forward to meeting a man who knew my dad before he met my mother? he said, i lived with him, i know him better than you do. either he's changed, which i doubt, or you've misjudged him. so that is what gave me the incentive to sit down with him. i can't say i had this epiphany and i figured there was going to be a wonderful rapprochement with my dad, but i figured i'd tell him off, and at least we would understand respective positions. but it was luck. so i want people to know don't rely on some chance end counter. if he's still around, maybe just you completely misread the old man? and until you resolve your relationship with your father, there's going to be something that will be missing. i felt kinder, happier, lighter when i reconciled with my father. it made everything better x there's always going to be an itch that needs to be scratched if you don't resolve that.

>> host: our guest, larry elder. radio talk show host, columnist. the firms are up on the -- the numbers are up on the screen. we're talking about his most recent book which is a memoir. mr. elder writes a lot about politics as people who follow him know. if you'd like to dial in and talk about that as well, 202-585-3885 in the east and central time zones, 585-3886 if you're in the mountain or pacific time zone where we are right now on the campus of usc. mr. elder, chapter two, if "norl was hate." my hatred for my father was not the kind where you get a spanking, seethe for a bit and things go pack to number -- go back the number because you realize he punishes you because he loves you. norm was intimidation. normal was tense. normal was wondering if you would say something that could set him off. normal was hate. >> yeah.

when people look at me and i'm smiling, they often wonder why is it that i'm so sort of nonchalant about it. i'm writing that from the perspective of a child, andering seems romantic, everything seems awful, everything seems brutal. the fact of the matter is once you have perspective and realize that my dad was doing the best that he could, i thought his punishments were excessive, and i think another parenting model would have been more appropriate for me, but within the bounds of acceptability, it certainly was. my father, as i said before, was ill-tempered in part because he was so tired all the time. imagine averaging four and a half to five hours a sleep a day for probably two or three decades. that's what the guy was like. and then you walk into the house and have three rambunctious kids. my brothers and i would have our toys on the carpet when our dad would walk in in the middle of the floor. he would kick them so hard, the toys would often break. i thought that was insanity.

and one time when i got older, i mentioned this to my mother. i said, why didn't you say something about that? she said, he didn't kick my stuff. and it turns out my mother had a pair of shoes before we came along, my brothers and i came along, and my dad came home and kicked her shoes so hard they flew and kicked the wall. she said, you do that again, i'm gone. and he never did it again to her, but he would kick our stuff. >> your dad was a republican. >> guest: he was a republican. my father always felt that the democratic party offered you something for nothing. my mother was a democrat. and so at the table the two of them would have these battle, and i would go back and forth. and i sided with my mom when i was younger, but when i got older and older, i thought my dad made more sense. he had a few simple rules. hard work wins, you get out of life what you put into it, and no matter how hard you work, bad things are going to happen, and how you respond will tell us whether we raised a man. i would always say, not too much

pressure, dad. >> host: larry erld, you recently wrote a column about african-americans and fatherhood saying that patrick moynihan back in the '60s said there was a national tragedy because 25% of african-american children were born in unwed households. >> guest: right. >> host: today that number is 75%. >> guest: yeah. i was a freshman in college in 1970, and daniel patrick moynihan called the negro family: a case for national action. and at the time, 25% of kids were born outside of wedlock. and moynihan said this was horrific, this is a neutron bomb dropped on the community, and if something isn't done, this could be horrific. it could lead to greater dependency on welfare, crime. over 70% of black kids are born outside of wedlock, so more white kids are born outside of wedlock than the number that triggered this alarming book. i believe that the direct link between not having a father in the house and all sorts of

social problems up to and including murder. i was on the pearce be morgan show a little while ago, and i told him the face of gun violence in america as horrific as sandy hook was is not some suburban kid, it's a brown or black kid in the ghetto. if you look at chicago, chicago's on track for two sandy hooks per month. usually against another black person. yet chicago is about a third, a third and a third black, white and hispanic. why would so many murders come from the black community? the answer is so many kids come from parents without fathers. you look at violation, we're talking about gang-related kids, usually young kids. there was a documentary that my dad and i discussed in the book called resurrection, and it was about truth pack shakur. tupac shakur. and he said white people may like hearing me say this, but i know for a fact if i'd had a father in my life, i would have had discipline and confidence. and he went on to talk about the facth joid a did a father,

he wanted structure, he wanted protection. and he went on to say in a way maybe a conservative right-winger might say that it is important for a boy to have a father in his life. a boy needs a father. tupac shakur said this. there's also a pole that the l.a. times took in the mid '80s where they asked poor people and non-poor people the following question: do you believe young, poor women often have children to gain additional welfare benefits? most nonpoor people said no. but when poor people were asked the same question, 64% of poor people said, yes. so what i'm saying is we are financially incentivizing women into engaging in behavior that's counterproductive, and we're allowing the man to abandon his financial and moral responsibility by allowing the woman to marry the government. these are policies that we have done, both parties, with the best of intentionses. and i think they are a net negative on our society. and so we're blaming high capacity magazines, we're

blaming racism, all sorts of things when, in fact, we need to look in the mirror and recognize we have advocated policies that have been antithetical to the formation of a nuclear-intact family. >> host: larry elder, where can people hear your show? >> guest: i can be heard on kabc here in l.a. my twitter handle is @larryelder. i'm on facebook. >> host: do people go online to listen to you in. >> guest: yes. >> host: you had a national show. >> guest: you can hear my show in bangladesh. i get phone calls sometimes from abbottabad -- not really. [laughter] you can hear my show anywhere. >> host: one of your previous books, "what's race got to do with it," we talked earlier in this program with eric deggans whose newest book is called "race baiter." he got that name because bill o'reilly called him a race baiter saying he wrote about

race. there's a victim of -- a culture of victimology among some african-americans. what are your thoughts? >> guest: i have a word i coined, and it means somebody who blames others for his or her flight. i don't believe rh is -- racism is a major problem in america anymore. i subscribe to what i call the elvis factor. 10 percent of the american people believe elvis is still alive. so you start with 10%. 10 president of the american people have to be written off. is there racism? of course, but is there the kind that can stop any person who has gotten an education and has some dedication and is willing to work hard and has a little bit of luck in no. america is the greatest country in all of human history. that's why most of the world's seven billion people want to come here. >> host: recent column, then we're going to go to calls, rgiii gets uncle tom treatment. what is this column about? >> guest: it's about a sports caster on espn who criticized rg

iii who talked about the fact that the criticism was that rg iii may be a cornball brother. and the reason he is as far as this guy's concerned is because he might be a republican. so becoming republican is a four-letter word for a lot of people. rg iii came from a nuclear-intact family. he doesn't think of himself as a victim. he doesn't think of himself as a trailblazer as far as his race is concerned. he's trying to be the best rg iii he could possibly be, and for a lot of people that means he's a sellout and an uncle tom. it's outrageous. he's a starts guy, for -- sports guy, for crying out loud. wins and losses ought to be the way we evaluate rg iii. >> host: was your book tough to write? >> guest: people have asked me that, and i suppose it might have been, but that was -- i was 25 years old when we reconciled, and i wrote the book a couple years ago. so i've had plenty of time, my

dad and i have had 35 years to work op our relationship, and arguably we were closer than my mother and i are. my mother and i are very close. so it wasn't difficult at all. it was, again, a 247-page apology to the man. i was anxious to get it out before he died, and i was able to do so. >> host: how far was your boyhood home? >> guest: i was born in south central, picot union which is a pretty heavily hispanic area. and then my dad moved up to south central. we were the second black family on the block, and within five years the whole block was all black. >> host: larry elder, there's a picture on the front of your book, very quickly. and i promise then we'll go to calls. what is this a picture of? >> guest: that's a picture of my dad's restaurant. and if you can look very closely in there, you can see my dad leaning over there. it's one of the rare only photos we have of my dad's café. that's where i was born, in that

little house right there. my dad tore it down after the place was zoned for light industrial and built the restaurant there. lousy location. you can't see it, but the food was so good, people found their way. >> host: and you hated working there. >> >> guest: i wouldn't stand working for you. he cursed at me. he would get volatile and start yelling and screaming. you can see how small it was, it was embarrassing. and i told myself the next time he cursed at me i'm going to walk up to him and say, now see here, buddy. i didn't have enough guts to confront him, but we did have the conversation that lasted a few minutes, and then we didn't talk for ten years. >> host: i'm done talking, it's your turn. larry elder's our guest. henry in bay shore, new york, you're the first caller. >> guest: i can't hear. >> host: hi, henry. last chance. we're going to move on to ohio, there'd doe, ohio. anthony? anthony, you're on booktv on

c-span2 with larry elder. hi, anthony. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> host: please go ahead, sir. >> caller: yes. i was wanting to ask mr. elder, is he having any plans on having another talk show again? [laughter] >> guest: well, anthony, thank you for the question. from your lips to god's microphone. i'd love to have another talk show, i'd love to have a show along the lines of a hannity or reilly, political show where you call in and give your opinions, and i'm looking around to try and find that. hopefully, that can happen. >> host: is radio the only thing you're doing right now? >> guest: well, i'm writing a play. i've had a meeting with sony pictures, and they've begin me some optimism maybe this project could be a movie someday. and i want to make it a play first along the lines of what tyler perry did. and then take it to a production house and maybe get it made. >> host: would you star in it like tyler perry does? >> guest: no, i'm not an actor.

[laughter] >> host: are you still a lawyer? practicing lawyer? >> guest: i am. i'm not practicing, but i'm still a lawyer. i haven't been disbarred. >> host: john's in west lake village, and i have no idea what your state is, because it's all run off the screen. tell us your state and go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: california. >> host: thank you, sir. >> caller: i guess i have three questions. number one, do you have any children? number two, do you treat your children or would you advise treating your children the way your father treated you? and, number three, does the, does the way your father treated you affect your relationship with people and the way that you approach political discussion? in other words, do you consider yourself -- [inaudible] of the people when they disagree with you? >> guest: well, thank you for that.

um, i think the first question was how do i feel -- >> host: do you have children? >> guest: do i have children, thank you. no, i don't. and people have asked me whether or not my not having children had to do with way my father and my mother raised me, and i think probably so. i remember watching them when i was a kid in the kitchen watching them discuss something financial, and i remember saying to myself, this doesn't seem like a whole lot of fun. and i really thought that fathers were mean task masters, and i never wanted anybody to feel towards me the way i felt towards my father. when i got into college and i had classmates and was invited to their homes, i saw their homes were very different from my home, and they felt very differently towards their father. so i realized it was not necessarily the way it had to be. but the i do think it probably made me feel, maybe understand how hard it is raising children, what hard work it is and how labor intensive it is. and what i wanted to do was to be a writer and do a lot of traveling.

i think i felt probably that i didn't want to make those kinds of sacrifices. i have an enormous appreciation for what my mother and father went through and all of the sacrifices that they did financial and otherwise. when people decide to raise children, i think it is the most important decision you can possibly make maybe short of going into combat. my goodness, you can't send them back? they often don't turn out the way you want them to turn out. they often get angry when you're trying to do the best for them. it's a thankless task. but i think the rewards are there, and now that my friends are having kids that are my age, i see why they put in the work. if i had to do it all over again, i probably would have kids. >> host: has it affected your relationship with people, as that caller asked? >> guest: um, i think probably so. i think when you don't feel loved by your father, it makes you a little less warm and a little less loose. and as i said, when my dad and i reconciled, my friends noticed a difference in my personality. they thought i was funnier, happier, more accepting of other people. so i think early on some of this

imprinting might have made me have decisions about family and that sort of thing. >> host: patrick, peter borrow, new hampshire. >> guest: thank you for remembering the questions, peter. [laughter] >> host: please go ahead. >> caller: thank you very much. i would like to ask mr. elder -- well, first, i would like to say i really admire your, and am impressed with your courage you had to confront your father and go through the working things out with him. i couldn't think of a word the use. >> guest: that's right. >> caller: and i grew up with a very loving father. however, my mother was an alcoholic, so they had all of these fights when i was really young. and i was never aware of what was going on. and so, um, i never, you know, i always want withed my father --

wanted my father to tell me why he was so angry and stuff. and, of course, later on i figured it out. but my question is, um, how open do you think, you know, from your experience, how open dune dune -- do you think a father should be with their children or child as to how, what his feelings really are and, you know, how -- you know, his most intimate feelings as far as things he might be dealing with within himself, his own issuesesome. >> guest: right. >> host: all right, patrick, i think we got the point, thank you. larry elder? >> guest: well, i think it's the $64,000, and what you're really asking is to what extent should your father be a friend as opposed to being a parent, and the answer is real simple, he should be a parent. whatever stories the parent has that could perhaps give a lesson, a life lesson to the

child, the father should use. but, again, as i said before there's no handbook here. and my book is written from the perspective of my dad. we often talk about how we are raised from the perspective of a child, but we don't think about how our fathers feel about disciplining us. my father told me he didn't like doing it, but he wanted us to turn out okay, and he was willing to go through the necessary years, in my case, of being the bad guy in order to achieve the objective which was to have three well-grounded boys. >> host: who are kirk and dennis? >> guest: they are my two brothers, i'm in the middle. dennis was wayward and kirk was much more solid. both of them are vietnam-era vets, dennis in the army, my brother in the navy. dennis, he and i could not stand each other. we fought night and day, day and night, 24/7 the way a lot of boys do. and my little brother, i think, had a problem with me because i was such a good student, and in

those days teachers were so insensitive, they would often say to my little brother, how come you're not like larry? so dennis, i think, early on decided to be the anti-larry. i think now a school psychologist would intervene, and we probably would deal with him a little better, but kids often compared him to me, and i think my little brother wanted to be the anti-larry, as i explain in my book. >> host: where are they today? >> guest: dennis died about 15 years ago. my older brother is still around, he is a foreman with a major oil company, happily married, has three children -- by the way, both of my brothers married women who had children and went on to have very long marriages. >> host: talk about your brother's funeral and your mother's view and your view and what actually happened. >> guest: you're talking about dennis' funeral. and, again, this is the brother that i didn't get along with. and my brother dropped out of high school. he did a lot of drugs. the military straightened him out. but he got out. he was stillaywa.

and whenhe died, i said to my mother, we'll just have a very small service because dennis, dennis' friends are scattered here and yon, and they're not the kind of people that you can reach on a phone and will show up. and she says, you don't know him. we need to have a big church. dennis' friends are going to find out that he died, and they'll be here. it was one of the largest funeral i'd been to. almost like maag relate thatcher -- margaret thatcher had died. people were coming from everywhere. he lived in arizona, other parts of the country. people came to pay their respects to him. and when i would hear them talk about him, it was almost like my dad's and my conversation because i would hear things about my brother that i didn't know and things he'd said and done that i didn't know, and he was apparently a far better friend to other people than he was to me in many cases. my brother and i shortly after he died, he was laying in the hospital x we had a very long conversation, and i found out that he did respect me and love

me and look up to me, and i told him the same thing. and it was kind of a nice moment. >> host: larry elder, do you have any reticence about writing a family history and putting your life out there in print for people? >> guest: i would not have written that book had my mother still been alive. there's a story i told about how my mother got my brother in the service. i'll let the readers read it. my mother would not have liked me to have told the story. but it tells you my mother was gutsy. my mother was tough. and the book, the book is a, a book that's also an ode to her as well, but there's some stories in there that my mother probably would have been embarrassed about. >> host: you know what? i don't often do this, but it's worth getting this book just to read that story about his mom. frank, in montgomery, alabama, you're on with larry elder on booktv. >> caller: mr. elder, i appreciate what you said. but i want to -- >> guest: hi, frank. >> caller: have you read a wonderful em by robert hayden?

a bunch of sundays? it fit well what you're saying about your father. and it's a short, wonderful poem. it begins that -- [inaudible] and put his clothes on in the blue black cold. and from then -- [inaudible] weekday weather made bank fires blaze. then he says in the poem that when the rooms are warm, you recall me. i would get up -- [inaudible] driven out the cold and feeling the -- [inaudible] but then he says later on -- [inaudible] what did i know? what did i know of love's austere and lonely offices? finish so -- so the point is, you make the point so well in your talk that your father did love you. but you didn't know that, what

that love austere and lonely offices. my father and i never got along together. he lived to be 104 years old, but we never got along together. but i love what you said. and i'm glad you wrote it. republican or whatever you are. [laughter] >> guest: well, thank you very much, and you're absolutely right about the old man getting up and going to work every day, not liking it, and that was his role modeling. and and you didn't realize it when you're a kid, to watch somebody get up, and they're complaining, they're grumping, they don't want to go to work, but they do it anyway because they've got obligations. that's what you learn by having a father in the house. one of the things i also talk about is it also affects the girls. you don't have a father in the house, and often what happens is a girl would meet a man and demand thoughts of -- [inaudible] and show her some sort of affection, she embraces this guy. and if he's a bad guy, it's too bad for her. and so not having a father in the house effects not just boys,

but girls as well. >> host: larry elder spent several years living in cleveland working for a law firm, and this next call comes from bobby in ohio. >> caller: i've got a question for you in regards to the comment you made about rg 3:and the article about him being called an uncle tom. why would you state that person saying that would be republican? wouldn't democrats actually sometimes have feelings like that? i'm a republican, and i don't feel that way towards rg iii, so i'm just curious why you would say that. >> guest: you either misunderstood what i said, or i said it badly. what i said was the espn guy criticized rg iii because he thought he was republican. he said there's a rumor he's republican, i don't know about that. he's got a white fiancee, i don't know about that. he called him a cornball brother because he suspected that rg iii was a republican, but he had a white fiancee. that is why this caster called

him a cornball brother which i think is a racist thing. so i'm sorry if i misexplained it. >> host: go ahead, bobby, you're still on the line. >> caller: i appreciate that. i agree the same way you do then. i think it's totally a racist comment also. >> guest: absolutely. >> caller: and -- >> host: thank you, bobby. >> caller: and i'm a republican -- okay, thank you. >> guest: all right, thanks for calling in. republicans don't like being called racist, and with good reason. they shouldn't be called racist. >> host: larry elder, "dear father, dear son," is this an african-american story? >> guest: no, it's an american story. it's a story about a guy who struggled, who overcame, who endured the great depression, who joined to fight in the second world war, who was part of what tom brokaw called the greatest generation. it is an american story of hard work, of triumph, of family, of success. this is a guy who did not know his biological father, became a entrepreneur, started a café, being able to buy that piece of

property and the little house next door to it, plus the house in south central. my father is an american success story. >> host: linda is in winthrop, massachusetts, larry elder is our guest. >> caller: yes, hi, larry. i have a question for you. >> guest: hi. >> caller: hi. i'm very impressed by your story, and i know there are a lot of people out there that, um, have a hard time forgiving whether it's their parents or their spouse, and in some cases even their children. did you find that you were able to have the kind of forgiveness after ten years because you turned your life over to jesus and you gave it to him? i'd be interested to know. >> guest: well, i've always been a christian. my mother was, taught sunday school. so going to church was not an option. i spent my 21st birthday in jerusalem as part of my junior year abroad in israel. i've always been very religious. no, that had nothing to do with it. the reason, i suppose, the

ten-year relationship healed so quickly is during the eight-hour conversation because of my father's demeanor. when i unloaded on him and told him all the things he had done harshly, my father was like, is that it? you're mad at me for whipping you with a belt? that's it? do you know to know what my father did to me? and it was horrific. my father was like, is that all you have? [laughter] >> host: larry elder, did your father go to church? >> guest: he did not. my father was a religious man though. he did not go to church, and i talk about that in the book. my father felt that organized religion was partly a scam. my father thought there was something wrong about the man in the south who was the pastor during the great depression having the biggest house, driving the nicest car, wearing the nicest clothing. he thought the person who's a man of god should be poor and should be wearing holy clothes and should not be sporting around in the sunday best. he said there was something inherently wrong about that. he also, when he came home, my

dad said his mother and the neighbors would be gossipping about what was going on in church. so my father thought going to church was a big dress-up thing, a big thing to gossip, who's doing what, who's sleeping with whom. and my father thought it had very little to do with god, so he worshiped himself. he would often watch televangelists on tv and would read the bible, but my father felt that organized church was a ripoff. i'm not saying i agree with him, my mother certainly didn't, but it was one of the differences they had. >> host: you also say your parents never went anywhere together, they lived separate lives. >> guest: my father and my mother slept in separate bedrooms after a while. they never took vacation together. i never saw them kiss, i never saw them hold hands until after my dad and i reconciled, and then i began talking to them both, and i think that i improved their relationship a little bit. and much to my surprise be, they met some friends who lived in

scottsdale, arizona, and they actually packed in the car and drove this together. i was stunned. and they stayed in motels along the way. i presume they had to sleep in the same bed. but i think my relationship with my dad, once it healed, improved their as well. >> host: and that couple in scottsdale, that was a white couple, right? and they went to the grand canyon? >> guest: they went to the grand canyon. the story they tell me is at the ticket praise -- place the person said i need to know who your family is, and the man said, here they are. all these black people with these white guys, and the ticket guy goes, okay, let 'em through, and they went through. >> host: temple city, california. hi, bob. >> caller: am i really on or no? >> host: yes, you are. >> caller: okay. mr. elder, you're the best. i've been listening to you. 38 year withs army, three wars, blown up in iraq, 32 years hapd.

that's not my question. my question is when are you going to stop playing around d lack of words -- and run for president? [laughter] >> guest: two things could happen if i run. one of them is i could win, the other one is i could lose, and both of them are bad. [laughter] but thank you for that. i've given it some thought, seriously, and i came this close to running for senate against barbara boxer, and i flew to d.c., and i met a bunch of senators. my be arena lost by ten points, i could have. >> host: larry elder, what do you think about the kerfuffle around dr. ben carson? >> guest: i like dr. carson, and i thought that it was pretty gutsy for him to have said what he said right in front of the president, advocating the use of health savings accounts to deal with medical issues. and i'm not a big proponent of obamacare. i think that obamacare will, ultimately, hurt this country. and i agree with them.

but for people who are touting him for running for office? please. to go from being a practicing physician to being president of the united states is not going to happen. i understand how people can get starting with certain people like they did with donald trump. but i'm not a big let's find somebody who i think embodies what i want who's never run for office and is trying to stick them in the presidency. it's not going to happen. >> host: what do you think about republican efforts, outreach to african-americans, latinos, etc. >> guest: you have to reach back as well. republicans are not racist. the republican party, as a percentage, more of them voted for the passing of the civil rights act of 1964 than did democrats. and all of those politicians that stood this front of school doors, they were democrats. george wallace was a democrat. orville -- [inaudible] of little rock was a democrat. and not all of them became republicans once the civil rights act got passed. so the idea that republicans are racist is not fair. you look at the his right-of-way

the democratic -- history of the democratic party, this is a party that voted against the 13th, 14th amendment and basically every civil rights legislation passed in the 9th century -- 19th century, the republican party was against it. the first successful presidential candidate was a guy named abraham lincoln. republicans have a major story to tell. but often people don't want to hear about it, they believe the republicans are racist, and they shut their minds to it. this is not your grandfather's republican party. republicans are very sensitive about reaching out to blacks and hispanics. but they often con desend. they often say things like, oh, i know somebody who picked fruit with cesar chavez. i'm not looking for a fishing buddy, i'm looking for somebody who's going to advance policies that i want. i want a government who says out of my wallet and bedroom, and whatever politician delivers it gets my vote. >> host: why do you think mitt romney lostsome. >> guest: because if you look at

exit polling, most americans believe the economy was so messed up by george bush that obama struggled mightily to overcome this horrible situation he inherited. the second reason is most americans believe republicans only care about rich people. and those are branding problems that the republican party has to to overcome. and it's hard to overcome it because you've got three obstacles; academia, hollywood and our major media, all of which are overwhelmingly liberal. when you say something, it's got to be interpreted through the filter of those three entities, and often it's been distorted. >> host: larry elder is our guest, this is booktv on c-span2 live from the los angeles times festival of books, campus of usc. mike's in fort worth, texas. hi, mike. >> caller: how's it going, larry? my -- pretty good. i'm a african-american democrat, but i agree with you one of the big problems in the african-american community is lack of fathers in the house.

but i think, larry, when you say that, you kind of come off kind of harsh on black people. now, what's the reason behind the lack of a lot of fathers being in the house, drinking or in prison? well, back -- this is my belief. back in the '30s and '40s black people were lawyers, they had their own businesses like your father had that restaurant. today had, they were dentists -- they had, they were dentists, we had a lot of grocery stores because there was segregation, and we couldn't go to white places, so we had to become plumbers, our dentists, doctors and physicians. well, for the last 56 years there hasn't been, there hasn't been -- black youngsters haven't seen, haven't been able to go to the black dentist say like in the '30s or '40s or to a grocery store that's owned by black people or to a black doctor's office. you get my point, what i'm trying to say? all they see is the gangs and the fast money. so the lack of black businesses and for youngsters to see that

and say i want to be like that, i want to be, own a grocery store, i want to be like that mechanic or doctor, that's part of the problem too. i just want to get your comment on that, larry. >> guest: well, it still comes back down to the lack of fathers. look at these census reports. 1890-1940, a black person was more likely to be married than a white person. transfer, a black child was -- therefore, a black child was more likely to be born in a nuclear-intact family. and as i mentioned, in 1965, 25% of black kids were born outside wedlock. fast forward, it's now three times that. what's the answer? racism? really? during the great depression, 50% of black adults were unemployed. you didn't find this kind of criminality. the other -- poverty? again, 50% of black adults were unemployed during the great depression, and you had jim crow where it was legal and de facto segregation. you didn't find the same kind of

criminality. we have spent $16 trillion since 1965 on poverty, and what we've done is we've destabilized families. that is why when a kid sees a gang banger, as you mentioned, he looks at that gang banger and thinks, hey, this is what i want to be. he doesn't have a father to say, wait a second, this is not the way to go. hit the books two good, hard hours a day. finish high school, don't have a kid before you're 20 years old and get married before you have that kid. if you do that, you will not be poor. the question we have to ask ourselves is, what policies are we doing that are giving people the incentive or disincentive to follow that formula? >> host: larry elder, a conversation between you and your mother beginning with your mother. your mother thought -- your father thought small. don't make the same mistake. that's unfair. oh, here you go again, defending him. he's not donald trump. he was a wimp, she said.

>> guest: yeah. my mother -- she was in a bad mood at the time he said that. my mother thought my father should have been a more successful businessman, and i didn't think that was a fair criticism. i thought my daddied the best he could with what he did. he kept the door open. most restaurants fail, and to have a restaurant that remained open until my dad was in his 80s is a hell of an achievement. and i thought my father belittled his achievement. again, my mother was not the warmest and most fuzzy person, but i didn't take too much to heart with that statement. >> host: she spent a little bit urim radio program, too, didn't she? >> guest: my mother was on every friday for a whole hour, ob most popular feature because she told it like it was. she didn't pull any punches. my mother didn't like something, she'd say so. and people loved her candor. >> host: iraq. what would your mother -- i'm sorry, iran. what would your mother have done with iran? >> guest: well, i tell the story in the book, i was a first-year law student, and this is when the hostages were taken in

iraq -- in iran. and we were all talking about what should be done, and one guy said we ought to file a class action lawsuit and freeze assets and all this and that. and i said i know what my mother would do. they said, what? she'd give 'em 48 hours and bomb the hell out of them. everyone said, oh, no. so i said, watch. i picked up my phone. i called my mom in l.a. i said, mom, the hostage thing in iran. she goes, yeah? what would you do about it? uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. hung up the pone the. well, did she say she'd give 'em 48 hours? i said, no, she's mellowing out, she'd give them 72. [laughter] >> host: katherine in hannah, utah. good afternoon. >> caller: yeah. >> host: katherine, we're listening. please go ahead with your question or comment for larry elder. >> caller: oh, i'm sorry. i didn't hear. i wanted to say thank you so much, first of all, for sharing your personal story. it's very inspiring.

i -- [inaudible] a kid like you. he's 30 years old, and he's afraid to be a bad dad. but he's an amazing man. he's doing everything and anything not to be like that, so what kind of reaffirming or things that you want to do for him to say, no, you can, you can be a great dad, actually? >> guest: i would tell him, again, not to try and be his friend. recognize there are going to be periods of time where the kid won't like you, may even hate you the way i did my father. and you have to hope that be you've done your job, at some point there'll be a realization that you've done your job, and your kid will appreciate that. every kid that i know of sooner or later has that epiphany. sooner or later, it happens. every parent recognizes that, and good participants realize -- good parents realize sooner or later a kid will thank them for their sacrifice. >> host: sandy in marino, california, please go ahead with your question or comment for larry elder. >> caller: hi, larry.

thank you so much for taking this call. very interesting story you have. i just have a quick question. you mentioned earlier that the breaking point was when your dad used certain language to you, and you left the restaurant, and you hadn't spoken to him for ten years after thatment -- that. so how did you live in the house with your dad for ten b years as a teenager without saying anything to him, or was it not that drastic? >> guest: well, it was kind of drastic. we don't have a big house. the house, as you can see, was on the same plot where the restaurant is. so it wasn't a big house. but by then we had moved, and the house we have right now was not much bigger. remember, my dad worked real hard, he came home late. i'm a teenager, so i left for college when i was 17, so it was just two years of, basically, avoiding him. and we were like two ships passing in the night. he'd come in real late, i would be asleep. i would get up, he would be gone, so it was easy to avoid

not talking to him, and then once i left to college, i went to college in rhode island, and then i went to law school in michigan. so i was not in the same state with him, so it was quite easy to avoid him. and by the way, the caller who said that it seemed kind of harsh what i was saying about not having fathers, i interviewed the head of the naacp, and i said to him as between the presence of white racism or absence of black fathers, which poses a bigger threat to the black community, and without missing a beat, to his credit, he said the absence of black fathers. there's a movie called boys in the hood, and the director is john singleton. he talks about two families. one is the family of ice cube, no father in the house, and you saw how the family turned around. the other family was across the street, and that was cube baa gooding jr., and lawrence fish burn was his father. and he turned out very differently. and john singleton did a second movie called baby boy which he

talked about the sexual predatory behavior of young black men, and john singleton is from the same area that i'm from. he's talking about the centrality of fathers and the lack of fathers being the central problem in south central and, in my opinion, the central social problem in america. >> host: next call for mr. elder, we have about seven minutes left in our program. dennis in sharon, massachusetts. hi, dennis. dennis? >> caller: yes. can you hear me? yes -- >> host: please go ahead. >> caller: okay, great. i'm a great fan of c-span. i watch booktv every weekend. my father was born in 1892, i was his first son. when i was born, he was in 60 years old. he left macon, georgia, as he told we because he saw a black man being burned in the fountain of downtown macon, georgia. the point i would like to make is that i really believe it's,

obviously, the father being in the household is a tremendous service to the children, without a doubt. but most importantly i really believe this thing about mind power. having the focus in order to be able to have a discipline to achieve what your goals are in life. the other thing i want to say is that there's a psychological underpinning that i believe hardly anybody talks about in which people aspire to be the anti-antihero. so a lot of this outburst that we see is really someone who really believes by doing something that, quote-unquote superbad, is better than being good. people want to do the contradiction. and that's what is sort of at the underlying literature that's in the culture. and i'd like to hear what your comment to that is. >> guest: well, i think you're right. i think if you don't have an

appropriation role model -- appropriate role model in the house acting out, trying to get some sort of attention to scratch that itch is what, often, people do. one of the things my dad can and i talked about when we reconciled was these so-called black leaders that don't emphasize the real issue, and that's the lack of fathers in the house. you find a lot of people emphasizing racism, racism, racism, and as i pointed out, in my humble opinion, racism is no longer the major rob in america. let's just take jesse jackson. his mother was a teenager who was impregnated by the man who lived next door, and jesse jackson was raised in south carolina, and he was taunted by kids saying jesse ain't got no daddy. so it seems to we he ought to be talking about the importance of having a father in the house. farrakhan, farrakhan's mother was estranged from her father. she had a boyfriend. went back with the father, got pregnant, didn't want the boyfriend to know, so she tried to abort louis farrakhan three times with a coat hanger. and in the case of sharpton,

sharpton lived a middle class life until his father abandoned the family, and then down to the ghetto. they talk about racism, racism as opposed to the centrality of fathers even though in their own lives the lack of their dads, in my opinion, had a very profound impact of how they view the world. one of the reasons they're so angry, perhaps, is because they didn't b have a father in the house, and instead of talking about importance of fathers and policies that can encourage people to get married before having children, they talk about racism, racism, racism. in my opinion, they're doing a disservice to the community. i think they're being leaders to the best of their ability, don't get me wrong. i don't think they're doing it in bad faith, but i think they ought to rethink what they're doing. >> host: leroy, ham den, connecticut. please go ahead. >> caller: yes. i'd just like to say, i kind of agree with what you're saying about a strong father in the home, but my thing was i was raised in four different foster homes. and the fathers were strong

figures on the disciplinary side. there was never any love, never any hugging. it was going to school and do your homework and be good. but the thing that really bothered me, i never knew love from a father. all i knew was discipline. it did teach me one thing, work and you'll be successful. even though without love i found that out. and the last foster home i lived in i really loved that man. he never knew it. he died before i had a chance to tell him. but that's why i'm so glad you had a chance to sit down and can talk to your father. but it taught me one thing that you said that you did the best, they did the best they could with what they knew. my children, and when they grew up, they told me the same thing. dad, we love you. you may not have been the best father in the world, but you were the best for us because you did the best that you knew how to do, and they're all successful now. they're all with college

educations. i just wanted to share that with you. >> host: all right, thank you, leroy. >> guest: thank you very much. could you imagine the lawsuit i had against my father based on how he raised me and the way kids are right now? i probably could have called 911 and had somebody out come out and take him away based on how kids were discipline inside those days. >> host: in your book you talk about graduating from crenshaw high school but also going to fairfax high school here in l.a. for some other courses and the difference between the two. >> guest: yeah. one of the reasons i'm so adamant about having parental choice in education is because i went to an inner city public high school, crenshaw high school, and i thought i was a world leader. i graduated number seven in my class, and i had exhausted all of the spanish we had. i'd gotten as all the way up. and we had a program called air program enrichment ec change, and it was an peoplerral d experimental program. and if you didn't have a course, you could be bussed for some classes to that school. so i was bussed to fairfax which

was then almost 100% jewish for one semester. i took spanish, and i took physiology, and i was flunking both those courses. i never flunked a course in my life. these kids were held to higher standards, their teachers expected more out of them. the kids were expected to speak spanish, and i learned that the expectation was far, far different in my inner city high school than it was in a suburban high school. and it made me angry. and i was determined that i was going to make sure i was going to advocate the power that parents should have to take their kids out of a bad school and put them into a better show. >> host: what time is your radio show on? >> guest: 3 until 6 monday through friday, pacific time. >> host: and people can hear it where? >> guest: kabc.com, larryelder.com, facebook and twitter. >> host: and larry elder's most recent book is "dear father, dear son. two hours, two lives, eight

hours --" >> guest: right. >> host: are you working on another book? >> guest: of course. writers are always working on another book. >> host: does it come back to politics? >> guest: actually, it's not. it's about a young italian guy who grew up with a father who had a voice every bit as good as frank sinatra and used the voice the scam people. that's all he did. he would do a concert, and old ladies would come up to him, and they'd give him money for a movie, and he'd take their movie and go to the next town. and this is the father that a friend of mine had. he's got all his music, and i'm telling you, this guy was a wonderful singer. people compare him to some of the great singers like caruso. so that's what the next book is about. >> host: sounds like you're venturing out away from politics a little bit. >> guest: i do like writing in general, but every one of my books has a political core to it. >> host: well, we've been talking here on booktv with larry elder. "dear father, dear son: two lives, eight hours." pick up the book to find out how his mom got his brother dennis

into the military. >> this morning on c-span2, a conference on unmanned aerial drones. we will hear from bill stone, an engineer who designed drones and lieutenant general james barclay was in charge of the army drone program. that gets underway at 9 a.m. eastern live here on c-span2. booktv in prime time tonight on c-span2. >> nick burns was a crew diplomat who rose to the rank of

undersecretary of state for political affairs. now a professor at harvard university, mr. burns spoke at the chautauqua institution, in upstate new york, about u.s. foreign policy. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> thank you, mr. president. good morning, everyone. it is a beautiful morning. but i detected very early a hint of autumn in the air. i don't know if you did. you may have seen recently, as i did, and "new york times" article about a you collect renaissance throwback to another centric of the 19th century. when families from new york and ohio, pennsylvania, and elsewhere came to spend a summer to restore them place -- to

reach restore themselves in a place called chautauqua. it describes what makes chautauqua so unique, least for me. this pursuit of beauty, of truth, of spiritualism, a philosophy, the things that make life really special and really meaningful. it was a great tribute to what generations for this amphitheater and this extra in a campus. the only surprise to me was the revelation that there are now several chautauqua's in the united states but i had not realized that the i guess that's the success of your brand. because all of us know this is the true place, the mothership. [applause] and the heart of the movements i wanted to start this morning by paying tribute to chautauqua. is one way to think of it. our reality tv fast food rush hour free zone. [laughter]

which is one of its appeals. now, i can't claim, and i'm not a true native like many of you go back three, four, five, even six generations. in fact, i grew up outside boston, massachusetts. i am a patriots fan. admittedly behind enemy lines here in buffalo bills territory. but as i said last year, it would help my cause for told you, sister, i was born in buffalo general hospital? [laughter] so mr. president, i would like to apply again for citizenship in chautauqua nation. [laughter] it's a real honor to be back with you. i'm pleased to be discussing diplomacy come and i'm glad that chautauqua has decided spend some time thinking about this venerable art. sometimes misunderstood, sometimes, always important, that's diplomacy. i'm a former career of american

diplomat. i served five presidents between my first job, i was the lowest ranking person in use government, i was an intern at our embassy in west africa in 1980. [laughter] until my last job as undersecretary of state in 2008. and i know the privilege of teaching diplomacy and international politics distance from all of our country. in fact, all over the world. we have 90 different countries represented at harvard. i teach for a living. so i thought, why not start with a question for you this morning, that you can think about, when i get to the q&a maybe give me a sense of what the answer is. what do you think about when you hear the word diplomacy? not a trick question. what images does it conjure up, diplomacy? what values do we attach to it? there may be a pop quiz that i give you in the q&a session,

when i ask that question, people invariably will say to me, well, diplomats are rather formal, stuffy people in tall hats and morning suits you meet in gilded palaces. they talked ad nauseam about the problems of the world. but they may not get much done. i hear that from time to time. people describe declared that i have. and that's certainly one should imagery thing about the formal nature of it. think about the 19th century, think about bismarck, congress of berlin in 1870. that was true. think about woodrow wilson indeed, tall hats and morning coat. trying to create a better world after the first world war. but that isn't tak the diplomac. we live in the 21st century. diplomats come from 195 member

states of the united nations. happily and very important to a lot of diplomats now, a lot more are women. menus to dominate this field like most fields and the 19th and early 20th century. what americans and europeans were the dumb diplomats of 100 years ago, now we have nations rising to global power. in asia, in the middle east, and africa, and in latin america. sometimes from countries that didn't exist in the world of empire. in the colonial world of 1913, 100 jews ago. in 1914 at the start of the first world war. diplomats do they represent government as they always have. but they also represent international institutions like the united nations. you fly the flag of the united

nations here at chautauqua. to represent international institutions like the world bank and international monetary fund. and i think people who work for nonprofit organizations were dedicated to combating poverty, who want to promote economic development, who are promoting health care, or trying to promote peace. i think they are diplomats, too. so in that vein think of bill and melinda gates. and the enormously positive impact those two people and their foundation are having on the fight against hiv/aids, the fight against malaya, the fight against to eradicate polio which is nearly complete. only three countries in the world where polio exists these days. think of the chicken figure skater mischel kwon. she has joined the state department part time as this court -- as as cal ripken, former great baltimore oriole shortstop. so diplomacy today is far more

diverse and inclusive as an enterprise that it was 100 years ago. traditional diplomacy of course is the oxford in the speech i will tell you this, the management of international relations by negotiation. that's a very precise definition. it tells you a lot about diplomacy. here's another way to think about diplomacy. it's everything that all of us do. 7 billion people, in 195 countries, manage relations rundle road among countries and among people to negotiate, to interpret each other, to translate your language is and cultural and religion, philosophical differences, and to buffer relations among states that might not like each other very much, and that might collide from time to time. that's a critical job, to make the countries in the world in a nutshell work together more efficiently and more profitably and hopefully and most

importantly more peacefully. diplomacy and bodies the widest spectrum of international activity. so last week, a week ago today, when you saw our sector estate john kerry open negotiations in washington between the israelis and the palestinians, that's diplomacy. and when president obama and russian president vladimir putin and the chinese president xi jinping meet in st. petersburg as i think they will and a couple of weeks to talk about global economic problems, that, too, is diplomacy. when president bush and president obama negotiated one by one free trade agreements between the united states and colombia and panama, that's economic diplomacy. and when nations meet to fight climate change and try to eradicate trafficking of women and children and try to fight global drug and crime cartel, that's multilateral diplomacy.

when we move tons, hundreds of thousands of tons of food aid to poor countries where people are starving, like north korea, that's humanitarian diplomacy. so diplomacy encompasses those thousands of actions taken each day by government, like ours, by international organizations like the u.n. by nonprofit organizations like the gates foundation to connect, connect countries, connect regions, and it towns around the world, connect most important people around the world. because we do live in a very small, very vulnerable, sometimes violent and often -- planet but in this sense, i found in my years in the state department and the white house that diplomacy is really about hope. it's the great hope that all of us have in every country that we don't have to accept the status

quo. that we can actually over, sometimes, not always, differences that separate people and sometimes lead them to fight each other in cataclysmic wars. hope that we can improve and change for good the human condition. and that's a powerful aspirati aspiration. i never an agenda actual is going up in massachusetts outside of austin that i would become a diplomat. actually what i really wanted to do was to be shortstop of the boston red sox. [laughter] like every other kid in new england in the 1960s. it finally dawned on me around the age of 15 that baseball career was going to work out. i couldn't hit a curveball, and i found my calling in a very different, very strange place called the vietnam war. now, i was too young to serve. i turned 17 the data cease-fire was announced on january 28,

1973. i remember the church bells ringing in my hometown. jubilation that that divisive and frustrating and terrible war was coming to a close. at least for the united states. and i have seen, as did many of you, how our young men who served bravely and honorably, were not always welcomed back to our towns with the dignity and honor that certainly was there do. vietnam as a lot of you will remember ripped the threats of our country. the thread that connects 50 states together, that connects our families together, and our generations. and even with my admittedly limited teenage perspective, i didn't know much when i was 17, i could grasp as most people could the incongruity that a superpower like ours had become

involved in a civil war halfway around the world with a poor nation that did not represent a true strategic threat to us. now, that admittedly is how it appears now today with the vantage of 20/20 hindsight but in the past 40 years. but vietnam birthed my interest in diplomacy, and given my lamentable and rudimentary grasp of world geography i had to consult an atlas to find out what it was on the map. when i began to be conscious of the fact that a young men were fighting in someplace called vietnam back then, and then came the inevitable question that exposed her to almost every american who was alive and conscious at that time, why did we fight a people we actually knew so little about? was it right ask wasn't smart? how would we extricate ourselves from the war where we thought was one arm tied behind their

backs, like an increasing frustrated oliver? and was there a better way, it is the way for america to act and america to lead in the world? and like so many others in my generation, vietnam really was the impetus that opened up the world to us, even though i never got there. i didn't serve but it came right into our hometown. and it forced us to look beyond the atlantic and pacific, and appreciate that they complicated world. and when you go into the china shop, you've got to be careful when you throw your weight around. 40 years later, vietnam still recalls for me the ultimate purpose of diplomacy, and that's what we are looking at this week at chautauqua. can work amicably with other countries, with other religions with other people? what's the best way to avoid the war and conflict that we've seen in our country over the last 10 years? are we capable of meeting the

difficult challenge, and it's an important one for all of us to matter what our faith is to reflect upon, can we deliver peace? that's our job. all of us. we know in our hearts it may never be possible. as the ancient greeks put it, may never be possible as they said to stay in the status this of man, but we know that we have to try. and our task and be eliminated if you think about that phrase robert keiner be used in his brief and tragic run for the presidency in 1968. he said that one of the purposes of our country must become and these are tennyson's words, the british poet alfred lord tennyson, to seek a newer world, to seek a newer world from the broken world that we inherited after those trials and tribulations of the 1960s. and that's not very different from some of the challenges that

we inherit here in 2013. so for me that's the ultimate promise of diplomacy, a newer and better world. and hopefully if we're lucky and smart, a more peaceful world. so chautauqua was right to bring us together this week to talk about this subject come and to focus on the problems of 2013. when you think about our situation right now, just think about the time since 9/11. it's been a difficult and violent 12 years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 brought down the symbol of our economic power on wall street, collided with the symbol and reality of our military power, the pentagon in washington, and should the foundations of our country. in response, we came out swinging. we invaded to muslim countries. we thought too bitter and bloody

wars in both places. we paid an enormous price in the lives of our soldiers, in treasure, and sometimes in global credibility. we also did some good things, and you reflect on what the american military and our aid people were able to publish in iraq, and especially in afghanistan, rebuilding schools and getting now 9 million young kids a chance to go to school in afghanistan were barely a million were going to school on september 10, 2001. we have done some good things as well in both countries. but our experience in iraq and afghanistan can provide a unique perspective about the value of diplomacy. and how americans ought to think about the world as we go forward. think about us, and we all know it, is we are so powerful compared to everybody else. if you compare our military to the 10 next strongest country in

the world combined, we are still more powerful. and so there's temptation in washington, and i succumbed to myself, sometimes a default, default to the military to meet the most difficult national challenges. when our presidents have to decide, and this is a big question, do we fight and the countries or do we talk to them to resolve our problems, sometimes the use of force can appear faster, cleaner, more efficient, more direct as a way to accomplish. diplomacy by contrast can move at a glacial pace and it requires infinite patience. but remember that patience, virtue, patience and restraint, excuse me, our virtues. george mitchell, i was within a couple of weeks ago, tells a great story that illustrates the importance of patience when you go around the world in iraq and other countries, he was the

negotiator for president clinton in northern ireland, and he met with a lot of frustration and he said that his experience, he said i experienced 700 days of failure, and one day a success. the day he was finally able to secure the good friday agreement that brought peace to northern ireland to 700 days of failure and one day -- when people say to secretary kerry, you'll never resolve the israeli-palestinian crisis. i think of george mitchell. it may take us 7000 days of failure, but there will be a day when someone is able to pull those two together entities, and it will have been worth it because we will have been patient. and we won't have resorted to some other alternative that got us into a lot of trouble. so there are times, of course, and diplomacy is not the answer, not a panacea. there are times when the use of force is both necessary and even

just as president obama reminded us in his nobel prize speech. after -- against mussolini and improve japan to stop them and when the second world war. president clinton use military force to stop two wars, and saved the muslim population of bosnia and kosovo. most people would agree, not everybody, but it think a lot of people would agree that president bush, george w. bush, was obligated to strike back against al qaeda after september 11, 2001. we were attacked and we had to respond but i think that most people would say that president obama had every right to launch the raid that killed osama bin laden. history does demonstrate the forces of diplomacy coexist, they interact with each other and they sometimes and complement each other.

richard holbrooke, the late richard holbrooke, great american diplomat, i don't think he would've been able to secure the peace at dayton, the peace in bosnia had we not used force for six weeks to demonstrate to the bosnian army that were not going to commit them to continue to kill innocent muslims but it was a just a force that she'd a cease-fire and drove them to negotiating table were holbrooke worked his magic and brought peace to bosnia after five years of war. so there are times when have to rely on the military and where fortunate as all of you know to have extraordinary young men and women in our military come in the army, the navy and air force, marines and coast guard and the national guard. [applause] wiland like you just applaud, i admire the american military. they are absolutely critical to our security.

one of the proudest moments of my career was when he served as u.s. ambassador to nato. that's a joint state department defense department mission. i had more military people on my staff that i did diplomats. i went into the field and i saw them come our military in afghanistan, and saw them in kosovo, and saw them in bosnia. and was so impressed by how confident and professional and sincere they were about representing us industry difficult battleground. so the military is not the problem. but the problem is that we are emerging for more than a decade of war, the two longest wars in our history, and we chose to fight them for good or ill simultaneously. and we discovered in both places an age-old truth, i'm going to paraphrase churchill, that when you start a war you really have no idea when and how that war is going to come to a close. we in the u.s. government, and i served in 2001 at nato on 9/11,

we had no idea that our troops would still be in afghanistan 12 years after they arrived in october 2001. we had no idea, and didn't even remotely consider that we would stay eight years in iraq. that's the major reason that president george w. bush and secretary of state condoleezza rice in the second bush term starting in 2005, they've really turned towards diplomacy in our foreign policy, it's why president obama in his five years in office has had an abiding impulse that we need to lead with diplomacy, not laid with the military international affairs. we can see now looking back on it -- [applause] we can really see looking back on it that we ask too much offer military after 9/11. i have a lot of young military officers in my class at harvard.

they come for a one year masters degree program. i will sit down just to get to know them and i will say to a colonel or a major, sometimes a captain, so what have you done over the last 10, 12 years? invariably they will list for five combat tours in iraq and afghanistan as the most intensively deployed military in american history. what they have done is spectacular, but we have asked them to do an awful lot. we were right, in my view, to fully fund the military since 9/11. what we did was wiki deprived the state department and u.s. agency of international development of phones. it is as a result an enormous gap between the size and power of the pentagon and the size and power of the state department. i will illustrate it with two examples from bob gates who is an outstanding secretary of defense for president bush and president obama. he gave a speech a couple years ago and here are two of the nuggets. secretary gates, we have more military personnel and one

carrier battle group, the united states navy, then we have american diplomats all over the world. here is another if that doesn't convince you, we have more members of the armed forces marching bands of the navy, air force, army, marines your true fact, and an american diplomats. and i love music, but that tells you a lot about our priorities. so we are at the moment here in 2013. we reflect now on iraq and afghanistan and 9/11. we've got to return to diplomacy as the primary way that we interact with the rest of the world. it doesn't mean you forget the military. we honor them, but as colin powell said, he was both secretary of state adequate military officer, he was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff colin powell used to say the proper way for the united states to position its assets in the world, is diplomats on

point, in front, military and reserve. in other words, we exhaust diplomacy before we ask the military to go in. that's colin powell. well, after 9/11 we reversed that maxim. we chose war as the primary way to respond to that terrible day, and it worked for a time. and as i said before i think initial invasion of afghanistan was necessary. but ultimately it didn't work out as we planned. the founding fathers recognized this tension between force and diplomacy. they recognized it would be fodder for presidents to figure this out and a balanced way, and to picture this, maybe don't do it right now since we're asked to turn off our cell phones, but when you leave, google the great seal of the united states. everybody knows what a great seal is. it's on every official document to its on her passport. it's on every federal building. remember, it's in eagle, right?

its e. pluribus unum over the eagle. out of one people are many immigrant tradition. the eagle has in its talons arrows, 13 of them, colonies. 13 arrows to defend ourselves, and an olive branch any other talon. signifying our commitment to be a peaceful country. and in that sense the great seal of the united states is a perfect metaphor for the natural tension and the difficulty that all of our presidents have in trying to decide how do we react when bad things happen to us and to other people around the world? there are times when we must defend ourselves and use those arrows, and there are times when we have to have a way of looking towards peace and of negotiate with other countries it and that's the album branch. the first job of the president is to defend the country. but he, or she, we can always

hope for the future, -- [applause] >> he or she must use our great power to be a peacemaker, too. president kennedy in gave a memorable speech. i think his greatest speech 50 years ago this june, 1963, at the american university in washington, d.c. it was entitled a strategy for peace. you will find a book in the books talk to this particular speech. and here's what president kennedy said about this tinge but he said what kind of peace do we seek, not a pacs americana force on the world by american weapons of war. not the piece of the great or the security of the slaves, that a genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, not merely peace in our time, but peace and all time. kennedy had come to believe by

1963 that after the bay of pigs, after the cuban missile crisis can he said we have no more urgent task that a strategy for peace. now, we know that a complete perfect pieces untenable given the imperfect nature of who we are. as human beings, but in its pursuit, and the pursuit of peace we also know that we will find our best and our true selves. so we have to invest in diplomacy, especially now at a time when the global balance of power is shifting, when the united states despite our enormous strength can no longer call the shots and can no longer act alone in the world. many of the most complex -- and went around his room in one minute we could list them all, and 2013, climate change, trafficking of human beings, crime and drug cartel, pandemic,

disease, poverty, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, the great majority of those challenges are not going to be resolved by the u.s. military. we are going to have to use our aid workers and our diplomats and our citizens to engage other people in every other country in the world to triumph over them. these are transnational threats. they affect every country. they go through our borders. and in that sense there's been a time in human history like this one when the fate of everyone in this theater is linked to the fate of 70 people around the world. climate change affects all of us. poverty and nuclear proliferation affect every human being. every man, woman and child living in the world today. that's what globalization has given us come this incredibly interconnected world. and that means that the united states needs to think smartly about how we packed it in the world. as i said we're still a long mile economically, politically,

military the most powerful country. but we can't resolve a single one of the problems i just mentioned if our slogan to the rest of the world is, it's my way or the highway. are you with me or are you against me? [applause] >> so instead i say we have a natural advantage. we can coalesce and work with our many, many friends and allies in the world. there's no country in what it has a number of allies and the united states. 28 allies in europe and canada and nato, and debate alliance system centered on japan and south korea, australia, thailand and the philippines, and east asia. we can work with other countries. we can marshal our forces, our thoughts, our aid money, our efforts with those countries. and we have to do it in a way that has an us outward looking,

not isolationist. there are some very conservative republicans and a very liberal democrats in washington teaming up essentially to say the united states can no longer afford to be active in the world. we can resolve every problem. we should bring the troops home. we should dig a moat deeper. we should pull up the drawbridge around the country. perfect solution for 1813. [laughter] in a non-globalized world. but not for 2013. we've also got plenty of examples are more history to know that americans can be effective leaders, can practice diplomacy effectively. and here's some. franklin, jefferson and adams. they are diplomacy during the revolution secured our of lines in france and made a great difference in our ability to keep the british navy and the british army at yorktown and virginia in 1781.

jefferson and as president use patience, diplomacy over several years to negotiate with a guy named napoleon bonaparte. he negotiated the louisiana purchase which doubled the size of the united states of america in 1804. teddy roosevelt was the first american to win the nobel peace prize because he mediated the russo japanese war in 1905. fdr's wartime diplomacy secured and allies for churchill, stalin. that was political to overcoming the power to president kennedy turned the diplomacy when the great majority of his advisers in october 1952 said use force. at the final moment president kennedy brokered a negotiated compromise with our greatest enemy, the soviet premier make you tricshelle, that's how the cuban missile crisis ended. that's why we didn't and centric hundreds of millions of people on the east coast, the midwest of united states and in europe,

and in russia. because diplomacy rather than force triumphs. think of henry kissinger, still going strong at age 90 by the way, 40 years ago negotiate his brilliant opening to china that open up relations that have been frozen for the last 20 years prior, and insured a generation of peace between china and the united states. think of president george h. w. bush, bush 41. a lot of people think he was our most accomplished foreign policy president over the last several decades. he had vast experience as a diplomat. he had face and diplomacy. he had cheated the unification of germany and nato after the end of the cold war. he didn't peacefully. decree the modern israeli-palestinian peace process in 1991. he overwhelmed saddam hussein by creating a great international coalition to surround and defeat saddam hussein after his ill-fated invasion of kuwait in

1991. think of president clinton who negotiated the nafta agreement to canada and mexico and the united states would see a rising tide lifts all boats through our economic union here in north america. i think of president george w. bush by the strategic insight to reach out to india, the largest democracy in the world, and establish a strategic partnership with india. all that happened through diplomacy, negotiation, through interaction between our country and those countries. when you think of it, which is diplomacy to end the vietnam war. we used diplomacy to end the cold war and israel-palestinian crisis that will be much discussed this week here at chautauqua. someday it's going to end, and it will be at the negotiating table with diplomats present. so at its very best -- [applause] at its very best, diplomacy can

end wars. it can help us achieve justice. nelson mandela chief justice. he sat down when he got out of prison, for four years with f. w. de klerk in a negotiation but a lot of people in south africa and the congress said to him fight. he said, i'm going to negotiate. and he negotiated the destruction of apartheid and he brought all the races together in south africa as a diplomat. and he deserves enormous credit at the age of 95 for the extraordinary achievement. [applause] >> so let me bring this to a close, because i'm anxious to get to your thoughts, and i might even be the that pop quiz. what are some early tests the united states in 2013 and 14 as

we look ahead? as we look about this balance of diplomacy and force, i would say there are at least three. number one, if we convince the north korean leadership that turning back to sears negotiations is a better path than military confrontation, that they have been practicing in east asia. number two, can the obama administration overcome our 34 your isolation from iran and achieve direct negotiations with the president who was inaugurated yesterday? can negotiate settlement prevent that country from becoming a nuclear weapons power? can we resolve iran's nuclear dilemma by diplomacy rather than force of arms and finally, this probably the most important, special for anybody under the age of 30 in this audience. because the greatest question is going to be about china. and our greatest trial.

can the united states find a way to maintain our predominate, our power because that's good for asia and good for us. while at the same time engaging china diplomatically to keep the peace in that vital region. that's the true test. of american diplomacy for the next 50 years. at its best, diplomacy place to the strength of our country. it allows us to a world based on quality of law and justice. diplomacy can even at its zenith reveal what lincoln invoked so memorably, that better angels of our nation. and as i reflected on my own career as a diplomat, try to teach it to students do i believe it is only for a clear commitment to lead with diplomacy, backed by our great military that we can begin to address the enormous a complicated challenges of the

21st century. we can commit to work peacefully and constructively with china and russia and japan, and brazil and mexico, and south africa and nigeria and germany and the european union. and we can do that and engage those countries. we can write a positive chapter for our history as we look ahead. in that same speech 50 years ago this summer, a remarkably prescient speech from president can evoke the global integrated connected world that we know today. and he really spoke up for diplomacy after the cuban missile crisis when he said the following about how connected we are around the world. he said, for in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. we all breathe the same there. we all cherish our children's future, and we are all mortal.

the united states has proven that we are the strongest country in the world. let us now prove that we are a country that can unite the world around common hopes. and in doing so, we might go a long way to heal the wounds of these two wars that we're just coming out of, and to build a peaceful world that is the great and allusive dream, and has been of every generation. so thank you very, very much for listening to me. and thanks to chautauqua. [applause] >> we will dive right into the question. if you have to leave, please do so quietly.

there will be people around to collect your questions. or you can just bring them up. would you comment on the cover-up ending housing -- cover-up in benghazi? >> okay. [laughter] thanks for that softball. really appreciate it. [laughter] here's my answer. i don't see a cover-up in benghazi. [applause] >> there was a terrible tragedy. for of our best people died, including our ambassador, christie fans. but what secretary clinton was a point and accounted the review board led by two people and she said to them, look into this. don't pull punches. tell us what happened. tell us how and wher what we got wrong. she appointed tom pickering, and

mike mueller, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, to nonpolitical centrist career civil servants. and they came back with a hard hitting report that said the state department had made lots of mistakes, that we were not set up to provide adequate security in benghazi for ambassador stevens and his colleagues that day, but they revealed no cover a. i don't see. i think most of the controversy is politically induced. [applause] >> so, the question is what is the role of secrecy and diplomacy? and extended from that, what are your feelings about mr. snowden and the relations between the united states and russia now that he has been granted -- >> i thought it was a friendly audience? [laughter] i know that, look, i will give you what i think. i may be wrong about all of this. i think there's a real tension,

and always has been, but particularly in a globalized, highly integrated internet society of the type we have now. there's a tension between secrecy and transparency. we know that government has to have some secrets. our national security depends on it. our nuclear weapons are activated by codes. we don't all have a right to know what those codes are. right? so we've established the government has a right to some secrecy. and the government might have information about terrorist groups but it can't let the rest of us know about, therefore, the government has right to secrecy. and all of us who work for the government was to take a solemn vow and we sign a document. i will not divulge the secrets to anybody, and i won't stand on a soapbox and i won't steal the cables and offer them to

wikileaks. i won't do it. and i know that if i do something like that, this is the vow we day, i could be tried for having committed a felony. that's what we're talking about here. the other side of the ledger is transparency, we are a democracy. we sent the government to washington because we voted for them. and we have a right to know what's happening. and the government does not have a right to know everything we are thinking of doing. and whenever right to privacy, the constitution affords us that right. and here's the tension, and i'm not smart enough, true, to forget sometimes wears is the middle ground, where is the balance. it isn't shifting. it shifts from issue to issue. but on the issue of snowden, i would just say this. i don't see him as a hero. [applause] >> i truly don't. you know, if he had stayed in

the united states and said as a matter of conscious i will engage in the civil disobedience, i will submit myself to the law, that's what martin luther king did to awaken white america, and to overcome segregation. he didn't flee to china and russia, martin luther king. he stood here. daniel ellsberg stood his ground in the vietnam papers, 1971. 70. snowden fled, not to the united kingdom, not a candidate them not to mexico. to china and to russia. not exactly, you know, democracies, friends of the united states. and he is now accepted asylum in authoritarian dictatorial russia. i don't see a hero there. and i think if he came back to the united states he should be put on trial. he has committed families. let the court system judge.

[applause] but it's interesting and we're talking earlier today about gridlock in washington. i think that some republicans and democrats are coming together to say, and just the other side of the ledger and i will end on this, we don't want the government to know everything we are doing, and the government doesn't have a right to me, read every e-mail and listen to every phone call. so, therefore, there is this balance and this national conversation as president obama has suggested we've got to have, what's the proper balance between secrecy and privacy in our democratic rights? >> there are -- >> everyone is entitled to his own opinion. [laughter] >> there are two questions here but i think by exploring them both, you get a chance i think to get at some difficult questions. the first is, what is the optimum relation between liberation and action?

and the questioner points to the european union been far too deliberate in its process related to bosnia, for example. and the other is, how do you exhaust diplomacy first versus the use of military? when you're dealing with a brutal enemy, al qaeda, who has vowed death to america recently forced the closing of 22 indices? >> great questions. you're going to hear odd cake and speak tomorrow, he's a good friend of mine, smart guy, really smart guy. he wrote a book about 10 years ago, and i think the subtitle was americans are from mars and europeans are from venus. [laughter] and it's a really interesting book. it's on sale at the chautauqua bookstore. and basically the point bob was trying to make was, actually bob and i were living in brussels at the same time because his wife at the time was my debut.

i was ambassador to nato and she succeeded as ambassador to nato. she's a tremendous diplomatic so we're living there and the big issue of 2002 and 2003 was the united states was acting in a very martial way. by the way i supported the invasion of afghanistan and supported the invasion of iraq in those years. and we were acting in a very aggressive way to go after al qaeda and the terrorists and saddam hussein. the europeans were counseling restraint and patience and pull back and don't hit so many people, that kind of fate. i was in the middle of that debate defending president bush as us happy to do. and bob wrote this book and it does point to the different culturally. we have so much military power. it's a very available resource to stick the europeans no longer have the capacity to act militarily, except with us in a. and so they tend to accentuate their comparative advantage. negotiation, diplomacy, economic assistance. and, frankly, we are allies.

we work well together and we are pretty good partners for we do argue from time to time. i think the second question is a really important one and brings out the major theme of what i tried to talk about. we need the military. i am not for cutting the military budget to the bone as some people want to do. we need a strong military because we live in a tough world and will have to call on them again i'm sure in the next decade to defend us and defend our interests. but we have exhausted them, and even, and especially the generals will be the first people to say, we are not always the answer. sometimes you have to send in a diplomat and have to try to negotiate your way through something. iran, this autumn, might be that example. there are very few people in washington in either political party believe we have to go out and just start a war with iran next month. almost everybody in the republican party as well as the democratic party say, we've got to get negotiations at least a

chance here now that we have a slightly more reasonable person as president of iran. we will see if he is reasonable and we will test the proposition. we may have to use force later, if i ran has a nuclear weapon but we don't have to begin there. i think that republicans and democrats can agree on that. but the questioner is right about al qaeda. what president obama has done is said, let's and the two land wars, let's end the militant occupations of iraq, afghanistan to most of our troops will be out next summer but let's continue the war against the terrorist groups in somalia, in yemen, in the gulf and on the afghan-pakistan border. so that war has not ended. we need a military for that war. and that's where diplomacy in the military are a twin. they go hand in hand. we need them both and we need to exercise both at the same time. >> see, you did figure out how to hit a curveball. >> i tried.

[laughter] >> so here's another slow pitch. what should be our strategy in syria? [laughter] >> where's the question are the red sox going to win the world series? that's the question i'm waiting for. sorry to say that an audience with a lot of new yorkers. i know you love the yankees. sorry about the yankees this year. [laughter] >> not. you know, i might have a minority position on city but i'm going to participate in a debate, a televised debate on friday in aspen, colorado. and the question we're going to debate is, do we have a dog in the fight. that's james a. baker is very colorful phrase when his secretary of state. he said we don't have a dog in the fight in bosnia. he said that back in 91. and i think we do have an interest in syria. and i think we have three. number one, we have a humanitarian interest to help those people.

100,000 assyrians dead, 1.5 million syrians homeless, outside the country. 2.5 many people homeless inside the country. there is a huge humanitarian crisis, and we just have our aid agencies, our money, we have to be present help those people. that's one interest. the second, syria is a keystone country of the middle east but if you look at the map, who are his neighbors? israel, jordan, turkey, iraq. if the civil war in syria continues to spread in the gulf -- and goes lebanon or destabilizes our friend and ally, jordan, the situation is much worse. so if you don't act, the situation could get worse. third, a strategic consideration, who is helping aside, the dictator of syria. the agreeance. hezbollah and russia. if the unholy trinity achieve a

military victory in syria, and if we lose, turkey loses, jordan loses, israel loses. the palestinians a list by the way, too. i don't want to that signal to be sent to the middle east. i don't want iran to descend in the middle east. so i think we should not put american troops in iraq, no way. not into that quagmire. but americans move to a to the moderate rebel groups, yes. they will push back against assad. they will make it more likely at some point he will collapse and lose power. and that's in our strategic and humanitarian interest. that's how i would answer the question on syria. [applause] >> are once again, it's not exactly -- two parts, just a secondary bias to the question. isn't engaging in diplomacy with iran and north korea like expecting lucy not to pull the football away?

[laughter] and then the follow-up to that is, has there been any movement lately toward improving relations with north korea? >> okay, thank you very much. great question. yet, i remember lucy and the football. when you are president obama or president bush or president clinton, you've got to be mindful of that. but i think one of the advantageous aspects of our policy towards iran is that both president obama and president bush have followed a nearly identical posts. republicans and democrats don't have a lot in common if you notice in washington these days, but they are united on this. and both presidents have very carefully said the following, we are ready to negotiate with you, iran and tried to find some reasonable compromise. ..

>> neither of us can afford to see a nuclear weapon iran. it is absolutely indefensible and insupportable in the middle east to see iran become a nuclear weapons power. so i'd president obama and president bush have covered the danger of lucy taking the football away. on the second question, the most bizarre government in the world is north korea. i mean, it just is. if you think about it over the last couple of decades, we've talked to even. we have a diplomatic mission in havana, we talked to hugo chavez when he was president of venezuela, we've talked, fitfully unsuccessfully with the

iranians, we really haven't had much of a relationship with the north koreans. it's mafia-run, family dictatorship. the third son, previously unemployed, 29, 30 years old, kim jong un, is now the proud owner of a nuclear weapons force. it doesn't make you feel good when you get up in the morning, and the only way to deal with them is to show strength. so the u.s. and china actually teamed up in march when north korea was shooting rockets off over south korea and japan to say, stop. and frankly, the key country in that mix was china because china has enabled the north koreans for a long time. and finally xi jinping was so uncomfortable and embarrassed by what north korea was doing, they sent him a tough message that'll maybe last for a couple of months. we're likely to see this outrageous behavior continue. we need to contain that problem because they have nuclear

weapons. we don't want to fight them, we don't want hem to send a nuclear weapons against our ally, the south koreans, or japan, our other ally. but with russia, china, south korea and japan, we can surround and contain north korean power in, moresically, one day that -- mercifully, one day that regime collapses and hopefully a democratic country is restore inside that part of the korean peninsula. that would be, i think, what president obama -- as president bush was -- trying to do in north korea. >> so is dennis rodman a diplomat in. [laughter] >> you know, in the strangest way, yes. [laughter] my daughter found this show on one of these hundreds of cable tv channels out there that these guys followed dennis rodman in north korea. and it turns out that dennis rodman, basketball player, is the only american who's had a decent conversation with kim jong un.

[laughter] and i guess kim jong un loves basketball and loves the chicago bulls. [laughter] who didn't love the chicago bulls when dennis rodman and scottie pippen and michael jordan were playing for them. and he was able -- if that's basketball diplomacy, if kim jong un has even the slightest positive view of the united states because of dennis rodman, we'll grant him a diplomat. [laughter] >> he certainly has an imagination. what role can diplomacy play in the post-arab spring middle east given the chaotic environment that exists there and also the tendency toward more strict islamic governments? >> well, i think you're going to see a combination of both diplomacy and the military being the answer for at least how the united states approaches the middle east. weaver going to -- we're going to continue to safeguard israel's existence. we should do that.

israel's a great friend, and it lives in a viability neighborhood. so our -- violent neighborhood. interestingly enough, your military aid to egypt must also continue because it was the camp david accords in march '79 that jimmy carter initiated that made for peace many sinai. sinai is the desert that stands between israel and the major part of egypt. and the egyptians keeping the peace many sinai -- in sinai defends israel's border. so an advocate for aid to the government of egypt is the israeli government. it safeguards israel's security. i also think you'll see american military assistance to cue rate, the united arab emirates, bahrain and saudi arabia because those countries are absolutely opposed to the buildup of iranian power, and the greatest foe of those arab countries is iran. so you'll see a lot of american military activity and assistance -- which i think is

positive -- but in the main we've got to figure out how do we get along with the new military leaders in cairo. that's a diplomatic job. and our deputy secretary of state, bill burns -- no recommendation to me -- has been in cairo trying to talk some sense into the military leadership. and syria, a lot of that will be military aid to the rebels, but much of it will be humanitarian and political. so, again, the united states has to juggle our diplomatic and military arrows and olive branches to form a complete policy. >> given its increasing commitment to superficiality and conflict, do you think the news media warts diplomatic -- thwarts diplomatic efforts? >> no. i don't -- i'm a great admirerrer of the fourth estate. they keep everybody in government honest. they have a constitutional role in our system. they translate government for the american people.

they educate us about the world. i mean, just listen to "newshour" on pbs at night or npr. there are a lot of great journalists who are instrumental, i think, in giving us a true sense of the world. so i don't think they complicate diplomacy, i would say they even facilitate it. [applause] >> how large is the current foreign service, and what would it cost to double the size of that service, and and what would the benefits be of doing so? >> finally a question i want to answer, this is good. [laughter] okay. so my numbers are going to be very rough here. think of an active duty military, and somebody in the audience will know the answer better than me, roughly a 1.2 million and another one million in reserves, so think about two million people in uniform at any one time? and then think of 6,500 american diplomats. that's it. now, we don't need as many

diplomats as military. but we need more than 6,500 diplomats to staff 280 or 90 embassies and consulates, to work many washington, to represent us around the world. if you take the state department budget, the usaid budget and all of our foreign assistance and combine it, it's barely 1% of the federal budget. in the great scheme of things in washington, it doesn't break the bank. and so both condoleezza rice and hillary clinton said to the congress, please, hire 1,000 more officers. it will not break the bank. and neither of them was able to truly succeed, and i supported both of them for trying to do that, and i hope secretary kerry will do that as well. >> if the arc of history bends toward peace, in the middle east does patience and diplomacy imply generational change in an

evolution, and what is happening in terms of the younger generations in the middle east and their expectations about peace? >> that recalls this beautiful 19th century quote from reverend theodore parker, an abolitionist in boston and martin luther king used this quote in the civil rights movement. the arc of the moral universe is long, but be it bends towards justice. and it's a beautiful way of thinking about progress sometimes having to take generations or even centuries in the case of african-americans in the civil rights movement. and that may be one framework for us in the middle east. it's going to be a long process. these countries have not known pluralism or really the rule of law, and most of them have not known democracy. and so overnight to go from those incredibly hopeful moment, you remember them? january of 2011, tahrir square, to a fully-functioning democracy

like ours is not going to happen. it's going to be generations, i think. but if you pick up theodore parker and martin luther king, if you believe that perhaps at the end justice as economic prosperity, as freedom, that's what they need to work for. so we need to insert ourselves along the continuum as we can through aid, through attention, through friendships, through some tough love. and right now we need to give the egyptian government a lot of tough love. they've shot too many people in the streets of cairo and alexandria who are merely demonstrating, not acting violently, over the last couple weeks. we're going to have to pick and choose along the way how we intervene, because at the end of it we and they want to see a better future. here's another image that helps me to understand it. think of a play. think of a five-act play. the egyptians, syrians,

tunisians, jordanians might be at the end of act one of a five-act play that isn't going to end for 30 or 40 years. so we have to have patience, and we have to stay with those people who support freedom, democracy, tolerance, religious pluralism. that's really important for us to do. and we should have, finally, a little bit of humility because, remember, between 1783 and 1789 -- so between the end of the revolution when we signed the treaty of paste and the beginning finish of paris and the beginning of the george washington administration, we tried the article ofs of confederation. we didn't really have a central government, we didn't have a currency, we didn't have an army. disaster. and you can see that all of our history up to 2013 is trying to perfect, you know, the more perfect union that jefferson talked about. we just gave, 40 years ago,

fundamental political rights to him froms. just 40 years ago. 50 years ago, excuse me, in the civil rights and voting rights act of '64 and '65. we have a long way to go on religious tolerance in this country, on rights for gay and lesbian people, for african-americans. so we're still building our union, and we're 237 years into it. that kind of more patient framework will allow us to stay with the people of the middle east maybe over this long course of history ahead. >> okay. the closure of the embassies, though, you think about the work of most of the people in embassies, it's to get out of the embassy, to meet with people, to talk about economic act ativities, to help -- activities, to help people form volunteer groups, to influence the creation of society. and yet in of the countries where it's really important that that infrastructure get built, we have genuine safety issues about members of your service

being out doing that level of work when that level of work is exactly what they need. so what's your feeling about that, and how do we get beyond that? >> yeah. and we were talking about this before we came on stage today. i don't remember anything like this. we've been battling terrorists globally for about 35 years. it was always part of what we did overseas to protect our people, protect american citizens too. we would sometimes close an embassy end sodically if there was a thread, but to close 19 embassies for an entire week, i mean, i fully support what the administration has done. i assume they have a very good reason for doing it, and may our diplomats and citizens be safe in those countries. and that does bring us back to today's lecture. i'm for diplomacy. i'm also more our military. and there's one way to undercut terrorist groups, is to target their moral arguments because they're specious, and they're evil.

and to outflank them economically and to try to build diplomatic coalitions. but another way is to fight them. as president obama continues to do on the afghan/pakistan border in yemen, and i support him doing that. we've got to employ all of our national strength to defeat this threat. it's not one threat, it's lots of different groups, and that's why, apparently, we closed our embassies in 19 countries. >> you comment on -- can you comment on diplomacy and curbing illegal immigration? are walls at the border really effective? >> oh, boy. that's a tough question. um, i would say, obviously, part of the diplomacy that we have with canada, our largest, the largest undefended border in the world, and with mexico is to regulate the flow of people, citizens, visitors, visa holders, illegals that cross borders. that's a big part of what we in

the state department work on. i've never seen immigration as a problem. immigration. in fact, the very heart of our country. and i really hope that congress will be able to agree on a bipartisan basis on an immigration bill that would legalize the 11-12 million largely mexican-americans in the united states. and we should see them -- [applause] we should see them as people who are already building america, pause they live with us. -- because they live with us. and their kids are in our schools, and their kids are our hope for the future. so, yes, our diplomacy and our diplomats have an obligation to defend our borders, and we don't want to see illegal immigration, and we should try to stop illegal immigration. but the immigration bill deals with the people already in the country. >> ladies and gentlemen, nick burns. [applause]

>> thank you. [applause] >> well, this morning we've been planning to bring you live coverage of a session on unmanned drones and private implications hosted by the association for unmanned vehicle systems international. we are working onsetting some technical issues, so we may not are that for you this morning, although we'll continue to work to bring it to you. there is another session set, however, for this afternoon with remarks from attorneys and drone manufacturers at 1 p.m. eastern live here on c-span2. coming up tonight at 7:10, charles c.w. cook to discuss his article, "remington, usa." it's about the history of gun manufacturing here in the united states tonight at 7:10 eastern here on c-span2. also booktv in prime time continues tonight with three books recommended by our viewers. at 8 p.m.,-and-a-half that yell

fill brink discusses "bunker hill." at 8:50, a biography of simone bowl very written by marie arana, and at 9:50, "gettysburg: the last invasion." that's all coming up tonight with booktv in prime time here at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> one of the things that i looked at as i was with exploring this was a lot of the county records in which these colleges, the counties where these colleges are. and when you look at the colonial county records, very often you'll have the name of the president or the name of the professor and then listed with their taxable property. >> all right. >> will be an enslaved perp or two or three. >> did students bring -- >> yes, students also -- >> they brought their employees to school with them? >> if you look at the name of the president and then three lines over, part of his taxable

property is an enslaved person. what you'll often have is, for instance, in the case of princeton or harvard, you'll actually have the president's name, ditto the college. when, in the sort of common knowledge of the town, of the local area the president and the college are kind of inseparable anyway. >> craig stephen wilder on the connection between elite universities and a past intertwined with slavery sunday night at 9 on "after words," part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> yesterday the national press club's press freedom committee examined the role of government public affairs offices and whether they help or hinder transparency today. journalists and former government public affairs officials took part in the conversation and agreed that trust and good communication are crucial nod to get -- in order to get information out to the public. john donnelly, who is the committee's chair, moderates this discussion.

it's about 90 minutes. >> welcome to the national press club and to this evening's discussion of whether or not federal public affairs offices have become a hindrance more than a help to press freedom and open government. or, if you like, our shorter title, "hacks v. flaks." my name is john donnelly, i'm a reporter with "congressional quarterly" and "roll call," and i'm chairman of the national press club's press freedom committee which is sponsoring tonight's event along with the young members committee. you can find out more about the national press club and membership therein at press.org. we are the leading organization in the world more journalists. tonight's event is being broadcast, webcast on that site. it'll be archived there later. it's also being broadcast on c-span2 right now. if you are following us on twitter, the handle is

@pressclubd.c., and the hash tag is open government. and one other sort of programming note, the panelist presentations will be available at a web site called paos and reporters. that's paos as in public affairs officers and reporters.blogspot.com. i want to say, first of all, that as a reporter i should disclose that i'm biased in favor of as much openness and disclosure as possible and as few rules as possible about who can talk to reporters in the federal government and how. but i also recognize -- and i really mean this -- that public affairs has an indispensable job to do. but i'd like to make a few comments just to set the stage for tonight's event. our discussion tonight is about the growing and some say harmful role played by public affairs offices in the federal government. now, the complaints that we hear

from reporters are about widespread requirements that paos, public affairs officers, must be present during interviews, that questions be written in advance and only certain people can be made available to say certain things. and what is arguably most chilling to the flow of information to the public are federal rules, as at the pentagon, require their employees to only speak to reporters through official public affairs channels. now, the courts have aptly sided with these rules. they have found that government employees have an unbridled first amendment right to free speech when they're talking about actual public information. there was a 2006 supreme court ruling. it was a narrow decision, 5-4. garcetti v -- [inaudible]

in any event, that was their ruling. so legally speak, to a nonlawyer anyway, it doesn't appear these rules are going anywhere. now sometimes, as i mentioned in the pentagon, it's a hard and fast requirement, and there's the implied disciplinary results if you're an employee who talks to reporters offline. but in agencies the rules merely encourage but don't require. but no matter which way it happens, the message seems to be that it's not good for your career to talk to a reporter offline even if the subject isn't classified or proprietary. now, a few weeks ago we add the former nsa official turned whistleblower thomas brake here at a press club luncheon, and he said that once employees are seeking to retain or renew security clearances and they're interviewed by investigators, one of the questions that they're asked at least some of the time is if you have ever had unlawful contact with a reporter. not unauthorized contact, but

any unauthorized contact. to a lot of us, that was disturbing because we thought by merely asking that question in that context they're sending the message, intentional or not, that speaking to the press offline is forbidden and could even make you a security risk. now, obviously, the bradley manning and edward snowden leaks have raised the temperature on issue considerably, particularly in the security agencies. the no leaks message was made in a really hard core way. in a june 2012 defense department document, it was about a so-called insider threat program, and it was obtained recently by mcclap news, and it said, quote: leaking is tantamount to leaking the enemies of the united states, closed quote. now, if that was equally applied, there would be a lot of senior administration officials in this administration and previous ones that would be in a lot of trouble.

but, of course, it's not equally applied. the net effect of all this, it's a real deterrent to people speaking with the press outside of official channels. and let's face it, speaking to people outside of official channels sometimes has to happen, often has to happen for the truth to come out, truth that we need to hear as americans. now, having said all that, let me be clear about a couple things. we reporters appreciate public affairs offices when they help, and today very, very often do. and i don't know anyone who wants to do away with these offices. and even if they did want it, it ain't going to happen. so that's not on table for discussion here, just like the rules governing what government employees can say and can't say, their contacts with reporters. it's probably not going anywhere. most reporters understand it's the job of public affairs to make sure that an agency's point of view is expressed coherently and that rogue voices are not confused with official policy. now, the pentagon -- and i'm

going to turn and introduce our panel in one second, but my last thought here is the pentagon has an interesting item in what they call their statement of principles about relations with the media. and it says that public affairs officers should, quote: act as liaisons, but should not interfere with the reporting process. that sounds like a great summary to me of where we should end up. of course, everyone here would probably agree with that, the rub comes in defining what constitutes interference. and i hope we get some answers here tonight. so here's how it's going to work. i'm going to introduce our panel, and then i'm going to give each of them a few minutes to weigh in with their overall take on the issue, and then we'll have some q&a time among ourselves up here, and then we'll open it up to you all in the audience. so now let's go ahead and meet our panel. working this way down. carolyn carlson, a former associated press reporter and

assistant professor of communication at kennesaw state university near atlanta and the author of two surveys on the relationship between public affairs staff and the press. and she's going to tell us about some of the surveys this evening. next is katherine foxhaul, a freelance reporter and a member of the press club press freedom committee who has extensively researched this issue. then comes linda peterson, managing editor of the valley journals of salt lake, the freedom of information chair for the society of professional journalists and the president of the utah foundation for open government. to my left and your right, tony fratto, managing partner at hamilton place strategies, a strategic communications and crisis management consultancy. tony's also an on-air contributor on the cnbc business news network and formerly deputy assistant to president george w. bush and principal deputy press

secretary. ask is john very coe, president-elect of the national association of government communicators. so starting with carolyn, let's hear what you have to say just to give us your overview on the subject. >> well, i'm going to tell you about a couple surveys that i conducted this year and the previous year that are relevant to the topic we're discussing tonight. first, i surveyed reporters who cover federal agencies here in washington. i got 146 respondents for a margin of error of about 7%. then i surveyed current and former members of the national association of government communicators. i got 154 responses for a margin of error of about 4.3%. i'm going to throw some numbers at you, but i want to wantfy the -- quantify the situation. my questions focused on the interviewing process. first, i want to talk about preapproval and routeing. 98% of public affairs officers

believe that they have a better idea than reporters about who in their agencies would be the best person to give an interview on a given topic. three-quarters of journalists report that they have to get approval from paos before they can interview an agency employee. and seven out of ten reporters say that they're requests for interviews are forwarded to to paos for selective routeing to whomever the paos suggest. so that's, that's the interviewing process. about half the reporters said that agencies will outright prohibit them from interviewing altogether at least some of the time, 18% says it happens most of the time. two-thirds of the paos say they feel justified in refusing to grant interviews when the agency's security is threatened or when it might reveal damaging information. three-fourths of paos know that journalists try to go

around them to contact staff members directly. nine out of ten, however, say that their staff members know and will refer the reporters to the pao when they've been contacted directly. and, of course, more than half of the reporters say that they do try to go around and circumvent the public affairs office at least some of the time. as far as the issue of trust, the part of paos say that there are no reporters that they trust enough to contact staff directly without going through the public affairs office. only about a third said that they had reporters that they would give free rein to contact staff without going through the public affairs office. and according to my open-ended comments, most of the time these were longtime beat reporters. in contrast, there were 40%, 39, actually, 39.6, i think, of the

paos said there were specific reporters that they prohibited the staff from talking to altogether due to problems with their satisfactories in the past -- with their stories in the past. 40% said there were specific reporters that they banned. in fact, 14% said there were whole media outlets that they would ban their staff members from talking to because of problems with their stories in the past. on the issue of monitoring, two-thirds of paos feel it is necessary to supervise and otherwise monitor interviews with members of the agency staff. 85% of reporters say that they get monitored at least some of the time. the way it breaks down is a third said some of the time, a third said most of the time and 16 said all of the time they get monitored. three-fourths of paos agree that monitoring the interviews is a good way to make sure that their agency staff is quoted correctly in the story.

and -- >> we'll leave this program at point to go live now to the association for unmanned vehicle systems international. they're hosting a conference on unmanned drones and privacy implications. about to speak now is explorer bill stone. this is just getting underway. >> so a robot walks into a bar, on the other hands a beer and -- orders a beer and sits down next to ray. the bartender says, we don't allow robots in here. ray raises an eyebrow, and he looks at the bartender and says, but soon you will. for those who don't believe or don't know about the singularity, read ray's book. the fact is that bot is are here today. we are planning missions around them, and let's just take a quick poll here. how many of you here in the

audience have one of these on your car or truck and mean it? oops. gotta switch to a different control system. it's good to be with people who understand me and welcome to auvsi 2013. i'd like to take the next 30 minutes to talk to you about some of the manned exploration projects i've been involved with, some of the autonomous systems that i've helped design and where i think all this is going, how bots are going to figure in our lives realistically over the next few decades. but first, i want to take you underground. i started off as a high school kid exploring caves, and that got me interested in exploration in general, and i continue to spend a lot of time exploring deep caves in southern mexico and elsewhere. you're looking at a chunk of limestone nearly 3,000 meters high-rising out of the coastal plane of mexico. the inside of that mountain is

literally hollow. over the past four decades, i ended up working in some of the largest, deepest cave systems in the world here inside this mountain and in others like it, places humans are still exploring. now, these aren't the kind of places you take your family and kids. they're exceedingly dangerous. the people who are involved are almost a mix of olympic-class athletes and astronauts. that's why they remain unexplored. we don't know what's coming next. we survey what we discover and make maps by hand the old-fashioned way. the limits of exploration now far exceed human endurance. we measure remoteness in terms of the number of days of travel needed to reach the end of previous work. this past spring we were at a place called j3 on an international project involving 70 people from 14 countries.

we ultimately set camp five at the most remote point reached by humans inside this planet. it took seven days minimum for an exploration party to get there. now, not all caves are air-filled, some of them are water-filled, and if you work long enough in deep caves, you eventually reach a point where strata collects water. then you need life support equipment, diving equipment to explore further. be if you, if you keep working in places like these, eventually you reach a point where even standard diving equipment isn't enough, doesn't give you enough range. we tried using composite tanks, we built the first high pressure diving systems in 1980 with the help from nasa. the idea was you could pack more molecules in there, but in the end, we just couldn't carry

enough tanks. so what's next? how could you extend the range even further? i ended up designing an advanced form of diving equipment called a rebreather, technically it's a closed cycle life support system. they extend range underwater by recycling the unused oxygen in your exhaled breath and then removing the carbon dioxide. that's a somewhat simplistic explanation. these things are as complicated as a nasa eva-pls backpack. some of them have as many as six computers onboard running. the huge prototype was huge, and it took several people to help the diver get into it. in december of 1987, i used this gadget and spent 4 hours continuously $24 hours continuously underwater. it was half stunt, half scientific experiment. we learned about what equipment does and what it can't do. in the past 25 years, we've

developed six more generations of that device, and each time it's gotten smaller. in 2013 this is a commercial create-available device, it's called the poe sigh done march 6. you can lift it up with one hand, it's like a briefcase, and spend six hours with it underwater independent of depth. we used it just this past spring in j2 where we put people through over a kilometer of underwearmt tunnels starting at a depp depth of 4,400 feet below the surface. it plays over to other things like bots. here's a video i'm going to show here taken at j2 actually for one of the training exercises for j2 just last spring. now, one of the interesting

things about this is that if you look at the picture, don't listen to the soundtrack, you'll notice that there's nothing happening. there's no bubbles coming off of this diver, and that's the sign of a correctly functioning closed cycle life support system. the bubbles, actually, are from a safety diver and film photographer taking these images, and that's kind of a sign of the inefficiencies of the past. typically, if the depths we're working these things are 200 times more efficient. so what about bots? we're getting there. all this dive gear helps humans map further, better, faster. but what happens when you try to dive a tunnel where the water is murky, n. ors the visibility might be zero? what about when the walls are so far apart that you can't even see them? there's a system of underwater caves in florida called what cull la springs. in 1998 we developed an underwater mapper to help explore this place. basically, it was a collection of parts, it was a high grade

imu, ring laser gyro, punch custom sonar units. divers wearing rebreathers drove this through tunnels, tunnels were like 100 meters deep. missions were lasting 24 hours. what i'm going to show you next is a short video from an old national geographic special on this project that gives you a flavor of what it was like to drive that stuff. ♪ ♪ >> exploration is the process of putting your foot in places where humans have never stepped before. this is where the last little nugget of totally -- [inaudible] territory remains on this planet. to experience it a privilege. ♪ ♪ >> each one of these projects gave us ideas for the next step. what we ended up producing at the end of that was the first 3-d cave map. this was a really meaningful data set to people concerned

with florida groundwater, and if anybody's read the news lately, that's a big deal down there when you have large amounts of condominiums fall into the earth near disney world. now for the first time they can actually see where these things go, how big they are and importantly in the place of place like orlando, how close they are to the surface. now, when you run a vehicle test program like this, there's always some good natured ribbing between the engineers and the people who operate these things, in this case divers. someone observed to me one time that world class cave divers are kind of like test pilots, you know? they're out there on the edge, and they also have egos the height of montana rest. conversely, one of the most important quotes came from an engineer, and he came to me privately afterwards, and he said, you know, if we had had another million dollars in funding and another year, we

wouldn't have needed those divers. and i knew he was right. and that was kind of a demarcation point for me. be i had the privilege in the 1990s of working with jimmal bass at nist. through jim and others i learned many of the tricks of autonomous systems including machine vision, imu and gps-based vehicle control systems. we did extensive work on the use of realtime radar to find, allow vehicles through unstructured environments. today these are pretty common. google is using these ideas in their mapping vehicles, but back then it was kind of the frontier. it was this work that planted ideas in my mind for 3-d space navigation. but at the time we were working with ugvs, so the idea kind of sat waiting for the right project. i was still thinking about that

quote from wakulla when i was asked to head up a team for a land mission. for those who are undollar with this, this is a clip we put together for national geographic. shows an ice penetrator descending through the icecap of europa and somewhere between 3-14 kilometers down it kicks out what we refer to as a carrier vehicle or a fast mover, and on top of that are marsupial microbots that you send off into dangerous places to go looking for life. there are a lot of people who believe this mission has the highest probability of finding life off this planet, far more so than on mars. ♪ ♪ >> one of the, one of the biggest challenges of a europa mission is that it involves a

completely unknown, vast place in which you have to explore. in this case it's a planet-wide subsurface ocean. and doing so with no external navigation aiding. everybody who runs autonomous vehicles takes for granted that we have gps. imagine that we didn't have any of that, what do you do? i formed a small company, and we got funded to test out some ideas for autonomous mapping in 2004. the vehicle was called depth x, and it was designed around the concept of 3-d realtime slam. we had the opportunity to basically take physics and use that to design the vehicle around it. and so that's what you see in this picture right here. it was about the size of a smart car and weighed a metric ton. we wanted to test it somewhere impressive, somewhere unexplored. in northern mexico is a place that's the world's deepest

hydrothermal spring. this is another great example of a place where human exploration falls short. experts had tried to dive it, in fact, my diving mentor and a great friend, a man named sheck, lost his life trying to dive to the bottom of this place. so we knew that it was potentially deeper than 300 meters. it is used for navigation on the way home. each of these little yellow beams you see are the statistically valid sonar hits. we had a rejection algorithm going on to make sure we had ground truth, and the mission was basically to keep the vehicle at the center of this

void and navigate back up on that yellow trajectory you see right there. but until it did that, nobody knew anything about this place, so it was effectively doing it own exlo ration. exploration. by the end of that project, depthx autonomously mapped every sinkhole in that system and created great biological samples. in fact, those samples were later shown to detect four new phyla of bacteria at a time when fewer than 900 were known -- 100 were known on earth. we have never been perceived to know what existed in these places. so what's next? where else could you take a mapping auv and do interesting science? this is lake bonnie in antarctica. the person standing there is on a four-meter-thick layer of ice

that covers a 40-meter-deep lake. it's an important site for environmental research. in fact, nsf has funded continuing research there for over 25 years. but every time a scientist wants to take data, they've got to drive out in an auv, drill a hole through the ice, lower a small bunch of sensors, and even on a good day -- a good day is -50c -- to get data is a great operation, and you come back exhausted. i know, i've been there. an antarctic scientist approached me at the end of depthx and said, hey, i need to talk to you. we got funded to modify depthx into a vehicle called endurance. the objective was to demonstrate large scale autonomous exploration and 3-d chemistry mapping in a subglacial lake. those two things, actually, were the precursor hierarchy steps of exploring europa. the hierarchy goes explore, map,

build 3-d sock sill space recommendations of the water chemistry and then take gradients and drive to places where there's high energy content. that's where microbes like to live. so this was a test, basically, for that part of the stage of the mission. from 2008 to 2010, we spent a total of six months in antarctica with endurance mapping and characterizing the lake. the bot was programmed to hover just below the icecap a few meters above an ancient and preserved stratified chemical layer. the international environmental committee that approved the mission said that we weren't allowed to go into the stratified -- [inaudible] because we'd stir up millions of years of chemical history down there. so we had to come up with another way to handle that. and what we did was to build a gadget, a second tear robotic

system called a profiler to send a sensor payload down to the bottom at predetermined coordinates. the idea was to build this on the basis of marching cubes like you do in cat scanning to build isosurfaces of the chemistry when you were done. so we grid dropped the lake. here's a video. ♪ ♪ >> where cut down the sound there. here's a video of the mission readiness review test at johnson space center showing how the chemistry profiler works. so we moved to a predetermined grid point, we dropped this gadget vertically down through the stratified layer, we're making thousands of measurements a second, bring it up, and then we move to the next grid point and drop again. over the course of the six months in antarctica, we mapped over 80 kilometers in the lake and built the highest resolution map of any an arctic feature. the largest mission took us out

over two kilometers ohs of the access hill and through the narrows, this big cliff you see here, where robert falcon scott's exploration party first ventured in 1903. it's interesting to note that the lake has risen 16 meters since scott was there, and when we finished this mission that day, we all sat around there musing over a font. and the wonderment was what would scott have thought if he had known that 106 years later a robot would be hovering where they stood making that measurement? most difficult part of endurance was finding etc. way home -- its way home. this is the final stage here. of we're using machine vision to lock on to an oscillating culminated light beam, and what the bot does here is it's looking for a bright source of light, but every peck of light that you see -- every speck of light that you see in an image,

it's processing looking for a frequency lock. and when it hits the exact one, it says that's the right one, and rides the beam up the hole. at the end of the project, we had half a billion measurements and hundreds of chemistry profiles. now, however, instead of standing out there in the wind and cold wondering what the lake looks like underneath the icecap, you can fly through an immersive 3-d map in the comfort of the cave #-r -- ii facility. it's awesome for anybody who needs to look at 3-d data. we're looking at using this technology at mission control for future projects to give you an idea how it looks. it's kind of like something off the bridge of the starship enterprise. so we're flying through a data set here. the vertical bars are the chemistry profiler, and we can actually click on any of those and see what the chemistry

measurements were, hook at the profile -- look at the profile. anything like that. it's a great way to deal with big data sets. at the end of endurance can, we said what's next? when you're keeling with awe on the now finish autonomous systems as john aaron is famously quoted in apollo and, power is everything. it's what controls how far we can go, it's what controls how fast and how deep we can go, how many onboard systems we can power. now, we usually run fiber optic data links to our bots. the vehicles are running awe on autonomously, but we like to watch over their shoulder as they collect data. we call it supervised awe on au. and when we started to think about it, that fiber optic line is actually transmitting a small amount of energy in the form of foe tons between the modulators that send the day. laser diodes that fire foe tons

through the glass fiber, and that fiber can be kilometers long with very low losses. and the more we started to wonder how photons could you send down a fiber, and the answer that came back from physics is a lot, a huge amount. enough

>> it's built around this concept of using photons instead of electricity or nuclear power plants. most people thought it was impossible. to give you a sense of the thinking at the time, here's a secretly-recorded video of a board meeting at one of the aerospace giants who will remain nameless for the purposes of this lecture. >> you know, i have one simple request, and that is to have sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads. now, my crony informs me that can't be dead. can you remind me what i pay you people for? honestly, throw me a bone here. >> clearly, they didn't have the right rapid prototyping team in house. so where are we really? in 1964, james vaughn faced certain death by laser in this famous scene.

in reality, the power levels available back then were measured in milliwatts, but they made for some great the yachtly call lines. -- theatrical lines. today you can buy an industrial laser that can slice a car in half at 500 meters. we leapt forward on that point. here are some of the technologies that we have developed for value kerry. let me discuss two of the most important ones. the vehicle carries -- get the button right here. there we go. the vehicle carries an onboard optical wave guide spooler that trails out as the vehicle moves forward. for a cryob with ot mission, you have to do it that way. you can't feed a line over the surface like you might be able to do on a ship. why? because you start at -60 degrees

at the south pole, and the ice refreezes behind the vehicle in a matter of a minutes. so that's the key, you have the feed the power line out from the vehicle. we've already tested these to power transfer, a nexus of 10 kilowatts, and fully expect to achieve 100 kilowatts in the next few years. this here is the heart of valkyrie, this is what melts true the icecap. we back convert about 20% of the power to electricity, enough to run all the onboard vehicle systems and the hot water pump jets. when we reach the subglacial lake, as we will in the south pole mission after three kilometers of ice, those same pump jets will serve as thrusters for an autonomous underwater vehicle. so in this sense, valkyrie is also the first laser-powered auv. so what's next? the final piece in the europ mission is a long range character vehicle that is inserted into the ocean by the

cryobot. miniaturized descendants of endurance are carried for investigation of dangerous places, and we're going to i've some of these concepts out in a new vehicle we have called artemus. artemus got the green light this year from nasa when it became clear that ice-penetrating radar would be the prime science interrupt on the europ a/clipper mission. and the purpose is to find out just how thick the icecap is and what lives underneath. until artemus, no one had a way to calibrate ice-penetrating radar. that includes chemistry as well as topography. as part of the nasa simple mission, the ipr will be flown over the roth ice shelf. meanwhile, the endurance vehicle will fly under the ice shelf

building detailed up and down look symmetry maps and testing new standoff detection centers. now, the ross ice shelf is huge, and what lies below is completely unknown. here's another place where human exploration doesn't cut it. in fact, if you look at it, it's actually the world's largest cave. in 2015 we're scheduled to go there for four months and map a senate portion of it. starting from mcmurdo station. so what's next? how many people here have seen this image? now, when i grew up, i was told that my generation would be the ones that would explore the moon and go beyond. we would be the ones that would pick up and carry on the work started by neil and buzz. the problem is the pure science and drama can only drive things so far. the main motivation for going back to the moon is not national

prestige, it is economics. what they didn't know in the days of apollo is the polar craters of the moon are vast repositories for water ice, ice that has been deposited bit by bit over the last few billion years. it's kind of like sediment tear deposition on the ocean. the bottom of these craters are sitting at 30 degrees calvin, and the ice can't escape back out once it condenses down. i'm one of the founders of the shackleton energy company, and our goal is to set up industrial mining operations at the moon's south pole. our aim is to collect that ice and sell the water in low earth orbit. not on earth, but in low earth orbit. my colleagues and i have quietly organized an international team now numbering in excess of 140 people to make this happen. why? think of it as an orbiting gas

station. it allows space-faring nations to finally expand exploration beyond the earth-moon system and also to stay and do things in orbit such as space tourism. for anybody who thinks that it's free living in orbit be, think about what happens to your house if you don't pay taxes. there's somebody out there who's always going to reclaim things, and that's what you have to do with anything in leo. you've got to pay the piper and reboost and provide, if you don't have to bring things up from cape kennedy, things get a lot more interesting in terms of ability to do things in place. how do we get the ice? autonomous systems are going to be involved at every step of the way. the first risk reduction step is going to involve reusable robotic landers known as hoppers. these are devices that can land on the moon, and unlike the lunar limb of apollo days, maneuver back over to alternative sites to go looking

for things. they will carry with them an industrial scale, autonomous prospecting vehicle that will build resource maps for the mining phase. now, you'll notice in all of this talk here that i have not mentioned government. we're not using government funds. this is going to be purely privately funded, and so the results of these resource maps are going to be proprietary. after prospecting, human-tended automated production mining machinery will begin extracting resources. the idea is to start with somewhere between six and nine humans operating and controlling autonomous systems for extracting water and other volatiles out of the regular lues, processing that into its constituents, liquid hydrogen and oxygen by condensation. at -30k, you just let it condense out.

we have an advantage in this program that no nation has. we are starting with a clean slate and a lot of proven technologies thanks to organizations like nasa over the past 50 years. the entire enterprise operates exoatmosphereicly which means we can reuse and repair things rather than throwing away everything from every mission like we do now. so we're making key functionalities modular instead of having modular tanks, modular propulsion packages, guidance packages, modular habitats. the idea is to allow worker toss reaaccessible bl these things -- reassemble these things and keep repairing with a 30, 40-year life span. where it will be available for sale, all nations on a first come, first served basis. now, this is a different way of thinking about doing things in

space. in our vision workers will be living there and working there the same way oil rig workers live and work on a platform in the north sea right now. when this happens, it will be the ultimate manifestation of human endeavor made possible by autonomous systems. that's what we're headed -- that's where we're headed, and that's where i want to be. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, dr. stone, for joining us today and for inspiring us both with your experiences and your ideas. i'd now like to bring to the stage our next speaker who faces challenges of an entirely different sort. lieutenant general james o.

barkley iii is the army deputy chief of staff g8. as most of you will know, g8's responsible for matching army's resources with its plans and strategies, and given the events of the past several years, he must be reminded time and again of the ancient chinese curse may you live in interesting times. prior to assuming the g8 bill with et in july 2012, lieutenant general barclay served as assistant deputy chief of staff. he's had numerous commands including commanding journal, united states army aviation station of excellence, aviation brigade and later chief of staff of the 4th infantry division mechanized during operation iraqi freedom and battalion command in the 10th mountain division. he is a 1978 graduate of the united states military academy at west point, a graduate of the army command and general staff college and a 1998 graduate of

the united states naval war college. he has been kind enough to consent to ask -- to answer some questions at the end of his talk, so we have some microphones set up. so be thinking about what you'd like to ask the general about. please welcome lieutenant general barkley. [applause] >> first of all, he said i was willing to take some questions. notice how he said take, he didn't say i would answer questions. i'll do the best, though, at the end of this. again, thanks for having me out today. the auvsi, i mean, this is my first time to come to one of these, but it gives me an opportunity to give you some of the things that we're thinking about at the army level and where we're going to go.

as i start speaking today, we have to remember kind of where we've been the last 10 or 12 years, and that really sets the stage for what we want to do in the future. you know, if you look at the past 10 or 12 years and the war fight we've been in, unmanned systems both air and ground have really come to life and have developed at a pace that i dare say that many folks would have thought unimaginable back in the late '90s as we were trying to get our arms around where we were going to go with the unmanned systems technology. but as we look back on what we have accomplished, i will tell you that we have an even bigger challenge in the future, and that's to leverage all of this knowledge that we've learned and put it against where we want to go and lay out the road map. and when i was down at fort rucker, we developed a uas road map, and i was really focusing

on the unmanned aerial systems because of my job at rucker, and that's when it came to light to me that even though we were dealing with a day-to-day war and trying to develop and field and bring capabilities to the war fighter, we didn't really have a plan for what we were going to do further out in the future and how we were going to continue to integrate and develop systems and improve the capabilities of those war fighters. and in the unmanned systems at the uas level, you can see over the last 10 or 12 years we've kind of worked at three levels. we worked at the company level and kind of the raven was the uas that kind of drove us down those lines. and we've gotten great success, great utilization out of that, and it has provided a significant amount of information to those company-level commanders in the areas of counteried and base

security. at the brigade level as we were coming in today, we were talking about the shadow. i happened to be at fort hood when we were fielding the air, we were bringing those first ones in and using them and then taking those in, we were the first unit to take them into iraq, the shadow platforms. and be then later on we can see what it has done. but it has continued to move forward. now we're linking the shadow with manned/unmanned teaming. at first it was independently controlled and operated, and now we're integrating it with our other manned systems. and at division level over the last several years we've been working on the armed reconnaissance, and, of course, manned/unmanned teaming. in the future we're looking to do some of these things on the airside, again, focusing on the company through battalion. we've got the raven, and in some of the other areas we're looking at are the future microair vehicles and being able to put

these things, the small ones, the microair vehicles that are much smaller giving you different capabilities other than just doing an orbit bo you. being able to maneuver, hover and get in in small, tight places and look at those. but again, it's got to be transportable by an individual and also at the same time, as he said introducing me, it has to be affordable. at the brigade level with shadow, we'll continuing to do the tcdl. we're looking to get that in fy-14, and at the gray eagle division level, we're looking at universal ground control station, and that's on target for fy-15. and as we started fielding the gray eagle and looking at the mi-isr configurations, you know, we're going to look at moving some of those gray eagle into those mi formations and those

aerial exploitation battalions. so the gray eagle, we'll be looking to do some integration of some of those sensors and processers onto those platforms as we field those systems. now, on the ugs side, ground side, that probably has not gotten as much attention as the aerial side. i mean, it's nice, and, you know, everyone likes to talk about those aviation systems that fly overhead, and you launch and throw by hand and control. but it's really where the nug work has been done and a lot of great work has been done on the ground side. and they've proven themselves in the last ten years on the battlefield. whether it was in the eod arena, in the counter-ied or in route clearance, i mean, it has been the game changer when it comes to protecting soldiers and taking care of them. at the company battalion level, we've had individual transportable, a lot of these were cot systems, the packbots,

and they've been focused on, again, as i said, eod. and then at the brigade vehicle transportable, the talons are some of the examples there. and then, of course, we've got the applique systems which are the husky-mounted detection system. and we talk about autonomous mobility applique systems, and it was interesting, the previous speaker talked about autonomy. but then at the, you know, he used a term that was supervised autonomy. i mean, that's, again, that was -- i thought it was interesting, and this is something that we've looked at to be truly autonomous, i mean, that is something in the future that we're looking at where you can program mission sets, and it can go out and do the things that it needs to do without being tethered, without having someone looking through a camera or a tv screen. but you can send it out and conduct a mission set. so that, to me, autonomous --

and this is something, i think, is a challenge for this body is we look to the future to develop those things about autonomy and what that means to the different users. some of the things we're looking at on the ground side, of course, is a common robotic system, and part of that, you know, we're working that with the marine corps now as a joint program to try to, again, consolidate efforts which at the end of the day helps us save dollars when we can get several different services going after this. we're also looking at a squad multipurpose equipment transport. and, again, that's one of those things that the autonomy comes into play as you're trying to develop something that will give the lowest level of the squad some capability to move around the battlefield and carry the stuff that it needs. also provide power and then network extension. and, of course, the managed systems which are those that, again, as we try to define what those mean both on the airside

and the ground side, just what we're looking for, how big, what do we want it to do. is it pocket -- do you put it in your pocket? is it rucksack? does it come with a backpack that, you know, contains it? those are some of the things we're trying to work at. then at the brigade and above, we're looking at the -- note again i say semi-autonomous -- and automated convoy operations. again, this is one of those areas where we're trying to define and look at what is autonomous, semi-autonomous and what does that mean and where do we want to go with us and how do we want it to provide us those capabilities as we move into the future? but all of this that i've just talked about that we've done in the past and how we're trying to link it to the future is dependent upon be the resources that we will have available as an army as we move forward. so as i'm taking a look at our modernization road map of the future for the army, some of the things that i have to consider as we're looking at what we want

to get after. first of all, we have to be able to provide an affordable, mod be earnized force -- modernized force both that is manned and unmanned and that can team together. and as we do this, what we're looking to accomplish is to improve not only what it brings to the soldiers, but also those systems the protection, persistence, endiewrnlings and autonomy. and, again, there comes the word autonomy and how we define that and how we want to get after that. at what level with which systems, the degree that we want to accomplish the autonomy or semi-autonomous aspects. and while we're doing this, we also have to identify the cost and capability thresholds. the cost and capability thresholds are truly interesting because they compete with each other. you know, cost defines where we're going, and it also helps us define just what capability

level we need or can afford to get after in the next few years. and all the while we're doing this, we want to improve effectiveness and efficiency. and some of the things we're looking at in improving effectiveness and efficiency is commonality, interoperability and among lairty. those are the three key things we need to focus on as we're looking to become more effective and efficient when it comes to unmanned systems. and while we're doing this, we know that, as i said, a lot of those ground systems, you know, most of -- or about all of them were cut, we know it's very important that we leverage the commercial technology, the funds that you put into research and development and how that assists us as we try to make decisions and move forward. and then gradually start to introduce some of these systems, because as we're, as we're moving forward and developing the capabilities that become

more autonomous, you know, there's always that fear of will it work. there's not a man in the loop. can it do the job? what -- is it fail safe? so as we look at this, we've got to be able to develop those definitions and parameters that will drive us to move to that truly autonomous type of operation. and then finally, as we're looking to the future, some of the things we have to look at with the cost perspective is contractor logistics support. as you know in the past not only in our unmanned systems, but in a lot of our manned systems we went with the cos to provide us the maintenance for different types of systems, both manned and unmanned. but as we move to the future, again, looking at costs, we're going to have to be very cautious about how we go into this, and that's where industry's going to have to help us as we look at managing those costs, whether it's done through contractor logistics or whether we have to go back and look at

how we develop the military organic capability to do that type of maintenance and work on those. so those are some of the things as we move into the future that we're trying to look forward to and put our arms around and develop. now, of course, as we move forward, we all know that we've got challenges in the unmanned systems arena. i don't know if you were, have noticed, but it was announced several weeks ago again where we sold off some of our frequencies to industry. well, we all know that the bandwidth and the frequencies are very important to the unmanned systems. so, again, as we start, the nation starts to sell that debate money to put against other bills that it has because that brings money in, as you know, you've got a lot of folks out there that want to buy it and use it whether in phones or satellites or all that to use that. so that will be a challenge for

us to insure that we protect enough of that bandwidth to whereas we expand. and that to me, again, i'm not for sure we have balanced that and taken a long look forward to kind of see exactly what is the bandwidth spectrum that we're going to have and how far do we think we're going to go in unmanned systems in the future as we build our, the army of the future. and then also you've got encroachment with other military equipment, you know? as we expend our network -- expand our network and we say that the network is what drives our soldiers, our squads, our companies, everyone is reaching out trying to put some kind of claim on the bandwidth. so that is an important part of what we're looking at. then, of course, we also have the willingness or unwillingness as we look across the federal government, state governments to allow us to operate within the united states