go back to related. try to get it all in total shape. >> congratulations. thank you very much. a ver l twk forward. ..

>> recovered several authors yesterday. today we're about until 6:00 p.m. eastern. your starting lineup. >> now, paul reid.

[inaudible conversations] good morning, everybody. it's a great pleasure to welcome the two go that fast. particularly special thank you to sponsors who helped make the lip of the success. today's program will be broadcast on c-span 2's booktv. if if there's to be in for a q&a session with the author, we have used the microphone located in the center of the rooms of the home viewing ideas can hear. if you'd like to watch the program again, no coverage will re-air tonight at midnight central time for those of you who like to stay up late. please keep the spirit of the lit fest going on here with a subscription to printers row, the tribune's premium book

section fiction series membership program. visit the welcome cemetery scene in dearborn for a special that the subscription rates and perks including tilt adds in a beautiful poster. finally the author's book will be sold on the second floor of the university center and book signing in the art room. books and will take place following the program. at this time if he could make sure your cell phones are turned off or any other electronic devices you have, that would be much appreciated. it gives me great pleasure at this time to introduce our moderator for this conversation, greg burns of the "chicago tribune." take it away. [applause] >> thank you all for turning out on a sunday morning for this event. i'm very excited to be here with paul reid who we've met before, talked before come are both churchill bust is a great

pleasure to see them again. thank you for coming to chicago. we'll talk for 40 minutes enough playing time for questions. we'll make sure we hear from you. feel free to talk to him after. paul is really a wonderful guy. on top of that, a journalist who got his start in journalism after a career manufacturing in his bio, which i didn't know it was a reporter at the palm beach post in florida, where you keep across a group of marines who knew bill manchester, the famous author of the first two volumes after his job as a feature writer got to know this group, got to know bill manchester and the rest is history. he took over the book project and write the third volume that is doing well and i've had a chance to read it. it's an amazing book if you

haven't. paul, welcome and tell us how this project started and how it came about. >> thank you, great. the project began 60 odd years ago as a little boy -- no. alias get confused over that question, where did it begin because it's kind of nebulous. it began with the six marines in 1996 he served on a oaken hour with bill manchester and they were going to have a reunion had west palm beach florida for surviving members of their section is a call to and bill couldn't come, mr. manchester, he was sick in the marines had the union anyway and i read a story, a feature and one of the marines, reverend mack douglas sent it to bill manchester like to and sent me a nice little note, which was something for a rookie 46-year-old feature writer together.

a couple years later the same marines went up to middletown, connecticut, where mr. manchester lived. he had two strokes in 1998 and his wife for 50 years, judy had died that summer and five of the marines went up there to boost his morale and they invited me along to do another story in the editor, tom o'hare at the post love these stories. some florida is where veterans go ultimately end i interviewed on pearl harbor veterans into an arizona survivor to pearl in 2001 and is just marvelous to write the stories and meet these men and women. so i went up to middletown with the marines and spent i think two nights in three days or three nights in four days with them and i'll never forget the first night i've met william

manchester and we all had dinner together and cocktails on his porch and he had a cane he was not yet in a wheelchair. he made it very clear he could no longer rate. he hadn't lost his memory or wit or charm. he'd love to read, but he just could not put words to paper and now is the great tragedy with bill. i took notes he and i remember one night, just really moved me around 10:00, 10:30 it may have a woman student not of the door and she was 20, 21 and had two books. i forget what they were, but she wanted mr. manchester to simon for her father who was a veteran and he invited her and, sat her down and the sixfold marine spent the next hour and a half talking about okinawan and this

young woman i'm sure had never heard anything like that before in probably never will sense, these guys reminiscing. so i wrote my story and a year or so later wrote another and another and my daughter recite you master middletown at the time, so every time a visitor i visit mr. manchester became friends and five years later in 2003 after the yankees beat the red dots as usual, october 9 at the playoff game, he was having a jack daniels popped up in bed. i was in an easy chair and he turned to me and said paul, i think you to finish the book and it took me a split second to realize what he was asking me because we needed "the new york times" had done a story. there is going to be no one to finish the book. yet made that public comment will manchester had. i try to encourage them a few years earlier to find soma in

any pretty much told me to drop the subject and i did until that night. to say i was flabbergasted would be an understatement. >> said he was on his deathbed appointed then he has to take over the boat, but he collected clumps, a lot of information and having radek, i wonder how much of that is bill manchester, a famous author who wrote death of a president, the book about jfk and general macarthur. how much is you versus manchester versus churchill because he was a great author. >> in october 2003 come on bill asked me to write a book on me was very, very sick and have been for five years, but not quite yet -- that yet. when he asked me, he had a jack daniels. his doctor kept them to one or two a day. i said to just make another one in here somewhere? he said no, then mantises fully

comp this. had it worse. in the next six months he got very sick and died on june 1st , 2004. he sent me home that weekend with a bunch of what he called his long nose or clumps and every time i met a place like this, i remind myself i should have one. essentially they were eight and a half by 11 pads of paper, 50 pages each taped up the middle. what you ended up with was 50 pages of eight and a half by 22 and that's what he called them as long nose. onto that she would glue or tape xerox copies of pages from books. he did this back in the 80s and he had a ballot fifty-year 55 of these qualms, which essentially are 100 pages each,

so that's about 5000 pages on which our extracts from speeches or telegrams from stalin or roosevelt or diary entries for more than 100 sources. many primary newspapers, the london times, "new york times," but i care here, here, here hopkins, church of, churchill's family, roosevelts dog. everyone had a place in the notes. but they weren't strictly chronological, nor were they strictly by topic. so charles de gaulle would be scattered through 20 or 30 of these clumps that pretty much might address 1940 to 1844, but there is no charles de gaulle section. i watch elections now and the

anchors are on their touching the screen and showing the county in ohio that obama needs to win in to minimus collating of information that can be done, and this was longhand and i realized pretty quickly the nose couldn't serve me as they had built. i couldn't figure out the source codes and topic codes. the key here blasts. he had secret codes. rx or his doctor diary entries. that when i deduced, but others were a number assigned within a minute. i try to deduce from reading the page to a secret cargo sans and i made a lot of headway that might've had to do with family. so if i saw four or five entries about churchill's children with a number sign in at eight and a

country and realize that that family. i'd be doing this for the next 20 years, so i had to find a new way -- a way to reinvent the wheel and i had a brainstorm. i called the wesleyan library amass for all the books that bill -- and as an adjunct professor there, had ever taken out and they said were sorry, that's private. how about this? any stimulus of other books overdue? [laughter] consignee bill. they said i guess we can do that in the list was 20 pages long. on it were all the diaries and collected speeches of churchill and roosevelt biographies and all of the sources essentially, which i then went on amazon five, six years ago and looked for everything in essentially the same services bill had in my

house so long as the latest editions of speech is in british archive papers and what have you and started that way as i say to write 1000 features stories and connect them such at the end you get a book. >> so that was eight years of labour and it shows. the book is extremely detailed and thorough and also a great read. one of the difficult parts of channeling lucy wants you to write a history. he didn't want to chronology. he wanted a story told. you can see he's a great storyteller, but this is a big story to tell. one thing i love further preamble are 50 or 60 page beginnings of the book to try to

clue you into who churchill is this a movie trailer with nuggets of history and clemency and it gives you a sense of who he is and how was full of contradictions. i can even remember. who is the and how do you decide what goes in there? >> the preamble's bill would change the terminology in early on a editor i thought it would be good in this book, we want this to be a stand-alone book but the reading public -- we didn't want people to say my goodness, that to read that, but i've got to buy the first two? we want to stress to people it is a stand-alone story. so we did the 55 or 65 page prologue which as you say, a

sketch, a portrait in pencil that the book fleshes out. we wanted to introduce churchill who may have not about berg met him about his eating habits and drinking habits and so-called depression, which i don't think was accurate and give you a picture so when you encourage him doing something really crazy on page 200 come you don't think, what is this guy because you party met in to be someone accenture. he developed a suit to good way or during the blitz, a working men's overalls with zippers so he could jump into it instead of putting on his evening clothes and his staff called at winston's rompers. he called it a siren suit because he jumped into it when

the sirens sounded. but the monogram slippers with pom-poms, one of which was lavender for evening wear in a scene that, battle helmet and out he would go to watch the german bombers come and he watched be added to the and is a list specifically point to an area and say take me there that have to get in the armored car and drive through bombed out streets and he'd be smoking and said that behavior i wanted the reader to be prepared for that sort of behavior because only churchill behaved that way.

>> he was very much a classical 19th century man with a different idea about how to run your life than most of us have appeared over some of the essential personality would you say? >> interestingly, in volume under bill manchester writes about churchill said torian jenne says, he was born a minute to century in the civic torian man of valor and honor, the virtue of courage was the main virtue that he sought to emulate and valor, courage for a very important him, but i realize going into this that he was also a classical man in the sense he was not a religious man. he took it at six from pre-christian socratic atomic

ideals. he was extremely well read, self educated than i realized early on, this is a man that would have been comfortable with plato at the academy hundreds of years before the christian ideals evolved. i wanted to stress that, that he was not an old fuddy-duddy to log in the sun englishman with a court, non, a nutty big torian. he was a complex classical man. >> quite an experience having dinner from what i got there in the book in terms of his eating, drinking and table conversations seems that takes up quite a bit. >> you that dissenters, but he was the one who gave me the line that his idea of a perfect evening was a wonderful meal in the company of friends with wonderful conversation with himself at the center of their

father by drinks and more conversation with himself at the center of it and all the folks who knew him, diary entries and i've checked to see a particular diary entry wasn't just cherry pick or someone had a grudge, but everyone agreed churchill didn't care if 12 of us were sitting at his table. he didn't care what we thought, certainly didn't care what we felt in the modern sense. it was all about churchill and he was absolutely honest when he said that would be a wonderful evening. his doctor said it was a cricket analogy, but i dinner, winston batson everyone else catches and he was so insulated from people, including at times his family. he didn't like to be touched and

years later after the war he was standing at the casino monte carlo having just lost again. he had bad luck gambling and frank sinatra ran up the steps in this hand and shook it and said i've always wanted to do that and he bounded down the stairs. he said who the was that. his world -- he was the center of his world. >> the moment everyone remembers his confidence the most is when this book opens, francis phelan, lord halifax a very powerful member of the cabinet wants a peace deal with hitler and we know how this all turns out. tell us were exiled to what churchill is thinking that this time. >> at except at the battle of

france, which was outlawed in passing. 38, 40 days between may 9th when hitler came through to june 21st of the french agreed to surrender terms, which boggled churchill's mind. was the largest invest in some regards and europe in the english expeditionary. so the book picks up with the battle for france, the french loss of low back both almost to the trail for other fighter plane reserves and church over the senate. this is fair, that is a. the french have lost being when the germans, and they are coming will be defenseless and dunkirk

took place p. that do the beaches and left his luggage behind, their tanks, their guns and from that moment on, bill manchester started from there into the blitz and the invasion scare them very early on i realized the invasion scare was a function of propaganda. he never believed the germans were coming, but he wanted to build up his armies in the best way would be to keep people on their toes and scared to death and he did that come until i tell if he is going to make a speech on the 14th and there are the diary entries that he said we must keep this invasion to get an offense of army, so growing up, i always had this

image of operation sea lion with the germans about to come at any moment in the battle of britain was discouraged heroic air battle but decided the word. i'll want during those months, churchill knew he believes strongly that were not coming for one simple reason. they had to cross water and he kept in his pocket the numbers. the germans didn't have the shipping, tankers, carriers, no landing craft of the trapdoor variety and he was supremely confident the germans were coming, but he kept up that scanner of the invasion imminent at any minute. >> one of many things i learned from the book yet another is the relationship between churchill and roosevelt which was portrayed as one of great love

and affection which wasn't that way when the book opens. >> i've loved history of my life, so i didn't go into this blind, but i had an americanized version of franklin roosevelt and my father went to the naval academy and i remember him telling me 55 years ago, polly, this 55 destroyers fdr sent to england saved churchill. i smiled and talking. the 50 destroyers were virtually junk. england only got 781940 and roosevelt was very widely shared a dangerous game a slowly progressing towards war and not fast enough for churchill and perhaps not fast enough for the saving of western civilization in europe. the telegrams between churchill and roosevelt, the correspondent, conversations, i

didn't find them to be buddies, barely friends. after the war, churchill started referring to tears in his eyes with his salvos to vote failing health in order to rewrite the history, which churchill's memoirs were exactly that. >> it seemed as if another source of conflict was he was in over his head dealing with stalin who comes across differently than i would've expected. >> roosevelt toles aids if only he could sit down a lot with uncle joe, everything would be settled. he went behind churchill's back to the mortification of the american and english aides and

roosevelt in his own people said this, like a cruel joke. he liked to laugh at other peoples expense and he did that to churchill a lot. i interviewed churchill's daughter who said my father was very hurt by that, but he was never unmanned by. churchill thought this friend of his boat him more than not had church's aides, generals and admirals out what is roosevelt doing clinics we fight for two years alone before america dribbled onto the scene and the english did in roosevelt in american prize spot in the whole story of the invasion in 1942 there was no mention of even been involved in the invasion and the american press at first. it was a very interesting relationship between the three of them, stalin, churchill and

roosevelt is >> one of the unsung heroes of the book is one of churchill's many a is also a flamboyant figure it's often seemed sensitive he really got a flight in the wild version of events. it seems as if you join us were quite a bit. >> you should have kept a diary and he knew it. he could have been imprisoned for quite a long time, but that diary opens the window onto churchill and private life during the war it is just absolutely marvelous because colville is what the prime minister to chamberlain's funeral, if you will, and that in our many, many nights. and on his foreign journeys. so colville's diaries are more accurate in the sense that in churchill's remembrances of colville wasn't there, which all

have churchill's word to take for every day and at times was self-serving. >> another unsung hear you is molly panter downs was remarkable, too. she was a novelist who became the british letter writer to america about what was happening from the blitz to the end of the war and her work was published in "the new yorker" and it stands up well in history. as you draw on her work a lot, too. >> that was one of the sources i could figure out because it said cantered down. i found her one and more notes, bought it on amazon and sure enough, bill had bb hundreds of extracts from the london windows and i realized what he was doing and i did it, too.

she was his chorus, if you will, bring him into the day-to-day life of londoners, rationing for a little sugar cubes as if it was from heaven because they couldn't get meat, chicken, eggs and at one point they couldn't get whiskey and then peer and milk, so her observations, she is saying things churchill salk, but didn't write about or talk about in cabinet meetings. he was very sad about the lines of people looking for horse meat, which wasn't rationed in europe and apparently still is a. so i used her a lot because i knew l. manchester wasn't going to them that was brilliant on his part. there's been a couple of picky

reviews that said what is this? she's everywhere. yes, she is our eyes and ears into the east end of london in 70 years ago when he won't get it done or a cabinet meeting them out. there were other people over there doing a million scheier had combat from germany, but molly served as a voice to bring us a way from the cabinet meetings on the eastern front and back to london and londoners, which is really to the daycare is in the book for the first 500 pages. >> another interesting thing that is field marshal and has the same position as george marshall and the united states

is therefore an important orchestrating war. they could not have been more different. it's amazing the relationship lasted. >> churchill never fired any military cheese and his minister of defense, he could does. all of them threatened to quit all the time and none of them ever did. burks diaries are just a tear. they are a riot. the guy was literally pulling his hair out over churchill. he would read my god, i don't know where it goes without them, but i don't know where we're going with him. i checked admiral cunningham's memoirs and a mere burks exactly. so i didn't want to seem as if i was piling on church hill. brooke and cunningham in the top press are pretty much felt the same way that winston is a loose cannon and churchill wanted to invade normandy imparted java

and north africa and france, too, all at the same time. roosevelt and marshall wanted only to go to the shores of france. that's another place for churchill has got a bum rap in the state. he didn't oppose the second front out of belligerents or stubbornness. he opposed a premature second front on the shores of france and he was right. finally everyone realized he was right. if marshall had his way, they would've gone to france in the summer of 1842 and not what is bad the end of the american involvement in the european war. it would've been thrown off. so these diary entries of work and not covering and cunningham, harry hawkins, they'll get a window onto churchill in the name kerrick airs and it was my

job and build manchester again not to cherry pick, but people said this is a mixed review of churchill. well, he was the very next man. >> one thing that does come across and you just alluded to it is how we kept up the fight of that seems like his biggest contribution. it didn't matter who is obsessed with the mediterranean, but he wanted to fight them is always looking for a way to punch the enemy right then, right now. >> key west and i think it not losing the war during those long months of 1940 in 1941 almost two years they fought alone in not losing the war, he and england won the award and gave us the time to come in. during that time he wanted to hit any place he could come any week at the air, mussolini, submarine and those two years i

made a point in the book from an american standpoint, 1940 for me in my memory, i wasn't born yet, began on december 7, 1941. what happened to the rest of the year? in england it was a horrible year. i wanted that to come through and churchill in january and arch in april and june of september 1941 was still fighting alone. franklin roosevelt into september 11th address said, you know, challenge the germans to shoot at american ships in the atlantic. at one point is that if you see a rattlesnake come you don't stop think. you crush it and he had thrown down a challenge to hitler. early in september the germans try to torpedo the u.s. destroyer. a month later they did hit

another u.s. destroyer that dan about cover the sound the reuben james with 115 men going down with the ship. so there's three attacks on u.s. shipping and at that point, church of realizes this country is never going to war unless they do so on their terms america time with something far greater than the loss of a destroyer takes place. he sat on the morning after the reuben james in town, churchill body of a declaration by that afternoon. he didn't. >> we know how this sense, but one thing that amazes americans undeservedly told in the book is how practically as soon as the war and a churchill got kicked out and he was no longer in office within months of declaring the jury. churchill won his office with 90% of the jury margin, but

because of the system, his party lost in there for labor took over. it's amazing he was out of office as soon as he won. >> that's another story i grew up with, the ungrateful english throughout winston the savior. the pacific war wasn't over and he wanted to finish the job fair, but the european war was over and they scheduled elections and have been inexplicably due to my father is out of office. if you look at the campaign, churchill was an old liberal. he was the old welsh man, whose name i'm forgetting begin social insurance and unemployment compensation 20 years before the new deal. churchill was an old edward in the borough, but during the war

he kept all that under wraps. he didn't want to as he told his aides, to offer shangri-la or utopia to the english people. it is going to be tough after the war. let's win the war. during the campaign, he's up loose and this is a dealbreaker for the english people. he compared the labour party socialist policies. he said in order to implement them, labor is going to need something like a gestapo. that was his word. wrong thing to say to millions of men coming home after four and a half, five years of war, they were fighting the gestapo philosophy all those years. to say these good and decent people returning to. that's what cost or show the that year. >> once he lost power, one of

his first stops he gave us very famous speech and coined the phrase iron curtain in a surprise for me the book was how badly the speech went over with his american counterparts. here is churchill out of power, stirring the pot belligerently against russia and i was very welcome. >> the russians throughout the word in april and in the u.s. for heroes. henry luce, "time" magazine, life magazine. forget the pogroms in the mass murderers and ukrainian famine. all of that wasn't mentioned. brave russians are winning the war at the russian army with 10 million casualties defeated hitler. so in 1946, most americans, including harry truman thought the russians were still euros in many thought we just can't do this to our former ally. it's not gentlemanly.

before the ink was dry in may 1945 when the germans surrendered, churchill was planning his next war codenamed operation unthinkable to fight the russians pulling his hair out may 13th or 14 he stayed winston wants to go to war against russia. that was a bit premature on by the time he made the deseret speech, he but we're beginning to see what stalin was doing, all the capitals of eastern europe were behind the iron curtain and i think about a year and a half later, truman came out with the dog during an took over american or british involvement in the eastern mediterranean and the rest is history as you say. >> on the part of the book is how churchill recognize the difference between an atomic, which he thought it was a tactical weapon in a hydrogen bomb. >> that moved me a lot and i

remember thinking, this is where the book ends with churchill leaving office in 1955. there is a 20 page addendum that do well for the final years of his life, very sad very sick. his last speech in the house of parliament, the house of commons in the team 55 was another warning that the h-bomb was a factor infinitely more dangerous than an atomic tom, which 10 years earlier he had roosevelt saw as a strategic weapon, the atomic bomb and it worked. eisenhower than mid-fifties saw the h-bomb the same way as a tactical battlefield variety, strategic weapon. churchill again was ahead of its time and he came up with the concept of mutually assured destruction and said the only

value in these things is to build enough to ensure nobody could ever use them indicated beautiful speech in march 1955 and he said i sometimes wonder if god is wearied of mankind and the little children who were playing might not either in a generation now is the last time he spoke in the house. for me, that's his greatest legacy. he saved civilization twice if you will. once against hitler and once with this concept of weak kneed h-bombs for the sake of never having to use them. contradictory, but this way were here today. >> that is the last book of the words i remembered. the big one is what you just

said. >> i really think if you value schopenhauer and plato and shakespeare and freud and victims seen in the whole legacy of the classic western tradition he saved it. if you go down outlives aware bridge for it be if hitler could get his hands on him were victims seen, it's just so obvious they were just mind boggling insane gods/evil and for two years, one man among country is fighting them alone. tallinn was in bed with them. so that was the first war and then the legacy with the atomic tom and churchill school after the war in his second premiership was to sit down at the table. he coined the word summit

meeting to sit down at the summit with the russian leaders and best men in human beings, agreed the atomic bomb -- the h-bomb simply could never be considered a weapon. something had to be done. only a person with that background and the classics of aristotelian ethics and only someone with that frame of mind would think that way. stalin certainly didn't. so yes, there's a plaque i started 30 years ago in westminster abby in the west stores about four by six secret italian marble in on it is simply says robert winston churchill. i remember thinking way back then, that's all you need to say a thousand years from now. you don't have to put anything on the plaque about what he did, who he was.

the mets will transcend the legend on a thousand years from now, people will walk in there and none of them are going to ask who is winston churchill? >> thank you, paul. i welcome questions if anyone would like to approach the microphone. you know, i do have one -- people think of churchill as being quite the drinker and you address it early ink. >> he had a miraculous metabolism. that's all i can say. i created a word document and i took from all the diaries and sources i could find any reference to all nervous about the usual suspects encode the word document booze and realized his drinking was just off the charts from morning to night. wine and champagne.

he had a bottle of champagne with every meal for 70 years and a dozen cigars per day and brandy at night and occasionally he got a little bit sloppy. burke mentions that in his diaries and attended a horrible meeting who apparently had a good lunch. >> eisenhauer walked in one day and there was breakfast time and churchill was in bed with a bottle of white wine. >> like churchill said, i don't like powdered milk. >> he drank a lot, but he was the nabors yeltsin but for. there is something miraculous and if some reporter tried to come to you know, do a story on not been bottle trick like churchill for a week or two and see how it goes, not going to happen. >> yes, sir.

[inaudible] >> no. in fact, my editor and i chatted a lot. though manchester came of age, if you will, in the mid-20th century as a writer and i'm thinking of stephen ambrose and cornelius ryan, william manchester, [speaking in native tongue] black hats and white hats. even stand up eliot morrison, the official naval historian of world war ii when our boys are at midway in his official history, he's rooting for them and then they swoop down on the chops. they saw heroes, blackouts, white hats. mr. manchester was one of them and so we agreed that, you know, my goal was to read a write a conversational 21st century

toys than the editors that if you tell a story well, nobody's going to say this doesn't sound enough like manchester. that was the goal. i will say this about though manchester's writing style and it was nifty. in his macarthur book, for instance, is a very manly sort of voice writing about general macarthur. in the churchill volumes coming manchester's prose whispers churchville. in a sense, that is though manchester putting himself in the book. it's a pretty nifty way to approach things so there is a reminder of churchill and rhetoric in the first two volumes. i hope there is here, but not as a device, just a way of getting the story told. >> you know, you mentioned about the british getting very little

mention in the invasion of africa having read churchill's writings brother crisis the first world war in history the second war. in the british perspective the americans are mentioned in a footnote like the americans are here because it is always about england and he mentioned 41 and 42. do you think churchill realized if he had the strips and dominion they needed to say of the english at the umpire was coming to an end in everything he was trying to do was to keep the empire going? >> e-mail and i'm going to paraphrase here. and our finest hour speech, they will say 1000 years from now, this was their finest hour there, specifically the previous sentence he mentioned sentence he mentioned the dominion empire. from churchill you as the umpire's finest hour and he was

so grateful every night that there were three or four australian divisions and new zealand divisions and canadian shipping and the canadian division came under france at the surrender of france. he knew what the dominion state for the empire, but he also note the americans were doing in 1940 and 41 until november 42 when he went to africa. >> could you comment on or do you have any enlightening comments to make about churchill's relationship with both truman and eisenhower as their presidents? >> when churchill first met true man, he didn't think much of him. i was churchill. he didn't form an opinion. and they didn't spend much time at treatment because churchill was voted out of office during the conference. he grew deeply to respect truman

not just because harry is either speak at westminster college, but because of the truman thought turn and the marshall plan after that. truman was seeing things the way churchill hoped the new american president would see things because america now let the world and the empire was down on the totem pole. eisenhower -- churchill held a modest lower opinion especially when eisenhower and off they started talking using nuclear weapons against the chinese and north koreans and at one point he said he reserved the right or if this happens, we will use nuclear weapons in churchill bethune and eisenhower did change it to be reserved the right to consider the use of. but again, churchill didn't have

that much -- or most out of office before church i went back into office, so he never knew him in a professional sense and churchill didn't go back into office until 1950 -- what was it, two clicks and left off base in mid-1955. the eisenhower was president for eight years of which churchill was only on the scene for about three. >> were at a time, but invites you to continue this conversation. paulson and book signing room adjacent to hear and i want to thank you for your questions, intention and coming today. it's about pleasure to meet with paul. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> i thank everybody for attending this program can assert with excellent conversation. i want to thank paul, great if you're interested in paul's

book, "the last lion" come you can purchase it and paul will be signing copies of his book ner striven immediately after this presentation. thank you for coming. enjoy the rest of your day. [inaudible conversations] >> is strained to we'll be back with more coverage of the printers row that fast in a few minutes.

>> hi, i'm robert costa washington editor of national review. a lot of books i want to read

this summer. i'm looking ahead to the presidential race coming to candidacy probably not on the republican side about the people in the pianist chris christie. i picked up the new book called chris christie, the inside story of his rise to power by about england michael simon, if only so far that takes you back into chris christie's political advantage or say before he became u.s. attorney. he was involved in county politics and so it takes us behind the politician racing on the magazine covers with president obama in new jersey and asks who is chris christie as told by people puno new jersey politics. chris christie is a likely contender you got to know where he came from and what his policies means ahead of the election. second book is a colleague, kevin d. williamson at the end is near and it's going to be awesome. one reason i think this book is

a lot of fun is because the fiscal cliff in 2013 is a big story we covered coverlet later this year you'll have the debt limit to the story that consumes congress. looks at a political perspective come historical historical perspective, consequences of committee cannot a lot of congress is time, how it could run the country make the country go broke and he does it with some wit, sometime then i think the end is near is a great book. third is based on the mark. there's always a tossup, always talk about what's happening behind the scenes and how stories get written on the who's looking to do, power struggles and politics in the media. max weber that she was the air at the powwow crowd is coming out in july. it's all about the incisive and washington and upon circle in bethesda and the georgetown salons. that gives the color of

washington and political media establishment's all about. a book i'm looking forward to reading is called mickey and willie, the mantel, parallel lives of baseball's golden age of one of my favorite sportswriters. i was just down in arizona watching cleveland aliens, chicago cubs play baseball. i ran to willie mays, but it's great because it looks that two men set to none, mickey mantle and willie mays came of age at the same time, stars at the same time and from a lifelong rancher up and so that's a great book, a big hook for baseball fans this summer. so that's my list and looking forward to reading them all.

>> were back inside university center james tuttle from the "chicago tribune" printers row that fast. it's my privilege to welcome into the "chicago tribune"'s printer row lit fest. ..

>> please keep the literature festival going with a subscription of printers row. please visit the welcome center at harrison and dearborn street for a special lit fest author. finally, book signing will occur after they have conversation in the arts room. before i begin today's program, please take a moment to turn off your cell phone or any other electronic devices you may have. at this time it gives me great pleasure to introduce edward lazarus. >> thank you very much. it is eight minutes honor to be here today.

he has written one of the timeless books called fighting for the press. inside story. anyone who has picked up the newspaper for the last month or so knows that the issues that he talked about include headlines everyday. jim has been extraordinarily anguished. perhaps relevant to this discussion that he was the vice chair and general counsel of "the new york times" and was the chief in-house lawyer during the episode. he has also been part of a distinguished firm. he has taught at places like ill and new york university and published in "the new york times."

he has now written a book. i can tell you someone who has tried to combine the lawyering in writing. really notable for the fax but it is precise with the law and tells a legal story. at the same time to a general audience, he is interested in the great and how we hold government accountable. so with that, maybe i will just start by saying that you raised two topics. one is the right to publish classified information. the other is the right of a journalist to protect their sources. obviously this is the area of wiki leaks and government programs seek to collect huge amounts of information and

classify them and keep us from knowing about them. take us back in time. what was going on then? what was the world like one this came here just? >> in light of what has been going on the last two or three weeks here in this country, i would like to say that it is the same then as it is today because of all the controversy over publications classifying information. journalists being threatened. it is like history is repeating itself. and it is not fair to say today that barack obama is exactly the same as richard nixon. which maybe if you are an obama supporter, you won't like this. but the big difference than was

richard nixon and he was out to get the press. he had a vice president and spiro agnew was his attack dog. he said things they just don't care today. during that. matter of time nixon brought the first case ever to try to get a journalist. he was out to get the press. the two sides were all of a sudden part of the pentagon case to about. it was not that much of a surprise with nixon trying to be it's about time. we were somewhat prepared. this story is a drama that

cannot be repeated. the blood system and everybody. >> what were the pentagon papers? >> their 2 million words, 47 volumes this is what this is all about. this includes origins of the vietnam war. how to second place, so to speak? everyone sort of sad that samuel was an analysts analyst. that is an advisor to the united

states in southern california. he came across and he was just astounding when you put it all together. all of the lies that the american people have been told and persuaded them that war is okay. so he decided that they have had to get out. he went around from senator senator in each of them said that this thing is all classified. you know, i don't want to get into this. they would ask the government would declassify it certainly talked about and it wouldn't. so they leave the whole thing effectively to "the new york times." it was an interesting story here. about how the leak took place. i can't let all the secrets out or you won't read the book. but there is an argument that the pentagon faces. but this was stolen by "new york

times" reporter. so that is how the time scott and. >> that's right. so i have an office next to him and he was writing his books written in regarding office next and? >> yes, it is not a book about the vietnam war. it did not take 10 years to publish. >> i'm really happy you said that. there are a lot of characters in the book and it is fun to look at them because they all are motivational. in the meantime he was really careful. he could not make up his mind. as a consequence of that, the publication schedule said all of this discombobulated stuff -- i have heard of things and what

are they. well, we were trying to get them ready. so you have to set classification aside. let's talk about that for a minute. why do you think it is morally okay for daniel ellsberg is that i have looked at us, this, yes, it is classified, but the american people need to know? >> at a very tough question. i then play this actually "the new york times." "the new york times" question is easy. >> i know. that's why i said that. >> here's the answer to your question. it is that daniel ellsberg that was morally okay to release these papers because he wanted to blow a whistle. we have all heard about whistleblowers. during the government, there is no way you're going to blow whistle without coming across classified.

everything is classified in the government. if you want to discuss what is going on in the government, you're going to be talking about this. secondly i think to continue to answer your question, he looked at this and say this is history, why can't the american people know about history. in the culture of journalism, and i think this is another aspect of it, is it okay for a government official if they do is to advance the administration's agenda, i mean, how does that all work remarks that the system is very hard to explain the to the american public. way to think about it is think

about bob woodward. we all know him. today he writes books and as you go through his book and if you haven't i do the same, that is in the book. so i have an eye for the little bit more than the average person. i countered all the pages in 70% of them and leaks of classifieclassifie d information. what the government does on one hand is in order to get its point of view over and get support for it is include this classified information. so on the one hand, the government needs to use the weeks in order to get support for its position. as we speak, with respect to

this. on the other hand there are leaks from those lower down the damage national security. why is it that we don't prosecute bob woodward, but we prosecute the people that are being prosecuted today? obama has indicted more people than any other president. there are six of them. but there is no rational answer. so you're sitting there at "the new york times" and its lands in your lap. we have something where classified information has come into the possession and there is a story to be written and it is a hot story. give us a little detail of "the new york times" and talk about it without fear.

>> well, the l.a. times, and others, the time is worth it. >> yes, everyone was old at "the new york times" except for me at that time. and i was -- i was 37 and everyone i was dealing with was a generation older than me. it took itself very seriously in this way. they thought of themselves as an institution. one of the problems for the owner was the publisher then. why should he risk the whole reputation of this institution was without parallel in the united states with a bunch of crazies, mainly reporters that said something had been

classified. now, why should he do this? this hot potato lands in my lap. of course, i'm younger and i don't care what the elderly think. have a little bit more than average precedents about what is happening. and so i said i don't understand why this stuff is classified and i think that we can probably publish it. but i say to myself that i know nixon will come after us. as a set of the beginning of the program, he had already been after us. so i get myself in a position of wanting the reporters to go forward. at the same time, they are worried that it should go forward. >> when i have a tough legal

problem and you call this the outback counsel. is because your working with these guys. i asked them face-to-face about this. one of the things that i found most remarkable is the whole world, you're just writing it on a webpage and you don't have, you know, they can't go and do 20 hours of legal research and figure out what the right answer is because it's not really a generally clear what the right answer is. tell us about that. >> this is a very strange thing and i ask myself how this ever happened. because i do about the first amendment. but anytime i talk to my seniors or engage with the outside counsel, they didn't seem to know what i was talking about.

so rather than replicate the relationship, which is a typical i am the inside guy and i will pass the hot potato and then head for the hills sort of thing. >> i'm sure you don't do that. [laughter] >> i'm sure you don't do that. i think, gee whiz, this is something that has to be published. now, they are all at the same level. mostly executives are part of that generation and not mine. they came to the conclusion that this hot potato -- they came up and advised and if they looked at it, they would go to jail. sue immediately i didn't think that would be answered and i

thought that they would be crazy. >> it really is an extraordinary thing. we would advise those who take the most extreme position. so one of the very interesting characters is partly a result of that and that is the famous law professor. one of the things it that is so interesting that i really have enjoyed is not just a book about law or law in newspapers. it is a book about character and how important each of them turned out to be, whether it is an opinion or whether you can take your pick. but you have these individuals in this case which have

different perspectives and who has been interested in setting up for principles but you could count on that. many had so many people on your team like those who are part of this case. >> welcome i'm glad you brought up the point about personalities . fill it up and talking to myself for many years by these issues. i wanted to make this silly movie like. that way anyone could pick this book up and have a lot of fun with it. the doorman said please sign a copy and he is reading it. i tried to write it because these characters were so interesting. from the time that the outside lawyers talked about the

inclined to look at it to the time we get to court, it is a very dramatic moment for you to read. but now we have alex to whom the reference was made. i look at him as you would look at him. someone described him to me who have had him as a teacher. they described him as a peacock. he had a coat and pants and even a tie. showing the generation here is where they come from. alex bickle was always perfectly attired. his hair was slicked back and he was smart as heck. but he was a good guy. he was absolutely confident in anything that he had to say. the reasons include being able to grab him at the last moment.

he had let's say three hours to prepare for going into the court for the first time. i was thinking that this might be interesting. i actually had to explain to him over a cup of coffee and that's before he made the one of the most historic arguments in the history of constitutional law what it was i thought he might say. to pick up on eddie's last point, he had a reputation of being a conservative. there a lot of conservatives today don't like the supreme court and he was like that years ago. i picked him up earlier for a case involving this, which i told you. it was after i convinced myself

that it was good. i hate to tell you this is the way law works but he could dress well, smooth his hair back, have a reputation but yet say what i wanted him to say and have this conversation. >> were the things that comes through is that government is coming in court and we are not going to allow you to publish including we are not going to talk about the consequences if you did publish. so you're fighting about this and you're having to make the decision with two separate sets are very strange. number one is your doing argument after argument week after week in brief after brief. with almost no time.

then there is the fatigue factor. yet the army of the justice department which has a lot more resources. talk about what it is like to be in a crucible. >> you know, it is fun. and i was going so fast that the younger lawyers that had working with me have to do my laundry. i mean, that is the sort of pace it was going. the time was not that long and this case went to the supreme court and i forget the time. but like the first four or five days were compressed. so you can feel yourself running on energy for for five days. if you look at this when you get to the end of this, i say that this is one of the greatest

cases in the history of united states and i thought a little bit that might be so. but i think that is just a stable position and that we knew a little bit about it. but you're doing it without any preparation and the government is coming at you and throwing stuff, which by the way is full of lies and you can get to that. so how do you deal with this. well, i think there is energy and devotion to the person at. >> the government handled the case. right now burkholder is in the process of calling various media organizations down to washington from his perspective, to start a few fights and potentially leave some accommodation of the issue which is a very open question.

that is not exactly the reception he got from the department of justice. talk a little bit more about the role. >> i'm glad that you mentioned eric holder. does anyone wants to look up my writing, i would call for his resignation. the reason i have experience but i have with the justice department. i think when you're in a government case and they are trying to squeeze you it is speech that they are squeezing from you. what i learned from experience was that you just can't trust anything that they say from the lawyers who are doing this

day-to-day case. they came up with all sorts of claims that are totally unbelievable. to the dean of harvard law school. he is sort of the king of hell for those of you that don't know. he lied at the sprinkler. i was able to figure out that he lied in the supreme court and said that "the new york times" was breaking codes. but i didn't realize it because i had to go through this stuff. you cannot trust any of them. by the way, not only do i hope you read this book, but i really hope obama read this book. you have to push back. you have to push back on the government's bureaucracy because they have their own interests to protect it if you don't respect you will not interfere to. >> one of the questions i had about those is over the generations. people that go into this going

to it with the best intentions. yet they find themselves taking positions that are least in the light of history are very difficult. what is the dynamic that is at work to create that? >> welcome i think that the government is there at the top representing a political party in power. i think it is difficult for the people who come to appointments to deal with the bureaucracies. as a consequence of the bureaucracy in terms of experience, they had the upper hand and i think in the case of obama, he has had a terrible

three or four weeks, all of which are related to the book. i am beginning to think that he was just too inexperienced in dealing with the government bureaucracy and to believing with respect to claims of national security. i haven't gotten to the point yet but for example, eric holder says as he did two weeks ago and the associated press investigation that this is the third worst are one of the worst weeks i've ever seen in my life and therefore i had to send out a subpoena and i think most people would agree that he did not create this. i say to myself that i just don't believe it. i don't believe in our government saying that our claims of national security long for publication. the last couple days we've had a

huge leak of wireless wiretapping. everyone knows about it. that was the front page on thursday. but i just can't believe that this will harm national security at. it was held secret all these years. so i think the answer to your question is bureaucracy has the upper hand and we kind of pushback. >> we may come back to some of the historical points in the second. we would like to ask about journalism than an hour. one of the reasons i think that i think i found myself a little bit more sympathetic to government now than i did when i read your book and historical portions of iraq is that inside "the new york times" there were

a hierarchy that spend a lot of time thinking and balancing the interests and i think it was overtime -- and it's true of a lot of stuff. these favors, dialogue, situations where maybe it is close to the line. then time goes by and they put this out. now we are in this was a single person with data. we can do to a single individual on the outside without what might have been thought of as the czechs and balances and can put that on the way to the entire world and it is out there. even the institutions that we

have been broadcast stations and one not, they are breaking this with the 24 hour news cycles. but how do you think they will integrate with the first amendment and the change of the world or do you think otherwise? >> i do not think it is relevant. but i would like to respond this way. you are absolutely right. with respect to the institutions that we have for the press, they were not subject to the internet. they could take their time. we trusted him more. they would censor themselves. with the internet, that is gone. and out of the ordinary course the respectful publisher would not publish that. we have lost that sense of judgment and standards.

there are two issues here. one is the standard. but what is the first amendment center? so now i look at this and say, okay, i wouldn't publish it myself for example but i say that this is calling the american press to wake up to what obama will do to the town of wiki leaks and mr. rosen of fox news. i mean, i don't like all that publication is a personal matter. but from the first amendment point of view, which is subject to national security exceptions, we must protect stuff that we don't like. because if we don't the

principle then be applied to the stuff that we do like. the only reason we didn't wake up -- first of all i started doing this six weeks ago, everything fell on deaf ears. >> let's talk about the sprinkler. >> okay. >> the pentagon papers case comes to the supreme court and the right at the tail end of what progressives would think of it in the golden age. those in court. it is true that nixon had a lot of us in the times paper that came out. there is a certain view of of these types of institution.

going up to the court, can you tell us what that looks like and then i want to ask you this question. do you think the case would come out the same way today where we have not? >> those who have not been to the supreme court and are not lawyers, i think it's a fun part of the book. i had only been here once before. this story, the number one story for 2.5 weeks, you know, every time we would snap your picture and there is a lot of hullabaloo when people went into the courtroom. they would talk about the government lawyers and that sort of thing. if you talk about the supreme court it is very different. so he was then one of the

justices on the group. he was not exactly part of a liberal majority. >> i even have a point, sir. >> yes, i do as well. there is a story in the beginning of the book details how i met him at a cocktail party during this period of time. and i said well, he is a great guy. when we got to the supreme court and the magic moment of this came the day the pin dropped. it hear a pin drop when my friend bickle was talking with my new friend stuart. a consequence of that conversation determines which

upheld the future of the amendment. so short answer is part of this and it's very dramatic. >> it's 100%. it is hard to describe unless you go in on the most exciting day of the term. you know if you have a very limited amount of time. justices can be quite sharp and their agencies and although i like the part that we have talked about, where they make a their predictions, it came out just about right. >> sort of funny. lawyers argue cases ,-com,-com ma they are always trying to figure out how it's going to come out. when you? they try to make a judgment

based on history and pretty much on the questions that are out there. because judges really can fool you. we found terrorists, those of you who are there as to who would lose, i, too, there were other lawyers thought we had lost. but i thought we had one. >> indeed he did. let's ask about the current question. >> you know, many are so critical of today's supreme court interests and so of course

the pentagon no longer but the fact is -- on-site, not a fact. but my thinking is there or for liberals and for conservatives in and the justice named kennedy who is pretty good. i think he would vote for the floor and all you need is five. i would say five to four. >> there is a wonderful line in your book about one of the lawyers that you hired. so i just thought it was a beautiful passage. but i would also like to say that it is an interesting comment in concept. those who think that it is not just a number but first in importance. but it is an amendment that has had some perverse results. not necessarily in the press area so much.

but the law because corporations have a right to speak and allow for elections. you think people have almost gotten carried away with the first amendment? >> okay, i mean, if you look right here at our writers conference. those of us who are here, those of us who are listening to us. the other speakers, i believe in the creative process being the most important part of our culture. we have a political culture that comes and goes and elections. the literary culture is with us forever. we need people to protect our culture and the way that you do that is through the first amendment. i think that is extremely important and i thought that as a young person.

okay is the first amendment producing great results for the country? i am not so sure. first of all we have so many different points of view on the internet and it's very hard to get a consensus in this country. and we need it. the first amendment does not help that. we would be better off in the long run, but i cannot make this with respect to the idea that corporations have speech and we have unlimited fundraising. i think that is terrible. i wish the case had never been brought. i think that the idea that money equals speech and i won't bore you with details of the case, money is not speech. so i think that that is an

example of going too far. >> when you look back and we have just a couple of minutes more and then we will open up for questions or when you look back, what do you think was the best decision you made and what you think the worst decision was >> i think what happened in this case was that "the new york times" lost this in the appellate court. we didn't tell you much about that. >> so the question is since we have lost, we have to go back and start over again or should we appeal. my lawyers went around and i asked as i had a half hour to decide whether to appeal and it wasn't an easy decision. but they were running out of time and i said my seniors, my

superiors, i told a guy who called me on the phone from "the new york times" and said we are appearing and that was the toughest decision the worst decision was that we had actually won the first time around where we were sent back to district court and i called and said we have it made. roll the presses. well, that was the dumb thing that i said. [laughter] it just goes to show that you can make 100 right decisions. and i am so admiring of the kurdish for you to do what you did at that time is a 37-year-old an institution of the nature that you are operating in against the advice of outside counsel in the country is much better off.

i would like to open it up to the audience to ask a few questions. i'm sure it is a topic of great interest. folks who come to the microphone , please go to the microphone. i know that we can hear you but the people at home won't be able to hear you mustn't speak into the microphone. >> okay. >> someone very near and dear to me several years ago was wrongly accused by the doj. it was in a criminal case. the judge dismissed the case as prejudice and the appellate court upheld a decision saying it was one of the worst violations of constitutional rights they had ever seen. the doj, of course, they talked about the indictment being this horrible thing. but they honestly haven't put out a press release about appellate decision against them. i'm wondering how you don't have the press behind you and how do

you overcome that and can he speak to the other side of the that first amendment right where the government has discovered how to use the internet to their advantage and quite often to individual citizens disadvantage. >> that's right. you're speaking to the phenomenon when the government can make accusations. they get a lot of headlines. they tend not to do the news in the same way. but what, if anything can be done about that? >> exactly. exactly. >> yes. when something is settled and you know that you can't win that fight even when you're correct because you just don't have the resources, it goes away in a hurry. it is harder when you fight that and find that it is not resolved for years even.

honestly the press and the public has lost interest in the fire of the story. but they are really critical stories when it comes to constitutional rights to that that is understood. >> is hard to get back on his. >> you may have of you as well. i have had that question come up many times and it is usually a defense lawyer who doesn't want to talk to the press because the defense lawyer doesn't think that there's any benefit to it. with respect to law and legal cases, get the lawyers out of it a little bit. we would be better off. that is what i'm trying to say. just some ordinary behavior that makes sense and what it is one you are in that type of case and the other side site has better

access. you have to loosen up and talk smack thank you for your book. thank you for your discussion here. it is such an important topic. you mentioned the obama administration and the prosecution of whistleblowers. i think that probably the most appalling prosecution has been that of bradley manning. so i would love it if you could speak a little bit to that and share your thoughts on the matter, if you would like well, this is sort of in the category of ellsberg. he was the leaker and i'm very interested in defending him. one doesn't usually defend the person who is the leaker. i want to say this about bradley manning. the government is overdoing it with bradley manning. he has fled to 20 years and

agreed to go away for 20 years. supporters think that he is 100% a whistleblower and i'm in the middle of that. i think some of the stuff was whistleblowing area but i do think that those who work for an people you should be subject to some sort of discipline with respect to your organization. therefore 20 years it seems to me is a fair way to do it. the government is now piling on an eight week case. ethical of what is going on with obama. he is overdoing everything and putting too many indictments out. in a telephone and it is just

too broad. his whole approach your is much too broad and i think you ought to dial it back. there's nothing we can do about that case. i think that it's just piling on at this point. >> thank you. >> yes. "the new york times" writer seoul records from now on i'm just curious about what developed. i wasn't sure about the federal government's way of diffusing information. would you believe that it is worth telling the truth all-time >> is asking that the break-in and what the motivations of the government would have been.

one of the things that's interesting is how many figures in the book there are. >> yes, i think it's important what you try to make for your point. there is a route to the site. why do we want to write about it unless this is teaching us a lesson. the lesson is don't get enamored of national security so that you lose sight of everything else. that is what happened to nixon. he was so enamored that he brought the case and thereafter he had the plumber's break-in and he wins his case as a consequence. they go on to bigger and better things. so this all starts at the pentagon papers to the start of a slippery side into disaster and i would like to point out president obama but i'm sure he is not going to do what nixon is going to do.

once you get tangled up in these national security things and you insist that we have to go after weeks and all this stuff, it is not going to end well, i promise you. >> this has been a fascinating conversation. if you want to understand what it is like to be in the middle of history, and we appreciate these efforts. this is the new book. inside story of the fighting of the pentagon papers. they do so much. [applause] [applause] >> i want to thank everyone for attending the program. thank you for coming and speaking on our show. the authors book is being sold currently here on the second floor of the university center. you can pick up a copy over there. it's a good day and the gentleman will be signing copies of his book next-door. enjoy the rest of your day and thank you for coming.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are live from chicago and we will be back in a few minutes with more. >> the famous passage in one of williams offers men novels as every boy for two years old or older is still 1:00 o'clock in 1863. it's all on the line. victory, independence, and in the minds of both northerners and southerners, northerners at the time, this became a mystic

moment of victory and defeat. >> 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live all day on sunday, june 30 on american history tv on c-span3 . >> spent a lot of time in this book on israel. what you talk about is symbolism and the real reason that islamists have declared war so you can embody the freedom of the individual and the negotiation of the bureaucratic authority. it is viewed as a contagion that threatens. >> yes. now, this is something we have talked about for several years. but i do think that there is a problem here with the islamic

world. and it's very important to understand a little bit that one is not talking about all muslims are it is on the contrary. there a lot of muslims who come as immigrants especially because they wanted to sign up for british and western values and i wanted to live in freedom and have good jobs. that is very important to them. they wanted all the things that we all want. freedom, peace, security, prosperity. the problem is they have been treated in a way that comes down to this.

the world view that says the world has to be remade according to islamic percepts. that muslims and when they enjoy this type of freedom, that must have to conform with a very narrow a third tier in conservative interpretation and that view exists in our government. and that the west must be brought to this decision is also concerned. they're people who say that this is nonsense. it is a made up word, but i have particular reasons. nor to allow that those who do

want to sign up for western values, it is important. those who don't are remiss. because they are trying to impose islamic doctrine and value on people or who are not muslim and they are trying to impose the most anti-freedom interpretation of religion on muslims. so i call those people as they seem. they say the whole time with her intention is, to create the old empire and go beyond that and conquer britain and america and they are very explicit. to impose the rule of islamic law upon anywhere that muslims live. some of them are violent, some

of them have equipped themselves with war and terrorism. some of them are not violent. they believe that they can conquer the west with a kind of cultural takeover. those islamists are violent and nonviolent. on the other hand there are lots of them don't want we must keep faith in our minds. we must look at those who belong themselves and who are themselves threatened in this way. we must put those two things, i think, in our minds at the same time. that is what i have tried to do. that is what i perceived to be the case. which is to my great fear and how it was giving in to

islamists to this pretense to take over and undermine britain and encroachment of islamic values in britain. that is what i have written about. and i was extremely careful to acknowledge this and the many muslims who find this equally frightening and worrying and have nothing to do with this. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> you're watching the tv. more live coverage from the "chicago tribune" lit fest in a couple of minutes. >> would be reading this summer? booktv wants to now.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> let us know what you're reading this summer.

post on our facebook page or send us an e-mail at the tv at c-span.org. are you interested in being a part of our online book club? our selection this month is sheryl sandberg's book. in her book, she is the ceo of facebook discusses why it is so difficult for women to achieve leadership roles in the united states. she talked about her own career and you can watch her talk about it at booktv.org and as you read the book this month, post your thoughts on twitter with this hash tag and right on our facebook page. facebook.com/booktv. a june 25 on at 9:00 p.m. eastern, center suggestion and tune in.

includes our information online at booktv.org. >> first we will hear from the author at the "chicago tribune" printers row lit fest. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> who elected take a moment to thank all of our sponsors to have helped to make this a success. to this program will be broadcast on c-span2 book tv. if there is time at the end for q&a we will ask that you keep -- please use the microphone market in the center of the room the wedding guests at home can see your -- your questions. if you'd like to watch the program it will reappear to knighted midnight. please keep the spirit going all

year with a subscription to a printer's row, the tribune's book section. my wife and i subscribe and i have to tell you, it's a great read a recent morning. if you're interested please visit the local center located at harrison and dearborn street for a special description and perks such as a tote bag and a beautiful poster. finally, the author's book will be solo the second floor of the university senate. the signings will take place here in the our room immediately following his presentation. we are ready to begin, will ask you please turn off your cell phones or any other electronic devices the half. and i'm going to turn it over to our moderator. please divinize warm welcome to elizabeth taylor from the chicago tribune. [applause] >> so happy to be here. i see many friends in the audience.

i am a huge admirer. here is the book. and, you know, while this seems the chicago is often seen as the kind of vast expanse or silicon valley and hollywood on one side and the ivy league and wall street on another. but tom is making another argument and explains that it was not always that way. in his book, the third coast, chicago built the american dream he argues that much of what defines america emerged at a mid century chicago. understanding america requires understanding chicago, he writes in his wonderful works of nonfiction. it is the synthesis of art, biography, culture, politics, and history. sort of everything metabolizes into this amazing book. so let's start at the beginning

and give people a way to jump into this book. so we have in 1955 the second city, the golden arches, playboy, richard a. -- richard daley's election. so you kind of begin to connect the dots. >> you know, i grew up on the northwest side of fulton and central in chicago here. when i wanted to move to doing something -- i grew up with all of this, grew up in the 60's and 70's, so all the people that listen to this talking about are things that i grew up with. so when i moved the wrote three novels. what to move to nonfiction and tackle something that was familiar with that i could

understand. something about detroit, but i realize that all know about detroit. the one to do something about chicago where when i read state street or south parkway were never succumb i knew when i was talking about. i started to dive into going into these different people. algren, says, you know, second city, all of these various things. a lot of great work had been done on this. the definitive book. everyone of these topics. but what i found was that they were all kind of written into wonderful books were missing something. they talked about these people and events as if it were happening in a vacuum. lester the pieces together, they lived next order each other, knew each other. the connections between the bauhaus and all these different things really -- there was a nexus of things going on. when i began to do was to really create with my research, had these big, massive poster

boards. if you're wondering how i created it. i would read the books and take my notes and posted an type them up. then i had these big posters where by year end kind of buyer architecture, different threads that are in the book. kind of luck in what happens. a lot of colored pencils. started making this level was going on. it was remarkable. pages and pages. writing the book was really a matter of describing one i created on these poster boards. nineteen, you know, 47. forty-eight, which is creative apex. so many things going on. television, painting, all kinds of fascinating advances happening in chicago. >> it is kind of interesting to think that in 1955 nelson algren once described chicago as kind of a jukebox that had run down. and so 1955, things and look so great.

it was kind of bleak. but how did that time merge this astonishing creativity. >> the buck starts 3738. the great architect comes. kind of his foil. the other one of the bauhaus alumni. there really could not stand each other. very big ideas. big business, big government. and is this kind of dapper in carrying guy who is painting, film cost culture. his big mouth so is everyone is talented. basically everyone. there really are forel to each other in a certain kind of way. the step into basic things about the city. he understands that people based ethic of chicago. if he goes all the way back to the labour movement which has a lot of ties to the creativity in chicago during these years.

and it stands for in a way his relations with big government invidious. so they both come from the same modern history, with their differences evidence taken very give places. their books this crabcakes the same sentence from d'arcy thompson on growth, but they hate each other. it's fascinating how the 118 the same things. they represent -- both brought into the city to help come out of that double dip of the recession which is terrible. the depression hits chicago very badly. so they kind of represent the beginning of a turning of the page in a way. oh during the war, it's kind of a central point. they're moving back and forth. and kind of free interaction in the city to america in a certain way. chicago, the thing to keep in mind is the geography of chicago. it's in the middle of everything . this role is been the middle of the cash trick plays crucial.

your chilly cannot. seems as if her was a required stop, but if you're traveling by train, you had to stop and get off the train to chicago. he had to. so it's serve that purpose. a meeting place for america. nine abcasixteen political conventions. between 32 and 64 in chicago. some of that was the ease of everybody getting neck. some of it was also how the city operated. the convention center, the original las vegas. had that gambling, stripping, not a thing going on. it had the art institute. it was a one-stop place for america to me. and it really plays off of that and because really important is after the war you get a lot of the bauhaus people, a lot of people make the southern migration. so you have so many different kind of refugees and people looking to make a fresh start in

chicago. that creates a huge amount of energy in the late 40's which is, i think, that emmy's the people have to my fighting this lockstep america really exciting things are going on. chicago and the late 40's was a great boiling place. what happens, you get mccarthy. that is a kind of chilling effect on that. and against the backdrop of really housing is an enormous issue as well. it's hard to talk about this because it is so interwoven. i could always look back at the poster board and leave altogether. the housing issue, the practical issues of chicago created a real tension in the city between blacks and whites. that is the kind of under current behind everything. it ends up becoming a creator of some of these artistic things. a great competition for space. that leads to things like the

urban blues. a lot of that great art comes out of that. >> one of my favorite connections in the book, and there are so many, was the connection between these landreau and winslet brooks. can you explain that? is just amazing. >> in this outsider on 35th and stayed, and a big, beautiful apartment building was built. one of the first of its kind, big luxury apartment building. so after the fair it kinda splits down into being middle-class. it becomes as the black belt kind of extends that surrounds it and it becomes lower class working-class housing for african-americans. in the 30's gwendolyn brooks, the great poet works differ a little while. it becomes, in her mind, a kind of metaphor for black chicago. she talks about wanting to write

a great problem that would describe it. of course she does go on. i would argue it's the finest work. if you've not read mekka, please leave here and go buy it. the third world press group. and it is -- although girl who is subjected. kind of follows going from apartment to apartment trying to finance hostile girl. it's just heartbreaking. all the time they're expanding. this is a part of the great redoing of the campus. they buy it. there's a long battle to try it for everyone out. it turns out finally after the war they're able to demolish it. on the site of what -- there is a subject of her greatest paul, arguably one of his -- of the top three building spirits of this the laker, half acre of chicago is kind of the home of two great works. no one -- there was no

connection between the two. so much of what the book is about is making those connections between things. the great photographer wrote -- it was like we were islanders. >> and people know about gwendolyn brooks, but then you also uncovered some others who have not been really part of the common conversation. >> he is a terrific character. he does, like asset cannot happen to chicago in certain aspects of it being a workshop. jakarta really was during this time a laboratory. the home of the american electronics industry. motorola, these different things came out of chicago. the city at this working-class labor basis. definitely a lefty. many of these modernists worked.

connects with the wpa, all of that kind of labor lament that is still going on in l.a. 30's and a little bit into the war. it brings that to week. what comes out of the institute, he originally started as the new bauhaus, brings over the bauhaus to chicago and restarts it. the other famous jordan -- german architect. and creates a school that is going to us replicate the kind of tactile play with touching things that the bauhaus kind of stance for. again, it fits so well into chicago. and the holy is a great spirit. chicago has this thread. the wizard of oz was written here, folks. there's a reason for that. so he is a part of that. fuller has deep, deep ties to chicago. his mother watched the chicago fire. the term dymaxion, the dymaxion

car was coined by the marshall field's marketing department. >> really? >> so fuller had a great connection. he says, kind of a man of grand ideas and many page single space all cab. the other person who writes exactly the same kind of thing as folic is so broad. also , all caps. i mean, it's kind of -- and they're all the same kind of person. bake in a grand ideas inspiring people. in the really fits into that kind of place. you could see connecting -- many you and pull them. that makes for a good day for me. >> what is really special about the book that you cannot argue, is such as the series of coincidences. >> i don't. right. i mean, listen. in some cases this is in some grand, unified field theory.

and the same in all these things are completely connected. enough of them are. enough of them are rivera creative impulses that were not possible. even today -- and again, this is a book. and not really commenting this of the troops are it is a city where people a traditionally come to do work and around and have the space to do that. and so they created an opportunity for people like -- a public -- puppeteer who creates a world around himself, had a great idea and creative community's. a lot of these people created worlds around themselves that exemplified a lot of that. the difficulty is that there is not the competition that you have on the coast. so in a way some of these things are great ideas, but they need to be tested in a certain way. chicago is not able to test them in the same way that maybe the other two are. and that's a drawback of it.

>> and so another -- another thing that happened, this that has gone, not just across the coast, but internationally chicago was known as the -- the founding of mcdonald's is here. >> and another great, genuine chicago character. he grows up in the city. in world war one, ambulance corps with walt disney. so in a certain way -- and he knew what wall was doing. but he ends up selling swampland in the everglades. he is a kind of lounge lizard. he sells paper. o once the pinkston does. he has of making a pretty nice living selling all telex -- multimeters. and so one account that he has everybody, how many shakes can you make. there's one place out in samara

do know that has 40 of them. i have a seat. so he goes to this will -- not will come of this drive-in restaurant in san born-again run by the mcdonald brothers you are the zero hippies. very laid-back. lines of the door and no interest in selling, no interest in franchising. the something exemplifies what he once which is really this way of having a big business, and this is the beginning of gray flannel suit. big corporations. and i want that, but i don't want these court the guys. he would go and pick up the pickle slices of the parking lot. take it toothbrushing clean the inside. he was in that spirit he once spanned every facial hair. including serving that thing with the pineapple, if you remember.

those mcdonald's burgers. up was his idea. very, very, very bad. [laughter] >> so what he wants to me as this great thing. city falls in love with it. every bit of it. he makes a terrible deal with the brothers. they're taught him a certain way. they give him a deal to franchise throughout america. he goes and bills the first one. and he finds out the week before is about to open, right before, the one place, the one territory that they had exempted is chicago and paris city has to basically ransom. he thinks is already the go. he had to go into deep, deep debt in order to get the land. so he marches ahead. he produces this kind of way -- its always beautiful. and again, it becomes this massive worldwide corporation, but it comes from this impulse

of ethical business, a quality product. and it's also the end point, really, i think of what is been going on in chicago. really in the food business, chicago is a wonderful book. i highly recommend it breath you finish reading my. william crone in, just a titan in the field. it's about chicago's relationship. producing food in the way that grain elevators were invented here. at a certain point you buy a bushel of corn from another guy in the by the court. in that being so much the suddenly had to buy the idea of a bushel of corn. okay. so then you get another. but it as maybe some other court. so the food was kind of the ideal. and so in a way it's sort of the idea of food. you never see what is there. ami, it's like food. the push the button in the food comes out.

that's mcdonald's. and so this is a great irony that in a city where -- i mean, i still remember as a kid going to south side and smelling what it's like. it was just as -- you don't forget it. it was something that was up your nose, every horrifying effluent you could imagine, and it was all there. you don't think vetted. he divorced food. one of the great things that he writes about chicago, she didn't write much, but what she wrote, she really understood the city profoundly. what made it so interesting and exciting was that he could not lose the business, the food and the me were there. you couldn't drive too far and not have that connection. in big business, so close. and kind of helped slip that connection and lead america way from understanding where food

comes from. >> really interesting. another improvisation invention, and that is the internet live television. the chicago school of television , day care way. >> radio -- one thing that was fascinating when i was researching, you think of radio as having reinvented and along the way into television. we can do this. in fact, many television. to of -- television was the idea. when they started radiant in the television was on the way. radio was basically a test run for television. setting of the networks and the electronics, this was the trial run. so in the 30's they came to chicago basically and said a program is really expensive.

chicago creator's created cheaper, kind of more intimate radio shows. one of the protections was the soap opera came at a chicago radio. the same thing happens in the 40's when television is rolling out. you have a kind of model a broadway, filming what is on stage. very expensive, like 85 to $75,000 a week for something like your show of shows a something. on the west coast there working on a movie model. it's all really expensive. so they come back to chicago television community and say we need something that is mostly cheap. that was the main issue. and so what came out of that there was a different understanding of television. instead of thinking of television as rebroadcasting to the world here or theaters full of people, they understood that there may be five or six people watching on television. so they do in television to talking to you. it became this intimate moment of that. and so part of that comes out of

that is the improvisation. it was cheaper. he did not have to pay the riders. so talk about the wonderful way. oh, i was awful. not a good thing. so there was that aspect of it which continues as improvisation, it really informs chicago and as a whole other by way. to have that blank moment. so which is going to have right now. improvisation. [laughter] so the other great thing about it is this wonderful, wonderful show created most of the time. up in bars. they're one bombs in debts to buy tvs for the homes.

the whole point was to help people buy tvs. that was the big point to it. and so he creates this alternate world. this kind of alice in wonderland character. and it was a really terrific will show. it had a weird political impact. in the 52, adlai stevenson runs for president. and it's the first that gets eisenhower, the first truly televised campaign, the first televised. the word anchormen is created the chicago convention that year. so they have these ads for the kids, these really remedial stick figures. the term which we still remember now. stevenson was terrible on television. really bad. they cut him off in the middle of sensitive senses. as much as people of it, he was as bad on tv because you didn't think -- the data was below him.

the thing was, he was the lawyer . and if you ever watched, it's a wonderful show, but it's kind of bittersweet. wrote a song that never got on. bittersweet kind of thing. and if it's that. so the problem with that, the director was also a tv adviser. kind of running the campaign. topped off by the fact that as a stevenson looked a lot like to clear. that was a kind of problem at the end. it was a bad thing. but even more break through. caraway was d.j., very famous. he had a show called the 1160 show. this low deep voice. and you turn in a night at northwestern university of

chicago and listen to. they given the show. he didn't have any money. in a separate tending that he and some big stage, he took the camera behind everything. he showed you the gloom, he showed you have a special effects work. they did these very big -- this workshop was famous for creating these visual gags, but on like ernie kovacs along with the he should y'all worked. there was one night with a chop the coax cable and one black. a couple of seconds later he shows up in these holding a garden hose it's up to half. so when you look it david letterman and is talking to the crew, that kind of revealing what the trick of television was , i was a lot of what -- he had a big role in explaining how to be worked to america. his abilities sell new ideas.

some show called the today show. of course that spins off to the tonight show. talk-radio and all this other great talk shows out of chicago, talk radio and television is a product of chicago. that is really one of the straight -- chicago understands it. people like it and the talk about it. you know, this the same thought taken a different way. people talking about themselves, people like that. reality television, if you like it encyclopedia britannica, educational film were a product of chicago. she was selling some idea to a 18 year-old. but that kind of reality television, again, more of a chicago thing. >> and so you grew up in chicago , moved to new york. when you come back or comeback, the government of corruption, the machine, segregation in

chicago. i wonder what those kind of factors influence? all this creativity. >> well, you know, the thing -- the place for a lot of this gets boiled into is the new york south side which during this time is chicago loving superlatives as it does, the biggest building of the chilly they always talked about, we have the world's biggest slump. there were kind of proud to be beating of calcutta. this reflexive boosterism on things that are not necessarily were talking about, but it was a really shoot. housing shortages, the issues that exploded out of the black migration north. the growing black population. and so there became a sort of two different battles going on. was was this sense of open housing, african-americans moving into the rest of chicago and facing what elizabeth wood, the great public housing pioneer

of virtual guerrilla war. it was. i grew up in the 60's and it was still going on. in the '40's and 50's, i think it was -- i'm giving you a number paris raised. over six years there was something like four under and 50 violent racial conflicts in chicago which were -- all the papers in the chicago, including the defendant and that path to not report. today anyone of them would partly be front-page news in this is going on throughout the city. that was one major piece of this. and then there was that competition on the south side where mercy hospital, you know, public housing. the planners came in and said, were going to redo this big piece of chicago. and the wonder people have no voice in it were the people live there. where would they go? you know, and the answer was that massive state street corridor. in new york terms, 1960.

it's a big piece of land. it was not a good solution. created -- it ended up creating this seedbed for all of the harvest that is being reaped with some of those decisions. another creative level, muddy waters. a lot of these were down there. lee sullivan, a good dozen or so the great old louis sullivan buildings in that area and it so many of these creative thing certainly in the near south side of boiling together which for me in the book was fascinating. they are all -- caylee lived next door to a louis sullivan building. guess that doesn't seem important in a certain way, but these are conic people, iconic ideas. they speak of what chicago is about an hour together and they're trying to be kind of went off the map by this big postwar move to corporatize and create in the city. a good, wonderful, important

impulse done in a brutal fashion, i think. >> getting back to this idea of segregation. growing a you were talking about coming from a family that sort of taught you to be aware of this kind of thing. and so years to think about it. >> happily, my family was fairly , you know, i head of the curve. we were much more racially aware for whatever reason. my father was a pharmacist of the west side and was a very private. so he -- i was very blessed to be raised in a way. a mother had gone -- one of her best friends in college as an african-american woman, and this sounds so kind of strange and silly the say in 2013, but in 1955 this was something. so when i was a kid, we are

going to house them to a barbecue at our house. and soon was 19 camino, 60's. and the neighbors all lined up their lawn chairs to watch as from the back. the cars roll slowly the house. you know, this lovely family came over. you know, we had a barbecue. my memories. like the up side become the inside. >> the alignment and bills. >> exactly. i remember even then -- and i was young. having the sense that i was helping ms. black family see how nice it could be in this nice west side neighborhood. you know, very -- said in a scheme to your turn to go visit them. we drive down to the south side. the south parkway. we pull up in front of this

three story black stone mansion. go up and then made up as the door. and i have this moment of, even at that age going, oh, there being nice to us. [laughter] and that was, i think -- yes. you know, we have been given that. in fact there are no rules on this. we are all in this together in a fundamental way. sadly, that was not -- you know, i love or i grew up in so many people. baumann still lives there, we were lucky to have gotten that message. it was not something mills common in the city at that time. there was certainly never as -- of the problems is that there were many integrated neighborhoods, but they were discussed in that way. there were changing neighborhoods. there were not allowed to be awake. ellis said to be moving in millennia. that created a natural tension. part of that was also a federal mandate. in that there's a wonderful book

, family matters. but she talks about the fact that the federal mortgage bankers, in the block that is interracial was seen as unstable and so you couldn't get a mortgage. and so it was in many ways a product of racism, for sure, but it was also made an economic necessity by certain federal policies toward urbanization. some of the points to a wonderful solution. >> and they're is a sort of point in an aspect to this. you're right that and the chicago was chasing out coming even demolishing what was best about itself. talk about -- >> i think there is a deal. the daily administration really represents the accommodation that is made or a deal that is made where in the early fifties a lot of this is wonderful and exciting and it becomes fear

instability. a lot of things are starting to boil up. the city is becoming is bigger, bigger place battle of public moneys going into it. builders a coming down, and then the city has never really rapid said around it. watching as the present our, i think he understands the the money is coming and has, i think, make a deal done spoken, with chicago basically which is for stability and security. the solutions of the south side, you know, the state street corridor and kind of the isolation that a lot of black chicago is, it's not his decision. it's unfair to say that. he wrote the book. maybe even before. sure great with adam palin, wonderful biography of mayor daley. but that was already in play. you just had a double down. he doesn't come up with a solution. it's already in the works, but

the push sitting creates a new nexus of business and government and all these things. and everyone gets a piece of this kind of creation of the second get up. and so -- and it's a deal. the deal that i think is made that we're going to trade the possibilities of a different kind of city for the stability of being a regular. and eight -- having that idea in place. and that is -- it save the city. this is one of those moments. i worked on this or i couldn't. you want to be immoral about it and say good and bad, right and wrong, but it was a horrible kind of peer trapshooting the legs, cutting the legs moment. it did save the city in certain ways and four or more reasons with terrible painful consequences, but you could argue that -- >> chicago has now become detroit. >> exactly. everyone is running out.

so as i get deeply into a, it was a difficult thing to write. it was hard to resolve that. >> one of the wonderful things about this book is your kind of reading and then you go, oh, how did you find that out? and then the footnotes. i can't -- it took me awhile to read this book because i kept going back and trying to figure out. and just to illustrate, you made one remarkable discovery. think you were trying to discern the weather when night, weekend in 1947 when nelson algren and blue format. >> i was able. i had to get the chicago tribune on line to get the whole archive [laughter] a very worth it. >> exactly. [laughter] so i was able to assist whenever i had something. so this one night cost.

he's put to bed. looking through. just one of the see what it was like that began when they meet in have the beginning of the grim affair. you know, was the weather like. scroll down. as my dad who had died when he was 51. and it's him with a little headline about -- these 17 in the starring in one of price cool. and i cried. but it was like this low wave upon high. so i think it was like a research moment that was kind of a blessing and a certain way. -- honestly in a way the book strangely is autobiographical because it really was a jury, in a way to mullen the see what that was like is that was the world he grew up in a new and it was his chicago. so he was always kind of personality in the back of his book.

>> please came to the microphone the feedback. >> fifty-two republican convention. i have a dream. had there been any push back kerbela back on anybody from the king family realize that the bar of those terms? >> again, i did not break is with that. that has certainly been commented on. the people of caught that moment . in 1950, the convention, archibald, not an alderman @booktv alderman? at think he was. he gives a speech at the convention, the republican convention which really sounds a lot like the i have a dream speech. you know, many parts of the the same. and so you did find it in the print every year. it would print the convention so

you can get -- i have a copy of the entire minutes of the entire convention. >> the phenomenal character and the book. to duval patrick ever come back and thank you for recognizing his father? >> something so because of think it was a happy situation. >> any other questions? summit coming up. there you go. oh, my gosh. all right. sorry, that was a battle. i am going sarah -- >> i was interested in your comments about chicago not having competition in certain ways. i'll is not that kind of made things a little bit more sane and friendly for politics and theater and that kind of thing. so while maybe it wasn't developed, there was a lot of

nurturing going on in the whole number of marinas in the 60's. alloy spot the left or not as limited text . >> that's exactly true. one of the real takeaways, while i believe that it is so important for chicago to be back in the story in a way. the planes, the first jet plane flies over in 59. january 59. suddenly we're flyover state, and we have to take chicago into account for these -- everyone had to go through it. there was immediate value in portance chicago. and so everything you say is right, but in this book a try to really look at everything. there are a lot of, this was exactly right in this was exactly wrong. there are two sides of these. as much as not having the competition, everything you said about the nurturance and opportunity and space is 100 percent true.

so many things in life just don't break down diaz serrano, black-and-white. the real interest is in that race-based. chico is all about that. that's was sullivan as. the organic forms. think of that as the guiding principle in the book. >> what you have amassed is such an amazing plethora of affirmation and yet taken it through your mind. answer curious about this matrix that you set up because it seems like an impossible task unless you really had some solid ideas of where you're coming from before and. >> i'll be honest. i had originally tried to sell this book as a book about 1955. until chuck berry kamal these different things that happen in 55.

right now as the climax of the book, but at the time no one bought the book. happily my agent who is always believed in me said disco ford. do this time a new kind of get. i'm really glad that she challenged me on that and came up -- gave me the idea for wonderful title. and so i kind of knew that i was going to get to this point. all these wonderful years and be able to do that time frame. so many great things to happen. the new we are going to get to 55 which is in a way a climax of great beginnings melson lendings after that moment a lot of people begin to go. a whole generation of people begin to leave under that daley administration, can the dow world. i had an article was going to happen in new that would be in ending. the real work was figuring out

the arc to that. that was what of the colored pencils and all that was about. >> just one more question, i think. >> your last remark. what do you think with the main reasons why chicagos : age of contribution to culture and it? >> you know, there are a lot of different things. of course you will enjoy finding that out in my book. [laughter] in brief of course some of that was beyond chicago is control. manufacturing leaving. 800,000 people leave the city. it's beyond the city's control. there're other things. america really does move to the west in fundamental ways, but part of what chicago controls is that packed with daily. he is not someone who encourages that mind set interest a

grass-roots vernacular stuff that is part of that labor tradition, you know, he ends up being a voice in the wilderness with a lot of those people. is that big corporate mindset that daily really exemplifies politically takes over. >> thank you. one quick question. so speaking of sets ecology chicago live. chicago back. when did that happen? >> i met him twice. amendment the first preview when i was a nice cool. then i asked him to sign my program. he wrote to me years to join in all your work with just some of over my desk. the other time i met him was in college working at the bookstore. i heard he was coming i went up and met him. he said, oh, i'm from chicago. he's a very from. thinking of was going to then

say lake forest, when a tip. i said, a village in central. he said, no, your real chicagoan. so i never forgot that. >> thank you so much. please buy the book. [applause] it's a great book. [applause] >> thank you, everybody, for attending today's event. thank you the thomas and elizabeth for joining us. you can buy copyright done all. thomas will be right down the room. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in a few minutes we will be back for more from the chicago tribune printer's row literary festival. >> here's a look and some books that are being published this week.

>> look for these titles in bookstores and watch for the authors in the near future on book tv and on booktv.org. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> well, i have a lot of history and biography that i am reading. the book i'm reading currently about halfway through is called indispensable, when leaders really matter. it's a book by a harvard professor. it's an excellent book on different styles. basically has this filtration terry where there are filtered leaders, well-known politicians and then there are others you are obscure who are going to be predictable because they're not as well-known. lincoln was unfiltered. only one term in congress.

was an obscure figure from illinois. so when they got to the white house seat was unpredictable. yet, of course, proved to be one of the best leaders in the history of the united states. does not always the case, but it's fascinating where he applies his theory to a number of leaders like jefferson, wilson, winston churchill. so it's agreed. that -- and halfway through. some books i recently read. a great writer and a great biographer. his theory for this book is that eisenhower was not as appreciated as he should have been. he admitted to his madness, and he was -- though he might have seemed to be a bomb but and not in charge, secretly actually was quite shrewd and very much in charge a new he was doing. after a minute, having read all but and being open to that. actually, he doesn't need to, but the kind of proves the

opposite. this book pretty much tells you that eisenhower was often a sick man, very serious illness to my disease and was often very disengaged from his own cabinet, delegated a lot to is secretary -- his secretary of state. so it's an interesting book. i actually think he disproves his own thesis which is kind of fun anything about it. i actually served in the senate. many of the years covered by the book. the last race senate, which he proposes a number of senators to what he thinks is a golden age in the senate in the 60's and 70's and some of the 80's. characters like ted kennedy and dead lonski he got things done, who reached across the aisle. were willing to break their own port -- party orthodoxy.

we don't do that anymore very much. he documents how much got done with that spirit of collaboration and compromise. and it has a fascinating account of history in which he pauses that the notion of a christian orthodoxy really was imposed not by church leaders, by leaders of the state where the state directly intervened in convening and insisted on certain precepts of orthodoxy and from that flows the concept of what constituted heresy. it was the emperor theodore seuss in three a one who really insisted on that and it changed the course of history. the kind of silence.

it squelched the intellectual ferment in the church about competing theories of theology and led to the prosecution of people who deviated from orthodoxy over the centuries. and so it is really a fascinating account of early christian history in the consequences as well as the actions of the emperor who was a westerner original. written a wonderful new -- a wonderful new book. he's the author of one of the best single volumes on our engagement memo went wrong, a brilliant book. this one is a historical book about sort of how generals were made, promoted, and demoted from world war ii to the present. and what he -- his thesis is intentionally the george c. marshall who served as the army

chief of staff and the joint chief of staff under fdr and more work to removed many, many generals from the battlefield if there were not up to the job. he insisted on performance. reassignment or something else. but with impunity you remove people until he found the right person for the right job. and what he talks but is that the culture of accountability and responsibility has very much been diluted in subsequent time such that by vietnam performance seemed to be a very small criterion when it came to appraisal of generals and there were very few consequences for poor performance and poor of comes. he posits general westmorland who was in charge of vietnam war as the quintessential example of

that and argues that right up to present a the same is true. it's very enduring to the performance of the u.s. military and has real implications in terms of international security policy. this very thought-provoking. a book ever recently read is a book called conservative assault on the constitution by an attorney practices. and in this book he really documents the conservative assault on many facets of american life, education, civil-rights, personal liberties , corporate law. and his main theory is that this is a concerted, ideological assault on liberty and on constitutional principles. ironically folks on the

conservative side like to hold up the constitution and say we believe in the constitution. this gentleman actually makes the opposite argument, that they are in danger it. and many of the precepts that we care very much about his country thought-provoking. two books i have not yet read, but i'm very excited about. one is the guns of glass light. the third book in the trilogy on the left or were to any american involvement in it. formerly of the "washington post," brilliant luminescence writer. first two volumes were extraordinary. a first home was a book on the north african campaign and the american involvement in it. the second was the campaigns that went right up until 45. very brutal. this third volume is about our volume from the invasion of

normandy, the date right up till liberation a berlin in 1945. so that's next on my list this summer to read. and then i was handed a book by a colleague called the downing rivals. this is a book about the rivalry between madison and monroe. a little-known piece of virginia history, but actually, madison and monroe ran against each other for the united states congress. and the district had been carved to favor monroe. madison decided to contest it. in another said he beach-room who, of course, was a friend of his in succeeded him as president. so this is quite an interesting book. and it contends that because madison won an election we get the bill of rights. otherwise maybe we would not have done it because madison was a great champion degrees of the selection at great consequences. not a well-known piece of

virginia history, but actually a critical piece of virginia history. again, but i really very much the four to reading this summer. >> let us know what you're reading this summer. tweet us @booktv. are you interested in being a part of book tv online book club? our selection this month is cheryl sandburs book lynen, women work in the will to lead. the ceo of facebook discusses why it is still difficult for women to achieve roles in the united states and talks about her own career choices and experiences. beacon watcher talk about it. as you read the book this month, post your thoughts on twitter. on june 25th at 9:00 p.m. eastern, join our live, moderated discussion on both

social media sites. and if you have an idea for next month boss and your suggestion on which bookkeeping we should include in our online book club the twitter, facebook or e-mail. .. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. i have john dudley. it is a great pleasure to welcome me to the "chicago tribune" printer zero lit fest. today's program will be broadcast live on c-span 2's booktv. if there's time at the end for a q&a session, we ask you please use the microphone located in the center of the room. this are those at home can hear questions. if you'd like to watch the program again, please note coverage will reenter tonight at

midnight. please keep the spirit of what is going all year long with a subscription to printers row, distributors fiction series and membership program. visit the welcome center and harris and dearborn street for a special that the subscription rate and perks. this year they give out a tote bag and poster. finally the author's book will be sold on the second floor in the main atrium near and the book signing will be in the arts are following this presentation. at this time are ready to begin if he could turn off electronic devices you have would be greatly appreciated. i'm now going to turn the conversation over to our moderator, jeff coen for the "chicago tribune." >> thinks it very much. after the tanks. i hope everybody century to 2013 festival.

i'm jeff coen. this is trained to, our author today. for background purposes on the criminal just this writer can't have the stay mostly was over the past 10 years or so for the criminal courthouses in a few years ago wrote a book about family secrets case, so i think that's what robert and i are paired. robert has a book i really enjoyed that looks like this, "organized crime in chicago." it is an overarching history in the title gives it away, but it is organized crime chicago, part narrative, part academic study. robert is a former chicago police officer and a new second life is now an associate professor of criminal justice at loyola here in town, said he's one of the key experts in terms of what organized crime is as was here in its past, present and where it may be going.

the book really begins sort of been a bloody era in chicago, the crime-ridden city born out of the 1800 carries through prohibition and some of the late stages of organized crime in chicago. i don't know if you want to take a minute to introduce the book yourself and explain how it came to be what your goals were in putting it together. >> good afternoon. i want to thank the tribune on the test for inviting me here. i grew up in a neighborhood or even as a grammar school child i was familiar with organized crime. we had a neighborhood hotdog stand where my mother worked. she had a job, came from a broken home, so i did a quarter every day to go out for lunch in the hot docs in a chicagoan hannemann whittled the neighborhood gangsters. even at that young age, seventh

and eighth grade in my neighborhood we had an understanding of what organized crime was. as a teenager in high school i went to work at my uncle's grocery store and we had a regular parade of gangsters that would come in there because we made italian sausage and they come for the sausage. there is one christmas i even delivered it to the many different homes. it's a funny story. add 100 pounds of italian sausage come in the christmas special with tomatoes and provolone cheese in the truck of the car and 10-pound packages. my uncle gave me his chrysler imperial in the head gangster for the northside gave us a list and i went from door to door and all these homes ringing a doorbell, saying grass fed meat. i handed them 10 pounds of synesthesia.

when you grow up that way, something safe with you. so once i became a police officer -- [inaudible] >> it was quite a bit. it was only natural for me to gravitate towards that type of work and i work in the organized crime division for about 12 years, worked narcotics, gambling and the actual intelligence quiet. later on forfeiture investigations take the property of drug dealers and syndicated gamblers, things like that. it's always been a part of my life. i was in graduate school. i thought if i got a phd did make me superintendent of police, but it didn't work out that way. was only natural for me to write about organized crime and this was an outgrowth of my phd dissertation. i taught part time it i taught

at depaul for seven, eight years and then the opportunity came to go to loyola full-time in criminal justice and in the police department i have to produce and loyola does publish or perish. this is my second book and is only natural to pursue organized crime. as a sociologist, criminality is an area of interest, it's only natural for me -- i looked at all the literature and organized crime and i haven't found any book since 1927, there hasn't been a book that is explain organized crime sociologically. there has not been a book that's used the expected criminology theories to explain organized crime and that's what i tried to do at this book. the only book review instrument library and then he said great

work, skip the first during the last chapter, it's all about erie, but everything in the middle is a fun read. so my idea was to actually use real-life facts. that's why it delved into history to interpreter explained the different theories. so by applying what really happened to the various explanations for organized crime, i make an argument for what i feel is the appropriate explanation. >> is a right two favorite chapters i think. i've read a lot about organized crime obviously and i really thought that's what made this book unique within a 10 to really explain what was going on in terms of human behavior and the political system in the economic system in chicago, especially robert takes great pains him to chop away at the old theory that organized crime here was an imported the old

country through new york in the black and in all that but it's not something that came over on the boat so to speak. it was something much more homegrown and came out of the disorder that was very evident in early chicago, especially the 1900 really could have been any dominant at that group and obviously there were times in their irish mobsters and jewish mobsters and it's not necessarily an italian-american problem but it is an american problem. i was interested in the fact he made a good, solid attempt to cut down on that idea that this is an important problem i came over from sicily. the >> what brings us to two competing theories to explain traditional organized crime as they call this because there's all kinds of organized crime. pleated dixie mafia. the blackstone rangers cremate

gangster disciples, very street gangs, but they are organized crime. none of them have reached the pinnacle of power of traditional organized crime in american society. again, the two competing explanations by this idea that it came from sicily, which recall the alien conspiracy theory the southern italian and sicilian immigrants brought the mafia with them to america at the turn of the last century at what the sociologists call the succession. it's simply that various ethnic groups have used crime in order to advance in society. look around today and see who the poor people are, often immigrants succumbed to her country. people do come with no money or regulated to the worst neighborhoods, the poor sections of the city, lack of opportunity, no jobs available to them and this even applies to

african-americans who emigrated to rural areas of the south. so they turn to crime at the people discriminated against, people excluded from social advancement historically have turned to crime in order to better themselves. not as an excuse but a reality. this is what's known as the ethnic succession. the irish coming jewish people, italians, blacks, hispanics in that order heaviest organized criminal activity as a means of social advancement with american society. if we look at traditional organized crime, the chicago outfit in earlier known as the component syndicate, if we look at the criminal organization through those classes, we see a different interpretation than the one that argosy was imported from the south of italy. we can get into what the mafia was in the south of italy at the

turn-of-the-century. it last century. it was vastly different than what the media tells us it was, was portrayed in the movies. people forget the godfather is fiction. it was in a real story. it was in fact just a story. there is evidence that gangsters indicated the movie. it wasn't art imitating life, but it could've been life imitating art. i can go whine on. >> again, i thought the book was great because it really did build in the known facts and showed a sweeping arc of how things came together. so it goes through prohibition. it goes val capone. the price of history everybody knows in terms of chicago said past in this category, but then it rings in other parts of

detail that you you might not expect and does a good job of showing how things like the 42 games, which you talk about a little bit, how that really broadens the reach of organized crime and produce what we think of as the modern or semi-modern outfit that led to the peak of the chicago outfit in the 50s to the 80s. >> people about capone's generation are long gone. as a matter of fact, they started to disappear in 1950. in that period of time, even if it was true gangsters came from another country, by the second generation of gangsters, that would no longer apply. however, i would like to mention that my research of looking at the chicago crime commission files in the "chicago tribune" from other publications in the 30s proved that most about capone's gangsters were not

italian. this runs contrary to popular belief, but only 41% of the syndicate in fact had italian surnames. barrister irish, jewish come eastern european people. and they weren't even from -- they weren't streaking people like today but it worked their way up into adult crime. they were robbers and burglars who got away to statesville prison committed their time, came out, was looking for a job and went to work in prohibition. back to the original thought, but 1950 we had to figure out where the second generation of gangsters come from. they came from the slums of chicago. they were born and raised bread in the worst neighborhoods in the city of chicago.

42 gangs russia promised to do with the most dangerous, reckless juvenile delinquents in chicago and they were from the near west side and most were italian, not all. some irish, some jewish, but most of them were italian. not from italy, but the slums of the city of chicago or they were socialized, born and raised in may rose to prominence within the chicago outfit. the capone syndicate became the outfit in the 1950s. also there was this name change. the glory days so to speak. the glory days for the 40s, 50s. no question about the 40s be in the glory days of organized crime within the city of chicago when organized crime is tightly integrated into the political structure under mayor kelley.

>> what you talk about how that happened. but you get into the differences between the chicago outfit and modern street gangs, which the city is now dealing with, but one point you make repeatedly if they took protection, took position with legitimate government to offer the outfit the protection it needed to do the things it wanted to do and also allow it to blossom and get the reach that winds are producing through the gm, years. can you talk about that? this is robert lombardo was kind enough to be with us today. >> in order to do that, where to go back to the very beginning. there was a guy named michael cashes mcdonald who started make the donald's democrats in the city of chicago. what he did was organize the saloon and gambling interest in

downtown chicago. the area around city hall today was gamblers roll, and just like television if we think of our show bellon and miss kitty on gunsmoke. you know, she was a dance hall girl and they had gambling. i was downtown chicago after the civil war. mike mcdonald creates this group who put their own mayor and office and that was really essentially the start of organized crime in chicago. if we just for a moment put aside the idea of the mafia and organized crime is, it is kind of political protection. it's part and parcel so to speak with government. they really kind of two sides of the same name. the upper world and the underworld. throughout the united states, particularly machine towns like

chicago, kansas city, philadelphia, certain period of time in new york, based money was used to fund political activity. if the q-quebec to make the donald, the money collected from the saloon in downtown chicago went to fund the activities of the democratic party. that continued all the way into prohibition. when donald passed away, john coughlin became the prominent purveyors. there are others in other locations of the city, but different what was called the levee district. right where we said as part of the original customs house the very neighborhood that were physically sitting in today and was four, five, six blocks, solons, gambling, freak shows,

all kinds of crazy things. >> and printers row when they were torn down. that was the center of the money used to feel the democratic all the way through big jim thompson until -- they tell thompson became mayor. so we have to give them equal time as far as being corrupt, but typically democrats have controlled chicago. by the time i'll capone got here, the system is dirty and place of organized corruption, organized criminal activity, organize face activity, gambling, narcotics, prostitution. if you wanted to run come you had to pay the city and mayor harrison, carter harrison,

senior and junior as the two generations above respect it and everybody let the levee district run. it was not a segregated place. they thought if they were able to keep device in my neighborhood, the rest of the city would be pure. plus the boys need to have a place. chicago was a port at this period in history, the gateway to the west. st. louis played a role there, too, but from new york in the erie canal sailed through the great lakes down to chicago and people went out to conquer the west of chicago. city fathers thought it was only our duty to get the pioneers their last night in civilization in the levee district. so that's how it began. prohibition came along with the groups of criminals under the influence became so powerful the roles were reversed and they produce and started dictating.

the story goes to compose syndicate although they did $260,000 to mayor thompson's reelection in the money was allegedly passed out and packets from the palmer house hotel in one of the rooms where there's a whole bathtub full of cash. so it was a bigger part. corruption was a regular part of government all the way up until my police career we still found political protection from gambling at dignities. stop and think about the 90s and showed to unity was passed out by fred rudy, a gangster, in a criminal in chicago outfit for fear joe would do some things against organized crime. he's one of the few superintendents who had any efforts against organized crime. that was in the 90s.

so it shows you the extent of political corruption that occurred in the city of chicago. >> can you talk about the accardo era, which i think would've covered your time in the depart. and maybe since i think my own study of organized crime is a product of journalism in the newspaper in the family secrets case, i wonder if you can talk about where you see that key city name in terms of outfit history and maybe where we are now. >> it was an unusual person. he rose to prominence. he became the boss in the 50s, semiretired by 60 and was more or less a senior state men, the man behind the scenes all the way up until the day he died in the 90s.

for ricardo, jim connor was in the background always had the final say even though he wasn't the operating director, he was still viewed as a senior statesman in the first and end dispute service date. just a very interesting person. catharsis secrets trial, let me back up for one minute. law-enforcement efforts have been spotted. if we look at history the city of chicago, they were valiant efforts from time to time by various components of the police department ultimately politically repressed appeared in the 50s, mcinally during his four years was 100% honest person. he created what was called the scotland yard detail and they were turned loose on the mob in chicago that lasted for years.

anybody seen gangster squad, what they did out there? pretty much the same thing occurred here in chicago and we don't hear lot about that. they use a lot of force, brutality. they fight fire with fire for four years were very good. a newspaper article said he was hiding in california for fear of joe morrison's detail. the first thing richard jay daley did when he was elected mayor was him in the very next day. but often as far as organized crime when phil wilson came here after the somerville scandal. he resurrected joe morris in his right hand and they had a very effective intelligence division and a very effective effort against organized crime that lasted through the tenure, seven or eight years and then fizzled

out again. we heard little from the federal government. 60s, bill roper and intelligence caught from the fbi began a dvd is the result of the mcclellan and committee hearings here in chicago. dea predecessor, fpn involved because the outfit was involved in heroin distribution. slowly but surely the federal government started to get an, but not the fbi. i believe it's because jay edgar hoover was afraid to attack in the cities because they were integrated into political structure. so if u.s. to attack the office chicago, he would've been attacking the daley machine and work for a democratic president. so eventually federal government under ronald reagan passes rico

laws. we hear so much about racketeering laws. racketeering laws are passed in 1970. it wasn't until 1990 that the fbi in chicago had their first rico investigation. why, i don't know. when william webster became director of the fbi, every time you realign them from another mission was organized crime and the leaders who see the mission changed to fight terrorism. once the fbi got involved with both hands in the u.s. attorney's office got involved, in no time they dismantle organized crime in chicago. in 10, 15 year. they totally destroyed because of the rico laws, wiretapping of electronic surveillance and a will to do it. of course played some part with

part of what's called the organized crime task force in chicago. so once the federal government made up its mind to use these tools and go after organized crime, it's been destroyed. >> it was the first time the government had really charged the outfit as an identity itself, an entity itself. by doing it that way in and identifying as a criminal enterprise, you could plug in acts, even murderers as furtherance of the despair and see and lived in people who each other. i think he did a nice job at that. i want to read one graph if i can from one of the chapters your viewers said to skip, which eric and my favorites, but i get to do what i want. the decline of traditional crime

can be booted to change the structure of american society. the demise of big-city political machines, decreasing character of american life and the state-sponsored gambling, sophistication among forcing, suburbanization ecological patterns have all contributed to the end of traditional organized crime as we've come to know it today. i read that section because i think in all my studies this book provides one of the very best summaries of the decline of organized crime in chicago. people typically ask what's going on with the mob and why does it seem like it's run aground. all the reasons robert did a good job putting together explained that from start to finish with the factors are, including a lot of people don't normally think about when they think why organized crime is in

decline. i don't know if you want to elaborate on that at all. >> they've had as much to do is increase law enforcement. inner city, we don't have machine words that we once had. interestingly with the gangs today, the phenomenon of some of the other, but the official corruption. today a young black boy growing up in englewood as examples of successes in his neighborhood. same thing and italians saw in the night teen 20s on taylor street, young kids growing up so the gangster, bootlicker at, more or less champions of their neighborhood. they saw them having power even over the politicians in the neighborhood and saw how the politicians, i did as a young person, i repeated this on neighborhood gangsters hanging

out with the alderman of our word. how do you teach young people to be good, to obey the law in an environment that? how do we keep these kids today from shooting each other and not selling drugs and the only example of success they have in their environment are criminals and minute pick up the newspaper, today they seek half of our politicians are criminals also were being investigated for some pain. so if that example that has provided the young people. the fact that it would on a politicians integrated with criminals, visibly that we see at the community level was one of the major reasons organized crime doesn't exist anymore. there's a term in sociology literature were some community has historically were ties between organized chemicals and

the elected officials were present. young people saw that as part of a reality of everyday life. how are you going to tell somebody i was talking to mr. mono, head of the taylor street association organization down there today and i said how come people in the neighborhood kept voting and you're finally free of the group that ran the website 10 years ago. he said people were afraid not to vote for them. they thought when you into a polling place that machines new who is voting at if he would've voted republican, the city inspectors would be at your house the next day in your property taxes would go up. people were not that sophisticated yet the poor people, immigrant people were afraid not to reelect these

people. so that's part of it. i grew up with all kinds of guys that when all kind of different ways. there's no way to grow gangsters anymore. that's why we don't have organized crime. >> you make a good point to say especially some of the near north areas and places that were former hotbeds for organized crime still physically don't exist. we live in a different city than we did then. >> no question about it. the old northside was torn. little sicily in 1950s to make way for cabrini green. was my grandfather's neighborhood was a young boy, we would go back to visit people and church relatives and what have you and it was totally destroyed. if you look at my site taylor street, part that was destroyed for public housing. there is an effort to build

public housing and other italian neighborhood and italian scholars will tell you it was done purposefully to break the italian boat at the reigning democratic party was afraid at least early on they would organize and start electing their own people into city office. part of the reason -- one of the chapters in the book is called the black mafia, a story of the southside of chicago. african american organized crime. we had all the way up until the 50s, very extensive gambling, particularly gambling, some prostitution, some drug dealing in the african-american community controlled by blacks, no italians involved all the way back to the 1910, 1920s. they had their own organized crime in the area known as the black metropolis. 1950 comes along.

she had, and the outfit attack policy gambling and bring it under traditional organized crime and i could never understand that because the money from the southside went to support by politicians and of course the southside was like they had their own congressman. they had their own people in washington d.c. in the statehouse here. dawson was a black mayor so to speak they delivered thousands and thousands of votes for the democratic party and after talking to people, the way it was explained to me was the city allowed was happy the outfit or encourage the outfit to attack black policy gambling in particular, the black form of the lottery and black gambling because they were afraid the

money would be used to elect a black mayor, but they could've had had a harold washington 30 years before harold washington. so stop and think about how having gangsters was purposefully useful to the reigning political machine, groups that could do their bidding if they couldn't solve a problem politically, they can solve it violently so to speak. >> will get to questions in a minute. inevitably asked about the state of things today. from reading your book come you and i agree interviewing various people the number of hard-core active members today is probably around maybe 100. >> if there are 100 i don't what they do. where is that? first few old-timers still around. there's still a few bookies

around. macs are now at this poker machines, they'll been indicted a couple years ago. >> and i imagine i thought that was telling because they had to use a motorcycle gang for muscle, which i thought was sort of pathetic. >> you know, sure there could be stuff going on, but it's not what it was. if it's out there, i'm sure the fbi knows. they know everything. >> are there any questions? stepped to the mic, please >> you personally haven't grown up in that environment, how are you able to choose organized crime is your life work? >> from the good guy side instead of the bad guys that? >> he's no relation to joey,

should advance started with that. >> what influences did you have in your family? >> my grandfathers brother in law was a gangster and we had this whole side of the family that we weren't allowed to see and i'd say how come you don't go see uncle frank and her cousins? never mind, never mind. what's wrong? uncle frank doesn't work it is not allowed in our house. that was the view of most italians. only the smallest percentage and even growing up in the neighborhood, my mother worked in a factory. my mother was a polish woman. she was just tough and of course i went to catholic schools. if your mother didn't straight you out, the priests and nuns did. my favorite stories high school father george weber high school.

if you got turned in come you what to see father george. first words out of his mouth were signed camino is a priest my answer consecrated to god and then you knew what was coming. that doesn't go on anymore today. it kept a lot of us on the straight and narrow. the nuns were todd, priests protest. a whole different thing than today. they come from good that our families, but you grow up in the inner city today it was the discipline? one of the biggest problems the inner city has today is the absence of the catholic church, all the schools that control in existing immigrant neighborhoods just doesn't exist today. >> one of the issues about whether to have a casino in

chicago is lack of protection against mob influence. the governor has made a big point of that. sounds like you are saying that's not the concern. >> the concern is the politicians. of the contracts to people that work for campaign contributions, all that insider monkey business going on and that's something the governor is trying to prevent. as far as gemini solo or pd different and so calling the shots, i doubt that. will they try to invest money? sure. will they try to gain influence through unions? sure. but again, the federal government is their chops, just wishing they had gangsters to investigate. drug dealers aren't the font gangsters were.

[laughter] >> that people were afraid to vote, could it be they were more content to vote for them because they like to? >> i don't know. i can answer that. i really don't know. >> anybody else? yes, sir. >> i graduated from loyola in play gangsters and movies. we'll be talking. my question to us what concerns me about the north shore area in buffalo grove area about the russian mafia and what is your take on that? >> my take is it's not much of a threat. there's been a couple arrests here in their historically, but the whole russian phenomenon

never materialized as day. and >> he spent time talking about the succession in the in the street gangs who do the major difference is the lack of government aleutian and more chaotic. we were talking in the back about your police experience, the factors changes in police strategy could be feeding the problem now, which i mention because it's noble or gangs will kill more people in two or three years than the history. whatever differences? >> street gangs try to model themselves after the mob. the vice lords on the westside, that's why they call themselves the vice lords. they want to control bias in the black community. it was their turn in succession. the italians they thought were gone from their neighborhoods and they wanted to control their own criminal activities.

blackstone rangers on the south side were huge, morphed into the gangster disciples, vice lords state or on prager. latin kings began in the humboldt park area and now we have three latin kings and the one puerto rican and two mexican groups. these were true organized crime except the political corruption. they were huge organizations that distributed all kinds of drugs. gd is try to extort, follow the same pattern traditional organized crime did. they wanted criminals on ssi to pay them protection. again, the government realize the mistakes they made with traditional organized crime. also they understood that her how to deal with traditional organized crime and they wiretapped them and essentially would have been, informants

infiltrated in the leaders of every major gang with life in prison. once that happened, they broke the organizational command above the major games. the games fractional eyes. there's probably a hundred different parts of the gangster disciples. every corner of the south side now operates independently and they fight with each other for drug distribution territories or overt things like you stole my bag of potato chips. same thing with the latin kings. they're little more strict, a little tighter and hispanic gangs in black jeans, but today there'll fractional eyes of the police department instead of investigating an organization has to investigate the crew so to speak of the vice lords and

it's much more labor-intensive. that is directly contributed to the spike in violence. the other two things the end of public housing. public housing should've been ended, but the unforeseen result was that we took all these guys concentrated small areas, 1000 gang members and robert taylor homes all the way up in down state street are not distributed all over the south side to englewood, the suburbs of south holland, harvey, into the southwest side of chicago, chicago lawn police district. now they are everywhere. brought to you by the government. we've given everybody their fair share of gang members today because of that. their existing drug dealers. the other major part of this is

the budget, the lack of money, the economy. this current administration the city of chicago has reduced the police department by 15 to 1700 officers in the way they were able -- they reduce the budget by a thousand and they were just 700 short on top of that. the way they were able to keep officers in neighborhoods list or read the other units, said task force special operations that 30 or 40 men and women set to your neighbors at a minute notice. they don't exist anymore. if applied changes on a graphic compare them to spikes in shootings and there's a perfect correlation between changes in manpower and shootings in the city of chicago. they finally have recognized their error and this is interesting, have applied to the

federal government under the veterans program for this money for jobs for veterans returning to server placing her rehiring police officers in the city of chicago with federal money. it's a terrible situation. >> i think were just about out of time, said that to thank everybody for coming in through the book has been trained for by roberto lombardo. i encourage you to read all the chapters in the conclusion. thanks for coming in. >> thanks for having me. [applause] >> i think everybody for attending this program this afternoon. hope you guys enjoyed the conversation. they always want to thank robert and jeff for their time. great to hear your days. the book, "organized crime in chicago" is on sale.

you can have mr. lombardo sign it as soon as ratted this room. please enjoy the rest of your day. thank you so much for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> what are you good in the summer? booktv wants to know. >> the first is community project about a philanthropist who started -- [inaudible] i think it can be a pretty good beach read the summer. another on my list is the can now about how we eat -- [inaudible] am looking forward to reading a different part of the culinary experience.

i [inaudible] i'm looking forward to reading that together. >> one of the of not exit this building of history is the fact that it exists at all. and really much of the reason this building is still here is due to our governor at the time. when the civil war started to come to a close in union troops are camped outside raleigh, he was very concerned about the fate of the people of raleigh and its buildings. he knew what it has been in

southern cities with trips came through, so he crafted a peaceful surrender of the city of raleigh. he agreed to leave the city of raleigh and how the confederate troops leave easily and at the union troops would also take charge peacefully and specifically there was very the state capital with the museum and library. we do have three representations of george washington at the state capitol. one outside and went inside. the copy of the statue is in the statehouse that burden was destroyed. that statue is made by the time school are named antonio canova. he represented george washington away he felt really matched his reputation of the military leader as a political leader and so he made him in a classical way look like a general.

with the people of north carolina and the thing that shocked people the most is his legs and feet are completely fair. many people thought that was disrespect of show a president with his legs and toes showing.

>> first on my list is called eating animals. my daughter read it. she's an environmental studies major and is interested in the whole food movement and fighting against factory food and i eat

meat, i eat chicken, seafood. i made him away from this book not wanting to eat out or be more selective. i'm looking forward to one. next on my list is more attributable to my son, the new biography of david foster wallace caught every story is a ghost story. i heard it's well reserved. david foster wallace is where my son just graduated and my son is a big enough lawless. wallace was regarded by many to be one of the most interesting and creative writers of this area and tragically killed himself a few years ago and i'm very interested in what happened with his life. i know we have many struggles and i love biographies, so

that's my biography for the summer. next is about a friend of mine. jonathan sadly passed away two years ago without having finished this book, so his friends came together and pull together his essays about the comments, basically anything that belongs to huma-comments, g that belongs to humanity. the air, the water, public spaces and the internet in one of his drives and life was to protect the commons to make sure thing doesn't get to take over by private enterprise. so that's very much on my list. i've heard it's very interesting. last is fiction, the new book by colin josé name called them out of that good. i read his first two books.

so this is my little way of going there without getting on a plane. is a family story, intergenerational family. i plan to carve and enjoyed every minute of it. >> the famous passage in one of one falconers models mature novel set for a very boy 14 or shoulder is still 1:00 in the afternoon on july 3rd, 1863 here taking charge happened yet. it all on the line and they can in their imaginations say this time, maybe this time, the tree, independence.

so in the minds of both northerners and southerners coming, northerners at the time come the southerners in retrospect became the moment of the korean defeat.

>> and why looked into his message, but my realize how right it was. in the last four years the political debate is worthless. they're not going to debate policy. i'm not going to provide evidence. they are going to label us

morally deficient human beings unworthy of debate. we see virtually every arena of american life. in the last begun to suffer with colin powell, brian williamson president obama himself. colin powell went on a sunday show and talked about the so-called intolerance running throughout the republican party. what evidence did he provide for that assertion? that we don't believe in anthropogenic climate change or we don't believe there should be a redistribution of wealth or we don't believe in obamacare. if we just moved to left, suddenly that would make us not racist. powell should know how not racist or party is considering so many were considering supporting him in 1996 for a presidential run when he was secretary of state under president bush as someone treated well by the republican party. now: powell is on the left and that means we are the bad guys. president obama did it in his inaugural address last week also. he said a peculiar line in his

speech, where absolutism is not principle and name calling is not discussion. he proceeded to spend the rest of his beach being an absolutist. he suggested essentially if you disagree, you want people in their twilight years to live in poverty, parents of disabled kids to have no recourse. you are black of august stimuli to the anyone claiming to be paid less than men. this is the undertone of his speech. he leads off whatever it was what their pastor saying if you're a good christian come you have to be for gun control. if you're a good person have to be for gun control otherwise he don't care kids are killed all around the country in schools and places like sandy hook. this is what the left now stands for. several different bullies worth pointing out.

i'm going to divide this into two sections. the first is what it is we face in the other part is how we fight this because it's an overwhelming attempt by the left to silence the debate, to shut us off from the debate and tell people to be quiet because it's much easier to go about your daily business not being called a racist, sexist, and is it who hates every minority. ..

>> we would like to take a moment to thank all our sponsors who helped make this a great success this year. today's program will be on c-span2's booktv. if there's currently there is time again for a q&a session, if your kindly use the microphone will allow the viewers at home to hear your question. you like to watch the program yourself, tonight at midnight at central time we will be airing. if you want to stay up, you can. please keep the lit fest going with a subscription to printers row. it is an outstanding journal and i highly recommend it.

the authors book will be sold here on the hm of the university center and ms. medea benjamin will be signing her book after this presentation. please turn off your cell phones and electronic devices that you may have. it gives me great pleasure to turn this conversation over to a moderator for today. mrs. colin mcmahon of the "chicago tribune." >> thank you. good afternoon, everybody. we are here today to discuss drone warfare. it is a book entitled "drone warfare: killing by remote control." the author is medea benjamin. i know her from a long time ago and we met when we were in mexico when i was a correspondent or. medea benjamin was doing some advocacy work. so she is a longtime peace

advocate and advocate. she cofounded global exchange and has been using her life for questioning and challenging some assumptions on the policies of government her book, "drone warfare: killing by remote control." she has use as possible use of the book for other reasons you can relate to your home. this book is full first-person reporting and some of her travels are included to afghanistan and pakistan. regular sponsored research and some other sources paint a

picture of where the drone use has grown to today. i would like to open with the question about what you can find when you started this and how do you characterize this piece of work? >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you. i started this work approximately 15 years ago and i wrote this book because i had been very closely watching the evolution of the u.s. response to 9/11. oh government reports of bombs

are true because i remember looking at the television and watching them in thinking that this technology is amazing and frightening. frightening and awesome and all inspiring all at once. it gives us the ability to pinpoint targets with laser like precision. a discussed the key people that we went after. i wondered if that was true. often times what we were seeing on tv screens is was not what was happening on the ground. and it's old enough to with anti-vietnam activism and we realized early on that the government tells you one thing about things like civilian casualties. it will i went to afghanistan it

was a frightening time to be there because there was a lot of bombing going on. immediately i realized that there were lots of civilians were being killed and that this was not being reported. but the u.s. has desire to get the people who attacked us on 9/11 so there was a somewhat cavalier attitude towards collateral damage. i also realized over the evolution of these years post-9/11 that something else very different had happened, which was in the beginning there was a lot of support in both afghanistan and iraq and anyone so a lot of the organizing

resulted in us finding a hostile attitude in the united states because there was so much support in this drumbeat of war that could somehow relate this to 9/11, which had nothing to do with it. he saw opinion polls that were in favor of the war as the years went by and as americans started to get upset about the number of american lives that were being killed. we never hear much about the lives of people in the country that we have invaded. so the poll started shifting and saying americans are excited about continuing what seemed like i thought the same time

there was a shift in government policy on the ground in some extensive war effort in terms of american lives and dollars to this new technology in the jones and we immediately having the state department as a diplomatic arm of the u.s. government. being in a meeting with people from the human rights area to pakistan some of the meat people are saying that the jones our miracle weapon. this explains who got killed, but american lives and what i've got what she did not as to allow us to expand behind the backs of the american people. that is very long answer for the

question of why i wrote this book. it gives americans and understanding. >> the recently we had the president talk about the program. the ability to target the government says are high-value targets and has severely denigrated al qaeda and the taliban. and now there are some changes that can be made that will bring us back. one of the things that we have talked about, but not in detail is the control of the drone program from the cia to the pentagon. also changing a little bit of how some of the decisions were made about what targets to often

one's not go after. that was three weeks ago and we haven't heard a lot about it since. desensitization change in government policy? >> well, i was there at the national defense university. [applause] >> for those of you that don't know, i was actually an audience member and i was really hanging on every word that the president is saying. i have read a lot but this is going to be a shift in policy i was going to be a market change with what has been going on in this is something i have been working for no for 11 years. i was very anxious and i thought i might hear some of the things that you alluded to. i thought you might say that we are making this now and the u.s. will no longer have a fleet of killer drones in the military.

i thought he might say that he was withdrawing the opposition to significant strikes that is not targeting an individual, but targeting people on the basis of suspicious behavior. i thought it was with relation to guantánamo, and how i thought that he would announce that he was invoking the waiver process, which would allow him on the basis of national security grounds to release those tunnel details. i did not hear any of that. so it was coming to the end of the speech and i was really quite shocked at what i thought was going to be a significant policy and it turned out to be something that we really don't feel great about. but that we will have to keep using them and i want to close guantánamo but that is something

that congress won't let me do. it was at that point i really that i really felt i had to get up and say something. i said something about guantánamo bay first because that was what he had a thought in that kind of venue that it was important to give another side of the story because i was just imagining what the press is going to report i didn't get up and say something. which is that president obama and maybe the republicans would say, oh, you shouldn't use these drones. so you need something to avoid to say, wait a minute, you're not going nearly far enough with the use of jones and it's killing a lot of innocent people and it's counterproductive and going against national security.

so i look back now at a couple of weeks and i don't see a shift in policy. there have been for john strikes since then. two in pakistan and two in yemen. once in pakistan are important to look at because there are elections in pakistan and a new prime minister was elected. number two was to come into that election and there were a lot of campaign programs against the drones. we followed most of the tribal areas where the drones drugs are being used to speak out against them. the fact that he came in number two is very significant and also is the fact that the one who came in number one is his first talk that he was totally against the use of jones and he had been calling up united states to stop

using these. the first drone attack after the president's speech is one that was touted in the u.s. since the number two taliban pursuit was killed. the reporting from pakistan is very different than the reporting here. the reporting their says what happens when you killed a number two guy, you kill the number three guy because he becomes number two. so then we are starting to have talks and personnel is much more strenuous and they begin to talk. so that is the welcome for the new government and in the case of yemen or have a meeting a delegation going there, you have a similar situation or the people in pakistan mostly do not

supported by any means the groups are extremists like al qaeda, they are also speaking out against the drones and these are a recruiting tool for extremists are in use are killing lots of our feelings and i another thing the president said was the u.s. government should use capture instead of kill in the yemen people would say that it's just not the case and they have numerous examples given to those two countries are the highest number of german tax by five. about 80% of the drone strike has been in pakistan or yemen. >> that is not counting afghanistan, which is interesting to know that the number of john strikes in afghanistan has risen significantly. 70% between 2011 and 2012.

it just seems that with the drawdown of troops, the u.s. military is increasing number of jones in a questioner prefaced his non-us battlefield because they consider most of those strikes to be battlefield strikes. numbers are very high number of people that have been killed is very high. we're talking about 3500 people. the number of civilians is impossible to determine and i would like to talk a little bit about that. including a we have 2004 until 2001 and the number of civilians. i think it was 2300 up to nearly 3000 civilians killed during that time. can we talk about how little information is available about

the civilian casualties and how we might know how many are being killed? >> those numbers would be greatly disputed the u.s. government. in 2011 we had john brennan who was the mastermind of the program and he is now the head of the cia. and then they said it was in a the single digits. the bureau of investigative journalism says that maybe two to 4% of the people are high-value targets. then they would say that the majority of people killed are either low-level taliban supporters and that could be someone who you see on tv in the morning. >> willingly or not willingly. >> that's right. we really don't know. that is why for the bureau of investigative journalism, they

have to put this down is unknown. that speaks volumes about this policy because this is a policy that drives on being secret especially in case of pakistan exclusively by the cia, which one has to question why a non-dodger organization would ever be given this kind of lethal force. the other question is really what is in our government service and information about who is being killed except when they want to give us a high-value target and express their ability to be reaching people who were considered among leadership of al qaeda or the taliban. so otherwise until recently the definition of militants has been part of literary aids in the

areas of the ground strikes. an incredible definition of what it is. we have no many -- we don't know how many. but i try to do in the book and in the chapter on the victims is really to humanize them because i don't think there has been any mainstream tv and correct me if i'm wrong talking about the "chicago tribune" but i really don't think that there is a mainstream newspaper that has given us with stories about the victims. telling us about the 200 plus children, what were their names, what do they like to do. how are their mothers coping with the death. none of the kind of stories that we would hear and children in this country are killed. so we do not know much about them read and i think we should

be demanding from our government tell us who's been killed. i worked very hard in the case of afghanistan to help create a fund for innocent victims. we were actually successful and now with the help of senator leahy in congress and they created a fund in the military who also has its own slush fund for compensation. in afghanistan, there is a system set up for families to go and see this from the government for the killing of their loved ones there is no acknowledgment by the u.s. government and

certainly not any kind of apology. it is the least to say that there should be a system set up with the families were innocent people can speak about their times. >> so those efforts allow iraq to change the way that the survivors and the community of the survivors do the government and i just want to congratulate you on those efforts. it really doesn't make a significant difference. >> i don't think it makes a huge difference in the way the military behaves. because if they know that

they're going to have that knowledge and apologize and compensate, they are much more careful. i think it's one of the ways that we have to work towards an it is forcing our the government to make those kinds of emotions. >> effect of these attacks, i just want to read something from the book very briefly. the pakistan areas border afghanistan. there are some 800,000 people living in there and many of them lived in a state of constant fear. whether they are working on their farms performing chores, going to the market, driving cars were sitting at home, they're always worried that you might strike. the inability to protect themselves and their loved ones compound the stress. so does their inability to hold anyone accountable. it's important to know not only to the families affected by the stretch themselves unaffected,

are effective, but also the community as well as a whole weekend ... but you that's a very important issue that i saw when i traveled to places where the germans have been used, including in gaza were the israelis have been using drugs for quite some time. it was also the focus of nyu and stanford university and added this to the most recent edition of the book. it is so important to recognize that it's not just the people who are killed and injured. it is also what it does to the community. these drums because of the hyper technology and for anyone who just doesn't understand, this is kind of a surreal technology where you are sitting in a vase in the united states like outside of las vegas were upstate new york or new mexico in an air-conditioned room or an ergonomic chair.

occasionally pressing a button that is killing people thousands of miles away. that part of the technology it includes these pilotless drones, but i guess they were utterly powerless, but they stay in the community they can fly low. when they fly low the community hears this on a constant basis that you keep hearing that was

anything that drone is out to get you because you never know when it's going to launch a missile and who will head. for some reason you have no idea about it and this will be next year in the marketplace and you are afraid to send your kids to school because schools have been hit and they are going to community gatherings and you're free to go. also community meetings, the traditional ways the community comes together to solve problems. so it really destroys the fabric of the community. and in addition there is the issue of who is giving the information about who should be targeted. so people start discussing this. and it could be because your political rival of somebody in this person is al qaeda or the taliban. it could be that you have a goal that is now hundreds of years

old to dispute that family and so what this has done is really destroy the community network. that is why people in areas say that it's a form of collective punishment and they are terrorizing the community. you can see very clearly that is a completely different experience than a fighter pilot

that will make it easier for the united states of forcing the future. some want to talk a little bit about that because this country had pretty regular record of getting into war. >> let me first make a, and other pilots. this could include killing somebody in their daytime job and her evening going home to

their families and in good fathers and husbands and members of the community to see a significant level of ptsd i suggest that there is a gathering with an analyst of a young woman who spoke out it is the inside vernacular that is called bug smack. because the picture looks at the bucket is being smashed. i think that makes it easier to get involved in conflicts this

syndrome lasted for quite a while, the vietnam syndrome. in fact the people want to see the money being spent to have a decent chance to have a green economy. for that, we need money. we can get involved in a the way that we did in afghanistan and iraq. so the drones give us the ability to get involved without

doubt level of cost if you look at how it was done come it is extremely disturbing. that is the administration who went into the conflict in libya without letting congress discuss it. that is because the administration said there is no american lives at risk and this is not a war. so congress doesn't really have a say about this. so it set a precedent for the next administration to get us involved in conflicts without going to congress. i think that it is dangerously seductive with former officials of the obama administration.

it seems so effortless but lives at risk. he's just getting involved in somalia and bases now being peppered around the middle east and in africa as well as well as the pacific rim. why are john bases being set up because they must be planned in the future as well. there is something to conserve the proliferation of jones. that is something that she has known about. >> talk a little bit about the cost. it is seen as a low cost option with significant dimensions. would you like to talk about that? >> there a lot of ways to look

at this issue of cost. one is to say, all right, and f-15 cost $130 million. but a drone only costs $30 million and there are significant savings. except that i spend a lot more time in the air and the costs are somewhere between 2000 and $3500 per hour. counterintuitively because you think well, you are saving. but you actually need a lot more people to maintain the drones and it seems like they need one hour of maintenance and a lot more people seem to be doing the analysis of intelligence and the endless data. because it is recording constantly and sending back

images. then there is the little discussed fact that the drums crash a lot. you're constantly hearing about drums crashing. as they crash in pakistan and afghanistan. then there's the fact that the drones can be brought down to be hacked. the iranians showed a very sophisticated production themselves. a professor from the university of texas in austin showed was a thousand dollars worth of equipment that he and his students to work on to hack into a drone and then there is the cost in terms of anti-american sentiment. it is a real cost.

if you look at pakistan, three out of four pakistanis in the poll say they consider the united states an enemy and when the prime minister was asked why so many take this as way in the united states and she had an answer, which is drones. it is part of a u.s. base but they were using in the cost of that has been over a billion dollars and that should be considered a cost as well. there are all kinds of ways to look at the cost. then i would say that one way is perhaps the biggest cost of all, not at the cost of not searching for nonmilitary alternatives. here we have on one hand the boots on the ground, where u.s. soldiers get killed. then you have the alternative. that is the drones.

now cyberwarfare and special operations as well. those keep us looking at the third alternative, which is diplomacy. which is nonviolence and resolution of conflict, which is sitting down. after 11 years when we moved to third option. >> i think that is a key point. i think it is important you're not suggesting that the drone warfare had a convention of warfare. you're talking about lowering the bar for some sort of armed conflict. there are 3000 civilian casualties in iraq during the active time. so talk a little bit more about that. he talked about a british study that did raise the question of whether or not if i was being

set too low by drums or armed conflict and that has made unresponsive much more easy response. almost too easy for a response. can you talk about that? >> there is the other issue about violating other countries sovereignty that it is much harder to send in troops. it is really not going to last for very long because local people will find out. sending a manned aircraft we have a past history of them being shot down and pilots being captured. so the drones are way to violate the sovereignty. in some cases without the local people knowing about it. in the cases of pakistan and yemen, the only reason the local people found out about it was thanks to bradley manning and wiki leaks. the reason is because when the

cables were linked to the show correspondence between the leadership in pakistan and in yemen that said you use the drones and we will pretend that it is our military doing them. when that information came out of the to the public in most countries, it caused quite an outcry and it is one of the reasons for the arab spring through the dictatorship because people were so upset that they had that kind of deal with the united states behind the backs of the people. so that is one way in which this technology does make it easier to get involved in other conflicts. because it can be done in a covert way in terms of the american people. the local people don't know either. >> speaking of yemen, this is where and why are was killed and he was targeted as opposed to

being someone but he had suspected activities. this caused consternation in congress. so there is a legal issue there was an american being targeted. is that too much emphasis placed the fact that this is an american citizen and the implication is it okay to kill other citizens do not have your own? talk a little bit about that. >> well, if any of you recall the 13 hour filibuster and a ram caught at the time of the hearing when johnson was the new head of the cia, he really focused on this issue of can you use drones to kill americans here in the united states. during the 13 hours, he educated the public a lot about how the drones were being used in his focus was on american citizens and particularly here in the united states. i think that our concern should be about innocent people who are

being killed anywhere in the world read and in terms of not just innocent people but people who are being killed instead of being captured. because we should be capturing people. we should be giving them a fair trial. the fact that we suspect them of being terrorists does not mean that they are terrorists and is very concerned going back to the president's speech got referencing that the policies of this administration have been to capture and not kill because that is just not true. unlike the almost thousand people who are captured and put into guantánamo bay, the alternative has been to kill them instead of capture them. so it is unfortunate, i think, that the obama administration has not been capturing people and when you bring up the case of the man who is captured, his father's been on u.s.

television. not on mainstream television. but on some very fantastic tv led democracy now that amy goodman hosts. and you heard him say that his son could easily have been captured. there were never any charges against him. he was just considered a killer. even more tragic is the fact that senior old american and his son was killed in a separate drone strike with a bunch of teenagers from yemen. all we did is say that there is a bunch of militants there was a 21-year-old militant so i think

it is important to look at u.s. citizens we do not have something which most of us thought that we did have. and this includes the right to a trial. but to have eric holder, and the attorney general to tell a group of northwestern students here in illinois that should've been

something that just kind of woke up the entire legal community. and the rest of us who would would really like to make sure that we do have the right to a fair trial. so i do think that while we are at a point right now where there is a lot more scrutiny of the policies of the obama administration in terms of surveillance of the american people and going after journalists and in terms of things like going after bradley manning, a young man who faces his entire life in prison. it is a good idea to maybe try to pressure government to go back to the rule of law to capture this in fair trials. >> that is a good start to talk about. so what are the potential threats, kind of looking out at them, what is the potential threat from the drone industry and the use of drums. what we see out there that is a

potential danger? >> or two things happening. one is the proliferation of drums around the world because this is not nuclear technology. it is much simpler technology. it is being sold by the united states and israel and china and even south africa is now in the business of selling drones, including armed drones. so we should be concerned about how other countries will respond. we have given him off the rest of the world so that we can go anywhere you want, kill anyone that we want on the basis of secret information, what are other countries going to do in the future. the other concern that we should have his drones being used at home. there is an extremely strong lobby of the drone industry. that is because of the multibillion dollar industry and they see the war in iraq winding down in afghanistan, they're looking for other outlets for selling drones. the surveillance drones, commercial drones, many

potential and positive commercial uses of drones. terms used by governments were putting out fires and those used to track endangered species and lots of positive potential uses of drones. there is also potential dangers here in the united states. while the u.s. government doesn't seem too concerned about drums crashing in the mountains of afghanistan, the federal aviation administration, which is in charge of your space is pinched and 10 concerned about them crashing over people's homes in the united states. so they have been very reluctant to give out lots of permits. with their friends in congress, the lobby performed a drone caucus to push for the proliferation of these drones. by the way, these kinds of people in the caucus have been getting a lot of money from the drone industry.

they have passed legislation thursday september 2015 our airspace must be opened up to drones. there has been a scramble to see how to do that. if you are the potential users of drones, not only the commercial ones and others that i mentioned. there are about 18,000 police forces in the united states and the drone industry like to cater to every one of those and we should be very concerned now that we know that the phone companies have given out our data to the government and we know about google and facebook giving our data to the government. the next step would be 24 sevenths surveillance by drones. on that note, what is very exciting is because this legislation has not gone into effect yet, there are communities and states that are fighting back against this preemptively.

it is very exciting to see coalitions left and right, civil, libertarian, coming together at florida, idaho, montana, virginia, tennessee, not particularly blue states. they have all passed legislation against law enforcement agencies using drones without a court order and there are dozens of others here in illinois that are in the process of doing this. >> on that note we will end it. i do want to say but one key point of this is that the author is not going to putting the genie back in the bottle before debate. >> this includes real regulation and regulating the use of drones to affect privacy. >> thank you everyone for coming. we thank you very much. it is so nice to see one. >> thank you. >> anyone want to get involved?

drum watch.org is a website. >> enjoy the book. take you. >> thank you for coming out this afternoon. i would also like to thank collin as well. [applause] the conversation is very interesting. unfortunately we didn't have time for questions and answers but she will be signing copies of her book and we do have are here to answer questions that you may have. thank you very much. we hope you wonderful afternoon. we thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we will be right back with more from chicago. >> will be reading this summer? booktv would like to know.

♪ ♪ ♪ >> let us know what you are reading this summer. tweet us at booktv. posted on her facebook page or send us an e-mail at papeete and c-span.org.

>> the address and what you have helped me with because there was a disconnect, the role that i have been working for 25 years, everything says the have to be much better than the normal person pretty pretty have to be a certain way, you have to look a certain way. we have broken all of those rules. twenty-five years of local news and network really took its toll on my image of myself and i tell stories in the book. about how i was just dressed a certain way and everything had to be a specific way. i was even told that they want to wanted to hire me but i really needed to go and come back and try again. and i did that. i came back and got a job. messages were very clear and some of them you know, if you are to have a certain compulsiveness or even an

addiction. some of the foods in our environment, i think it is a bad mix. i tell this story because i discovered a very interesting plan. a woman who is obese have a different physical result and we had both gone to the point that we have gone into the same way. it was driven in this way. >> let's talk about how the obsession continues. it is featured on "the today show" yesterday. talking about being obsessed and she's working her way. >> i was a size two, 118 pounds. >> since he started doing this book you have actually started eating. >> yes, two anyway now? >> 133. >> size six.

>> okay. and i look good. >> i am celebrating this. she sang that i look good, convincing herself. but this obsessed demons inside of you, like when you are on "the today show." i looked at that and i thought, oh, i look fat. and like oh, no, you're still a test. but your friend diane, even though she weighed 255 pounds, she carried the same obsession around with her all the time. talk about how this book started two years ago. >> an addiction is something that you always get rid of. but two years ago in with one of my closest friends and, you know, the one time we had shared

so much together. to make you babysit agreements mentis, we had a baby together. my husband was out of town for the birth of my child, my second child. she was with the hospital with me and the doctor went to order c-span and diane, baby. so we literally -- there are sides of me i wish you hadn't seen. [applause] >> i will tell you that it was amazing to me that about two years ago we each other so much and yet we had talked about this. it really needed to be addressed. i was really skinny, probably too skinny. diane had become obese and she gained 100 pounds. and i told her about it.

i can imagine how she felt. i told her that i was worried about her. i use the word obese with her and i found my heart beating and sweat beginning to run down my back because i could tell this conversation could get really bad. >> just come i don't usually call my friends fat. but you decided to do this because you love her and knew that she was telling herself as much as somebody who smokes a couple of packs a day? >> so here's the question i have. if women claim to be able to talk about this. if you have a friend that is clearly obese and struggling and cannot even get into about, if your friend had cancer come when you support her and talked about this and help her through? if she had a condition or conditions that was serious, when you walk her through? just come in it is something we

subconsciously judge people for. we don't hire them, we think that they are slobs, we think that they are undisciplined, we don't think that they are as good as us. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> you're watching tv. or live coverage of the printers row lit fest a couple of minutes. >> are you interested in being a part of our online book club? or selection this month is sheryl sandberg's book. in her book, she is the ceo of facebook and she discusses why it is so difficult for women to achieve leadership roles in the united states. she also talked about her own crew choices and experiences. you can watch her talk about this at booktv.org. as you read the book this month, post your thoughts with the hash

tag and post on our facebook. then join our live moderated discussion on social media sites. if you have an idea for next month, send your suggestion on what books you think we should include an online book club. twitter, facebook or e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. >> of you reading this summer? booktv wants to know. >> i have five books that i'm going to call my wish list. so that a year and a half ago as we look back, we noticed that obama reads about 10 letters everyday about everyday americans. so i ran back with a real stories as well to really look

back with some of the interactions of people have with the president. it's been a pretty good week. and that is done, then we move on. we talked about bob kaiser and others who looked at how congress dealt with financial regulatory reform and used it to explain this. bob talked about how there is a big difference between then and now. and it is supposed to be really good. so i'm not doing this on purpose. we are looking back at the campaign with the facts. we have talked about the this since the 2008 campaign. this is obama versus romney and that is going on in august.

also "the washington post" when you look at it very closely and we work on this book together and there is a neat effect certainly during the war of 1812 and this is what the city went through and how it changed over the summer as well. so i guess the only thing that i'm trying to talk about and finish is the great gatsby this summer. i saw the movie because i started it right for them. >> let us know if you're reading this summer. tweet us at apple tv.com. post on her facebook page or send us e-mail at booktv at c-span.org. here's a look at some books are being published this week. and how ambitious young rail splitter saved the american dream and how he can do it

again, rich lowry details president clinton's economic policy. an associate professor of psychology and psychiatry, university present his research on the relationship between addiction and the brain in a neuroscientist journey of self-discovery with challenges about drugs and society. and how institutiinstituti ons decay in an economy dies. neil ferguson argues that markets today are hindered over complex regulations that render them increasingly incapable of supporting america's economics and liberal system. the director of innovation and technology forum at new york university's polytechnic institute discusses how keeping radical slack into fast help to find conservatives. a group of unsung heroes saved the american revolution. and then how the media it

complex is destroying america. dan nichols argues that the profit driven media for putting americans in danger of being less informed and more open to manipulation. look for these titles and watch booktv and check out our website at booktv.org. >> now from the chicago tribune lit fest, are featured author. ..

kenwood held the viewers at home to hear your questions. if you would like to watch this program again yourself it would arrear tonight on a c-span2 at midnight central time. please keep the spirit of the literary fest going all year with a subscription to printer's row. the tribune premium book section, fiction series, and program. visit the welcome center at harrison in dearborn street for special literary fest subscription perks. this year they're offering a great literary festival bag and beautiful literary festival poster. the author's book is being sold currently on the second floor atrium. you will be signing the book after words in the our room located just next door grocer.

we're ready to begin our conversation. you guessed it plead turnoff source of funds or any other electronic devices have at this time. i am now trying to turn it over to our moderator. you could give a nice warm welcome. [applause] >> it afternoon. welcome to the book festival. i am a writer. live here in chicago. and from hyde park, and i think there are a lot of this year. a special welcome to you. you're in the front row. i am delighted to be here with the author of this fine mallow up to five more. came out of the six weeks ago. it has a lot of attention and deservedly so. we are going to talk about the memoir and also about gregg's experience as the writer of the more this afternoon. first, i want to ask you, you go

through a list of reasons why you wrote the book in the beginning. one of them is that you wanted your children to learn about their grandfather. what do you -- would you tell us a little bit about the source of your renovation to get going on a memoir? >> yes. of course. i would not necessarily less my children -- one of my children to know more about their grandfather as the primary motivator because i could have done that myself. but after my father died there was a great outpouring of memorials, obituaries. there was a whole series of memorial services. and a lot of, you know, stuff about him. i began to look at it and realize that i did not recognize the man he was being described in a lot of what i saw and a lot of what i heard and a lot of when i read. and after some thinking about it and some soul-searching i

decided or realize that there were talking about the man, the famous author, the man who won the nobel prize, you know, the three-time national book award winner. and i was remembering a very different man, man who raised me, young man who was full of questions, full of -- preoccupied with what he didn't know, and he wasn't the kind of authority and world famous figure that i was hearing about. and after awhile i get angry, frankly. and i decided, no, i want to have my say. i want to say something about what my father was like. i want to talk about the whole life, not just the life that happened after my adult -- termite altered. as i said, you know, i was 19 before my father became famous. and so i have years of experience with them as an unknown writer or a non

published writer even. a sort of cult literary figure, you know, the image @booktv ventures made a splash, and it was a great book. but he really wasn't a public figure, known figure outside of literary circles, i thought, until i was a grown-up. that was a very different experience that my brother said. my next brother is 13 years my junior. i and his brother was 19 years my junior. already as of march the university when he was born. and i felt like they had a different experience with a different father in a certain respect. the other thing that is important to understand is my father made a lot of changes during the course of his lifetime. and it was during the time that a number of us who said hello to they were in college, during the 60's and 70's when i think he underwent a transformation, and some people would call it a spiritual crisis. i'm not so sure of willing to

use that term yet, although i have been thinking about it much more sense of been talking about him in public. but he definitely underwent a change, and it affected his politics, it affected his world view, and it affected our relationship very, very profoundly because i was raised by a mother who -- actually some of you in the audience know. and who was a trust yet he spent the night in jail with your dad, you know, picketing. they used to talk about greatly. and then, you know, my father became an icon of cultural conservatism and i said, wait a minute. what happened here? i felt as if he had sort of domino 180 on me. no was unhappy about that. then, of course, he put pressure on me to do certain things to my children, his grandchildren which is where they're questions started. but aiden wanted to it.

particularly have my son bar mitzvah of a i was given the choice. and i felt like i didn't want to force my son to go through an empty ritual that my father was pushing me. that was a major source -- excuse me, a major source of conflict of its finest, but not the only one. he had used on gender politics and race that i found very troublesome. and so that was decades of friction between the two of us. >> is a lovely section in your book that we discuss your reading. you want to take a crack at that now? >> that has more to do with his use of. but i was very interested and -- that's another thing that happened as a result of my -- i think we're going to hear a fair amount about becoming a memoirists underwriter. after he died i read all his

books, you know, now when there were published. first one was published -- i can make a claim to having -- i mean, i read it eventually. i read them all when they came out or soon thereafter, but then when he died i felt the best way to pay tribute to my father -- and eventually realize to get in touch with the public side of him which i head definitely avoid it was to read them as a sort of. [indiscernible] as a tribute to him. and so i read the mall. and then i reread them when i decided it was time for me to write a memoir. had come to the process i just described to you. and then i began to see how much his narrator's father at certain points, said things that he really felt very deeply. and that i could understand -- i could see him at certain moments

one of the things is i will some of those moments and to the book because i think they provide a very unique insight into what he was like, what was on his mind. the passes that i -- and so i moved back and forth between the light and the book. there are a number of passages in which i do. the issue relates more his childhood. it's pro when most fully developed. that's our belief book that he wrote when he was at his midyear when he was most wounded after a second marriage blew sky-high. and i think he went back to the members of its childhood, perhaps, more than any other novel. although his books are full of memory. so this is a summary of his life .

my chapter title is paradise. this was a time during which it was the first years of their immigrant life. it was a time of struggle. my grandfather was in making any money. he could support his family. the next chapter has to do with his years of coming to chicago which i call paribas lost. and so let me explain a little bit of wine by reading this why call the first years paradise. during the bleak years living and the aged to the family closer. an individual needs refers to the common good. in the middle of the winter they went into the backyard, breaks the ice that formed over the bryan and the pickle barrel and receipt -- retrieve several pickles for the family meal. as the kid brother he took great pride in his contribution to his sense of shared responsibility

of responsibility which he later called family feeling. this is the program of back-and-forth. despite the extra of chaos and even his father is being he treasured the years and look back on them whenever life dealt a blow. a partial explanation, having escaped from his state as a brush maker, he worked as a food store -- at a food store with greater plumb he would snap open a paper bag and filled with fruit, sort of customers. my father the that typified a certain set of optimism that he found in the new world, order. the deep roots and the sense of family belonging. my father fell within his family a reveal that dangling man. when joseph as a child takes it upon himself to shine all the family shoes, blissfully happy

in the service of those he loved he feels such a sense of belonging that nothing can dislodge him. as an adult the duty and shared sacrifice afforded him a sense of safety and became a sacred memory. my father returned to the family feeling in times of personal adversity. it was so powerful in him that he expected a return to extent of the next generation through his sons. my father talked of it as a paradise, a place without equal. ann hurd sought young moses pets by his father's palpable suffering after a flawed deal he created it by finding nobility in his father's failure. though just allowed moses understands the poor judgment and the threat to the family's survival he is cost. rather than turning his back on his father moses calls his father mike king ennobling him

as a man brought low by immigrants circumstances. a son not only turns a blind eye to his father's failures, but also finds admiration rather than the pier blame. >> tell us where it is. >> a suburb of montreal. that was the first place that the family landed when they came from. there were three or four other of my grandfather siblings. i went to montreal the importance to reset those formative and my father's experience. he came to chicago when there were nine. the fact there were smuggled across the border in the back of a bootlegger struck.

my grandfather came earlier this set up things and get a job in a bakery. so from 9:00 on -- so was born about a year or to enter the time the family was there in 1950. they arrived in 1913. >> you have done a marvelous job in the book of recreating even the world's that predate saul. the world -- the go all the way back chair great-grandparents' in one sense. can you tell us a little bit about the work that you did to investigate that world and paint that picture in the book? >> well, you know, you tell me you are going to ask me that question. it's a tough question because the best way for me to describe what i did was to talk about memories. i basically went through my own memory extensively, which is,

you know, very good, particularly mild or memory. and i had dozens of my father's stories, which, you know, are all repeated over and over again and then i also had spoken to, over the course it's in our 15 years before my father was getting old and getting frail, i talked to many people in the family, family friends because i had to sort of -- a kaleidoscopic childhood. faugh -- we were on the move the whole time. my mother and father went to canada. she had 22 addresses in 15 years of marriage. and then i read the biography. a way to prop my memory. because it was a story of my

father's life, and it was well researched. i would go on and on. i would read. sometimes i would read and not do anything. and at other times i would come across of passage, i would prompt something in my memory. i would dictated on my computer, just everything a remembered about the story, all the details and all the elaborations. and then that was the memory part. the writer part was to organize this, which was a lot harder than i thought. and i -- you know, i sort of did it in chunks. i repeated stories. people were editing it. take it out. and i had -- ahead for editors. i ended up firing three of them because every time i turned over to somebody else it became their story, rather than mine. flip side of that is then i realized that what my story was every time i realized what was in. so -- and then i had to go to

ratify somebody who was interested in publishing, which was an easy. but then i had, you know, a lot of help from the publisher and editor ted sort of make it flow. and you know, as you see, i am pulling stuff from all over the place to try and we've some sort of narrative into it. you know, that was the work. >> you are a psychotherapist by profession. >> was. >> retired. i think once people here your sensitivity today they're going to urge you out of retirement. and reading the book, i was really impressed how you resisted the urge to it speak in their idiom of psychotherapy. and the researcher did, it's out the kind of research i imagine you would do if you were working on a case for clients were delving into them. this was really a personal

journey told in the language of story. did you make decisions? were those conscious decisions? >> very conscious. extremely conscious. first of all, maybe five years before i decided to do this, i joined a psychobiography burp in berkeley that meets once a month. i still remember. and people come and share their work in progress at the group's. and there were all sorts of people from various disciplines. film historians, fish psychobiographies by profession, psychology professors. there's a woman who is writing a book about sculpture his mother flew into a mountain on high-school graduation day and it's like how to dougie. all the sculptures are about putting somebody back together again. and it's a very bad thing. anyway, it's very helpful, but i

also realized as i began to talk with these people and form my own ideas, i didn't want to write a clinical book about my father. i don't really -- first of all, he hated having labels applied to him. second of off, as a retired psychotherapist, you know, i know that the book of labels is written by the insurance industry. and so i didn't want any part of that either. and you know, i want to the narrative. and i did not want to apply a theory. in one supplier level. that didn't want to put my father in the category. he defies categorization. he would say he defies categorization. i have five years of thinking and writing about him, i would say no evidence to the contrary. you know, he was full of contradictions. he was full of ambiguities. you know, he wanted to get to the bottom of everything. he wanted to understand everything very deeply. you don't put a label on that. >> let's pick up on that a little bit.

one of the really masterful things in the memoir is the way you do enter we sections from his books and to that research on his life and the recollections of the life you had. i'm just wondering, as a trained psychotherapist and the this son of saul bellow, when you read the book did you have a feeling about him as a psychologist? were you impressed with the way he looked at the human character and the way he understood himself? >> that is another tough question. you know, after spending 45 minutes with this gentleman i knew i was just going to have an easy time this afternoon. that would have to say that there is a difference -- what i came away with is the difference between the capacity to observe and describe the and the capacity to explain. and my father was an absolute master at the ability to describe and write down what he saw and see subtleties in

people's behavior and in their -- the connection between their bodies in the way they talked in the way they acted. you know, of course, people find themselves all the time in his books. sometimes i think they're right, sometimes i think they're wrong. but the a example that comes to mind is from jack ludwig. he is the man who had an affair with his second wife, it lasted for i don't even know how long. but you know, multiple years. and it happened right before everybody's eyes. everybody -- eventually everybody on both sides saw it and figured it out. so in the story he is represented -- and he goes around and as for many years to all people that is valentine makes no bones about it. although i think he is a little chastened about saying that.

i mean, he's on the record, is uncomfortable saying that. you know, one of the samples that he is famous about it, he walked like a gondolier. this is a very famous descriptive thing about jack. jack had one leg shorter than the other, and he did walk -- heated drag himself when he walked. he did have this bill tush you. and, you know, it's a famous description of the way jack walked. and when i read it and thought about it, it fits him completely descriptive of the way he was. you know, the other hand, jack pulled the wool over saw size for ten or 255 written years. so then you ask yourself, exactly how much did he understand how much in the? and i don't know the answer to that. you know, and the and that say i don't really know for sure how well my father understood and self to my even after all the

time spent in the effort i put in, i really can't say i do not have an opinion because the capsule must himself. you know, he was so private. and so that is why i find that the narratives, the narrator's reveal some much because i think he was more honest when he wrote in a way then when he was in his personal life. that is all i can say about him and less people in the audience may have things to say, add to that. the mean, that's my answer to your question. >> i just want to go through a list here. i want to talk about the moral universe of the bella family, which is a tough universe. they are tough minded people. they're often pragmatic and often idealistic. the -- you paint a very vivid picture of that, but it was

really hard for me to find anything in the whole book that was morally apropos. and just going to go through list. one is, you described -- >> your list. it's okay with me. >> you describe that your generation that the generation before has a very, very competitive, sometimes harshly and cruelly some. your father said he was a serial monogamist to you, but the picture you paint in the book is very different. he's almost like a serial jeter in december in the relationships . as you just described, his friends are manipulative and often the tram. your father on his deathbed said of his own family -- in this was a stunning revelation in the book, i showed them in triumph over his brother's, who he thought he always said to a show how good he was. and you described the family in

several instances as self-centered, self interested. and yet out of that caldron came great work, cam -- and i think anyone who reads the book will see. a child with great humanity. i'm just wondering whether you could comment on that. what were your thoughts? >> gosar with a great humanity part. one of the -- you know, one of the things that i would say is that, you know, my grandfather certainly -- the lesson he tried to impart to his children was that it is a tough world of there. and then there is, you know, the story about the leading camino, my father claims that -- >> no. that's a great story. >> my father claimed that he

remembered his own winning. and he used to tell the following story, which is that he was -- must have been three it leased to remember this, but that he made some sort of sound which to his mother meant that he wanted the rest buried in my grandfather did was, open up his shirt and disposable to my father. and the message, you know, that i believe my grandfather was trying to a convey was, number one, you're too young to be it the rest. never to, you know, if this is all you ought to respect in the world. you know, and it will this gives you nothing. >> there's also the coffee story >> oh, yeah. it's another one. my ankle sam -- this was a story that was told to me by my cousin but it was also, you know, she said -- you know, her father used to tell it that the subject

of the story was that he was very sick as a child and had -- kept the family up all night. my grandfather couldn't sleep and said, up, let him die already. get it over with. so there was that kind of harshness. what i was saying is that i don't -- i mean, there were four siblings. there was my aunt. and i don't know how to characterize her because i know are very well, but she certainly was a person who could put four-man front of substance -- i guess i did characterize another realize it. then there was my uncle. he was a chicago businessman. you know, he basically, you know, what i say in the book is he found disillusionment. he was a very idealistic and man, and stand it. he, you know, suffered a romantic disappointment.

basically he was not allowed to marry the young woman he was in love with because he did not have enough. he became very cynical, very open about his cynicism. and, you know, flaunted his wealth and his position. he was -- you know, he was the most competitive, directly competitive with my father who was the baby. so there was jamie was the eldest and then morrison and sam. sam was, you know, sort of cross between -- i think he was very sweet in the family, but he was also very hardheaded as a businessman. then there was my father, you know, who i think, you know, was more -- i believe his mother had more of an influence in him and some less than his father. she was very compassionate. there's a story where she, you know, it's my grandfather out of bed to help the drunken border up the stairs. out, you know, change and out of

his -- probably thrown upon itself. you know, very compassionate. very, you know, very identifying with culture. she thought my father out to be a rabbi. and, you know, when you come from the old country and to have a bookish kid, that is what you want to do. there was no doctors or lawyers or whenever. there were other options. you know, but my father also, obviously, put his riding first. he did what he wanted in life. you know, including, you know, run around with women for many, many years. very openly. and then on the other hand, i would have to say he protected me from that. i was a little kid and that did not know anything about oil was going on. he was very careful, very discreet, at least is my understanding was. he protected me from it, and i didn't know about most of it still owes 3040. but i will say is -- and this

speaks to something about my mother, she knew about all of this. she never said anything to me and she never said a harsh word to me about his running around. i'm sure they fought bitterly. and of a flop of the about it. again, she was protecting me, just the way he was in some subtle way. if i have any negative feelings about him doing that it's that he heard her. you know, that's -- she did deserve it. >> so throughout your life with your father's you find ways to come together in conversation that you described in the buck as being very profound. i was wondering whether you kind of say how this relationship, this relationship in conversation kept your relationship close? >> well, that's what did keep a close. first of all, let me say, you know, i felt as if my father --

maybe this is a time for me to read the paragraph. this is really having to do with why i titled the book what i did , "saul bellow's heart." my father's heart was encased in a lifelong battle with his brilliant, russell's mind. nowhere was declared, but i favor of a heart. i believe he did too. so my father was often absent during what i have characterized as might kaleidoscopic tethered, six years during which my parents continued a gypsy life that they had begun in their early marriage. there were political radicals who raised me in the permissive that mr. as i've reached school age, my father faustus ability of the required, suffocating and he fled before was a -- before i was eight he cultivated my life, nurture my heart , taught me how to do so

, and communicated the conviction that we came to share that all significant human business is transacted there and. in other words, when i was about ten or 12 years of age he would sit down and say, how is your inner life? and dad didn't know what he meant. but i came to know what he meant. can't understand what he meant. think he was trying to ask me at the beginning, you know, was a happy with myself as a person. i think that was very important to him. i think he wanted to transmit something about his inner life. the importance of it, not the content. and then i grew up. he grew older. you know, the nature of the conversation change. there was a whole year after he left my mother were he had -- to spend many of these conversations rationalizing the reasons for departure. one of them was this story about

the of gloves with my brother absolutely loves. my mother was a very well-organized person. you know, she was married to this disorganized artist. she kept everything together. she was -- one of the ways to get everything together was that she had envelops. she was the one who worked, she supported him for the first in our 15 years, as did my grandmother, my maternal grandmother took my mother and father ran after they eloped and let him ride in the back room of an apartment while my mother went to graduate school. when my mother got a job, supported him, worked as a social worker for many years. she had, you know, envelopes. the envelopes she would have one for the elector, one for the rent, one for the garbage, one for, you know. then she would get paid issue a cash a paycheck issue put the money in the envelopes. when the bill can do she would pay the bill.

well, when their relationship was going sour and the last few years my father found an envelope with his mnemonic. and he was beside himself. he said, you know, just like any other expense to her. he already had a foot and half out the door. you know, he had decided that, you know, he could not continue to live the gypsy life in the maritime other. and, you know he found a reason. that is why i say, i fear is hard over his mind because ticket, but the reason to explain anything. so use the of love as a way to rationalize the fact that he won that this marriage. anyway, so i heard about the envelope for 15 to 20 years. and -- you know, then we would discuss politics. he would discuss the human condition. we would discuss, you know, the psychology. and then one of the things that

i -- i don't know where it is demand that no one to take your time to china fund dipped. it would have these conversations that neither one of us would understand human nature. i was a psychologist didn't. he was -- you know, he was a very thoughtful person about human nature my people did with the dead. although i think he thought more about collective experience, group or social stuff and i thought more about individual people. >> there are -- >> let me just. >> go ahead. >> at a certain point he would just go -- and i would go -- and a treasure those moments because it wasn't so much what my father did know that impressed me the what he didn't know. that is when i really felt close to him. you know, look, this stuff is so damn hard that neither one of us to figure out. and i knew damn well he spent his whole life trying to figure out. >> well, this is about exactly what you're just talking about.

two big intellectual movements in the book. one is the shift in his political point of view and the other is the shift in his view toward himself as a jew. and what he could contribute to that conversation. and maybe you could take us through that starting with the political. >> well, i am not sure you can separate the change. >> okay. >> i've probably could not. but i was just how you a little story. you will see why you can't necessarily separate them. you know, we weren't, you know, college in the 60's. the vietnam war was going, you know, escalating. that draft was breathing down my neck. and i was worried about having to go to fight in a war i did not believe in. and so he and i started having these conversations about, you know, what to do about it and the war. you know, they started off on

the civil-rights movement and was going, you know, -- you know, it was a very active and tumultuous time. and when i was said socialist in school in 1967 and went from college to socialist cool and then had a near miss with the draft and then a final crisis with the draft. i -- you know, it was 1967. the six-day war broke out and my father went. i called my father not thinking anything particular of it. he wasn't home. finally somebody said he went to israel to cover the war. what he did was that the cut got a press credential and went to cover the war has a reporter. you can read all about that.

i think the anarchy of the 60's. took the bus passed then during street. i remember walking from grant park to the civic center, you know, with my then girlfriend, now wife and getting in a police riot, you know, my friends had their brains beaten in by mayor daley's police men to try to discourage what happened during the convention. he was trying to teach us a lesson. well, anyway, whenever that was. my father, you know, made -- made in academia, was a professor, you know, believe in the western, you know, 25 years of western culture and all this that i studied as an undergraduate. he believed in it. it's all over.

a sort of tribute to that kind of thinking. well, when he came back he underwent a bunch of changes. he was also reading steiner at the time. these things are all intertwined. he was looking for something. i think he was thinking about death and old days. that think he then went and experienced the six-day war. i think the -- as i say, the sights and sounds and smells, the gore cut through some of his intellectualism and really penetrated. i think -- he went there, and then said, oh, my god. this could be another holocaust. as far as i understand it it happened in the wake. he experienced it, the second, you know, the idea of it. and then he became much more of a cultural conservative. he became much more of up --

willing to be identified as a jewish writer which she had objected to during his international developmental phase where he lived in paris and new york. and i think it's all the peace. you know, i can't pull that apart any better. and just have to describe all the threads that make up that big a narrow fiver that ended up having -- causing these changes in an. >> and just want to say, one of the reasons why everyone should read the book is the discussion of your relationship with him as he goes through those changes. we could talk about this for a long time, and it would be a wonderful thing. i do want to give the audience a chance to ask what they want to ask. we have about five minutes left. anything in the audience? >> time flies when you're having fun. i am. >> relationship. i always am. is one of those things. my relationship with my father,

i saw my father cry for the first time. see you ever see your father cry? >> i start the book -- i start the book with a story about his trying after he had a huge fire with his father and i witnessed. it wasn't the only time, but it was the time the sticks out most of my mind. [inaudible question] >> i was in the car with him. i was in the front seat. he had to pull off the road. >> older you? >> nine. garcia also cries about the stock market. >> that's right. >> anything else? >> i don't remember. you know, well, he was almost moved to tears when i get a ph.d. he said his voice trembled. >> a number of years ago james atlas' wrote a rather extensive biography of your father. i'm curious, is a work like that help or hindrance for your?

to you view your custom sort of corrective? >> well, as i said to my use the biography as a member prompt. so it was a help in that sense. but, you know, it was -- i mean, mostly i had to juxtaposed against my own experiences. this book is really in experience and narrative. and so there were times when i thought that mr. ellis -- i mean, first of all, it's full of details that i found helpful and thought-provoking. but it was like something you stand on by stepping stone. and i wouldn't call it a corrective because they're is a difference veteran a biography and a memoir. and when -- in my group the psychobiography group are realize the difference and that was not cut out to be about preferred. i don't really -- the kind of detail that is involved in the kind of research is done, this is more of an interior research

project. and there are things that i definitely, you know, think that where i part with him, particularly about buckles will be one. yes. >> so you wrote about -- i feel i would like to ask you. as they say, never part with his rabbi. what was the relationship with judaism? >> very complex. observance? >> everything. >> the question got even tougher i mean, he felt very much himself to be a jew. culturally, socially. i don't even know -- and always. but then i go when i talk about this time lori felt he needed to develop themselves as a writer, he disaffiliate himself from

ms. j isn't. that was -- during that time was the time was given the decision about whether to have a bummer. if he were really that identified with that he would have insisted. you know, then as i say after he went to israel he then returned to that. now, there is a scene in the movie the pawnbroker. i am sure many of you seen it. the pawnbroker -- he is working with his assistant. the assistant cetera crying for some sort of human response. and this is a man who has deadened himself in order to survive the camps and then his emotions in order to survive the camps. one of these things he used to stick his bills on. a spike. and he would drive his hand into this thing in order to make himself feel something. i think that his today is in,

that is what he did when he went to israel. the key force himself to get away from some of the intellectual development that he had -- he felt necessary to make itself into a great writer. returned in a more personal and palpable way. but did he attempt to have attend temples? no. did he know the bible? you bet. >> do you think that his later writings, when he -- >> yes. he just forced himself to reawaken himself to something it was already inside him, deeply ingrained in sight in. he has successfully kept it at a distance, i believe. you know, i also "a book called shoptalk three said, you know, that he felt that being an immigrant, a jew, from chicago was to provincial. when he felt he needed to go and go to paris and -- he went.

okay. that's the short answer. >> i wanted thank you. it was a wonderful discussion. >> thank you. >> urging people to get the book. you will be available assignment. >> i think someone is going to take me to the signing. >> weekend -- the discussion at that table. thanks very much. >> i will caution you that signing an talking don't necessarily go together very well. thanks. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. >> i love the experience of applauding your audience. it's a wonderful thing to do. >> thank you for coming out. thank you. as they said to my will be -- their will be signing copies of gregg's book in the are right next tortuous. everyone had a great afternoon. thank you for coming to literary festival. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we will have more from chicago and a few minutes. >> it would like to here from you. tweet us your feedback. twitter.com/booktv. >> the book is called if you knew me you would care. as he said, when it comes to women and war, everyone thinks of them as victims. but i really -- none of us wanted to convey the victim story. because victimhood and the story the story is so far more than just a victim story. they are not defined by the actual story. but they are defined as what to

make of the story. for example, a woman who wanted to be a doctor when she was a kid. she wanted to the have and aspiration and everything is good. father died when she was 13 years old. she had to leave school so she could work in helping another supporter. i can tell you, when she was 16 see fellow love with the man. she saw him on their way to the church. they would glance it each other. they had a crush on each other. there would giggle. still today she giggles when she talks about national love. they got married when there were 18, for those of you are young. they got married later on. they had a happy marriage. they had kids. they had a house. it was a happy marriage. until the war when they broke up. when the war broke up it took everything away from them.

he started drinking. he started being an alcoholic. and when he started drinking he said beating representative. one day he beat her up so badly that the hospital refused to treat her unless she said he did this to her. that is how the charity started. told the hospital. it took him to prison, and when he left from prison he divorced his wife. but the thing is, i want to tell you, yes she was raped two years ago by a soldier. she did not know who he was, but that is not only hurt the rich is a woman who made upper air in this style. of woman who was in love. a woman who was beaten, survive, had -- it is -- its never a simple story of those others in other parts of the world and in this case the condo. i started the journey that i am

embarking on to save the world. i learned that the world was saving me. i really learned that the very women i end up thinking and helping in the pumping me. now, when i asked her, i ask every woman what she meant. part of the goal is to understand more from one perspective. i ask them, what she meant. she said pieces inside my heart. no one can take it away from me. no one can give it to a. i go to your every single day. as been so much money on your studios and meditation and all kinds of things to so i can understand pieces inside my heart. no one can take it away from me. no one can give it to me. actually locked into a room for three months, the day she was

supposed to be killed he said, i cannot. he gives his military uniform. and the child i helped raise is my profit. she teaches me how to love. and that is -- if you knew me you would care. you would care that -- you would understand the intimate stories, not only the horrible stories. this woman said, do not look at me as a poor woman. i was a rich woman once. she had her cows and chickens and goats. they just stole the seller for mayor. and we have to connect what i learned in the journey. it's not only with the victim's story. this woman was not smiling because she had a gap in her teeth. and like many of us appreciate beauty and want to be beautiful and was embarrassed just to

smile to show the gap in between her teeth. you see, if we connect on the beautiful stories and if we can act on the love story, and if reconnect on the story, this woman's husband cheated on her and as a result of her hiv. stories, any of us in here could go through. they are not all the bad stories. stories to my learned from this woman who was a beautician. i learned that a pay attention. actually -- she help me clean it up afterwards. we see them only at the berkshire. the woman behind got a beauty parlor. she actually makes sure that -- she does all the weddings. talking about makeup and all that. also married to a man who is years older than her.

their parents did not want her to marry this man, but there were so worried about her that they had to -- they gave up. there were so worried that he would kidnapper anyway. she is struggling day in and day out to so she can send her daughters to school. she has been victimized, but see is not defined by her victim's story. and if we cannot see her beyond the victim's story, then it is shame on us. the dali lama said, if you cannot respect those you serve, then better not serve them. they will feel if you do not respect them. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> you're watching book tv. more live coverage from the chicago tribune printer's row literary festival in a couple of minutes. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> right now i am reading where

you go bernadette by maria simple. it's a novel that is told in the form of e-mails as the daughter tries to piece together clues about why her mother disappeared the mother is quite eccentric, and the story is set in seattle with some really interesting, quirky characters. it is a lot of fun. i don't know where it's going, but i'm looking for to finishing it. after that i am going to be doing something of a book club with my son who is 16. this is something we did a couple of summers ago. we picked a couple of books and we read them and would go to our local diner to discuss them and have breakfast. and at we have two books so far. we are reading a biography of bruce springsteen, which i think should be a lot of fun. and interested to learn a little bit more about his background in new jersey and how he got to be

who he is. we also learned to read and crack -- dan brown's inferno which i think is the ultimate summer beach book. i think miles will enjoy this one. he has a real knack for ending his chapters with cliffhangers to make you turn the page. and so i think miles will enjoy that a lot. think of love lost talk about. so it should be a fun summer of reading. >> let us know what you are reading this summer. tweet us @booktv, posted on our facebook page to more send us an e-mail. >> one of the interesting aspects of this building is history. the fact that it exists at all. and really, much of the reason that the building is still year is due to our governor at the time.

when the civil war started to come to a close and union troops were camped outside, very concerned about the fate of the people and of the building. he knew what had happened and many of the other in seven cities when troops came through. and so he crafted a peaceful surrender of the city of raleigh. he agreed to leave the city and have the confederate troops leave the city peacefully. and it the union troops would also take charge of the city peacefully. and it specifically to five they would spare the state capital with this museum and library. we do have three representations' of george washington here at the state capital. one outside into inside. this statue is actually a copy of the original statue within the state house that burned, and i was destroyed. that statue was made by an italian sculptor named antonio canova. he represented george washington

in a way that he felt really maxed his reputation as a military leader, as a political leader. so he made him in a very classical way look like a roman general. and that was not entirely a popular decision with the people of north carolina. and probably the thing that shocked people the most is his legs and feet are completely bare. many people thought that was of little disrespectful to show a president's with his legs and his toes showing. >> more from the north carolina state capitol next weekend as book tv and american history tv look at history and literary life in raleigh, north carolina on c-span2 and c-span three. >> what are you reading this summer? book tv wants to know. >> the first book, summer reading list is something i am a little guilty about having not read already. is called victory lap. it is how political campaigns are run and you stay and

analytics to make decisions. so as a political reporter, how the campaigns work in terms of communications. this is the hidden side, the doings that happen. it is an important book to read. the first thing on my summer reading list. the second book is another, the biography of tip o'neill. a terrific writer it's a perfect thing to read. tip o'neill, a terrific book. won awards when it came out. the third book, a summer reading list is lynen by a cheryl sandberg. it's probably one that needs no introduction. ..

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. it is my pleasure to welcome you can back the 29th annual "chicago tribune" lit fest prayed we would like to thank all of the sponsors that help to make this years lit fest a great success. today's program will be broadcast live on c-span2 booktv. if there is time at the end, we would ask you to use the microphones located in the center of the room so that viewers at home can hear the question. that would be so helpful. if you liked watch this program yourself, it will be re-airing tonight at midnight. if you want to stay up and watch it, please do. we are keeping the spirit of the with fast-growing with printers row. you can get a subscription.

it is located near dearborn street and includes a nice lit fest toback and a poster. finally, the authors book will be sold on the second floor here in the atrium of the university center and he will be signing his book after his presentation today right here in this room. if you're interested in having david signed copy of his book, just a writer, we will be that right after his presentation. at this time we are going to go ahead and get started. you can please turn off your cell phones. we would really appreciate it. it is my pleasure to welcome david nirenberg. he is a professor of medieval history and social thought at the university of chicago. his work focuses on interactions of jewish history. his book is called anti-judaism: the western tradition. let's give a nice warm chicago welcome to david nirenberg.

[applause] >> thank you, john. thank you to the "chicago tribune" and thank you to all of you as well for choosing books over the beach on a sunday. we are something like an endangered species and it is wonderful to see so many people that care about us. books have a fate, we are told. there is an old adage, but they seldom have people saying i know when i started to write this book. at least this one i can talk about. it was september of 2001. i was at johns hopkins and i had to give up talk at nyu on muslims and jewish and christian

relations. so i got on the train in baltimore and i got off in new york. the train was full of something that usually don't see on amtrak, which is politicians. because there was no air travel in this part of september 2001. we were all going to ground zero to ponder the dead. behind me sat down john mccain and to my right sat richard perle. i don't know if you know who he is. but he was on his cell phone most of the ride. he was trying to convince leslie to do an interview of saddam hussein and asked him why he bombed the twin towers. then he called the pentagon to explain what he was doing. i think the phrase he used while come i can't remember for sure. anyway, i got off the train feeling that i was watching history being made.

the fear that we all had as americans was being given a face. that face was the face of saddam hussein. and he got off the train and we got onto the subway to go to nyu. so there were only two other people on the subway with me and one of them was a welder who is going to cleanup site. it was no longer a rescue site the cleanup site. the other one was a friend of his and they were talking about why this had happened. so they were engaged in the process of trying to give our fear a face as well. explanations that they had whether that's because of the jews. agreed that turns new york into a symbol of capitalism and that's why they hate us. it's because they killed christ

that they hate us. that is what they said the explanation lies. but i was a little stunned adhering these explanations that seem familiar to me from my medieval world being used to explain in the 21st century not so bright new day of the 21st century and a new fear and calamity and change. and i set out to ask what it is about a set of ideas and in this case, about judaism. what can they do to serve effectively to give so many people a way of making sense even if that changes so rapidly around them. so the book is really not one of your usual histories of anti-semitism. it might come up once in the book. it is not a history of bad things happening.

it is a book about, and this is something new, it is about how much of the world went to understand itself but it was lost in a struggle to understand judaism and the dangers of people who can't understand this in their everyday lives. now, i figured this out i thought, well, i know how with this is interesting. interesting like that middle ages. i would like to -- i wanted to get deeper and get beyond what dirty new. i started looking in places and there are lots of places in the ancient world where people

thought a lot about jews. so before christianity and i began mentioning egypt in which israel and the jews used to make sense of the wide range of events ranging from drought and disease to defeat by foreign armies and you see this you see going to rome and roman emperors drew them to their faith. what does he mean by this? so why would they call and answer and you have to read it to believe this stuff all of these people were killed except one who was carrying the threat

and the emperor took it to be saying that he should be spared. but my question in point is how do they do this so strongly how does that make them to help make sense of their world? even when their opponents were not really jews at all. it really became something something more powerful unadoptable and the two great religions that were born in the ancient world. we are relating to that with which they claim galatian and in order to do this, we have to think constantly about the relationship to the old testament and to the jews who

were carriers in the societies in this way. we can see this going on in all the pictures of the new religion. you know the story? the two disciples are walking and in their very sad because they have thought that jesus was the messiah and they are talking to each other on the road and it became famous. a third figure approaches them and says have you not heard of this person who was crucified. in this same figure began to explain all of the scripture to show them that it had to be so.

and the real figure turned out to be jesus. we see is the new testament teaching the inherent how to engage the previous jewish tradition and why send them out. many have talked about the cron is the earliest and longest. and it's how would you make sense of this. what is the relationship between us and the people who carry them. so with these religions judaism and judaizing came to mean a way of relating epiphany among other things. the way to relate to the world and to god. a basic confusion of priority between the material and the

spiritual and material questions so christianity and islam both had a part of judaism. i will explain what i mean about this word. it was a basic context to make sense of the world. it was not only with this, but much more importantly to each other. so here's the key point and i just want to stress this. it does not demand leaving the jews. because of the idea. it might seem strange to you but it is actually st. paul in his own words from galatians. he said since you are a jew how

can you compel the gentiles in this way. so in this way if we characterize this as an inappropriate relationship to the law and customs of a tradition it became shorthand for a lot of us to make sense of any christian relationship to the world and scripture anyone that is too interested in the material world in this life or the literal meaning of language becomes a jew. so much so that by the 1600s a very famous english poet could write it home like this. he says this delight for true christian troy has made a jewish choice and here is the cutest

jew. he is writing in a country where there have been no jews allowed for three or 400 years. he is not writing about real jews but all of the christians around him and the inappropriate relationships. it is this power of criticizing any christian muslim behavior in the world and includes a key concept. so my book is about work that this concept does an evolving world. so i we make sense of this avon had a section with how christians attack each other and insult each other calling each other at plant eaters. but that is little esoteric, i

meant. so let me give you just one example so shakespeare. people often talk about this kind of play that puts two things at the very center of the theater in fact in shakespeare's day he wrote the very beginning of the commercial theater. ten years before the first ticket had been sold in english theater. the beginning of a new art form and shakespeare talked about how many others that shakespeare is using this to make sense a lot of things going on in this world. he's using it because he knows that his audience will understand. so while one of the things that he talked about is theater and

how does it work. it was actually kind of a tricky subject. it is telling you this in the christian world, as i'm sure many of you know, the puritans were not very fond of this. sometimes it was shut down. shakespeare is legitimizing the commercial society. the money had just been legalized for the first time. shakespeare's father had been condemned and shakespeare himself said this himself. how does this activity that had previously been taboo and condemned as jewish now talk about this and try to differentiate between the christian way of approach and the jewish approach.

even though there are no jews in england. and you can see the crucial judgment scene when the judge says this is not easy to tell and this society has to find new ways of justifying itself and does it by using a figure of judaism. everyone understands what it means. it is a creation of shakespeare's mind and it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a powerful effect on real jews. 150 years later we are trying to decide whether to grant the jews citizenship or not, exhibit shows citizenship and would you

grant citizenship to someone like that. of course, is trying to make sense of the christian world in jewish terms. so the book takes so many examples through the enlightenment and i tried to show how the enlightenment and would say there is one site that says these are instruments of oppression. both sides understood the struggle they were involved in foreign enlightenment and what we call the opposite of it in the dark. counterrevolution under terms of judaism. so one of the most popular books on enlightenment was from 1770

and says to break the unbearable yoke by which you are afflicted and what is the title of the book, the spirit of judaism. even though attendance .001%. sica tile the facts together and i would have to apologize. this is of history and stories and how people learn to think about the rapidly changing world by thinking with judaism. this includes the greatest opponents who understand the french revolution as a victory of the jews and its greatest proponent was understanding is

is the greatest victory. both sides can see the same event even though dan, .001 of the population relate to this. i tried to show the modern philosophy as an example. this logic is constantly working its collective way through. he understood himself as the first philosopher who overcame us. in his philosophy he situates this during the sermon on the mount. he and his friend used to call the mosher of the nation. so hagel says that [inaudible]

i do not write this way, but they do. [laughter] in each of these things, none of these are jewish philosophers. a lot of them are thinking that the task is to come over this of all previous philosophies by the 20th century, so much so that you find a member of congress speaking about how culture is a series of differences from one culture to another. the great impresario of his discourse and logic include

needing to remember that this logic could be applied to anyone and everybody in millions of real jews suffered. but it includes all areas of culture. for example of 112 artists, some condemn it in only six of them even by the nazi definition of judaism in the same is true of the many musicians. the many mathematicians and don't ask me what jewish mathematics is. it is condemned as jewish mathematicians ergo they were not jewish. they were the most relentless

they presented themselves as saving the world. he went through all of those ways of thinking that they were called jewish. they deployed this there is a movement within this so it helps

many of the citizens, not only germans that even the most educated and most critical this is a look at the power of the history of it. if the president is not independent of the past this includes time in history and we need to find a way to become aware of our habits lest we find ourselves at risk. without understanding that history and the habits of thoughts, we cannot understand how or why societies could so terribly be confused with the

nature of the dangers that confront and become convinced that this is the cause of all of the problems. in my book in 1960. but we also live in an age as an example of this. this is best explained in terms of israel. many of today's critical thinkers say that this is a possibility about the history of thinking about judaism and it can tell us anything about our present situation. some see the attempt in history as an example as an attempt to

deny the real responsibility of the people of israel and the criticism against them. it happens with history or anti-semitism and the holocaust is invoked to inject this criticism of the actions of the state of israel. they were the implications of history are not critical and that they are right to impede criticism and self-awareness rather than furthering it. but it seems to me that the greater danger lies in an easy confidence and that our sense of reality is nothing to our habits of thought formed over time and they do make their own history. but we don't make it as we please. there's an awareness of the gravity of the past exerts upon us can be a part of this with consciousness and the ways in which we see the world and i

don't think we can afford to live without such an awareness. especially not today. so i really look forward to your questions. i thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible question] [inaudible question] >> it forces us to think on this belief. all of this is something else that makes it different.

they therefore have this aggression and people who became a jew or also a jew and they also have this. for many years this was part of it. >> that is a very interesting and difficult question. on one hand it is certainly true that the kinds of thinking that people do with real jews is different from the kinds of thinking that they do with the jews that they turn others into. for example, to use the example of the not cease, there were many people talking about the logic that i described. so these are not people that are

liquidating this subject. but there are differences. i do not think we can understand the power of the one without the other. you know, the reason why this system of thought is so useful is because it has the flexibility to do a lot of work in the world. otherwise it would've disappeared long ago. it has the flexibility to characterize any community and individual in islam. already one of the early islamic sayings was that the shiites of the jews of our community say the same thing about this and others. this kind of logic was very useful. how this works in the world has an effect and it is a very complicated question. i suspect that there is no way that we can never know exactly

what amount of something has to do with the particularities at the plate in a society and the evidence of thought that has been built upon judaism in the western world. i suspect that a lot easier time thinking about real judaism and that is why it is really important. and that is why it was written that to call someone a jew is a pretext to work him over until he resembles the image. and i think he was quite right. that is the power of the logic i'm talking about.

>> this happened in venice. and do not play there was no character than it does any good. which is that pisces shakespeare saying that it just doesn't do any good. both of them supported slavery. and both were crooks. and both were crooks. there was something bad about it. and 53% talk about this on 53% of the facts.

that is the problem with keeping the united states locked in with israel making this the center of conflict in the world today. >> there were two interesting points and i love your reading. i am not at all sure that the play is clear about that. >> this is my chance to answer it and that is strategic here. but i believe that it is an important aspect of that play. i told you to give up that contract, i wouldn't.

there is no reason to. so there is no doubt this is a question that is critical about slavery. but i think it is is more than a living and breathing saint. in belmont talked about were they all ended up in hundreds of credits have debated the vast majority have talked about christian evolution and i agree with you. it is a lot more ambivalent like yours is. nevertheless, i think it's very important that shakespeare was able to think about these problems. the second question that the audience has and there lots of

disagreements. i think that how we perceive reality includes how will our reality is shaped by this. you may feel that the attitude is justified by their real power. obviously if i give you an example of a very particular individual that share this logic a well-known german phosphor that flood the not cease and wrote a book in which to talk about this in particular. and she projected in the appeal to history. she rejected any appeal in as follows, she said she thought was a joke and after world war i there was a joke going around.

one of them says to the other one is wrong with the world, they control everything. and they say you're right, you're right. and the first one says of course in the second one says, why the jews. two-point was an ideology is going to move the masses and it will make sense of the world to millions. i'm talking about ideas that make sense of the world to millions and it has to have a relationship to reality. but she insisted that the anti-semitism came about not because of habits of thought or making friends of the world but because of what the jews really were in the world. they had a responsibility.

it's like saying that slaves have a responsibility and i think it is the same notion. but i think that she looked for these economics that they are members of the blue schwa middle of the blue schwa middle-class comedy couple middle-class, not the german people. and she cited a bunch of statistics. all of them gathered by nazi economists. in other words, her own attempt to represent reality was utilizing data collected with a set of ideas already behind it. and i guess i'm trying to say is we need to become conscience about whatever intentions are. we think that this is a group of jewish conspiracy and the

reality of independence has a concept in it. >> she raises off on different tangent. >> is a good thing or bad thing? >> but make it is out of the way. i don't know that anyone has spoken ill of this. the first one that i know speak so in public. some kept company. [inaudible] he partnered with the nazis.

some of it had absolutely no respect. also, were you reading, does that have any depth? that is just a clever statement. >> being efficient and being the uber bureaucrat doesn't mean that parts of them didn't and so her, you know, her perception is clever. first why would like to talk to you afterwards if i could.

because time doesn't permit me. i want to ask your question. her vet content with a review of the book in "the new york times." i found several insights to be wonderful. but in your speech today when we start talking about ancient egypt, i thought, okay. where could this man be coming from. and i thought, okay. i will start and i have to share a quote that you may have heard of. and i'd let you all interpret this the way that you want. that is wonderful.

but why was he so anti-jewish? and i think about judaism and it has always been a civilization. >> i have to ask you to give me another question. because i can see that we're going to be interrupted. >> three aspects that i see why may have been -- >> is a question or statement after statement. >> but i will put a question mark after it like in jeopardy? >> i'm flexible. >> why don't you and i speak afterwards. i just want to say that on the question of egypt, it is a complex question about which educated people disagree. and after writing the first

chapter, we disagreed on aspects of whether or not we are still getting married. [laughter] i just want to point out that many of these questions are more whole than intense. and when you interpret it into the hole, the things you believe about this setting, that is how you interpret the material. so as with any historical topic, there's a lot of work that goes into this and there can be different points of view on it. >> it is a pleasure to meet you. when i was a student i took a lot of philosophy and literature and i took a class called felicity and religion.

it's interesting because each one is a different base and their a lot of minorities that were jewish and they try to prove this and what i found in what they drew from each other. it goes back to this and world war ii is coming and he defended jewish people are there any examples from history in this? >> oh, yes. absolutely. you know, very often we talk about slavery and we don't know why we don't talk about

abolition. but i think that my goal was to describe system of thought and i think it is a system of thought, which is constantly changing and has a long history. it is a system of thought that we don't very much like to think about today. partly because we have been taught to really think about our freedom from history. we want to find consolation in the examples like this. although i've read articles about how this works. we want to find positive examples and release from history. i have no problem with that. but the task is often something that i write about. is that it is a philosophy and

it is an important place in someone who learned a huge amount from islam and transformed judaism and philosophy. so actually there many places in the history of ideas. it is the principle of hope and hope that wasn't my task here. my task here is to try this out and identity. we think that reality is opinion polls for a certain view and we think we know everything and that we are independent of the kinds of habits of thought that might be shaping where we see significance in the world. i think there are some key problems in the world. i wanted to try to excavate how this works. but of course that her gender

many histories to look different and i believe those and i'm finishing a book and writing an introduction of a book that i think is going to be part of islam and judaism and it is much more about how people actually live together. but we don't want to forget looking at examples of how people live together but there is also such a thing as a habit and that is what i'm trying to uncover. >> thank you. i have couple of questions. the first is why so many people seem to be so obsessed with jews and judaism? what sense is the root of the threat that seems to be pursued. it doesn't seem as simple as

christianity and differentiating itself from our roots. in addition it seems like we have a lot of examples today of judaism and not specifically those that harmonize a lot and why that seems to only be a feature of the more modern world. the second question is in your opinion, do you see a lot of what i would argue our particular criticisms and to zionism to be addressed in an outgrowth of this judaism in history, or do you think that there is a stronger theme there that we ought to pay attention to. >> okay, that is like three questions and i want to know how much time you'll give me for each one.

[applause] >> okay. >> the second one first because it is closely related to the previous question. we had a discussion about an example in which there was harmony and proximity and there has always been in every period of history. in fact some dominant moments that you talk about proximity. >> just. >> in which harmonization has occurred. it is just not the subject in this when i would add that no member of this would detract from the other aspect of how this is distinguished. so the whole book is meant to be an answer to it.

>> was into that we are bad at sports? >> no. [laughter] [laughter] >> that is a modernist take. [laughter] >> no. i would say that some people speak from sociality and others from an actual age. that is a moment which according to them, much of the world wants to have a distinction between the visible and material world. so we have a kind of split reality in which what is really a mortal is not in this type of light. so that is something that if you study plato come in one way and one way of thinking about it. but with christianity became

thought of the difference between jewish and christian. so this is why there is such a powerful way of making sense of this. all of the human knowledge but on the dissension between what seems to be and what really is what we can translate into these terms. i will give you a quote from jesus about this. he says that whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside inside and inside are full of the dead men's bones. president obama said the same thing. so what are these? the fallacies and those who want to be called. his creation of a split reality so that we in our world make sense why things don't look good might not be good and buy things

that look bad might make sense of the complexity of the world and the split reality can be given with the negative side of it in the name of jews. that is a sick argument. in early islam those who are the jews and the allies well, they are basic concepts that illustrate the city of the world. you look very skeptical and have every right to be. it would only hurt you to buy the book and read it. [laughter] >> okay, last question. >> yes, i am wondering if you find a systematic manifestations of the cultural judaism that you

spoke about tonight and if you could please talk about this anti-judaism and my second question is if you have some certainty would like to be to be remembered for unrecognized for an invoice for. >> to have to beg your forgiveness. but the first part of the question i did not catch. >> it sounds like your book speaks a lot about ochoa conference heard for example

politics. and i'm wondering if it may manifest itself in some concrete way. >> pocket. >> is a beautiful question but not one that i can really answer from the book in the sense that the book is not about jewish culture at all. there is not a word about this. and then i can show how this transitions. i put those kind of things in the footnotes. but the book itself has nothing to do at this. nothing. much of it happens in regions where there are no jews at all. it has to do with a category of thought. category of this and many other categories. the category ideal and the

material that uses this process. i left a faculty meeting the other day and someone turned me an outrage and said, there is an old testament reading of the law. well, okay. so right there you have an example of someone taking an idea about how jews relate to the world and making sense of the faculty meeting with it. that is the kind of work that this book is about. but it has nothing to do with jewish contributions to anything. it is really not about real judaism. it is about how the world learned to think with and through and about judaism. that is all too often something that has nothing to do with real jews. so i thank you.

[laughter] [applause] >> thank you, everyone. i'm surprised to see the 445 group that was the most interested audience we've had all day. i commend you guys in the audience. [applause] >> thank you. >> we are going to go ahead and have david sign books for you guys here in the front if you could form a single file line behind this gentleman. we are trying to get this thing moving. so please if you guys have a question. limit one question and let's make use of david's time efficiently. i know that you have this. thank you for coming. have a great afternoon. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> yes? >> [inaudible question] >> i think that that there is all kinds of reality that has happened. the palestinian opinion, a liberalism, i think that those are -- those are very important

realities to think about. what is curious to me from the framework of this book is why it is that those realities from some measures would seem -- they might seem local. how they form such global meaning. i don't think we can understand why. not without having some sense of these ideas. of course, many people insist on the different ideas and there's nothing to do about it. it's all about outrageous behavior of the states. we must have less care with more people in afghanistan and pakistan every year.

and yet i do not see any of my colleagues saying that we should speak of this american university. there is a point of view of colonialism if we take those in that way. and this is the first part of the book for china or russia. so why is it that that particularly can become eccentric and universal meaning is of particular. >> at the kind of thinking that i'm trying to point to.

>> that concludes booktv's live coverage of the "chicago tribune" printers row literature fest. you can watch every airing at about 1:00 a.m. eastern of today's program or any time online at booktv.org. >> what are you reading this summer? booktv would like to know. >> i have five books i'm working on reading. the one i'm trying to finish right now was written a year and a half ago and it is a look back at those who write letters for president obama. some had written to him in the midst of the economic discussion we know some of the interactions that people have.

i'm almost done without an and when i have that done, i will move on to the act of congress and looking how congress does this with financial regulatory reform a few years ago. and there's a big difference between then and now. we can find some of these functions. one thing is about "the washington post" and i'm not doing it on purpose. it is a look back at the 2012 campaign and this is obama versus romney when all were involved and that is going in on this. the other one is by steve vogel and this is a two-year book that i have been looking at.