book expo america in new york city. new details have been released about former secretary of state hillary clinton's forthcoming book. she signed with publisher simon and schuster to write a book about american foreign policy. .. >> first off, looking at the issue of how a city in a desert climate feels with water rights to the colorado river.

>> it is accurate, more lawsuits, compact laws created to regulate what is collectively known as the law of the river. there's probably 13-15 major laws that have bannedded the whole 20th century, really, up until the present time, that talk about who gets how much of the water, and who can take it, how much every year, how to share it, and our relationship with mexico and the water as well. the colorado river is about 1450 miles long. it's not the longest river in north america by any means or have the most flow. probably number seven in terms of size, but it drops 8,000 feet or so from its source in the rockies, and it used to flow all the way down to the gulf of

california reaching the ocean. it doesn't reach there very often anymore, only rare occasions does it get that far. there are seven states in the united states that depend on the river and two in mexico, so you have wyoming, which probably has the least amount of water, but it also has most of the source tributaries along with colorado, and nevada, utah, new mexico, and arizona and california. the basement water law in the west is what we call the law prior appropriation that differs from repairing water law which is in most of the rest of the united states where water rights were connected directly to land and if you have land that has water, you have a right to that water. if you sell land, you sell that water. you don't sell the water without selling the land that's attached to it, but there's just not

enough water out here to have the law operate that way, so the miners, very early in western history in the early 1800s coming to california, got the rights to the water wherever they needed it, and sometimes there's a long distance of where you have to send water to where it's needed. the law prior of appropriations as it evolved over decades becomes law that comes down to first in time and right. if whoever comes next, gets what is leftover, but there's one caveat to that law, and that is the caveat of beneficial use. you have to put your water to beneficial use to have a right to it, and people can't get to a river and use it. if you use it for a beneficial

reasons, then you talk about 25-40 million people now in the united states and mexico all depend on the colorado river as our basic water source. there is ground water. there are other rivers, but most of the rivers in this area are tributaries that are part of the colorado river and we need it for everything, municipal use to drink, need it for our houses, for our industry, we need it for mining, and most importantly, and the biggest water user here is agriculture. we can't grow anything without it. the land is very fertile and the growing season is very long so it's a good place to do agriculture, even though it's

ironic being a desert, but you have to bring water here, and that's the reason we use the colorado. that's how it was first seen as app important source in this whole region being settledded because the people recognize that they could tap the colorado river and redirect the flow, bring the water to the desert. the federal government regulates the operations of the dam. there are seven major dams on the mainstream of the colorado river and a dozen or so others on the tributaries, and the bureau of reclam mages, formed early in the 20th century, part of the reck mages act is a part of overseeing dam operations in the river. they operate dams on other riverrings as well, but the colorado river is the bureau of the domain, and so that's where the federal government gets involved. at the same time, you have lots of competing interests. the states themselves have a certain amount of right to

control how their allocation of water is used and districted. they fight amongst themselves. the longest supreme court case in american history was about the colorado river, and throughout most of the 1950s was finally settled in 1963. a big fight between arizona and california over water, how much do they get, how much do they have a right to. there had been a few lawsuits prior to that time by arizona against california. the major argument was that california hopes to get entitled more than their share, a 4.4 acre share, and how much water covers an acre of land a foot deep. it is the largest share of the river, but they believe they were entitled to more, and that certainly arizona is not entitled to a 2.8 million feat.

there was not as much agriculture use going on back in 1922 which remains law governing who gets how much water, and california said, well, they need to give us some of the water. they shouldn't have all of it because the river, one of the largest tributaries of the colorado runs all the way through the state so the water they pull from that as well as the salt river, a major source of water for mesa, is all part of the colorado so we have to suppress that amount of water, and what's left is the share of the main stem of the river. arizona, of course, said, are you kidding? no. refused to sign the compact for a lot of years, not until just before the treaty with mexico.

cams believes that would take away water needed, hence the lawsuit. once it timely was settled, the judgment did come down in favor of arizona. the decisions that, no, you can't count the tributaries in arizona. they are entitled to the 2.48 million acre of water, and if they build a canal big enough to bring it, they can do it. california had to accept the judgment and understand they would have to live in the 4.4 limitation, but what happens after that is interesting. as soon as the decision is made, arizona thinks, okay, let's build a canal, but you have to have federal funding for a project that large. they tried funding in congress for it, and at that point, california, again, worked to block funding. in the end, arizona has to almost give up some of its gapes

in the lawsuit. yes, it was granted the right of the 2.48 million feat. in order to persuade congress to give them money in the canal, arizona, at the time, had to agree that we had the most junior rights that the cap canal built would be cut off first in time of shortage. arizona e knows this. they are not happy about it. there's always been an anger at california about them having more priority rights, but it was southern california, the imperial valley that diverted the water first so their water rights are much more senior than ours. however, the good news for arizona is everyone realizes we can't just cut arizona off. well, at least we hope here -- we hope they realize that, but in the research for my book, i found lots of examples of attempts to make agreements about sharing shortages.

it's not been app easy thing to do. just this last november, 2012, there has been -- there has been progress. we give mexico about 1.5 million acre feed, and that was, a treaty between the united states and mexico, so arizona, having a most junior right to the colorado feels upset about that situation saying why we have to have a shortage, and the shortage sharing, but there's a plan in place for shortage, and, yet, arizona would still take the first cut, but they are negotiating to try to minimize that. the california understands it will have to share in some of this. if you just take prior appropriation law the way it is laid out, arizona would suffer,

and then maybe somebody next, whatever the most junior right is, probably in colorado because some of those projects because of utah and nevada, las vegas would really suffer, but california has the most senior rights, so that is part of the stress between arizona and california over the years, ands california has understood that it will have to give up some of the water in time of drought as well. we all will. california gets the biggest share of the colorado river even though a lot of the water is pumped out of the water shed to los angeles throughout imperial valley for a huge agriculture bread basket of america. they will have to cut back, but it's not really clear as of yet how that's going to go smoothly. the good news is we're talking, but that's about as far as it's gotten. there are interim guidelines for shortages, but the bureau of

reclam mages said if there's not an agreement, we'll make it for you. if you don't want us to decide who has the shortage and who doesn't or how to manage this, all of you get together for once and sit down and negotiate. that is what -- that's what has really started the process of possible talks between the states in the bay basin. that's been helpful. another good thing is that finally we're bringing mexico into the conversation. we left mexico out. we liked to think back in the early 20th century, and throughout most of it, that since the river started in the united states, it was all ours, never mind that it used to flow into mexico, all of us will and do have to sit down and talk. it's really unclear how the shortages will really play out, but i think everybody understands that it's only fair to share. we will try to do that. this book has been a fascinating project for me, and i've been interested in rivers for a very

long time. grew up on the banks of the river, and looking at the importance of this river in the southwest has been a fascinating experience. it's an odd sort of river. it's really a plumbing system or a garden hose, really, if you want to think of it that way. we have put lots of straws into it to tap the water so that's been a fascinating story so it's a story of the time, the human relationship with the river can provide a microcosm, i think, of a very much larger picture of the human relationships to the environment. we have no choice here in the southwest. we have no choice but to figure out how to create a sustainable relationship with the colorado river without the hoover dam, we wouldn't be here. without the canals that bring the water to us, we wouldn't be here. this is a desert. oh, there'd be a few people here, but not all of us,

certainly. the great megalopolis that's grown here in phoenix and los angeles, all of those areas wouldn't have the growth that it has if we don't pay attention to the importance of using the river in a more sustainable way. that's been a human challenge, and i looked at a hundred years of a river history, and i've only seen some real hope towards the end of that hundred years, and then beyond, and the 21st century we're starting to pay attention, a crisis before we actually look for reasonable solutions. looking at the whole picture, looking at the whole history of the river helped us understand, yes, why we exist the way we do in the southwest. it helps usens the role of rivers, surface waters in air rid regions. there's a larger picture, a piece of a larger picture of how humans relate to the environment and the stresses and strains

that come along with it, the political fights that hamper, creating a sustainable relationship, all the barriers that stand in the way of making better use of our natural resources, and we can look at what didn't work, plenty of that, but we can also look at what did work and what's working now. it's a fabulous example of river water sheds throughout the world. >> now from mesa, arizona, thomas wilson recalls the origins of the mesa as a mormon settlement. >> well, mesa got its start, sort of an outpost by young from utah, originally supposed to be part of the trail of settlements between utah and mexico, and, indeed, that's what it was. the first pioneers sent by young came here in 1877 and settled in

leehigh, today, a suburb of mesa. they had the same trouble adopting to the climate as everybody else does in arizona, particularly before we got air-conditioning, so naturally, they built their homesteads and farm steads and began cultivation and cams to they could live, but naturally, in the summers, it got hot so they built porches where you could sleep, wet down sheets and put them around the building or windows so that you would get evaporative cooling. you talk about the period between 1877 and into the early 20th century. climate in arizona, particularly in the desert areas, has always been a challenge, but it's always been one that settlers and pioneers have been willing to meet just as the prehistoric peoples did in the valley of the salt river valley. the way they started their communities, they were small

farming communities, and so they were almost like villages. you know, they didn't even really achieve town sites to begin with, but water from the beginning was an issue. now, the salt river, of course, provided a lot of water to the early settlers, but what they had to do is figure out how to get water off the river and into their fields for crops and also for domestic use. they built a series of cams, and it's still the canals we use today to get water around the valley, but those canals were built, really, on the basis or following the roots, often, that the prehistoric people built in prehistoric times before 1450ad. when the first pioneers got here, they made use of the prehistoric canals, clean the them out, enlarged them, and used that model to build their own canals, and we are still using those today. as i mentioned, lehigh, a section settled in 1877, the following year, 1878, there was

another group sent from utah called the mesa company, the first was called the utah company, and they settled in what's now central mesa, basically where we are doing this interview, but also about the same time phoenix and tempe were settled, but very small communities. even in 1900, 30 years after mesa was settled, the population of mesa was under 8800, -- 800, and in 1910, it was under 900. by the end of the second world war or beginning the war, there was only 7,000 people here, and now it's 450,000 giving you an idea of the exponential growth. today, mesa is the 38th largest city in the united states with a population of 450,000, and so some degree it's grown base it's in the phoenix metropolitan area which is well over 3.5 million,

and one of the largest metro poll tan areas in the united states, and nevertheless, they develop a diverse economy, and originally grew up around agriculture. there's still an agriculture sector here, but it's by no means the most important. now we have aviation, we have a lot of modern technology companies, and of course tourism has been an event in mesa. it's a more diverse economy now, and now fairly robust economy begin the economic downturn that the company's recently experienced. i think it's extraordinary important to know about the history of the city that you live in because it's in some ways the key to the future. it gives you perspective on decisions that the earlier governments made and other leaders teaching you about the history of the country as well as the history of the community, but it points the way towards the future, and it also gives you warning. i mean, for example, water has

been crucial for people settling in the deserts of the time of the prehistoric indians to today. it's as critical as today as 2 # ,000 years ago when native americans were living there. we can look at the adaptations of the early settlers and look now at the needs of an urban population area that is going to be almost 4 million very shortly, and so stainability, land use, water use are things we need to know about, and the past dwifs -- gives us a clue how to make decisions about our future. >> it started in the post second

world war, tw periods, although there were early examples of conservative activity in the 1920s and 1930s, but you need to remember hollywood is and was and always is about making money, so the early studios were primarily concerned with getting established, making a lot of money, but the 1930s, when the great depression came, we see in california in particular, a resurgence of democrats, and in 1934, a socialist and well-known author, upton sinclaire won the nomination for governor for the democratic party, and the studios, hollywood studios went really crazy with the idea of

studios coming into office, and talked about nationalizing the film industry, so the studios, people such as the warner brothers and others poured money into the sinclaire campaign, and they were able to defeat him in 1934. that's the beginning of conservatives and republicans' activity. by the time of the second world -- in the post second world war period, the republican party was really in complete disarray, factualized, and so what i explap and explore in my book "when hollywood was right" is how a small group of movie stars, studio moguls and california businessmen got

together and rebuilt the republican party, ultimately, being ronald reagan, governor as president in 1980. form an alliance, the movie stars like john wayne, robert montgomery, barbara taylor, many of the names are not known by your younger viewers. walt disney who was well-known for his cartoons, disney studios, and then a group of businessmen, people like justin, founder, walter knox, who established knoxbury farms, and the firestone family, and they came in -- they decided to rebuild the republican party.

democratic recommendation strags, california had far surpassed the republican party, and at the same time, the republicans were very, very factualized throughout the 1950s and the 1960s, so rebuilding the party, it meant -- it meant putting money into the party into political campaigns because also meaning taking these well-known stars and sending them out to speak to clubs and organizations and republican clubs throughout southern california so robert taylor, for instance, a big star in the day was sent out to places like fontana and riverside and ginger

robertson was another one sent out. primarily, republicans were concerned with big government, especially the expansion of big government during roosevelt's new deal in the 1930s, and so they wanted to scale back government. they wanted what republicans always want, fewer taxes, and at the same time, they were also interested in boosting the economy, making this state of california a good place to bring business so they were concerned with labor issues, especially the role of labor in the democratic party, and while they wanted small government, they also wanted a defense contract, and so they used republicans such as former actor and george

murphy who was at the tail end of his career, they used lobbyists to talk to vice president nixon who was vice president of dwight d. eisenhower to make sure that they were the -- that the eisenhower administration was sending defense contracts. the republicans were quite successful in california. if you look at the en, that was 1980 when they elect ronald reagan, in other words, one of the actors who was involved in this campaign to revitalize the republican party, but this ultimate success shouldn't belie the fact they had their ups and downs. it was in fighting over candidates. in 52, some of the hollywood

moguls, such as mayor and ginger rogers, and others wanted a man by the name of taft to win the nomination. they department like eisenhower, and then in 1964 when barry goldwater, the senator from arizona, ran in the primary, actually, some of the republicans such as justin and leonard firestone supported nelson rockefeller seen as the eastern establishment. they thought that goldwater was not the best can dad, and he was supporting -- he was supported by the far right who they didn't like, so it's conservatives fighting on the far right. it's a story of the republican party. today, factualism and fighting

and political power. today, there are the conservatives in hollywood, the republicans are trying to regroup. there's well-known stars that are conservatives. they trieded to organize. many of the hollywood conservatives today are libertarian, which is a good politics for hollywood because libertarians believe in individual freedoms, but smaller government, and fewer -- less taxes, so, anyway, the -- i would say that the real story of when -- "when hollywood was right" is the late 1940s up to 1980, but conservatives and republicans in hollywood still have a history

of how they were able to regroup and have influence on southern california's national politics, so there's history to be told and making history for those few republicans and con receivertive -- conservatives in hollywood to learn. >> up next, we sit down with valerie adams, in her book "eisenhower's fine group of fellows," examines civilians in crafting foreign and domestic policy. >> what role do civilians play in domestic and national policy? >> well, for advising purposes, the president is an important role, and i think that president eisenhower did an excellent job in utilizing the resources of civilian advisers. the 1950s was a time of tremendous technical change, and

with attention to the cold war, eisenhower had to rely on those experts in science and technology, in government and politics, come together, and sound recommendation of how to develop a strong, national defense because, quite frankly, the united states was in new territory at this point in the cold war. how do we guard against a possible surprise attack from the soviet union? what resources do we have where we don't have to tax american people so heavily, and so what eisenhower did was he used some of the best minds in from mitt, cal tech, former state department employees and so on and so forth in order to give him recommendations as to how to proceed, and in doing that, it's an ad hoc, they don't have a political stake. they are not republicans and democrats informing a particular

presidency, but they have the best interest of the nation, and he can ultimately make his own decisions, but in having civilian ad hoc communities helping inform him, he was able to get by from a lot of people, and have some humanity that he didn't know everything in an age where technology was changing things so rapidly. a lots of these people worked together on various other organizations and committees and groups. a lot came from world world wari where the united states utilized some of the biggest engineering schools for, you know, manhattan project, the radiation laboratory, and so it's a network of people who had experience serving the government even though not elected officials capacity, and so in his national security adviser was very well connected and was able to craft good committees. perhaps the the most important is one that happened in the mid

part of his tenure president called the killing committee, technically, the capability panel, which he was the chair of the committee, and two things that came out of that committee was an emphasis on intercontinental ballistic missile technology, or ibmt programs, what eisenhower called "bigger bang for your buck," and what the audience has name recognition with is the u-2 reconnaissance planes where the united states was able to do over flights, some members of the audience might remember the cuban missile crisis, and they brought back photographic evidence that the sovietupon was placing missiles in cuba. that program came from one of the civilian ad hoc committees that eisenhower had convened. >> how did the committees get along with the actual administration? >> depended on the committee.

the first two committees that i looked at, in my book, got along very well, and eisenhower had a lot of oversight in picking the committee members, in having nope the committee members. the third comment kind of came to him from some political pressure. the third committee was looking at whether or not the united states' federal government should allocate resources for fallout shelters, so a massive national fallout shelter. president eisenhower didn't believe the united states should, that that money should be used for active defense, not passive defense. he was also concerned with the message it sends to allies and the soviet union if we embarked on a massive fallout shelter program, and so that committee disagreed withize p hour, and many of the members leaked information to the press which indicated the united states was in the gravest danger.

ize p hour had not prepared us, our defenses were weak, and that did not go over well withize p hour, and you can look at that committee as the end point of him using these civilian ad hoc committees. my interest in the topic when i was a graduate student, in fact, stems from my interest in science and technology. as used by presidents, and then as i was revising my dissertation for the man knew script, the war on terror just begun, and i began to see a lot of parallels between the cold war and war on terror, and the challenges that george w. bush faced in terms of preparing for the long haul, something that eisenhower spoke of. i began to look at the role of civilians being played out in presidencyies, and each

president used them differently, and committees were a reflection of leadership styles. what surprised me was how good eisenhower was at the spirit, and that came back to his early days at west point, and he really was personalble. people liked him. he really felt -- he made you felt like he was listening to you, had good, valid ideas, that he would consider those ideas, if if he knew what he was going to do, he created and achieved spirit where everyone felt like they contributed to his presidency, and that harkens back to the leadership as a general, i'm sure, by i was really surprised at how much effort in conscious effect at that to make everybody feel like they were part of the same goal. the book's title is eisenhower's fine group of fellows, but

national security policy that adheres to the great equation, and so what i want the readers to come away with is an understanding of how important the great equation is to any presidency, and that is that we need a high mori real. we can't be scared to death. we can't cower inside afraid of a bilogical attack or nuclear attack, you we have to ensure our finances are in order. we can't overburden the american people paying for a heavy defense program, and, finally, we have to make sure that our national security is secure, that we do have what we need without having the overkill, and for that, it's the great equation, and it's the difficulty for the president to make sure that we balance that high spiritual morale, stability, and still have strong

defense. >> the reason for the book came about, i was actually on this reservation in a conference, and there were, like, 20 of us from arizona state university, administrators, and mostly faculty in a meet, and one side of the wall was glass, and i was looking out, and really looking out and just zoning out because it was a long meeting, and what i saw was an armored car leaving the reservation, and you can imagine that it was coming from the tribal casinos going to a bank. how ironic as i sat there and began to ponder that that if you imagine a hundred years ago, a hundred years, maybe a little more, in the late 1800s when

indians in populations dropped below 238 ,000. it was a thought that indian reservations and indians too were going to vanish. we were called the vanishing race. it was the way gones that brought food and supply on to the reservation, and a hundred years ago brought food and supplies to this reservation here, and a hundred years later, in 2013, you see now armored cars leaving the reservation so the wagon vehicle turned 180 degrees around. you can imagine, so in this, indeed, it is one of the buildings that strategically is doing that, and so it's been quite a chore for the healing of the indian reservation communities and other indian nations, too, who have been into the indian gaming operations. here in the native american community, and there's a lot of native communities here, and, n., there's 22 different indian tribes, indian nations in arizona, and arizona is quite a

large state because arizona in all of its essence, there's actually the percentage is like 28% of the total land of the state of arizona belongs to indian tribes, so you can imagine that, you know, the southwest is a very difficult place to live. as you can see, there's a lot of desert, it's a very harsh demanding lain, and the interesting part is native people learned how to survive in this area. the first part of it is really the natural resources because water in particular, but coal, uranium, oil is under the land, and so in developing those, and it was really a difficult decision because the tribes were faced with, well, how do you and why should you harvest the natural resources of mother earth? it went really against much of their philosophies and the relationship with the earth because they learned to adjust and see themselves as products and coming from the earth like a mother in that sense.

well, very stray teemingically, in good marketing organizations, good leadership, effective leadership, then they were able to manage their resources, and then you have something else that comes along and begins in the 1970s, and interestingly beginning with the florida seminoles. the florida seminoles were the first to come up with unregulated indian gaming, and what that meant was that as others saw them, then they actually traveled to florida to see and to watch and to learn from the seminoles, how do you guys do that in starting an indian gaming operation, which was actually be in, -- bingo at the time. they took the suggestions back to connecticut, obtained trust land, the former reservation, put into trust status, and then began to build a gaming operation, which in sense developed in the largest gaming

operation in the entire world. from that, you have other tribes imstating and using the example of the florida seminoles and foxwood, and you have something what you see behind me, right here, a tribal casino. the interesting part of this, most tribes who enter in the gaming operations did not succeed. in fact, about 20% of those who go into the indian gaming operation actually succeed, and out of 20%, not that many, but several, have done quite well like this indian reservation here. it's really kind of good management, effective leadership, and really knowing what you're doing in a very different world. in order to start something like this, indian communities have to actually have trust lands so normally vie that reservations, so they have to have a site op

the reservation, so sometimes they build off the reservation, but that has to be land in trust status. you have to have that. that's the first step. obtaining land and put it into trust status is a long, drawn out process, and sometimes it's opposed by communityings. sometimes it's opposed by other indian tribes, but as that is done, after that long procedure, you have to have revenue, you have to have any kind of resources to start any type of business. gaming operations that are started in las las vegas have financial backers, and so there's people like, you know, casino operations, they've actually backed quite a few inyap tribes in starting their initial indian gaming operation, but the interesting part of that is that the financial backers want a clear profit so whatever the tribe makes, like for the first year, then they take a certain percentage like 40% or perhaps 60% of the general revenues while the tribe's left to pay the bills.

security, roads, construction, the jackpots won, everything like that. that has to be paid from money, and the tribe deals with that, once they get over the hump of starting building a building, constructing it, get something like this that would have taken years to develop just in design and mapping and starting on smaller scales and building another thing that's larger. what we have now in 2013 is actually kind of indian gaming in, like, the second era. the smaller b, ngos, you don't see them anymore. now there's larger resorts and plush resorts, and the interesting part of this is that tribes are thinking, and they have these casinos, conventions every year, about how to go into electric gaming because people are now kind of wanting to do gambling in two or three ways at once. they look at electronic boards

like ipardz -- ipads or something like that so they can do things at the same time. gaming in itself has gone into another kind of style or way of gaming and tribes are looking at that too at the same time. the profits that are made when they realize the profits, after all the bills are paid, then tribes usually have two things that they can do in one way or the other, and one of them is really paying out payments, sometimes monthly, and depends on how many members there are, and they can do it maybe in quarters, like the quarters, you know, of the year, maybe every three months, and it might be made too tribal members, and that's one way. now, the other way is that a lot of the tribes who are successful at gaming take that revenue, and

they invest it back into the tribe. scholarships, largely education because native leaders realize that education's really kind of the the key to the future, especially for their youth. they do that quite a bit. programs for the elderly, and medical, dental, all thing like that, and sometimes going into hotels, sometimes starting a bank itself, so the florida seminoles, for example, purchased the chain of the hard rock cafe other than two franchises of it, i mean, two sites of it. one's in london that they don't own, and the other, i don't recall, but they actually own the entire chain, so they are looking ahead and seeing what's profitable, and this is in indian capitalism in a very different way, i think, from the mainstream capitalism because it's still a part of the moral economy as a concept is one of

taking care of the community, that everybody who is a member of the tribe who lives in the community like in the reservation year, after making sure the people who belong to the community have services, health, dental, educational opportunities so they take care of the people. it's much like the state of arizona or any other state or even a corporation that you work for have then been fit from that. indian gaming tribes were successful, and provide benefits to their people and take it out in that way. well, there's always trover surrounding indian gaming, and, really, raising that question another way. there's always some type of suspected controversy around any type of gaming, not just indian gaming, and the criticism is, well, they make money, but they make it in a bad way, at the expense of people who can't afford to gamble, but when you look at that, you can ask the same thing of las vegas,

atlantic city or anyone else who legalized game ling. there's that controversy. there's rumors there's organized crime involved in gaming, and, really, that's been studied and proven that there's not. that's not saying that there could be, but it's largely a false rumor. indian gaming does have its criticisms, but anything successful is there's always going to be rumors, and who is there, and when people read the book, what i want them to see is the glass being half filled, half full, and not the bottom half, but the top half of optimism that look at the success of tribes in these rebuilding of the nations. it's more than that because if you look at the metaphor, and

half full, let's go into a context, and indian environment like a water gourd so the water gourd in which, you know, that was a drinking vessel a long time ago for a lot of tribes, a lot of indian people, look at the water gourd being half full and the optimism and all the positive things, the rebuilding, the triumph over tragedy that indian nations have done, and you see that. you can also look at some reservations who have not done well, but siewfn america looked at the reservations and from the historic stereotypes, there's 34 stereotypes on indians, and all 34 are negative, rooted, and also six that are neutral, and there's six that are positive. thinking about the history of the united states and american indian tribes, it's really one in which people came here from

europe and different parts of the world and colonized, and tried to vanquish native people fighting patriotically. you know, they were not resisting. resisting what? colonization? no, they were trying to defend their homeland. it depends how you look at the posture. in trying to defend their homelands, they are, in a patriotic way, then, of course, there's a conflict, and people who write the history, and the people who wrote the history were largely, you know, non-indian people, and so that's one of the reasons for this book. let's look at the water gourd, water gourds being half filled. >> now from a recent trip to mesa, arizona, author gary stuart delves into the 1991 case of the mass killings of a group of monks in a temple outside phoenix and the interrogations and confessions of the subjects. this con tapes images that some

may find offensive. >> investigators moved bodies of nine victims, no idea who committed the murders. can you tell us how they were killed? >> appears give up shots. >> execution style? >> we'll reserve comment on that this morning. >> seven monks, one woman, one teenager dead around 11:30 this morning. discovered the body going to the temple to bring food to the moonings. >> all the monks are dead. [inaudible conversations] >> authorities don't know how many people were involved in the massacre of the monks. whoever did this just walked into the temple, but took no money near a prayer room. the buddhist temple has been here for three years, and the monks spent time praying alone. >> the monks don't have nothing for nobody. monks are everybody's friend.

so i can't -- >> investigators -- >> there was a massacre at a buddhist temple, mon stair on the west side of phoenix. nine people were killed, executed, actually. it's csh they use that term on purpose because the way they were killed clearly was execution-style killings that took more than 20 minutes to complete start to finish, so it's something that everybody remembers of how long it took and how difficult it must have been not just for the victims, but difficult to accomplish this. one of the temple workers came to the temple about ten o'clock in the morning, she and a friend of hers, their job was to fix lunch for the monks. they did it almost every day, and when they came in, they thought when they first saw,

when they came in the same door that the sheriffs did a little bit later, they thought the monks were asleep, but what disturbed the lady the most was a nun was lying on the floor with them, and that's taboo, countertake place, something so astounding to her she started screaming, but she didn't know why. the other lady saw the blood, and there was a massive pool of blood because it spread, but not far because of the blocked by bodies. they turned around, ran out. they didn't think to call from there. they rap to the closest neighbor's house, and the neighbors who dialed 91 # 1 for them, in one of these young women, she was in her late 20s, she said to the 911 officer, they all died, same place, all

die, same place. she went into -- began crying, became hysterical after giving that first statement. it was exactly 30 days before they had a viable suspect of any kind. what makes that a startling fact is this was not a low level investigation. they created a task force of officers from different agencies, many of them state agencies, the department of public service safety for arizona, the city of phoenix police department, and many others, but notwithstanding that enormous effort, 30 days went by with a lot of interviews, and temperatures of -- tens of thousands of fingerprints taken from the crime scene, blood evidence, forensic evidence of a variety of different kinds, but no

suspects until september 10th, 1991. they got two calls in the same day within an hour apart. the first call was identified on the call lead book, which was a large book that kept track of all of these. this was lead number 510, 5-1-0. that call came from a luke air force base security officer who had just been informed that morning that the sheriff's office in phoenix was looking for a 2 -- .22 caliber rifle in connection with the shooting. by mistake, they memo went out to all the police agencies in the state except luke air force base, which was the closest one, but because it's an air force police department, they just with respect on the the list so they didn't know that they are looking for -- that the sheriff's office is looking for a .22 caliber rifle.

that security office told the sheriff's deputy that he talked to what they had picked up two young kids, high school kids on base, driving around on base with a preponderate 22 caliber rifle in the backseat, and they stopped the kids and interviewed the kids, and took the gun away. that was the first call. their names were alex garcia and john duty, and so what happened logistically at that point was a sheriff's deputy went out to the luke air force base and talked to the same person that he already talked to on the phone, secured a copy, a written copy of their report, and realized that the gun had been given back to the boys, and so he then had the addresses of both boys, they both lived within a mile of the temple. they both went to high school in a small town close to that, and

he found one of the two, one of the two boys. it's the one that had the gun, the.22 rifle, asked if he knew about the murders, no, he didn't. ask about the rifle, said, yes, i do, but it's not mine. i borrowed it from a friend. the deputy asked if he could take the rifle for testing, and the boy said, sure. that officer then, the deputy, sheriff's deputy, left there, went back downtown where they, the sheriff's office had the main office, and announced that he had the murder weapon. he was not serious. he was kidding. it was a jock kind of thing, but made that announcement and immediately told by the lead detective that all that should be on hold for a little bit because we got a second call, so lead number 511 came in, this is within an hour of the time that he left, and lead number 511 was a police officer from tucson,

arizona, tucson police department, 140 miles away from phoenix, away from luke air force base, and he said that they had a john doe, anonymous caller call in a few minutes earlier, and said that he knew who killed those monks up there in phoenix, and so he was going to have another conversation with him, but he wanted to call in, make sure the sheriff's office up in phoenix knew about this. that was the second lead. two leads, 510 and 511, and in the meanwhile, we've got the officers traveling at high speeds with red lights flairing all the way from phoenix to tucson to talk to the person who called in on lead 511. well, the man in tucson told the tucson police department that his name was john, admitted to s an ail yens, and later, he said his name was kelsi, and then he

told them it was lawrence, and much later, hours later, he told them it was chelsea lawrence. by then, the two officers, the two deputies from phoenix arrived in tucson, and they were somewhat surprised to go to his address, which was the tucson psychiatric institute, a mental hospital in tucson. the caller was a patient in the hospital. he didn't work that. he was a patient. he was in there because of a relatively serious mental problem. they interviewed him in the presence of the hospital nurses, and he told them that he and four of his friends, that was the first story, four, had done these crimes, and he offered to tell them in whatever detail they wanted to know, whatever it is what they wanted to know. they asked him if he wouldn't mind writing back up to phoenix

in the car with him, and they wanted to know if they were going to turn the lights and siren on, and they said they were not sure about that, but once they told him they might, then he said, find, let's go. they got back to phoenix, pretty close to midnight that night, it was a tuesday night, september 10th was a tuesday, and from midnight through the next morning about eight o'clock, they learned a couple things. timely, in the wee hours of morning, one or 2 a.m., the officers learned, who were questioning him at this point, that he didn't -- no such person as chelsea lawrence or mike kelsi. he finally add milted his name was mike mcgraw, so now late in the first transcript, they are calling him mike mcgraw, and he identified over the next

six or seven hours on tape, on audiotape, all of it clear on the tape, he identified two different cars, six different guns, eight different people, multiple motives, and multiple fabricated places where they went. none of which is true. the names of the boys were true. they were all friends of his. they lived in the same area, the same part of tucson, south tucson, south park, but none of them gsh only one had ever been here before, but he identified all of them, so they asked him if he would mind going back down to tucson with them, and taking the officers and other officers, by now, getting a swat team together into the houses that

the other boys lived in. they were not bo

to a tag team of investigators who have taken a two and a half dais to get the result. in the end it's five clear cut confessions on tape. one person, one of the men, denied they had any role to play. but the other four all implicated him. so then formally arrested all five. took them to the court, to the magistrate, charged them with nine counts of felony murder and first degree premeditated murder, and what they were charged in this case was classified as a death penalty case. that started the long process they would go through. once that was done, then there

was a second round of investigative effort to try to document and confirm in some way that these five young men four who admitted and one who didn't. they looked for evidence, all the things you would do followup. the problem was that none of it worked. they had solid alibis. none had police record with the exception of one young man. none of them had been to phoenix. and they had recanted their confessions the second they got to the court house. they all said no, we were interrogated and forced to say what they wanted us to is a. i we didn't do this. they four said the same thing. while that's going on, they got around to testing the gun.

so when they tested the gun, the state crime lab called immediately saying they turned the gun in and saying i don't know where you got the gun. it's the murder weapon. it's no question about it. immediately back out as they had done before now, seven weeks before, they arrested the two boys -- in fact they arrested three. the third one was a young manned named roland. over the course of -- once again they arrested them at night in the 7:00, 8:00, 9:00 p.m. at night. they interrogated all three in the same room, same officers using the same technique they used on the tucson four, and now two of these boys all juveniles confessed to the same crimes. so all of this became wide

public knowledge in phoenix. all the press and media knew. every lawyer in town knew there are two sets of suspects. all confessed. it can't be the case that all are guilty. both groups deny the existence of the other group. so at point late in november, of 1991, the maricopa county attorney's office dismissed all the charges against the tucson five young men at that point. and they then focused heavily on the two boys that were -- that did confess. there was a fair amount of forensic evidence against one of them that was alex garcia. they had evidence from him that was forensic in nature that could place him at the crime. besides that he confessed.

say that had almost -- they had no forensic evidence against the other boy. they a weak case against him based entirely on the confession. they couldn't place him at the scene except by garcia's testimony. ultimately what happened there was that they the prosecutor's officer offered a plea bargain to alex garcia. the reason they did that, at least in my opinion, but i got from the maricopa county sheriff county attorney. they gave garcia a plea bargain. they had a good case and they could make it. they didn't have a good case against the other. they needed garcia to testify against him. the so plea bargain they offered him, if you testify against him truthfully at trial, then -- if you plead guilty to nine counts of first degree premeditated

murder, we will take the death penalty off the table. that's all they were willing to do. it's a 16-year-old boy. anyone would say he's likely to get the death penalty anyhow. they took it off the table. he agreed. he testified at trial. they never offered a plea bargain and they had no forensic evidence against him. they have his confession. but his confession he limited to the fact he admitted to being there at the temple with garcia, and he said as well and during that time period, that is all they had was admission of being physically there. that's the case that went to the trial and went to trial in the summer of 1993. they tried that case for about

seven weeks over a three month period of time. at the end of the trial, the jury had to determine whether or not jonathan die i did was guilty or not. they had no role to play in garcia's case. garcia was the only witness against doody. they had test garcia's credibility not against doody's testimony. he didn't testify at trial. they played his long seventeen-audio tape integration to the jury. so the jury heard all of that. what they got all of that was to get. i was there, i didn't shoot anybody, i didn't kill anybody, i i didn't do any of the killings. i wasn't in the room when it happened. i was there at the temple. so against that they return the verdict of guilty anonymous

verdict of guilty. felony murder only and acquitted him on first degree premeditated murder. and the only explanation for that can be that they thought garcia was the shooter not doody. so they rejected garcia's testimony. he wasn't before them as a defendant but certainly as a within. the other thing that happened during the trial that made it a very unusual trial was that the defense lawyer for jonathan doody an able lawyer named peter ball kin. he called two of the tucson four to their witness stand in the case and he read in evidence -- didn't read it. but submitted in evidence the transcript of the confessions of all four. the argument that he successfully made to the judge was what better evidence could i

possibly have in the innocence of my client about the audio tape confessions and the written confessions of four other people who say they actually they committed the crime. but my client deny he committed. all the tucson four came in evidence. all the officers who participated in the integration were called as witnesses during the trial, and the cull min nation of all of that effort was that jonathan was found guilty only of felony murder and acquitted of first degree premeditated murder. but it was a capital case at that time. so there are law at the time under arizona law at the time, capital sentences were handed down by judges after a hearing. they weren't handed down by jurors. today they are handed down by juries. so he conducted a capital

mitigationinging a are -- hearing for jonathan. in to that fairly long hearing, six or seven days, he rejected the state's demand for the death penalty, and he sentenced jonathan to 271 years in prison on nine different counts. each of the counts were to be conservatived consecutively. the end result was 271 years. then he sentenced alex garcia on the plea of guilty. and he sentenced garcia to 261 years. so their terms were ten years apart. that, of course, started an appellate process. so in may of 2011, the court of appeals ordered that the state of arizona either release

jonathan doody from the department of corrections from prison, or get him a new trial. and the state elected to get him a new trial. so that's with the case stands today. that order came down in may of 2011, it's taken some time now. i think the current prediction is new trial for jonathan will be held in phoenix, arizona in maricopa county sometime in this coming summer. that's where the case stands today. [inaudible] >> for more information on on book's recent visit to mesa, arizona and and the other places go to c-span.org/local content. you're watching booktv, 48 hours of non-fiction authors and books.

every weekend on c-span2. here's programs to look out for this weekend. at 3:45 eastern, layla gilbert, paul marsha, and new -- army of god describes the crime joseph connie koney in central africa. tomorrow live at noon live with amy goodman. submit your questions at booktv. watch these programs and more all weekend long on booktv. and for complete schedule, visit booktv.org. >> back to ten things congress doesn't want you you to know about how it does business. >> number tower, powerful members of congress in safe noncompetitive seats often hold fundraisers to increase the

leverage over other members. five, congress spends more than $100 billion every year on well over 200 programs that are not authorized by law. and number six, congress routinely raids the social security trust fund to cover general revenue shortfalls. >> well, if you look at the appropriation bill, which have not been done in the last two years because of political dynamic that is going on, and grow in and say we're appropriating x amount of money and you look at how many programs -- it's actually over $350 billion now of programs that are funded that are not authorized by the congress. which tells you there's an imbalance in congress. is how do we appropriate funds for a program that we haven't said we should be spending money on. and it tells you the power of the appropriation committee and the power of benefit going back

to the state of what is most important? is it most important to actually look good in oklahoma by the amount of money that i can direct there? or is it more important to think in the long-term what is the health of our country going to be in the long run? how do we make the tough decisions? and politically put you on the losing side of every argument based on the for seeps here. >> number seven, members of congress frequently don't have the opportunity to read the bills they are voting on. number eight, one of the most secret and antidemocratic ways in which congress spends is directing money in report language that only members of the committee can vote on or amendment. number nine, each year congress spends countless hours preparing and debating a budget resolution it has no intelligence of keep

-- intention of keeping, and number ten, -- by exploiting its own budget procedure. >> yeah. those are all true. the budget resolution we're about to begin that season in february, is it a waste of time? >> guest: no. if we -- right now we have the $3.65 trillion spending. the big criticism of the last two years is congress' gridlock. oh really? how do we authorize spending $3.65 trillion? what we're gridlocked in is spending money we don't have on things that are not absolutely necessary. that's what we're gridlocked over. we're gridlocked over that so question make ourselves look good to our constituents.

so there's no gridlock when it comes to spending your kids' future in washington. we wouldn't have spent $3.6 trillion if we budget last year. we if a continuing resolution last year which passed the republican house and the democratic senate and we borrowed $1.12 trillion we didn't of which i would content $600 billion was wasted. was rirlly did no benefit directly for the citizens of this country other than those that took the money to administrate or develop or give out the program. so, you know, in a wand, you could look with a wand and just say every program stand up that is actually effect i have and e -- efficient. what you see -- the reason that is so member of congress haven't oversided. they haven't done their job.

they turn a blind eye and say it's hard to oversite and besides i'm going it get criticism when i do. so therefore let it go. it goes back now we're -- in that cr last year 350 billion worth of programs were appropriated money that had either never been authorized by congress or that authorization has lapsed. so it means the authorizing committee in congress aren't working. because if we're going appropriate money whether it's authorized or not, why not just have it authorize and appropriate committee and put them all in to one? we totally ignore our own rules. >> host: how much fear is among members of congress of their sphwentd -- constituent of criticism of not being re-elected? >> guest: i think it runs the gamete. i think you need to look at the

larger perspective is, you know, i was a businessman long before i was a physician. bail business, i became a physician as an older individual. i was known as grp in my medical school class and practiced for twenty five years. my goal was to be a physician. i wasn't at the risk of my populous other than my reputation with my physicians and my patients. so if you put it in context, depends on what the goal of house member of the house of representatives or senator is. if the goal is to fibbing the problems in the country, to create a at least a good future for the next generation that follow as we've had, and if that goal is above your personal goal of getting an office that has

notoriety, power, and position you'll do fine. you'll keep the fear in perspective. when you -- your number goal is position with a notoriety and secondary goal, which helped you get to the goal, is to secure the future, what happens is how you value your position on certain policies changes. that's not impure. that's not terrible. that's just human nature. so i make the point in the debt bomb is if you're solve this problem. if we're going to secure our liberty and the freedoms for our kids, and our grand kids, got quit sending career politicians here. >> host: senator coburn, did you get any hostile reaction from your colleagues from the

"debt bomb" or breach of trust? >> guest: i did on breach of trust. i don't think many have read the "debt bomb" i'm sitting here talking about this with you. i make these speeches on my own caucus an on the floor. i'm okay to take the cob -- consternation and criticism of our colleagues if i think the country is in trouble. it is in trouble. we're bankrupt. you know, there's a great article if you take generally accepted accounting principle, the same thing every other business has to operate under. most county governments operate under. we have $88 trillion of things we are have to pay for we have no idea where we're going get the money. over the next seventy five years. $88 trillion. that's about $1.05 trillion more in bills coming due than what we have over the next seventy five

years. did -- if you didn't grow the government or economy at all, why do we put others in that -- ourselves in that position? the fact is that we're now -- the federal reserve has increased the balance sheet in other words it created $2 trillion worth of funny money, they printed $2 trillion worth of money and ultimately the pain of that is going to fall on the middle class and the very poor in this country. and it's going defeat what both parties say they want. and yet we don't have the courage today to make the tough choices even if it means we lose our seats to secure the future for this country. we put ourselves first instead of the country first. it's not hard. if any american citizens if they read "back in black" they can go to our website and read it. there's a lot of common sense ways to save money.

in the federal government this year we're going to spend $64 billion on i. t. project. the gao says at least half of that will be wasted. in other words it will never get completed, it will never do what it's supposed to do. in back in black we had a program in the air force we said we thought cancel this. you ought to cancel this, it's never going work. all right. here is how inefficient government. this last week the air force canceled it, finally. spent $100 million before they canceled it. they paid a settlement fee to cancel it of $8 million. but two things didn't happen: the person that was responsible for that contract didn't get fired, and wasn't held

accountable. the company that didn't provide the service didn't get sued to get our money back. the taxpayers of this country. nobody runs their household that way. most state governments don't operate that way. but we are totally incompetent when it comes to spending america's tax payers money. why would we continue to waste $32 billion a year on i. t. programs that don't work for the federal government? you know, that's 60% of what they want to take additionally out of the pentagon. that's government. why would we do that? where is the leadership in the congress say we're going get it stopped? we're going have a personal subcommittee that look at this, overside it, look at the back actors in government and we're going demand the people who make the decisions get fired and the companies that are not performing pay the money back. none of that happens. so you can defraud the federal government, you cannot perform on a contract, and you can do it

with impunity. and that's because members of congress are basically not willing or inexperienced to not know that you ought to be able to hold people accountable for what they say they're going do. it whether it's a federal employee, a procurement employee, or the company that is providing. and that's one example that happened this week. >> host: senator coburn, what was the business you built before medical school? >> guest: my father started a manufacturing machinery business. i started a lens plastic lens glass lens and interocular lens decision of that. i did that in southern virginia. i lived up here for ten years. from what was -- summer of '69 through 2008. >> host: does the company still exist. >> guest: it's been sold and

parts sold. portions of it still exist. you can watch programs like this online at booktv booktv.org. in the high-tech digital age with digital radio that vail of distortion and lies of misrepresentation and half truth that on secure reality. we need the media to give us is a dictionary definition of static. criticism, opposition, unwanted interference. we need a media that covers power not for power. we need a media that is the for the state not for the state. and we need media that covers the movements that create static and make history. >> author, host, and executive producer of "dpm now." amy goodman taking your calls, facebook messages, and tweets live on sunday at noon eastern.

>> host: on your screen is american university professor is jon gould a professor of law at the university and director of american university's washington substitute for public and international affairs. and he's written this book "how to succeed in college (while really trying)." professor gold, who is this book written for if. >> two groups of students. written for high school seniors who ron -- are on the way to college and first-year students who come to the place and kind of find somewhat foreign. i guess i should add it's written for the parents of all of those students as well. >> so when you're asked as a college professor, what will make my son or daughter successful? what is your short answer? >> my short answer is a sense of independence and responsibility. and that's the kind of thing that sometimes parents may not want to hear because it means they have to pull back. when we get them here at college, it's a chance for them

to take ownership of their lives and be responsible for what they need to do. and that is a most important skill for them when they hit our doors. >> what is your responsibility as a college professor to make that successful? >> well, my job is to challenge them. and that is something that is sometimes people aren't quite ready for when they get here. we aren't here simply to hold their hand. want a friendly environment for them inspect the place we want them to feel it's open to consider new ideas. but my job it to take them, give them some of the new idea but challenge them to think in new ways they haven't before. >> when you meet students, can you now predict who will be successful and who won't? >> oh no. at first not at all. the first time they are pleasant. most was students we get are going to be successful. so that's the good news. but on the first meeting, no.

it's impossible to predict who is going to be more successful than others. >> what are some of the downfall in your first year of college. >> there are lots and lots of distractions here or any other university. so that's probably the biggest downfall. which is not paying attention to what they need to do. so not going to class, not getting assignments done, not doing the studying, that's the most important thing in terms of making sure they have the best opportunity to succeed. >> what is the most common question students ask you? >> what is going to be on the test. that simply not the right question to be asking. what they ought to be doing is ought to be in class on a regular basis engaging with us and the material. if they're there, if it's part of this dialogue that we're having day-to-day, they'll know what is on the test. they will have been part of that learning experience the whole way through. >> professor gould has personal technology changed how you teach? >> yeah. it has. it changed probably for the better but a little bit for the

worse. and the way it changed for the worse is we have to compete with all of these other sorts of calls on student's attention. they come to class and have cell phone with them, the smartphone, there are lot of other things they can do if they are not -- excited with what is going on in class. we have to compete with that. can use technology like skype to bring thing in the classroom. we have giant video monitors to make things come alive for students and give them an opportunity to test what we're talking about on the classroom on the the receipt call issues what is happening out in in the real world. >> is it important to give students letter grades? >> important for who them or others? i don't know that it really is that important. i don't find it to be as useful as others might. but students want them. and they want them because that's what they're used to,

that's they have all been competing for that, and think that's what employers want. frankly, i think we can get a lot more out of writing evaluation of them in a detailed way that talk about the strength and weaknesses what they brought to the table. more like a letter of recommendation than a letter grade. >> do you find a difference between students who take out loans, student loans or students who have their parents pay for it or have . >> not that but i find a difference between students who work and those students who don't. the students who are working, this is their money right then. student bhos take out the loan, it is eventually going to be their money. but it's to them it's somewhere in the future. those who are working they're putting in the equity right now to get the education. and i think that they are general more serious students and they certainly demand more from all of us in the classroom. >> in your book, how to succeed

in college, you have a chapter or sub chapter the liberal ivory tower. can a conservative student -- can a student who is conservative be successful at the harvard, at an american, at the u pen? >> absolutely. and i thinklet go back and take that term nap term in the book to dispel the myth. these are not liberalism that unfriendly to conservativisms. what we're after here at the university i'm doing my job right, any student who comes in here is going have his preexisting views challenged. whether they are a liberal or conservative. those kids will be challenged to think about what they really believe in. to take in the information we're offering, and leave with their own view of the world. it i'm doing my job right that is what is happening. that ought to be both exciting and probably to some extent a little frightening to students no matter what their political

perspective is. ultimately we want them to be critical consumers of information no matter what they end up believing. >> you say here that college professors and campuses tend to be more liberal than society in general. >> i also say that's not so much about being a college professor, some of that is about general people who are more education who have ph.d.es tend to be more liberal than others in the society. there's also something about -- let's face it. most of us who are college professors decided that money is probably not the most important thing for us because we'd be out doing other sorts of things. that said, whatever our perspectives are, whatever our ideology are, and they vary, you're going find conservative professors throughout an institution as well as liberals. if we are doing our jobs right, our students don't know our ideology, and also says in the book that the best compliment i ever got from a student was the one who had no idea what my

ideology was until she came to baby sit our kids one night and saw my wife's bumper sticker on my wife's car. what a good professor is does take him or herself out -- his her her background out of the conversation with a student. it's not about us. it's about them. and again, our job is to challenge them to be critical consumers of information. >> ten ten imriewr -- ten your help students to be successful. >> i think tenure helps faculty to be successful. if we're successful they're going to be more successful. so this banks the question. what does tenure get? >> freedom of inquiry. allowing us to look at what we think is important without having to worry someone looking over our shoulder saying that's a popular idea. if we're worried about that, we would not be today understanding gravity, we wosht be understanding the world as spherical as opposed to square. that's what tenure gets us.

that gets then faculty who are able to really do a full quarry grow the knowledge and since and students benefit from that. not -- students can participate in the research projects. song if i'm a critical consumer of higher education, if i really want my money's worth as a student. i'm in favor of that. >> professor gould, what do you teach in the law school? >> i teach criminal law in the law school. i teach over in the college of school of public affairs. >> what do you teach there? >> law and society. >> what sparked you to write how to succeed in college. >> that's a great. i've been teaching for over twenty years now. i found i was beginning to see so. same problems from students over and over and over again. things like not understanding how to cite material and inned a inventorially getting themselves in trouble with plagiarism. freshman who come in and see the great new world as college and

take advantage of everything but what is in the classroom. i regularly e-mail my students with hints and and the like. i began to see that i was ending -- sending the say e-mail year after year. it's time to write the book so i can buy the book so i don't have to keep sending the e-mail. >> what is the best thing parents can do to prepare their kids? >> there are a couple of things parents can do. one is the academic side. and the best thing that is students can do to prepared for college reading writing. i know, it sounds old school. it's as true today as college in the olden days. that's the best thing question do have prepared. the other thing parents with do is get the students ready to live their lives on their own. we hear so much from parents today. they get the students ready for their parents not to be there. it's as simple as okay, how do you laundry at college?

it's really much more to the point of how will you get yourself up each day? how will you balance the social life with academic life? as a friend of mine said, those are life skills and the kinds of things parents ought to have their kids ready for. >> we've been talking with american university professor jon gould about 0 "how to succeed in college (while really trying)." professor gould, thank you for being on booktv. >> my pleasure, thanks. is? a or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. here are books being published this week. in simpler the future of government.

william eggen colby in "shadow warrior" in the way of the knight the cia a secret army and a war at the end of the earth pulitzer prize winning journalist reports on the engs pangs of the cia operations. university and college faculties in why our professors liberal and why do conservatives care?

untimely look for the titles in bookstores this coming week. watch for the authors in the new future. booktv.org. comes from bob's decision not to resign after the saturday night massacre. he think it is should be call the saturday night involuntary manslaughter. nixon didn't plan it but wandered in to it. bob believed the president has ability to control everyone the executive branch and fire insubordinate personnel. and he claimed it on national tv. whether a president is wise to

exercise that is for history to decide. attorney general richrdson promised the senate he would maintain a special prosecutor in place. he thought therefore he had to resign when nixon asked him to fire cox. but bob had not made any such promise. he thought that the president was entitled to dig his own grave if he insists. he also thought that he should not gain certainly not appear to be a -- he planned to fire cox and quit. richardson and william, the deputy attorney general talked him out of resignation. there was no line of succession in the department of justice after the solicitor general. if bob walked the plank they would -- no one knew whot president might install. richard all feared it would be a

political shill. leading the assistance attorney general and much of the department senior leadership to design. and crippling the department. so bob saved justice by staying. had he quit in protest, he probably would have been treated as a national hero and confirmed to the supreme court in 1987. perhaps he would have been appointed by president ford in 1976 to the seat that went to johnny paul stevens. he was on a list that edward sent to president ford of the possibilities. had he quit the nation as whole would have suffered. he stayed in sg's office. he was determined not to benefit he turned down an opportunity to be appointed as attorney general. he turned down the chance too work from the attorney general's more elegant office. he avoid the attorney general's

private dining room, and he even turned down the attorney general which chauffeur and limb zone. i can't say much more about the times. they occupy the last six months of 1973, and i can not arrive in the solicitor and general until mid 1974. everything bob says in his book he said in 1974 too. the people who work with him most closely then tell the same story. and the narration in the book is entirely consistent with a man i knew for forty years. and absolutely honest he's also the funniest man i ever met. that didn't come through in his 1987 hearing. the book is full of his wit.

the life of a solicitor general like the life of a judge is reactive. other people decide what suits to bring. he controls the government's presentation in the suit to the supreme court. what petitions to file, responses to file, merit brief, oral argument, and the solicitor general decides when the government will appeal an adverse decision by a district court or seek rehearing in a court of appeals. the solicitor general has a authority to decide when if at all means -- it's a broad portfolio that requires a large base of knowledge plus the ability to learn fast. the solicitor general does not control litigates about what and doesn't start the process within the justice department. cases that arrive are far in doubt to the litigating decisions. natural resources in the

environment. they make recommendations which go to the sg assistance and deputies. sometimes there's an internal conflict. the department of justice includes bureau of prisons in the criminal division and those people want to defend guards in suits by prisoner. civil rights tends to favor the prisoners. somebody has to resolve those. we're in a system to the solicitor general and think think that the criminal division statutory theory of prosecution is weak. they have to resolve the issues personally. bob conducted many conferences not only the settle fight within the government. but also to hear presentations by private counsel. it's one of the officer's traditions that anyone litigant, potential amicus curiae can be heard personally before the united states files a brief in the supreme