an accident in geography and demographics. this is about 45 minutes. >> the name of the book is flight of the eagle. it is published by encounter. at author, conrad black who joins us now from toronto. mr. black, what were you trying to do with this book, this history of the united states? >> peter, i was trying to present the perspective, the historical perspective of the important decisions american statesmen have made at each stage in the progress of the country of colonial status to position of inparalleled preeminence in the history of the nation-state in period of 200 years. there is very extensive and

often extremely scholarly and well-written literature of the united states, the entire history and every aspect of its history. this makes no pretense to me, complete history of the country. but i'm not aware of and henry kissinger confirmed this introductory note to put in sequence the particularly important decisions that each can make in the stage of the process? . .

>> that same thing, essentially, could be said about other countries that have been less successful such as brazil and argentina. the difference has been in the statesmen who designed the institutions of government and directed the country at its most critical phases in that development. >> host: who, when it comes to the founding fathers, who was one of your heroes? >> guest: uh, well, in this sense i don't think i'm particularly innovative other than perhaps the reason they're heroes. i think the principal figures were george washington and benjamin franklin, and they, of course, are legendary figures, and they don't need me to buff up the esteem in which they're universeally held. but i don't think it's particularly widely known that george washington was, in fact, a very brilliant guerrilla war leader. and that's, essentially, what he

conducted. he kept that army going virtually unpaid with continuous calls for new recruits and rotating the personnel for seven years. and he had to move it around, and he had to move inland to make it more difficult for the british to get at him and to move around with the british chasing him and only caseally in the early -- occasionally in the early phases of the war in the famous crossing of the delaware and the attack towards princeton and beyond and at the end of the active part of the war at yorktown did he, did he come out and stage a success isful action -- a successful action that really turned events. although he came very close on a few other occasions such as brandywine and germantown. but he was, essentially, a guerrilla war leader while

maintaining the dig dignity of a career officer. in the case of benjamin franklin, of course, he was a renounced academic and inventer, scientist, printer and a wit, a personality. but he was surely one of the greatest diplomats in the history of the world. and his achievement in assisting persuading the british to evict the french from canada which made the revolution possible and then only less than 20 years later recruiting the french where no parliament or anything like a parliament had met for 170 years, an absolute monarchy, to come into a war in fave of republicanism -- in favor of republicanism and democracy was an astounding achievement. and without the french it would have been very difficult. the americans would have won e verge chully, but they might not have won the independence of all

13 colonies. yorktown was mainly a french battle. >> host: well, conrad black, early in "flight of the eagle," 700-page book, you talk about the seven years' war, and you also detail i would say george washington's failures as a military leader and his aggressiveness, correct? >> guest: well, he had, he made a few mistakes, but he did win, after all, and he was, you know, we don't know what he would be like commanding large units like later american military figures like general lee or grant or sherman or eisenhower or mccarthy. we don't know how he would have done with that. but with what he had, he did very well. but he certainly was not infallible. he wasn't napoleon or something who almost never made a mistake. >> host: why do you open the book -- >> guest: as a military commander, he made some -- well, because it was essential to

remove france from canada for the united states as it became, to have the opportunity to achieve its independence. and a few people led by franklin recognized the possibilities for america to become a great country. i mean, just let me put it in different words from what i said a moment ago. the american achievement, people of two and a half million free people and half a million slaves, for them in effect to get the british to evict the french from their borders and then the french to help them evict the british, to manipulate the two greatest powers in the world was an astonishing achievement. and it was, it wouldn't have been possible without the results in this continent of the seven years' war. the french and indian wars as they're called in the united states. i mean, that war had a different

name everywhere it was fought, you know? it was elsewhere pomeranian and car gnattic just depending on what part you're talking about. >> host: now, conrad black has divided his new book -- >> guest: it was the first world war -- i'm sorry, i just said it was the first world war in the sense it was fought all over the world. >> host: now, conrad black has divided his book, "flight of the eagle," into four sections. and the first one is about the aspirant state, and the dates on that are 1754-1836. what's happening during this period, conrad black, that -- and what is the united states aspiring to? >> guest: well, in the early part of the period they aspired really just to be rid of the french. but the leading colonists saw the potential for america. for the most parking lot, they saw the potential -- part, they

saw the potential as working in tandem and partnership with the british, but the relationship gradually changing. franklin as early as 1740 predicted that america would have a greater population than the british british isles within 100 years, and he was exactly right. that did occur in the early 1840s in the time of president van buren. and until relations broke down between, between the british and the americans, the hope amongst these people including washington and jefferson and all but a few real hotheads like samuel adams or patrick henry was that it would be worked out, but instead of being in a subordinate status, the two jurisdictions would be virtually co-equal but sharing the same monarch. and then, of course, it evolved, and relations broke down. but the, you know, that was the aspiration. then once independence was

achieved. it was quite another matter to set up a system that worked. the original articles of confederation were not successful, and at the same time that a committee led by thomas jefferson was instructedded by the continental congress to prepare a declaration of independence and franklin was instructed to try and round up some allies in europe for the revolutionary war that was about to begin or had, in fact, begun, the, there was also a call for a satisfactory set up of confederation between the different colonies. no such thing happened, and what did happen was that washington and franklin convened the constitutional convention in 1787 which began as a matter of resolving a boundary dispute between virginia and maryland but quickly turned into a call for delegates from all of the colonies to try and devise a system to govern themselves in a federal way.

and it was a remarkable success. it was a terribly difficult task, and they produced a constitution which although in my opinion it isn't working particularly well right now, has certainly served the country immensely successfully and is very justly admired everywhere in the world. it was a tremendous achievement especially for james madison, the principal author. >> host: why do you say it's not working well now? >> guest: well, i don't think the u.s. government is functioning well now, and i don't think most americans think it's functioning. the congress is not well regarded. there's this terrible antagonism between the factions and the parties and not much gets done. the deficits are too large, and the legislation tends to be ineffective. but i think there's a general concern, and i refer to this towards the end of the book. i think it's quite reversible, but i think at this moment thoughtful americans would do themselves an injustice and their country an injustice if they didn't reflect on the fact

that the education system is not competitive, and the health care system while it's very good for 70% of the people leaves about 100 million people relatively underserved compared the other prosperous countries. and the justice system, i mean, i've had my problems with it myself. but the fact that the prosecutors win 99.5% of the cases, 97% of them without trials and that the u.s. has 6-12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as other prosperous, advanced democracies such as australia, britain, france, germany, japan and canada tells us something. there are 48 million americans with officially a criminal record. and even if you just take out the driving under the influence or minor problems long ago, you still have 15% of american adults official hi as felon -- officially as felons. well, that can't be right, and something should be done about it. but these things can be done,

and the u.s. always deals with these problems when it has to. >> host: let's go back to the history of the united states before we get into current times. your first section stops in the year 1836. why did you choose that year, what was going on in the country? what was going on in the world? >> guest: yes. well, that was as general jackson was leaving office as president, and after the constitution was promulgated and was, the great offices were very well filled with john jay and john marshall as chief justice and the early presidents were all really quite distinguished, i think, and other people, the congressional leaders, henry clay and so forth, daniel webster, they were very, very substantial people. but there was by the late 1820s the beginnings of the null if by case movement -- nullification movement and this

theory t this theory that a state that chose to do it could simply declare that federal laws were not applicable in that state. and this was the position adopted by south carolina and the chief south carolinian politician of the time, john c. calhoun, who was the vice president of the u.s. under john quincy adams and then in andrew jackson's first term. and jackson declared the formula whereby slavery would be tolerated south of the missouri compromise line of 36-20, it'd be tolerated, and even encouraged or protected. but secession or even reduction of the prerogatives of the federal government opposite any individual state would not be tolerated. and he carried that proposition in south carolina, and he carried it out, and that effectively -- and i don't think

this, there's no evidence this was in andrew jackson's thinking a at the time -- but it effectively enabled the free states to become strong enough demographically and economically that when a showdown did happen 25 years later, the north by the narrowest margin and with the most brilliant hardship in the country's history was able to suppress the insurrection and to abolish slavery. and i don't -- and that would not have happened if the south had attempted to e seed in jackson's -- to secede in jackson's time successfully. if they'd actually attempted to secede, i think it would not have been possible to suppress them at that time. >> host: the second section of your book, "predestined people," 1836-1933. what are you trying to relay? >> guest: a tremendous period of growth. of course, there was the terrible crisis of the civil war, but for the reasons that i

just mentioned, the north was able to prevail. it was much larger than the south in population and industrial strength. but the south were such dowdy fighters, it was a great struggle to discover come them. -- overcome them. but then the country just grew. it was let america be america, and the population almost tripled from about 33 million to a little over 90 million between, in the 50 years after the civil war. and at the end of the civil war, the united states was next to or along with the british and about to be formed german empires -- formed in 1871 after the franco-prussian war -- those three were the greatest powers in the world then. and this was only one long lifetime after yorktown. i mean, there were people alive when that occurred who were small children when the united states, america achieved its

independence. it was a tremendously swift rise. and then in the following 50 years the population tripled, and then after world war i the united states was by most reckoning the most powerful country in the world. and that process accentuated itself considerably. now, the period ends in 1933 because that was another terrible crisis. there was a world economic depression, and there were extreme threats to democracy in other powerful countries in the world. and franklin d. roosevelt was inaugurated at a time when the united states was very depressed not only economically, but psychologically. and it was his task and his mandate to revive it, and he did do that. but he also deployed the reviving strength of america to preserve democracy in the world very successfully. >> host: the next section in "flight of the eagle," indispensable country,

1933-1957. conrad black, why does this end in 1957? >> guest: well, really because to be honest with you, peter, because i wanted the sections to be approximately numbers of pages. and equal numbers of chapters. it could have gone to the end of the cold war, but i thought it appropriate to take the most desperate periods of reliance of the democratic world on america and put them in that section. the united states, despite the tremendous heroism of the british commonwealth, the british and the canadians and australians and others in the period between the fall of france in 1940 and the entry of the soviet union and the u.s. into the war in 91941 a few months apart and the brilliant leadership of mr. churchill, the british and canadians could not have stayed in the war without the help of the united states.

and then it was all, it all worked out chief lu under the -- chiefly under the brilliant strategic direction of churchill and roosevelt and some other close advisers, general marshall and others, that the russians took 90 or more than 90% of the casualties subduing germany. but the anglo american powers and the democratic powers were the big winners in the war. in 1940 france, germany, italy and japan were all dictatorships in the hands of leaders hostile to the west and hostile to democracy. even france was largely occupied by germany. but four years later, five years later all of these countries were occupied or liberated or in the case of germany almost entirely occupied by the british and americans, the americans in particular, and all were brought into the western alliance as flourishing democratic allies where they all remainment --

remain. and while the russians took over 90% of the casualties fighting germany, 20 million war dead in russia -- a shocking figure -- all they got for their trouble was a temporary occupation which they pledged not to conduct of eastern europe where they were not wanted, were not popular and ultimately couldn't sustain themselves and from which they've become, which they've been evicted. >> host: so, mr. black, was that a planned strategy on behalf of the western allies? >> guest: well, you can't say that in 933 roosevelt planned all of it up to '57, but he planned each stage as it came while he was making up the policy. and then in the balance of the period in that section of the book up to the mid '50s, the strategic team that he assembled was still in charge. of course, he died in 1945, but president truman and general marshall as secretary of state and secretary of defense,

general eisenhower as the first commander of nato and then as two-term president, dean acheson and george kennon and charles bolan and others, these were people that roosevelt promoted, and they continued to direct the country in strategic terms through the '50s. they did it -- i mean, there were mistakes, of course. roosevelt made mistakes, everyone makes mistakes. but in general, it was almost completely successful and ultimately, of course, as everyone knows the great rivalry with the soviet union ended with the soviet union simply disintegrated, falling like a souffle without ever a shot being exchanged. >> host: well, the last section of "flight of the eagle" is "supreme nation: 1957-present." a couple of issues during our recent history, mr. black, if we could explore those. number one, the effect of the vietnam war.

>> guest: yes. yes. well, obviously, i think the effect was terribly serious, and it's with us still. the u.s. is over the paralyzing fear of using its military. indeed, some could make the case -- i haven't particularly tried to make it because i'm not sure that it's true, but i respect it when it's made in a serious way -- america enters a little casually at times or has recently into foreign military engagements. but i am afraid that the manner in which the war was conducted and the manner in which the end of the war became have left a damaging impact on the country. i'll tell you why. the, i mean, this gets very

complicated, but as you know, the democrats entered the war, president johnson, obviously. there was an american presence in south vietnam before that. but the act of military participation of the americans came in president johnson's time. and he deployed 550,000 members of the armed forces there, almost all of them conscripted, not volunteers. and he largely won the war. and this was demonstrated in the tet offensive. but instead of coming to that conclusion, he became demoralized and began to deescalate the war and retired from his office. president nixon managed to salvage a non-communist vietnam and withdraw american forces entirely while doing that. and in the great north vietnamese offensive in april of 1972 between mr. nixon's visit

to china and his visit to the soviet union, the south vietnamese actually defeated the north vietnamese and the viet cong on the ground. now, they had heavy american air support, but they had no american ground support. and nixon submitted the peace treaty to the senate for ratification, and he had the constitutional right simply to sign it by his authority as president, the constitutional authority to make such agreements. but he wanted the senate which was in the hands of the other party to agree to it. the implication being that if, as was expected, the north violated the terms, the democrats would join the republicans in approving the use of air power against north vietnam which is what had brought them, essentially, along with the reequipping and training of the south vietnamese to accept a peace in the first place. and the fact that the vietnamese, the violations of

vietnamese agreement came at the time of the watergate affair when the executive authority of the administration was evaporating every day contributed to the senate and the house of representatives simply cutting off all aid to south vietnam so it had no chance of survival. and the implications of that are very serious. now, the fact is we won the cold war and in some respects it doesn't matter, but there are, i mean, in that, in the sense of having won the cold war it doesn't matter, but there were a great many, there are a great many people who died in south vietnam and in the killing fields of cambodia and amongst the boat people who would not have died if the treaty that the senate ratified that mr. nixon is and his collaborators negotiated had, indeed, been upheld and enforced by the united states. >> host: for the last 50 years or so, something you write about in "flight of the eagle," we've been conducting or talking about arms control talks with the russians. have they been important?

have they been effective? >> guest: yes. well, when -- essentially, not particularly. but they were necessary for domestic political purposes. the, this is a complicated history as well. president eisenhower when he entered office in 1953 reduced the size of the standing forces but accentuated the nuclear superiority of the american defense capability and called it more bang for the buck. i mean, a rather crude formulation, but it caught the essence of it. and he had that famous exchange with premier kruschev when he visited at the end of the '50s and said we had a much more conventional force in germany, and we could overwhelm you there. and eisenhower said if you attack us in germany, there'll be nothing conventional about

our response. and it was well understood that there was an attack in west berlin, for example, that would bring a nuclear response. and the kennedy-johnson administrations under secretary of defense mcnamara and secretary clifford adopted the policy of allowing the soviet union to become equal in nuclear military capability with the united states on the theory that then they would negotiate on the basis of mutually-assured destruction, and we could stabilize the cold war. all it did really wassen able the russians -- was enable the russians once they got close to the americans to try and surge ahead of it. so when mr. nixon was elected, he did the rather deft job of calling it nuclear sufficiency. so he actually reduced the defense budget but produced these multiply independently-targeted warheads so the larger rockets could have as many as, like an mx, for

example, as many as ten independently-targeted warheads. and in this way he purportedly reduced the defense budget and introduced the concept of an anti-missile defense system and spoke of nuclear sufficient of si. but, in fact, he used american technological leadership to give the russians a greater incentive. he only did sign the greatest nuclear arms limitation and reduction agreement in the history of the world in 1972. it was good for domestic opinion, good for world, the world political climate, but his own view was that the russians always cheated in these things, and they couldn't win a military technological contest with the united states anyway. so we shouldn't be bothered with it. but, in fact, it did achieve something. now, i personally am skeptical about the attempts to continue these negotiated reductions in the nuclear arsenal now at the

same time that we in the west -- not just the u.s., but in the west -- are apparently tolerating a proliferation of nuclear weapons in hands that are less responsible than any that have held them up til now. i think it's worrisome. >> host: so, conrad black, over the last 237 years has america planned to become a great country? has it reacted to events? has it been impetuous? >> guest: well, it's done a bit of all of that. but in general, i think the early guiding americans were unanimous in the view that it would become an immense power in the world. certainly franklin said that first, washington said it, jefferson said it. they said it in different ways. alexander hamilton saw with astounding clarity the proportions and direction the american economy would take and put in place the early institutions to facilitate that.

and in, at the stages since then, sometimes it was possible simply to sit back and allow events to take their course because they were on a benign course as generally was the case between the civil war and world war i. the country just grew. out atact tracted up to a million immigrants a year in the years just before world war i, and there were astounding growth rates. in the 1880s, the economic growth rate was approximately 8% per year, and it was already from the start the largest economy in the world. it wasn't like china in our time having tremendous growth rates but from a very low base. it was the world's greatest economy when that decade began, and it still grew at an astounding rate. and huge increases in productivity accompanied by pioneering advances in almost every industry; the refining of steel, for example. and so, you know, in those, in those periods the u.s. could

simply be itself. but at times especially setting up the country, getting it through to the point where the free states could abolish slavery if they were put to the test and then, and then insuring the integrity of the country and the war between the states and again in dealing with the economic depression and focusing the frustration and anger in the country not only the rich or on mythical categories that roosevelt conjured just for his own purposes, you know, the malefactors of great wealth and war profiteers, it was nonsense. there were no such people. there were no war profiteers in 1933. but if he had once said, you know, the rockefellers and the fords will pay for this, mobs would have burned their houses down. but he focused national alarm eventually on its real enemy, namely the nazis and the japanese imperialists. ..

are extremely dangerous and terribly provocative. it causes a great deal of sorrow at times but they are not a threat to the existence of the united states the way an antagonistic totalitarian ideology and the great power like germany or russia was. the absence of such a challenge was under motivator i think it taken an explicitly long time for it to writers there is a challenge but its internal. the internal challenge is the erosion of american society in some respect. i think it will be dealt with with the same efficacy and the same courage and determination which the united states and history has been every crisis. and receiver challenge. and it will deal with this but it should get on with it. and i think by the way, i am saying nothing other than what

all polls indicate what most americans think. >> host: something you mentioned earlier i just want to expound and read from the book, talking about american society. a rogue -- to arises the nation, you write, 99.5% of its cases, 97% without a trial, so stack is the judicial deck and the guarantees of individual liberties than the bill of rights, 48 million americans have a criminal record and there is minimal general recognition of the evils of the system. at that point you have a footnote saying that in 2005 you are charged with 17 counts of financial and related crimes come into up spending three years and two weeks in prison in florida. what's your status when it comes to the u.s. and the judicial system? >> guest: well, there were the

17 counts at all of them were either abandoned, rejected by jurors or unanimously vacated by the supreme court of the united states. but in a very perverse manner that would not be, would not occur in any other sophisticated country. the supreme court having vacated the counts and ex created lower court for a most other things at a quote madam justice ginsburg the infirmity of invented law remained back to a lower court the task of assessing the gravity and completely self interestedly and spiritually retreat to counts. so that's what i historically stand convicted of. my sentence was reduced. i left the country, but in my previous blog i described all that. i felt that disclosure required me to put in there so that people wouldn't think i was hiding it. i'm not ashamed of it.

i was persecuted and decades as best i could. there's life after episode like that. it took a decade a way for my life but they gave me a vantage point to be quite qualified to say what you say. and i know that my american friends are absolutely appalled, uphold at the state of american justice, especially the criminal justice system, but not only that. 5% of world population, 25% of incarcerated people and 50% of its lawyers. only counting large them to go through some series training to be alone. i'm talking about the lawyers of india where anyone wants to stroll in a court of comment and answers is a lawyer. professional qualification to be a lawyer. and it takes approximate 10% of gdp. that isn't what the authors of the constitution had in mind by society of law. what i said about the bill of rights, unfortunately, is true. the grand jury was supposed to

be an insurance against this. grandeur is are completely, completely compliant with the wishes of prosecutors. fifth and sixth and eighth amendments guarantee due process, prompted justice, impartial jury access council, and reasonable bill. i was posting $38 million. i didn't get a prompt just a. it went on for years and years and just. i didn't even get access to counsel choice because in the process, frequently used, a completely false affidavit was -- i did an ex parte proceeding to freeze the sale of an asset, an apartment i was selling in new york which the government -- i had earmarked, paid a retainer of my counsel of choice, $10 million. they seized that.

it was thrown out by the jeers. there was no basis to whatsoev whatsoever. but meanwhile, i didn't have counsel of choice. i had counsel at fortune eyed assets and other countries that i could use to pay them but it didn't have the counsel that i wanted. this is not what the constitution says. it's not what the people think is going on. and where are the media? instead of the media -- we get people like nancy grace declaring people to be guilty before they even have been charged. media lynchings of suspects, it's not, it's not a society of laws, and that is not the true spirit of america. i left the country to and i'm officially not welcome there. i have frankly no great desire to go back but i still as you conceived my book considerable affection, respect forward. but it's not my problem but it is the problem of those who were

there, and 48 million people as you read you have officially a criminal record. millions of those are disorder disorderly, university, fraternity party 20 years ago. nothing stigmatizing, nothing that would have impact on a person's ability to get a job or even to be elected to an office, former president mr. bush had a dui conviction. but even if you just take those always, it still means as i said earlier that approximately 50% of the adult population of the u.s., and more than one-fifth of the male adult population of use are officially felons. this is nonsense. nonsense. it is something not the case. is former senator webb from virginia said when he remarked on the fact, six to 12 times as many people per capita are incarcerated in the u.s. as in comparable countries i mentioned, therefore, either of

those other countries don't care about crime. it's not true. they lowered crime rates in the united states, or americans are more criminal by nature, which is rubbish. of course, they are not. it's not working so you fix it. what you had to go through before happens? i thought went the libby fiasco occurred followed by the unjust conviction by senator stevens on the alaska election seemed the executive and the legislature attack by the prosecutors something -- that i have seen. >> host: conrad black has written biographies of fdr and richard nixon, speculative history, what might've been. a matter of principle was his book about his time in prison. mr. black, did you write that book in prison? >> guest: yeah, it'll -- it isn't only abou about the. that connects to other books i wrote with a large part of it is illegal -- it covers

approximately 20 years of which three were in prison. but it does cover the period and when i return to home in canada which i'd not seen five years because of the interventions of the authorities in your country house of representatives over the years he is on "the daily telegraph news paper, "chicago sun-times," jerusalem post, the national post in canada and the sydney morning herald. finally, mr. black, in trenton you dedicate it to for loyal american friends in particular. tina brown, harold evans, ann coulter, julie nixon eisenhower, henry and nancy kissinger. rush limbaugh, peggy noonan. et cetera, et cetera. why were you specific about using the word loyal in the dedication? >> guest: well, in sort of crisis that i went through, the onslaught against me, some

people went out of their way to be supportive, and some just went -- and if you really defected, became somewhat antagonistic so i wanted to show some recognition to those who have been supportive. because for the latest system works and this is not confined in the united states, when that degree of official is focus on a person, there is the intent by those targeting him to ostracize and isolate him. so all those, since i was writing about the united states i thought i would focus on americans in that. all those who resisted that, army of the once there tended to visit me when i was a guest of the american people, including henry kissinger. i thought it's the least i could

do and i was proud to do it. and i have many american friends, those and others, and i'm grateful to all of them. >> host: what's your next project directory nothing bilger credited such as friendship. the history of can do. i don't expected to sell in the united states, but for any americans or any of your viewers are interested in canada, there's lots of good biographical work. there's studies of individual periods or aspects of the country's history. the history of the whole country in my opinion has not been presented, the match with a subtly it deserves but a lot of the work is very rigorous and scholastics terms but it's a hard slog, it's a read and it tends to be simply narrative without a lot of analysis and certainly without the kind of attention of the person knows that make history interesting, which i always try to bring him including in the book i've been talking about. storm in history of united states there's no such shortage

of people. >> host: "flight of the eagle" is the name of the book. conrad black is the author. there's an iraqi note by henry kissinger. it's in bookstores now. mr. bly, thank you for you time from toronto. >> guest: thank you so much, peter. thank you for having me. >> we would like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback, twitter.com/booktv. >> we have more coverage of nonfiction books and the book industry here on c-span2 every weekend on booktv. along with our schedules you can also see her programs anytime at booktv.org and join on one book club as with future a current best seller each month into the less updates throughout the week. follows on facebook and twitter. >> next on booktv, john

strausbaugh presents a history of the new york city neighborhood greenwich village. the author reports on 400 years of the neighborhoods development from its inception as part of new amsterdam in the 1600s to its role in the social, political, and cultural movements of the 1960s, and its centrality in the gay-rights movement. it's about 15 minutes. >> thanks, sharon. thank you all for being here, and you know, braving the rain. obvious some people did but new yorkers would rate this like it's raining raise a budget everybody runs away. [laughter] we're supposed to be so tough. i want to thank the washington square institute for having us, and a big thanks to the historic preservation society, not just for organizing this, but for working every day to keep them from knocking down everything there is in greenwich village and the east village. [applause] >> every time i heart