring, commits many heinous acts. this can be seen if he will a comparison to the effect of very high technologies going into the parts of the world that were innocent and christine and causing terrible things about the some people have read the book that way. >> so now that is one of the many ways of looking at international relations, and just characters representing the other models. realism for example, the liberalism. odc as representing realism? >> realism, a particular form of it that is the aggressive called offense of realism, its a sense that people live for again of our relative to others that they want to expand if you will that they are naturally quite imperialistic. an example, a storyline example involving two wizards, one has

gone up to the dark side india starting to help the dark lords. he has been overtaken if you will versus gandalf. have a terrible competition and the jargon, a concept such as bandwagoning plays a key role as an it is appropriate for me to bandwagon, that is, roll down the hill and join the site that is winning. saruman mates a plea to gandalf. and we should join saruman, he will just when anyone. this communicate the very old concept and one with a lot of staying power of international relations that we see bandwagon. for example, smaller states that joined in with hitler's germany during its early days of

successful conquests, certain parties join in with hitler rather than balance against them. saruman, the wizard has gone up to the dark side, bandwagons with the evil an incredibly powerful saruman. where gandalf speaks to another realism. it's about how you choose to play your power. saruman says let's gave in and divide up the spoils. gandalf says very unwise but let's balance against it because he does not share power speak you said that gandalf in the book was actually a representative of what we call in political science rational choice. and yet rational choice on the side that is winning. >> the answer is that if you calculate properly, the correct answer is no interestingly enough. because they also can look ahead rather than being myopic and say, what gandalf did, as in it might simply to be on the

so-called winning team, but this is very much like winston churchill's comparison can we go back to hitler, siding with someone like hitler that is bandwagoning with saruman in a fantasy world is a lot like feeding a crocodile hoping u.s. the rational thing to do is to actually doing the weaker side and try to balance because american revolutionaries said, you must hang together, or hang separately. >> my favorite model is constructivism. how can we see the international relations theory of constructivism in the "lord of the rings"? >> the answer is we see in so many places because to do this anyway that is accessible as we do now, we actually try to avoid sort of technical jargon -esque kind of discussions. and saying in a way, it's not just guns and tanks or nuclear weapons that matter.

is the power of ideas. if we look at the story of the "lord of the rings," here's one example of this. that actors, the actress, i've complex story so bear with me as i bring in more of them, if you look at a character like the ring bearer, he is looking at will notice we can introduce multiple trees with a single character. he has to come up with, if you will, an idea about what this world is all about. it's about black and white, good and evil? he must, in other words, and as a group if you will in throwback to early modern, very passionate place called the shire. everybody farms. he must reconstruct his view because here's his initial view until he begins to have his adventures. and gets involved in the "lord of the rings" story.

it doesn't concerns but many to construct a more liberal, cooperative worldview as in i must join in with the fellowship because even the hobbits, little we creatures who live in our sample area would like to stay it isn't realistic anymore. so he learns and he discovers and changes in worldview. companions of his. we can pull their storylines and they involved in the same with. there's a famous line, i think one that people really like from the two towers movie.

>> do not try to pretend, especially under conditions of globalization, that there are little airtight compartments in this world, that we can stay in one and keep the rest of them out. >> let me just remind listeners that we are speaking with patrick james, and this is the scholar's circle, and i'm maria. there are other models. you actually have found a character for almost every one of them. the critical theory, how do you find critical theory in the lord

critical theory, to give you a basic sense of what it's all about, is not, say, in the subpoenas of newton or -- in the instead it's looking attics r in terms of what is right and wrong. wrote all of this material before anybody even used the words "krill call theory." so by definition what's so fascinating is you will find theories that have been created very recently that, amazingly enough, storylines represent a great character to talk about here is someone who doesn't make it into the movies. a cantankerous cousin, if you will, to the creatures who ultimately, by the way, do join the good guys. old man willow is quite nasty

and mean, and in the storyline that's left out, right? we see him trying to devour the little hobbits early in their time. they're still quite ignorant of the outside world. they tend to be innocent. they might lie down near the roots of the tree and, unfortunately, because they are not aware of such things, they risk being devoured and gnarled to death, if you will. okay. well, then where does critical theory come in? to old man willow, intruders in his domain called the old forest always mean trouble. what do they do? they burn the trees, they chop them down. this, of course, is critical theory expressed in terms of environmentalism. he? he's trying to devour these hobbits. but now we transport ourselves to his domain, what is happening to him? people are coming into his territory, even right next to his doorstep, and they're pulling out axes and cutting him

the book does as is a sentient creature. so it encourages us from a critical theory standpoint to step out of the idea that trees are just wood waiting to happen for our fireplace. maybe, for example, we might want to rethink what we're doing with the amazon. >> and then also it brings in the issues of justice and the entire system and how the system works to be either just or injust and feeds into conflict. >> you are absolutely right. and the book is also a wonderful and my wonderful collaborator who i like so much. maria is actually, i think, acquainted with abigail. she's a very fine scholar. and she was at usc at one point of her career, and she is more devoted to critical theory whereas i am much more on the things. she's more interested in

justice, i'm more interested in order. not to the exclusion of the other. so the book is written, in a sense, while it's not an explicit debate, it always encourages the reader to say now that you've been thinking about order, maybe we ought to think about the implications for justice and vice versa. >> i assume it was your co-author that actually integrated feminism. >> yes. i am more known as an exend of economic models where as abby, as she's nicknamed, is quite expert on critical theory and gender-based analysis. we're, obviously, as different as we can get in our approaches. so each one serves as a natural critic to the other, completely confident to say you just went too far there. so the book, in other words, tends to have -- in my humble opinion -- a very pragmatic and as in we do not obsess

over justice to the point where we worry that even always has the same things all of the time. and at the same time we're not so callous that we want order as we know in world, maria, is where is that appropriate balance in any given context in. >> and do you have the sense that the lord of the rings allows that debate to come through? >> precisely was if you look at -- because if you look at the hire around ri can have power, you have different races, call them ethnicities. you have the humans, you have the elves who are very long-lived, extremely intellectual, very distant and also, i'm afraid, they have flaws such as being condescending and somewhat self-absorbed. at the other end of things, powerful creatures like humans and elves, you have the hobbits who are physically not very strong and generally not very knowledgeable with a few exceptions about the outside world. and then much more fantastic

creatures with greater kinds of strengths and weaknesses. dwarves, for instance, or who are short but actually physically quite powerful, incredible engineers, but here's their flaw, they are obsessed with wealth. notice the problem here, that that they might not care much about justice as long as they have a lot. and then you have characters that go over the edge into evil, the so-called, ork, and here we come back to the question of relativism, are, in fact, completely evil. and that, of course, is a very extreme kind of character to have. they are perverted creations from tormented, if you will, per eventerred elves. >> -- perverted elves. >> and orks you described as part of the earlyist -- realist model prototype. how are they? >> there's a character who has a very exciting confrontation in the movie version with one of

the most heroic characters we haven't mentioned. he is the king in waiting, the leader of the free peoples, eventually the king of gondorf if the good side wins. he has a confrontation with a particular ork, capable of traveling in daylight. these rather miserable creatures abhor the sun, and the particular type of ork does not. and the leader epitomizes realism in that he goes on a murderous rampage. all he cares about, if you will, is offensively destroying his enemies. in other words, he's monomaniacal. he wants power, he wants to destroy things, and he does not have concerns for justice. for him, his race dominates. >> he almost sounds like he belongs in another mold, like in

the traditional imperialist model. >> yes, which is a historical type of version of offensive realism. realism in the 19th century, the great powers of europe sailed the seas, took over what they in a kind of bad reading of charles darwin saw as extremely inferior people, colonized them. they didn't understand the places they were colonizing, and did. but you can look at a sort of neocolonial type of assessment through these rampages, in particular going to places and undies turned. another storyline, maria, that is not in the movies is called the scouring of the shire, if you read the lord of the rings. what happens, sadly enough for the hobbits -- and this would have roomed the movie, by the way, so they didn't put it in. people know the spoiler, yes, of

course, the good guys have to wane. when the hobbits go back home to shire, it is not like it is in the movie. in the book it has been taken over by a decrepit, pathetic, reduce canned version of the his minions have now -- and get this point closely -- of industrial waste. there's smoke everywhere. in a sense what this is pointing out also about war and its consequences is there is no victory without also loss. that the shire when they p come back, they have to fight another rear guard battle to destroy the occupying force of evil men, and they do. the hobbits are now, because of their battle-hardened experience -- are able to come back, they lead a hobbit rebellion. things are repaired, but some

hobbits have died, and some beautiful things in particular if you recall the bridge between the hobbit and the lord of the called the party tree. it's a big, beautiful tree. it has been destroyed and turned into firewood. >> now, i know you said your co-author wrote the feminist chant kerr, but i wonder -- chapter, but i wonder, you know, the horde of the rings didn't have much presence of women at all. and i wonder if that is part of the feminist critique of international relation theory as well. >> well, sad, in fact, give the women even a smidgen of air time. they actually have to change the storylines in the book. there's a memorable rescue scene where the partner, ultimately, for the king, she's an elf, and she does not rescue frodo from the dark riders, these minions, when he's been stabbed. he's going to turn into, if you will, a sort of ghastly

zombie--like creature. he needs desperately to get to where the elves have their sanctuary and their powerful medicine. he's rescued by a beautiful elf in the movie, but a male elf actually rescues him in the book version. the female character is really pushed up in the movie -- pumped up in the movies compared to the books. and other character, the few female characters that matter -- arguably the most powerful single entity in middle earth. she's an elf, and an ancient one. unless he can get that ring we've been talking about. if he gets it, all of the world powerful, very wise, has some elements of mind-reading powers as well. that's implied. she's powerful and important. the leading feminist character in the book is actually quite fascinating to think of how long

ago this book was written. and she is, if you will, as close as you could get to being, if you will, a sort of i've -- fight. she actually has to disguise herself and assume the identity of a phony knight. she becomes a warrior from her kingdom rohan, being allied with gondor, the principal kingdom that we've been talking about. the rohan people are riders. they're very no, sir. they remind you, if you will, of people who would live in a viking-type of environment, and they're great horsemen, and she actually has to disguise herself. and she plays a crucial role in a very late battle scene in the movie. if she isn't there, there's a saying about these horrible black riders that were pursuing frodo at one point, the leader of them cannot be killed by a

man. he is ultimately slain by the female and a small hobbit who was not going to be allowed to fight either. and they, in other words, the feminist critique is there are women who can do things that men can do. now here's where some of my feminist friends would get annoyed and say you left out something. this is called, maria, liberal feminism. the idea is that you and i should have equal opportunities as should everyone, and you might try to excel in the ways i might try to excel. different variants actually object to this, say no women actually are different and hoar we get into another storyline if that's all right that's not in the movies and the books, those large, fantastic-looking trees. they're all guys. they're all masculine pause the wives left. -- because the wives left. they found the ents and their obsession with trees annoying. notice the environmentalism

again, but notice also although toll key yen could not have anticipated this, one strand of feminism argues that the liberal model where everybody should have an equal opportunity and try to excel say in a democratic capitalist type of society, that's one kind of feminism. but another one would say we want to be different. actually, we don't want to obsess over what you historically have obsessed over. we have different goals. even those nuances can be found, and i return to my first point, how many novels out there have this degree of internal m complexity where we can get into subvariants of explanations, and we find entire characters or races that help us with them. >> and speaking of complexity, the other aspect of this book -- and i should remind people that it's called "the international relations of the middle earth." patrick james is with us, and the book just fell down, and this is the scholar's circle, and i'm your host, maria. but then levels of looking at, you call them levels of

analysis, kind of a scholarly term, but just how to really understand conflict. you said in "the lord of the rings" just like in world war i you can look at it from these various for spectives. you can look at the big system, like what are the systemic reasons why world war i happened? you can look at it from the structural elements like the state. i mean, you can look at it from the individual. like, you know, the young man who decided to shoot the archduke. >> that's right. and what's so fascinating, just one historical comparison. if you look at things that are true to all three of the or wars that we choose to look at, they're very well known cases. obviously, the war of the ring from the fantasy world, why did it happen, and then the causes as well of the world war i that you just mentioned, but also the war in iraq which is more recent in our times. one of the things that is in the lord of the rings as well as bad

leaders, quote-unquote, who showed poor judgment. world war i, we have a come but nation of decrepit empires and monarchical systems where it wasn't the best and the brightest. it was old, decrepit monarchs like the kaiser, for instance, in germany, the czar in russia. who pause they are there only through privilege and not through we are -- competence are not skilled in diplomacy, not able to prevent the outbreak of world war i of after that assassination. now, iraq, not a partisan statement, but i think it has been said fairly that george bush 43 was not an experienced foreign policy present. he tended to listen arguably to people who really wanted to precipitate the war, perhaps he moved impetuously regarding

wmds. and inexperienced leadership as in later on the intelligence was proven not to have been there. now, here's the fun part, if you're trying to get these ideas and compare them, the lord of the rings has its own decrepe tuesday to talk about as well. remember gandolf? actually, he has no official position. other leaders won't listen to him. the two monarchs from the kingdom i have referenced, they have in one -- by an agent. another wizard who i had mentioned. beganful to is fighting furiously. he's pursuing the get these leaders to listen to him. we're going to be really in a deep, dark place if we do not prepare properly for the war that's coming, and for various

kinds of complex reasons, the incompetence weakens the people and makes them more prone to a war they will lose. notice the comparison with iraq and 1914 is really quite apt. you've got weak leadership and incompetence, and war ensues. now, one might say, hay, tolkien cheated. if he was still ahive, he would get quite cranky with us for saying this, but how about that? iraq. iraq. it happened 30 years after he was gone. >> now, i'd like to end with what you began the book with, which is in this most recent election in iran that when there was considerable consternation about how the election went that the state aired the lord of the rings in an effort to pacify people, but it didn't have that effect. what happened? >> the tremendous irony is that while the state, right, the

ahmadinejad regime says, well, let's throw the people a bone, they don't get many western movies, these movies are hotter than the sun. even's watching this years after they come out in the west. this is 2009. here's the irony, the state puts the movies out there, but they should have had some of their own people watch them very the movies are about human or personal freedom. they argue in favor of democracy a combination of order and justice. they would hardly be something you would show people to try to calm them down. and what happens, of course, is a boomerang effect. people look at these movies, and they see messages within them as in we ought to resist, you know? we shouldn't be pacified by this. yes, we're entertained. of course, it's a sword and

sorcery fantasy movie. arguably, it's the best long movie ever made, the return of the king won best picture. yes, they were right to entertain, but i think they would have been better off showing top gun if they wanted to shut people down. [laughter] >> well, thank you so much, patrick james, for being with us. the book is called the international relations of the mulled l earth: learning from the lord of the rings. this has been the scholar's circumstance lt. i'm maria armoudian, and we'll see you next week. >> thank you so much. >> on the go? "after words" is available via pod christmas. visit booktv of.org and click podcast on the upper left side of the page. select which podcast you'd like to download and listen to "of after words" while you travel. >> the best day to be a planner in america was july 9, 2004, when dick jackson, howie frumpkin and lawrence frank came

out with a book called "urban sprawl and public health." and what that book finally did was put some it -- technical, epidemiological meat on the sociological bones that we planners have been arguing about and said the suburbs are killing us, and here's why, and cities can save us, and here's why. by far is greatest aspect of that epidemic, or i should say of our health challenges in america is the obesity epidemic. it's not that obesity itself is the problem, of course, but all the illsts that obesity leads to, principal among them diabetes. diabetes now consumes 2% of our gross national product. a child born after 2000 has a 1 in 3 chance in measuring of becoming a diabetic. we are now looking at the first generation of americans who are going to live shorter lives than their parents. that's probably not a huge surprise to you. we've all been talking now for a long time about the wonders of

the american corner run- corn syrup-based diet but only recently have the studies been done comparing diet and physical inactivity. one of them in england was called gluttony versus sloth. [laughter] another doctor at the mayo clinic put patients in electronic underwear and measured every motion, set a certain dietetic regime, studied their weight, started pumping calories in, and then some people got fat and other people didn't. and expecting some sort of met boll you can factor or a genetic dna factor at work, they found the only thing that changed was the amount of daily activity. then you look at these books like the blue zones, have any of you seen the -- buttener, i forget his first name, dan buttener and the blue zones, you go to places where people live the longest, you see what they

do including red wine, you put it in a book, and you sell millions. the number one rule? move naturally. don't run marathons and triathlons, don't ask people to exercise, they will stop. find a way to build normal motion into your everyday life as part of a work routine. who's going to change their work routine so they all of a sudden go from being an accountant to a lumberjack? that's not going to happen. they say, well, you know, bike to work, walk to the store. and the one thing that book forgets to mention is in half of america you can't bike to work, and you can't walk to the store because you live off of a highway that the store is off of. so it's fundamentally about how we build our communities in the long run. but in the short run it's about where you choose to live, and that's nowhere more obvious that in the other big discussion which is car crashes. and car crashes are funny because on the one hand we naturalize it. we're like, oh, that's just a part of living that there's a 1

in 200 chance that i'll die in a car crash, a 1 in 3 chance that i'll be injured in a car crash, nothing i can do about it. or alternatively we feel like we're in charge of our fate on the road. you know, we're good drivers. 85% of people who are in a hospital recovering from accidents that they themselves had caused rated themselves as better than average drives. so all this' going on. but the fact is that it's not the same all over the world, and it's not the same all over america. so we have a rate where 14 americans out of 100 are dying ever -- sorry, 14 americans out of 100,000 are dying every year in car crashes. in london, in england it's 5 out of 100,000. no one has half the crashes we do. in new york city it's 3 out of 100,000. new york city has saved more lives many traffic than were lost since september 11th than were lost on september 11th. and, in fact, if our entire

country were to share new york city's accident rate, we would save 24,000 lives a year. there's a big difference between urban living and suburban or rural living in terms of that aspect of our lives. and, again, in the short term we can build -- in the long term, we can build places to be safer n. the short term we can decide to live in more urban environments. a wonderful study, you know, dick jackson famously asked the question in what sort of city are you most likely to wake -- most likely the to die in a pool of blood. that's how he puts it to his audiences. [laughter] and they compared murder by strangers, crime, to car crashes and added the two together and looked at portland, vancouver and seattle. you were 15% safer in the grittiest inner city that the leafy, wealthy suburbs. and we move to the suburbs for the safety of our children, right? so, and then finally asthma.

who talks about asthma? fourteen americans die every day from asthma. okay, that doesn't sound like a huge amount. it's three times the rate of the '90s, and the it's entirely due to automotive exhaust. 90 whatever percent. you know, pollution isn't what it used to be. the sickest places in america are those places which are the most car dependent. and, you know, in phoenix you have got four months out of the year that you -- healthy peoplee not supposed to leave their houses because of the amount of driving that's going on. what's the solution? the city. finally, the most interesting discussion maybe is the environmental discussion which has turned 180 degrees in the last ten years. you know, if you look at the -- even within the global warming discussion, you talk about car won footprint -- carbon foot print, you know, red is bad, green is good. you look at the united states, and it looks like the night map, it like looks like the satellite

night map of the united states, hottest around the cities, coolest out in the country, right? but that measures co2 per square mile. in 2001 scott bernstein at the center for neighborhood technology in chicago said what happens if instead of measuring co2 per mile we start measuring per person or per household? because there are only a certain number of us, and we can choose to live in places where we pollute more or less. if you look per household, the red and the green just flip. absolutely change places. and by far the healthiest place you can live is in the city. man that the tan -- manhattanites burn a third of the fossil fuels of people in dallas, they use a thid of the electricity. why? well, they're heating and cooling their neighbors, right? their apartments are touching. but even more importantly than that, the less driving they're doing. transportation is the greatest single contributor to most civilians' greenhouse gas.

in our daily lives the biggest choice we can make, you know, when i built my house in washington, d.c., i made sure i cleaned the shelves on the sustainability stores. i got the solar panels, i got the superinsulation, i got the bamboo flooring. i have a wood-burning stove that supposedly a log burning in my wood-burning stowe -- stove contributes less to the co2. and, of course, i have the energy saver lightbulbs. that saves as much electricity in a -- i should say saves as much carbon in a year as moving to a walkable neighborhood saves in a week. so the whole gizmo-green-gadget discussion, what can i buy to make myself more sustainable is the wrong discussion. it should be where can i live and how can i live to contribute less, and the answer, again, is the city. this is fundamentally the opposite of the american ethos, you know?

from jefferson on. cities are pestilential to the morals, the health and the freedom of man. if we continue to pile upon ourselves in cities as they do in europe, we shall take to eating one another as they do there. [laughter] that was jefferson. and that just continued and continued, and it made sense back in the, you know, 1700s when we had the whole country to spread out on, and the biggest by-product of transportation was fertilizer. but that's not the case now. so it's a longer discussion. all three of these are a longer discussion. but they're all national crises. we have an international crisis which is only going to get tougher, we have a national health crisis which is bankrupting us, and as sandy proved all too clear a couple weeks ago, global warming is beginning to affect us dramatically, and now we're not talking about stopping it, we're talking about mitigating it, but, obviously, the less we have, the better off we are. and the more we can become an urban society, the more we can do to solvese