handle. thank you very much for being on booktv. >> guest: thank you. it's been a privilege. open the next "washington journal" michael discusses the latest development from syria. including what kind of role the u.s. and international community might play. after that, "the wall street journal" reporter damn began pal et ta on the upcoming battle over the debt limit. in mid october the government will reach the $16.7 trillion level.

but doesn't bend on its own. to secure the gain the country has made require cos vigilance, not complacence. whether it's by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring that the scale of justice work equally for all in the criminal justice system and not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails. it requires vying lance. this weekend on c-span from wednesday the 50th anniversary of the march on washington starting saturday morning at 10:00 p.m. eastern.

next a young professional and military leaders co-host a panel discussion on innovation and national secure it. i we'll hear about how inevaluaters and defense professionals can learn from each other and work together to keep americans safe. it's hosted by the group young professionals in foreign policy and disruptive thinkers d.c. this is an hour and a half. good evening. we are about to get started. hello and welcome to the panel discussion with the young professionals in foreign policy and disruptive thinkers. i'm erich and i'm the director of the d.c. chapter. >> i'm precilla i'm a programmer manager for young professionals and foreign policy. it's an organization with almost 10,000 members and locations not only here in washington, d.c., but also in new york city,

london and brussels. they are working to foster the next generation of leaders and foreign policy and national security. and you can find lot more about us on our website, you can also find us on facebook, on twitter, and instagram. certainly one of the things we very much enjoy doing is partnering with other great organizations response -- [inaudible] >> disrupted thinkers began in 2011 in san diego. we feature chapters in nashville, austin, and toronto, and d.c. our mission is to innovate by connecting military government leaders with entrepreneur and creative thinkers to provide the tools and networks we need to bring our disruptive thought in to action. we're bringing these two organizations together today because we both share a common belief that tomorrow's leaders in a foreign policy and national

secure try going to need the trait of entrepreneurship in order change their organization and agencies. >> now i would like that make two introduction. the first is my colleague to my right. kristin. she'll be live tweeting the event with the twitter account. and she'll also be using #-- the two organizations. you can use that #to live tweet yourself or later during q & a if you don't want to ask a question at the mic you can tweet it with the #. kristin will be monitoring the question and some of them from her mic for the panel list. now it's my pleasure to introduce our moderator. beth is the director for leadership and organizational study at the office of secretary of defense. she's been with the department of defense since 2004 when she

joined at the presidential management fellow. and also worked in afghanistan while she was there. prior to her time at dod she embarked in the public and private sector. it i don't know -- i know you had a chance to read her bee owe. she had a citizenship in frisk, worked in silicon valley and most recently thank you for being here, beth. over to you. >> thank you for having me. a very supportive fan and interruptive thinkers which i'm excited to learn more about. i should thank csis who i know plays them to a lot of these events which is great. and for the audience for taking their time to be here and

learn. i think this is an area of inquiry that is very open to people who want to make a change, and to make this kind of investment speak to that commitment of yours. so let me first praise the event organizers for bringing together a really diverse and interesting panel. in which i think reflect a key design element of innovation itself which is diversity. here on the panel you read their bio on the website, but we have many different perspectives and experiences represented from the civilian world and the military world. it from industry, from development, and also folks who are taking some time to study innovation. to stand back and reflect. so i really appreciate diversity being so acted upon in the

event. so just to set the scene, i was going make a couple of assertions. one is you are all here because you are committed to the national security of the united states and even more poetically a peaceful and globally expected world. my second assertion is that you're interested in responsible for or at the very barest minimum. you are certain somewhere deep in your gut that innovation is an imperative for companies, for governments, for organizations to for their own security but prosperous. even if you have no clue about how to go innovating in this space you're here because you care about it. and my third assertion is that you don't know for sure the answer to the question that was posed by the event organizers.

innovation and national security. do they mix? even though you don't know the answer, you're curious about exploring it. if all of these things are true, than we're in great shape. these are absolutely the necessary ingredients for having a mind-blowing conversation about this really important topic. and those, you know, you have the passion, you have the deep curiosity and the commitment to learn. i'm going offer the challenge to you and the panelists that we have a different kind of a cfghts than washington typical sees and that conversation is driven by our curiosity and our commitment. and we show that by being asking really great questions. in that spirit, i was googling today and found a fantastic

quotation from someone i have never heard of before. apparently he's a famous american poet and also translated dna -- he said a good question is never answered. it is not a tightened in place but a seed to be planted. and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of idea. i thought that was a nice theme for the way we go about learning about the topic. and just in case if you consider yourself a little less poet and a little more street fighter. i found one from bruce lee who said, a wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer. so please ask questions. if you forget how, i'll step in to help. okay.

so with that, i'm going turn over to the panelists. each of them will have about five minutes to introduce some idea to the floor. maybe share your take on the question that's been posed to all of us, then we'll open it up to a discussion. with that, go all the way down. >> okay. thank you for the introduction. my thanks to the organizers. this is a real interesting event for me. i know, none of the -- i know none of you. i know, none of the supporters, sponsor the panelist. i'm happy to be claimed by either and both groups as a disruptive thinker and young professional. i feel very welcomed. i will be quick. very simply, i believe and i hope that national security innovation makes very well will there are a lot of barrier and

constraint. i want to talk about in the q & a period. let me throw a few example in the development space where innovation is moving forward, i think, with a degree of intentionality we haven't seen in the past, and to kind of spark your interest in that area. then talk about what that landscape means for young professionals in foreign policy. so, i guess, i just think is actually -- you look at the last two administrations in the e her -- emergence of the 3-d thinking development of diplomacy and defense. development i talk about development. i implicitly assume it's in part and supportive of national security. so i'll stipulate that up front. the second these all come from

usaid experience. ic they are indicative throughout the development field if you look at donor practice. if you look at nongovernmental organizations, academics, philanthropists. they see innovation new use of technology in their application appropriately in the development space as ongoing and increasing. and i want to start out with the quote from the administrator who i believe this issue of bringing science and technology approaches to the development will be his enduring legacy. he said at the aspen institute last year we need to break out of top-down constitutionally driven model of development and adopt an open-source development model that empowers more people everywhere to tackling the challenges. effective development enables a system of free comprise to take hold and connect in a way that protect the opportunity of vulnerable and populations to

survive and thrive. that's a long quote. usually put on a big powerpoint and people tread rather than tread to you, but a couple of concepts there are open-source development and actively involving those people in their own development aided by advances in science and technology. again, to the benefit of poor populations and vulnerable populations is sort of a leadership guidance we're getting. three quick example. one of the things that start doing is to look at big problems in development in under a program called grand challenges for development have put out what are cases where we need see scalable solutions that will affect millions of people, and we have sort of chartered what the problem is and opened up the our design process to solve our community. being in ak dame ya, private

sector, or donor community. we asked all the solutions for quality. is the solution scalable? does it have the ability to change millions of people's lives? number two, is it adaptable? is it something that can tbhork a developing world environment? not a rep indication of something we do in the first world and try to receipt to fit it to the developing world. three, sustainable? a question we should ask about any kind. a difference between providing the assistance in doing development. and number four, does it take full shrank of 21st century of technology. there are 0 four development challenges issued. they are called saving lives so interventions can happen right close birth that would help survivable of mother and children. all children reading by age 5 are available to create more

literate populations. making all voices count is on accountability and then powering agriculture and those are a grand scale larger dollar values, and the second development innovation and we script the theme we're looking at. the development innovation venture are wide open as a continuing competition for ideas just some statistics on that over 3,000 applications for developing innovations have been received since 2010. interestingly, 70% give development innovation venture are from new applicant to aid. it's not just going back to the same development community. there are now 60 solutions underway in 22 countries. there is a good degree of cost shared for every dollar the aid puts in it's getting 70 cents

from the and the solutions are coming from all police places. about half come from nongovernmental organization. 33% from the private sector, about 13% from academic. the third is the one that i'm most familiar with. it fell in the area of work i do for the agency, which historically has been democracy and govern mans and then conflict management litigation. many of you are familiar with the president's policy directive on atrocity prevention. which said the government of the united states should have a strategy to address atrocity and mass human rights around the world. and what can each agency bring to that fight? and one of the things we're doing is called the tech challenge on the atrocity prevention.

you can look tat called www.d tech challenge.org. it's co-hosted by usaid and humanity united. we put out five challenges, and i'll just list them quickly. what are the way we can identify spotlight and deter -- so folks in multinational corporation or the banking system or transportation or insurers who may be supporting bad actors who are responsible for contributing to mass atrocities. so how do we spot light that and verify and try to deter that? second is how can we build greater change of evidence to capture evidence where mass atrocity abuses have occurred? and third, how can we get better predictive capability in communities or countries that are vulnerable to atrocities

risk? charity secure communications between community at risk and how do we goat communities where there is the infrastructure for secure communication finance seem like the bad guys have the communications they need. who is helping those who are at risk to communicate securely with each other? wasthis was really a genesis of the tech challenge came out of the experience of the then deep try administrator of iad who was the african director at the time of the rwanda genocide. looking at what aid was proposing to do what training we were doing. what kind of programmatic response we had in the space said we scrolled been written twenty years ago. have there been some kind of advance in technology we can bring to bear and thus born the tech challenge? any each of these cases, i think what it says about innovation it

stands development thinking from a practitioner point of view on the head. it said we are no longer going define the problem, script the solution, and then contract to grantees or contract to contractors or grantees. this is how you would like to characterize the problem. what we want to do is identify the problem, the challenge, the barrier, then put it out to communities that go well beyond trait additional donor and actors because we believe the complexity of many of these challenges the solutions lie the typical discipline that are usually entered in to by young professionals historically be it economic, political science, agronomy, whatever. those solutions lie elsewhere. we have to be much more open-source about where we go for the solutions. what does it mean for young

professionals? with apologies, i have five. i will assert you should think that the hiring public the employees already think you are totally tech savvy whether you are or no. they think you are ipad, itab, icompetent and can solve it. if you are not, realize your competition is closely a generation raised on the interweb or whatever it's called. [laughter] second, it's get are many important for just development of critical analytical skill. the problem globalize, you need the development fairly how do you go about doing that? it's like get smart know. there's a way to do that. you have to be more intentional about it.

you need to be aware about how much the environment has changed. by the time i start my career twenty or thirty years ago, big government flows with the dominant iad, the world bank, other donor agency accounted for most of that assistance. now it's not just development organizations but in the height of the military about 21% of official development system came from the department of deafen. that's just in the united states. the large ere flow that's official assistance. the larger are coming from philanthropist and the chinese, the chinese their official development assistance in 2001 was about $1 billion. in 2007 it was 21 billion. that's significant and just to be situationally aware of the diversity of players in that space. fourth, that means the skill we

traditional change developmental practitioners change. you have to be familiar dealing with private sector, other governments, nongovernmental actor and academia. we look for solutions open source you get familiar with how do we deal and the cultures involved? and then fifth, good old change emotional intelligent and the ability to play nice in the sand box. the ability to work with people different than you. inand give your idea in a collaborative way. that's a only way we can get to the solution we need. >> thank you, neil. >> so i want to turn to ben to share some remarks, and to think we have seen how hard it is to stick to five minutes. there's so much to talk about. there's so much to put out on the table response the challenge is yours, ben. go for it! >> thank you. i'm going preface the remarking i have to say now and the rest

and the evening is not representativive -- i speak a i'm a fan of asking for forgiveness rather than permission. innovation is one of the buzz word. and it steams to be a mind set about idea and you get the right then things happen. it doesn't happen unless somebody take the thing from action and execute on them. in the military what i'm seeing is junior officers and junior listed return just returned from war are the ones taking on the actions and making things happen. i think part of this is because a lot of us were sent to an environment that we weren't trained for. not because we got poor training because the war we had to go fight there was no training for. and, you know, infantry officers and the army of marine corps. and others on the ground were trained to fight another state

on state actor in the standard military operation. but when they got there, they were faced with basically defeating insurgency and building a country from scratch or two countries from scratch. 25 to 26-year-olds were in charge of developing an entire community in the cultural, religious, and economic standpoint. they had to think on their feet and create new solution. they had a lot of leeway and cases to do it. the internal entrepreneurship -- really created a mind set of doing things and getting things done very quickly. but returning to the united has been a bit of a challenge for some of them. all the sudden they are back in an environment where they have the rules back in place. not they were breaking the rules before. they had to find new solutions that were reliant upon their own ability. here in the state is a little bit more state. we have the requirement and straining. -- training. we have six or seven layers of bureaucracy we have to go through so we have an idea that needs to be execute what happened we're seeing is a lot

of these junior officers and enlisted personnel are taking it in to their hands. they are making things happen. within of my friend is a marine corps. pilot. recently started a company called military traveler. it's an app anybody can go around. if they are traveling from one end the country to another can log on and see every phone number for important base information sense they need. the blq, they want to see a movie. another friend jeff created a site called military lounge basically an online social media flat form. ten junior officers who put together a start-up weekend like event in october. columbus day try to turn it on the head. rather than hosting the standard, you know, dod top

level people and general for the most part say the same thing and talking point and the conference wondering what happened. we're bringing in some of the innovators and entrepreneurs and veterans side who are making a difference. every day is starting their own company. and katie she was army intel she ended up creating a company doing stuff here in d.c. app 31 to 32-year-old who are making impact at young age. they're going to be at the defense entrepreneur forum as well. my current position. this is an organization i think

those in our generation. we are the ones who want to make a difference. we're not there to make money or form a company. we want to solve a specific problem. i think with the entrepreneurial mind set that a lot of us have we can go do it. i encourage you in your own organization whether it's in the military or government or large company or your own company take an idea, run with it, if it's good enough get stakeholders on board and take action. >> hi. i'm leon. i cannot believe that thursday right before major holiday and there's this kind of turnout in washington. it which is going on?

the city has changed. [laughter] thank you for being here. what an interesting topic. i think i finally figured why i was asked to speak. i'm the only guy in town that doesn't have a twitter account. or whatever you call it. we're here to talk about innovation. and, you know, we make tv shows in the arab world that are here and get millions of viewers and we have a lot of fun doing it. we're story tellers. what we do is classified by the state department as public diplomacy, by dod as information operation, and by other agencies with smaller initials. something else. but we are and in many respect your typical producers whoa prefer to be behind the camera

but not in front of it. here we are. i love the idea of execution being the new innovation. since -- i feel compelled to -- [inaudible] not shakespeare but will smith. [laughter] he said in the late '90s, somehow hopes and dreams -- we've got ways & means. that dreamers and a lot of classes who want to come to this town, the ones that end up here are usually the a-students and the a-type. and yeah, we may not be the sharpest dressers or, you know, maybe hollywood for ugly people as my colleagues in hollywood call it. but here we are. and believe it or not. the people in this room, as it always happens a few years from now they'll be senators and congressman i'm going stop

talking and have a conversation. >> i'm under instructions to moderate a little bit of a discussion among the panelists, but i think we all generally agree that the more interesting interactions are with all of you. so what i thought i would do is throw out one observation or one question that came to my mind as i listened to you all, and you can take a stab eat -- tat and we'll open it up. that's fair. this is our question that i was kind of forcing me to scratch my head as i was thinking about this event. that is how do we think about the relative roles or importance in innovation between and the

creativity piece. and the implementation, which, ben you focused on. when i was in business school, they defined innovation for us as three concentric circles, you know, the the economic violent of -- viability can you make money? is there an economic model behind it and the technical feasibility. can it be done? that i think is interesting in term of the question, because it brings all of those pieces together. the easy answer; right, would be that the idea generation --.

>> i think execution is scary for a lot of us, because in many cases it involves failure. and none of us want to fail; right? we are all in d.c. or other organizations that don't really reward failure or allow us opportunities to fail, but i think when you get in the mind set of trying things and learning from them and embracing the 80%-solution mind set you gate lot of value out of that. and you also meet people. and i think one of the things i learned most from my time running disruptive thinkers and performing data and being part of the rapid innovation cell is relegation networking are one of the thing that we drive them forward. we love gadgets that fly around and go fast in the military, but the cnn l marching orders are

right now are pay low over platform which make perfect sense. i would argue the perfect payload is the person with the brain. that's the most potent and weapon system created. i'm a march so no oven to the people on the development side. add a manufacturing on a ship find out that somebody is already doing it and see -- and you, you know, maybe stumble and somebody else comes in and maybe executing against the government bureaucracy and hit the pay wall or legal implication you meet a lawyer who knows how to make a system work for you and you go on a network of people that didn't just dissipate once the project

done. if you go to a new project and rely upon the networking later on you have a self-replicating ad hoc organization that percolates and create more power. and i think when it comes to execution we have to focus on the fact failure is a possibility, but from that failure can come great gains. we shouldn't be afraid of that. >> other depends? >> well, innovation, national security, and this town that exists mostly illegally but staffed by people who used to be in the government. that are aided by people who may be junior enlisted folks that

innovated and entrepreneurs and made billion and have their layer in las vegas or something and want to give back. instead of giving back to the institution are helping set up small cell of people who are doers rather than people who are frustrated within the bureaucracy. and, you know, the list of authors who are creating these worlds. carefully some of the best informed minds in national security the one that db and everything else associated with well-established government. the longest government on the

face of the planet may be a young country. we have the longest lasting government. yeah, we have institutions and we have resumes and there's check and balances. and a lot of of times it may not be how to keep the people going to play within the sand box. it's by something who doesn't have to play in the cabbed box. that's why i talk about if. i don't go to the same frustration that so with that -- >> we will, i'm sure, goat some of the issues about the system

and the organization and the support for or hinder innovation. i know, that was one of the question organizations generally i was watching folks here probably familiar with the organizations -- i was watching a video today and again of some, quote, something like we like to fail to learn quickly. and so this is a place where innovation and national security don't really mix.

and around the problem is to start small. to build our risk tolerance by experiments where we can fail fast that we can create safe environments so with the objective of learning. i think the american people will understand that as long as we're not putting billions and billions of money or people at risk. >> great. it's about 7:10. so why don't we open it to the floor. i would ask that if your at the substantial, if you're not at table i'll try to refeet for the group. speak slowly. any questions?

go ahead. >> hi, my name kate lynn. i'm a deafen policy analyst, and my question for you, sir you said quote that ended with we have the way and means. i want to ask do we have the ways a means if we do who is we. i think the question of age and influence is something we feel as young people a lot especially in government in that we don't have it. but i want to see what you thought when it come to age and influence and innovation. where do we stand? is it going improve? do we have the power to improve it? and what you think on it. >> it's the first time someone called me sir. [applause] >> you have something that no other generation -- looking at him and me, no other

generation before you had. and that is you don't have to write a letter to the editor. you can have your own publication. you don't have to call in to a radio show and wait for an hour. you create your own radio show online. all you need is a feature phone. there's cool app. you can go to scatter radio and create your own radio. go to a football game at your high school, and say here is me at the game that no one is broadcasting, and here i am live -- i don't know what the right technical word is. you can broadcast the game and, you know, your friends around the qorld listen to you. the ones not watching the high school football game. it used to be there were

flowchart in organizations. and so on and on so. those were part of every website. when websites were started an organization were put up the flowchart. you don't see that a lot maybe some governmental offices still have it. it's something that someone took from a powerpoint and put on the web and so and so. there has never ban better time to be a young person in foreign policy. the high -- has been pancaked. it's probably a little more frustrating to be doing this inside the government rather than outside. but so you a lot of tools at your disposal. you can either hope and dream or say have the way and means. it's totally up to you. do you feel entrepreneurial?

do you feel the benefit outweigh the cost? if you -- and you few yo have the time, the energy to put something new together do it. especiallifully it's never should be allowed to speak is when you hit, you know, you have the promotion you get -- no. it's -- you have to somehow. >> one of the things that came

to focus for me there were a lot of organizations i wanted to exist that didn't. so you have to go out and make them dwrowrs. thing d.c. and in bureaucracy especially, and i'm going steal a phrase here. there a soft bigotry of low expectations for junior folks. i've run to admiral who say i'm pleasantly surprised at the level of effort the junior officers are putting forward. it's a back-handed compliment. you have to -- if you see an organization. geement together and talk about policy issue and they tell a friend and somebody else tell a friend and a year later you have a three chapter across the country. josh started it ten years ago now 10,000 young people, i mean, that is taking ab idea and running with it.

if you have an idea for a group -- and this isn't going to be disruptive but, you know, start a book club in your organization we're going to meet at military history. i want to meet for an hour every month and talk over a good discussion and fostering the relationship. if i have a problem or idea i can go to the experimental department. we have that relationship we can do something with. try it out. see what happens. if it fails, learn from it.

kind of struck a cord. i think it's fair to say that generally in a defense world where i hear the phrase innovation it tends to deal with the system and there's as well as an overwhelming focus on unmanned system and seeing that as the future of the deafen systems in a sen i think we have kind of a taken human away from the equation. how do you think we should continue to give the individual the human and the innovative sense as technology challenges and we find our relationship with the tool different. particularly in the way we talk about people who fly and, you know, the people who do this don't like to be referred as drone pilot, for example. first thing that come to midnight we did a trip to m. i. t. and happen to visit with the

human lab. one of the thing they're working to do to make computer a adapted to computers the perfect example is the keyboard. it's optimized for the computer i.t. what about systems that respond human ergonomic. what can we do to make the interfacet more directed inward. you look at the area of -- and area all the thing that come from the dna or the mapping of the genome and understanding what the true capability of the human is. there are so much foacial optimize us as true capable people. i'm not saying we're superman. instead of spending $100 billion

over the next fighter jet. what if we pour $100 billion to human performance or the disease reduction that optimize -- having to utilize the systems? so i'm all on board with the human focus of innovation. that's your question. i don't know if that got it. >> i think just as an extra tack on to that, i think also my what i was curious about in term of how we even talk about innovation. i think that it seems to be increasingly stepping away from the individual and the reason why i think i've kind of wonder effort or think about it before. think about the strength or traditionally how we refer to the superiority of the american soldier. it you're familiar with and i'm sure everyone is not just the equipment, and using that framework and the future not just in the military but

elsewhere. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

i may need repeat the question. it's going to be hard to do. basically the question is around the tension between the kind of individual and innovative impulse to be totally ill late -- and the constitution that we innovate in. added to that the imperative to scale and to paint the picture on the past how you could scale how it seem the in some ways to create tension with this individual impulse.

i think, you know, the first start is thinking about what you know the particular culture of the organization you're operating in and listening to a system you're in and see what the toll rans are for disruptive thinking or innovation. i would think that in any institution you will -- those thinkers tend to stand out and those are your potential allies your mentor. i don't think the nature of that innovation you can't do it by yourself and you can't do it in small group but you will be better innage learn group because of the nature of the complexity of the problem you're dealing with. i think those two things where is the culture do they have tolerances for horned discal

communication informal networking. what was said before by colleagues here this generation in term of the whole idea of -- and affinity groups. governments are filled with affinity groups, and they don't general very little to do doing that. how far you can go in the space. >> i think for the military and specific the chain and command for exist for various reasons. there are to be the level of influence especially when it comes to combat operation. another phrase comes to mind that's the initiative. whiched a mirm nelson used in the previous campaign but the battle -- [inaudible] he was killed his subordinate were able to execute his mission command orders flaw ulessly and win the battle.

he believed and -- and one of the thing i want to create is the ground sexual -- squall of innovation. we're playing the long game here. they'll be the at one at the lieutenant cornel level or the ses level who understand the innovative mind set and allow the intord i can't to -- subordinate to use the talent. we have to exist within that. they have 209%. it's not something everybody gets to do. you have to prove value. it's going to have a return on an investment. you center to sell that to your senior leader in order make valuable. but i think with the initiative that a lot of us have once you

do that it soften the flaying field. the general known for his exploit later in the career calling for one or two, depending how you count them. he had a battalion, and, you know, they were trying to see -- he went all the and, you know,

-- i think i can pull it out. the war ended earlier. the headlines were u.s. tax troll baghdad. our military is blessed with more entrepreneurship than other militaries. what when we go to a country and there's a lot of 6 issues we're not anticipating. case in point, you have the young officers who were able to

think on their feet and it works. we're not doing away with the two commanders. one can be very clear, you know. if the moderator is permitted to offer two cents. i would say for the folks who civilian in the large institutions i reminded of something that jacqueline said. jacqueline is a social entrepreneur who started acumen, we brought her to the pentagon as part of an innovation series called new idea. any case, she remarkinged on how the phenom and a half good people feeling stuck in bad -- there is something to that; right? i think what is interesting to consider is how being in the

system kind of teaches you new ways of doing the work or being you. even in the civilian world a very permission-based system. and we learn over time to ask first when, you know, before you ever worked whenever you work you might have gone ahead and done it. one way to kind of put soft pressure on the tendency to learn new way of operating in a safe way and bureaucracy is to ask myself what would happen if i just can d it. is asking permission first necessary? you have to be educate where the boundaries of appropriate, you know, behavior; right? but often i find people say yes more than they say no, and it's were better to put your idea throughout. it's usually an audience of this

kind of thing. [inaudible] i think we need talk about innovation is that the present situation. really i think that there has been a -- [inaudible] significant issue or, you know, for a number of stakeholders involved. that leaves the number of civilian who -- [inaudible] and just the -- [inaudible] and nothing was happening.

okay. we'll take stab. >> i don't think he's a whistle-blower. i'm not going to take the question. i think you can innovate without putting your, you know, national security interests in danger. >> i think -- i'm not an expert on this. i can't offer a good opinion. i think there are pitfallses with any technological revolution, and with the advent of the internet, there will be consequence and -- [inaudible] but you have to be mindful. i think the democratic process will sort it out. unfortunately i can't say anymore because i don't know.

[inaudible] i work for the defense department. we can't bring our cell phone to the work. there's no wireless internet. the websites you are talking about are blocked at work and discouraged from using them outside of work. outside the basic research, but we can't even tell our coworkers about some of the -- [inaudible] how do you innovate and -- [inaudible] where everything is classified and that classification is there for very good reasons? >> -- [inaudible] >> in the culture of secrecy. >> yeah. that's great question. [laughter] >> i've never been --

so allly say is that overclassification is bad. [laughter] a story that is one of my two favorite intel stories that demonstrates the culture of

secrecy. typically get asked to go to interagency events, and you go to this building in arlington with a very innocuous name like united technologies or something like that. and i go in and say, my name is neil levin, the direct oroff ooffice of -- and the guy time talking to will say, hi, i'm bob. and, you know, so -- >> i'm sure bob has really good information that he invited me to this event. there's an ongoing professional relationship but no business card no last name. there's no kind of interest besides a one-way extraction of information from time to time. but as i have said a number of times, i don't think there is a good answer, but if you so lock down your ability to communicate with each other, what happens is those folks at that level are only talking to each other, and

it doesn't bode well for problem-solving on the level of complexity we need. the reverse should be true. i believe there's a way to do that and still protect the nation's secrets. >> hopefully a mind-bending perspective, and this is directly -- paraphrased from a guy who does a lot of human performance stuff. in 20 or 30 years time we'll be directly interfacing with computeres, putting things in our brain and talk to them and whatever, and you can -- it could be horrible but probably what is going to happen. right now you can't put a secret cd into an unclassified computer. it's a spill. so you as a government employee with classified information in your brain right now, what are the procedures when you hook yourself up to a random machine to have the competitive advantage that your peers are having, white kind of firewalls?

is that a disincentive to the government worker when you can't use the same resources as somebody else. so that's an innovation question. but technologies going to keep pushing the boundaries of what classification needs and when you connect to the internet or the computer and it's in your brain, is that a spill and what do youyou guys can think about . >> a very provocative bill. we had peter singer over to the pentagon to talk about revolutions in technology and on the battlefield, and one thing i walked away from was exactly what ben was talking about, that over a time, as technology has advanced, the competitive edge that the government kind of once held in this area, is being eroded because of the openness of the civilian society, and that will come at a cost.

i mean, -- so the question is going to be, how do governments continue to do their job and resist the direction that technology world is pushing at us. on individual levels there may be ways for you to collaborate in the way your office might not do by habit, that are still confined within the rules. just in the spirit of the book club, just getting a bunch of smart, interested colleagues to spend an hour in a classified area, trying to solve a problem. >> if i can say one more thing to piggyback on what beth said. the story about silicon valley and boston -- some of you may know this -- both of those have innovation corridor's but the reason silicon valley thrived is the state of california does not have a noncompete clause. basically in boston if you're working with company x, you

cannot discuss anything if you leave that company, with company y in california you're able to do that. you can have a lot more cross-cultural interaction and take an idea from company z, interact from company as, and form a new company with the personal intellectual property develop something new, and a cultural secrecy is the boston model and the culture of openness -- i'm not saying we should make everything unclassified but we need to think about the level which we're classifying things and does it inhibit national security? are there some areas to open things up to a more collaborative environment, an online crowd source side and you can book ideas up and down. a complete cultural shift. you are opening up to people who don't need to know but collaboration leads to superior results if done appropriately. >> a question? >> mark bardwell, and thank you for the cybernetics.

i enjoyed that. i wanted to ask more about the here and now, and an imminently practical question. what is the hoped for disrupting the current hierarchy? specifically that we have in the government. i think of, for instance, we mentioned ted talks earlier. you might have seen dr. thomas barnett's talk about reforming the department of defense, changing it into a multifaceted department that could handle u.s. aid, like responsibilities, where you create -- you create roads. what is the value of that kind of thinking, and also is that even the right time kind of thinking? does change need to come from within the government or from without? >> the disruption that is coming, as the retirement of the baby-boomers and it's going to

be huge. and it started a few years ago, and between now and 2016 a lot of departments will have changeover up to 50% of their total employees. so that is a huge change. and if i were you guys i'd be worried, how am i going to retain the expertise once they're not here and there's people my age who are looking up to me. >> i don't want to take a position on dr. barnett's -- actually going to hoe him at ndu in a couple of weeks and will hear this latest talks on this. i think -- but it goes to -- makes me think about usaid in general and the ability of strategic thinkersers and big tk

to go on to challenge the conventional wisdom, and whether there are enough platforms. it's hard to imagine there could be more robust intellectual life here, but it does exist between certain kind of boundaries of what is seen as polite debate here. i guess there's always disruptive thinkers is the idea where the conversations that we're not having could be had, and so one of those conversations that i think about a lot, is we talk about the three-d world bus choate as a sew -- but choose as a society to i think underinvest dramatically in two of the three things we say are essential to our national security. where does that discussion take place? it's going to get even more difficult as resources are greatly constrained. the same time, who plays what

role? who is best suited to play the role that the governments asked to play, whether that's this agency, combination of agencies or combination of private and public roles. i think the think tanks do that -- the natural space for that to occur, but again, it is sort of only just between a band of debate. >> i'm actually kind of optimistic that things are changing right now, and i'll use the navy as an example. admiral richardson is now the chief of naval reactors. when he was the commander of submarine forces he began tang, and he brought together 15 or 20 junior officers to develop the next generation of a submarine's bridge, and they created a completely new concept of how to rub a submarine, and they took that idea and moved it into

actual ideation and production for next generation. guys like mccraft, now in japan, set up m -- people like this and admiral green. and vice admiral connor. those guys really get it and they are trying to get new innovative ideas. i think the blessing of the challenges we're facing right now is that people are forced to look outside existing systems for solutions, and that is our saving grace as a generation. they're going to start looking to us to hopefully come up with the solutions. we have to be ready to pounce on them. and this may be a fleeting moment but there are so many things aligning right now for us to take advantage of. you have to find those people that want to caution -- you'll find advocates who have gone through the ranks and understand the system and hip shepherd your ideas through and if you take advantage and find those people

they can be your mentors and give you guidance. i'm an optimist despite all the other things i'm doing. there are beams of life making anicut pack -- making an impact right now. >> in the back. [inaudible] >> give some examples. overcoming the challenges -- i'm going to expand upon -- a lot of times when we join up with larger companies, working on concepts or i.t. systems in the intel community, we have computers on site and they help innovate solutions to the next generation of programs, let's say, and they come up with really fantastic ideas. they're on site, they understand how it works and doesn't work, and what needs to be done to fix it, but we can't implement the ideas because that's not what the contract for the new

generation is requesting. it's like the old kind of clunky way that is working working ands what they questioned and if you have an innovation that works better, too bad. that's not what they're asking for. have you seen some examples how to overcome those structural challenges, if you will? >> have them submit a set of proposals. >> what? >> unsolicited proposal. whoever is writing the contract likes it too much, they may actually bid it out. don't assume the people at the top are getting the same information that you're getting. >> i think there's also a kind of contracting where you basically described the end state you want and let the proposer propose how it would get there. i don't know if in the delivery of that proposal, whether new

innovations that were not present at the time of the proposal was written, would be accepted, but i think there's a way to contract that. it really does go to how you approach problem-solving and what you can do along the lines of procurement to do that. it generally pretty -- it's a rule-based system but there are rules designed to built in at least some innovation. i think the knowledge of that is very narrowly shared is part of the problem. >> in the back. >> i feel come fold ask the opposite question. i work for a company that writes the older requirement that are difficult to meet with the innovative new ideas and that's where i really can kind of

phrase this as a question -- one of the battles we fought -- i love sitting around with contractors and talking because seems like there's -- apply to many of these questions. there's an old culture among those who have been around for a long time and have retired two or three times and half my team has fought in vietnam. they are not sharing information because so many of the pushes over the last, i would say, maybe not ten year but the recent history of army procurement, military procurement in general, has been stop telling industry how to do things, let them innovate, and that has been interpreted through a couple generations, don't talk to industry. let them figure it out. and so it gets very stilted because industry at the small end creates ideas, and have no real method to inject them, and we have seen -- i'm sure you have seen with the navy also in the rapid -- something very rapid and unique inject, it's a great onramp, and great stuff --

doesn't have a legitimate requirement behind it to carry on and fight for money, and i guess my question would be for those who have more experience at higher levels, what do you see is the bridge from the government side to -- we can't change statute and regulations as much as we'd like to rewrite it and make it 12 pages long. what inrow -- innovations allow to us bridge the gap. >> i can't answer because i haven't seen examples but one thing we need to do better job of is in procurement, taking a systems approach. in a given program, large program with multiple components, we usually optimize each individual component separately and sometimes give them to different companies. but when you put them together they don't talk to each other. so you need too create a conduit whereby the organizations responsible for creating the systems are working together to create the best system as a

whole and goes back to the 1980 u.s. hockey team. the team of soviets are all-stars in their own right individually, the best of the best, but you have this team of scrappy u.s. guys who work really well together. may not be individually the best but as a system work better than the individuals, and far too many of our weapons systems, because of the procurement process -- and this goes into politics -- a lot of reasons why it's done this way but doesn't produce the optimum results for the system we need to do a better job of recognizing interacts and letting the war fighter be involved in those processes. i'm not talking about the -- i'm talking about the 01, 2, and 3, using it every single day and pointing out the systems -- and i have to log into two different symptoms because they won't talk to each and if that do it takes ten minutes to download to the server. you have to get this on the

ground expertise integrated with the contracts, and that would be a fundamental culture shift. i doubts know if it would happen because it would shake up how we do procurement but if we want the crewly best systems we have to come up with that approach. >> it's a great question because it sort of leads you to, where is the -- is the problem in the system or the problem in the people? and while the procurement speaking generally, ones i'm familiar with there are rule that allow you to break through the attitude of not sharing. you can publicly request information, a request for information that goes out and canvasses the field and says, what's out there? what do you think would be of interest to us before an rfp is written? open, transparent, full participation allowed. you can do conferences. you can -- as long as you keep between the four squares of what you have said in writing and you share that on an equal basis,

you can identify who the parties are. and then once a protected procurement sensitive -- goes off, once an award is made, you can work close -- we call it grantees and contractors our partner, and if your guiding principle is value for the american taxpayer, they're going to want a good program that represents the best thinking. so this idea of holding back informations and solutions and let agos figure it out runs counter to what the prime goal would be. >> okay. right here at the table. >> from dod. one of the things we touched upon is the betweens innovation in silicon valley is bottom-up and government is more top-down. large corporations, the government more so because of

legal, plan and control reasons. with this new center of technology and boomers retiring, transformation of the government is going to come. if you were to imagine a certain transformation of the government, what would you want it to by or if you can snap your finger and change the system in a way to mak it better, what would you want it to be? / >> okay. years ago i was an intern here, working on a commission to look at what is going on at doe. this is pre9/11, and the interests of protecting my age i will not disclose when. but -- a lot of the dysfunction withins d.o.e., the reason why a dnr o.e. leadership chose to go outside the agency to bring stakeholders from throughout

washington to say, guys, help us, was because in the 70s, it was politically expedient to say we have this crisis, that is our crisis. what is the greatest, everyone that is working on energy in any shape, way or form, across 20-plus agencies, would be under one roof. would talk to one another. and we can say we're doing something about the oil crisis. of course, a lot of institutions and organizations that had their own esprit de corps will emerge suddenly, and here we are -- okay in 2000, looking at some things that was dub wrong and fast in the '70s and trying to figure out, this organization has had growing pains that are older than we are. how do we address it? and fast forward a few years,

and we have another instance of a similar merger because it was politically expedients to do so at the same time. you know what i'm alluding to the department of homeland security. so, long story to tell you, if it were to be organized or re-organized -- these things take time and, yes, politics is involved and has to be involved. i would like a government that, given a lot of retirements, and given a lot of necessary belt-tightening, figures out what are some things we no longer need to do? and now you get into turf battles, and who is willing to give up any of their responsibilities and any of

their -- i don't know -- prerogatives. i don't have an answer to that but i will just say, it's not just the executive branch that has this issue. these turf wars happen on the hill. and the hill decides the shape of the executive branch. so, be patient. but there are -- there's a force of less money to go around. someone has to sit and think, we're talking about how many ships should the navy have? right? that's an ongoing conversation. there's less money but they're going down. a lot of people are going to retire. perfect time to sit and think.

>> just a couple of suggestions. i don't think these are down the road. these could be implemented fairly quickly. i think in terms of this idea about what would you change to promote innovation, and get more bottom-up, it's far too hard for people to move around the government and in and out of the government as it is structured now. many of you know are veterans of the pmf program that is designed to move you around, you said within the first five minutes we're stove-piped and don't talk -- every bureaucratic organization -- creates independent cultures, career paths, but for a lot of the complex problems we need much more cross-poll -- pollennization 0, so the able to work for an ngo, come back into

government, go to a think tank or academic appointment, and then the concept -- so that's one, and we have the authorities to do that now. it's budget. it conclude done i think budget neutrally. there's some loss in terms of transaction costs to make it happen. and then the concept of life-long learning. the military is way ahead of the civilians in terms of this. i teach now in classes of folks with multiple degrees from the military students that have been -- they've traveled around the world, been posted around the world, picked up degrees. i think colin powell spent six years in the classroom in a 30-year career. nothing equivalent on the civilian side to make life-long learners, and and there is in terms of development, that kind of experience is needed in terms of propoeting innovation not just for young people but the entire group of people working

on these areas. >> i'm actually kind of fan of the current system in the sense that it's evolved over the past 50 years, or 60 years news, and to snap your fingers, don't have to start over again and have the pin points evolve from there but discussions like this and things we're trying to push are going to move that evolution naturally towards a more perfect equilibrium. the dod and government is going to lag behind the rest of society but it will be pulled there we don't have iphones but we have e-mail, we have internet, access do the internet, and we're changing slowly our personnel policies and solutions and other stuff. so i think any evolutionary process is going to have significant points that need to change you may have some dips in that as well. the trajectory we're on i think in a democratic system, is almost the best we're going to get but we need to push it, people to challenge it to poke

the bear almost and make them prove they're still valuable, and let the market forces of us as individuals point out the flaws and force them to change if they see value it to. that's a long proposition. it's a long game again. but our systems evolved for a reason and a lot of it i don't like, but to prove what i'm advocating for is more beneficial and the process will hopefully make a better system. >> so we're a couple minutes before 8:00 but we started a little late so i point to you maybe as the last question, second to last, if there's a burning one. >> i appreciate that. hopefully my question and comment will tie it all together. my name is tyson, innovation programmer. my comments and questions are -- so, what we've -- perhaps

innovation, big brain, and then we also mentioned cultural competence, and most -- john matthew of whole foods is introduced this concept of systems quotient. and i think it's very clever. so the analogy i'll offer, if you're innovation across the internet, a lot of people still -- associated with innovation. tangible gadget. the analogy is the iceberg. on the iceberg, what you see is only a small portion of a full mast in itself. the water around the iceberg is the culture that it is operating within. and then on top is the call stuff you can actually see. then underneath it's actually

holding the iceberg up and often times, i would split, as -- i would submit, the facility innovation, the management, this is the training, the education, the administration, and all these other elements that are connected with it, with innovations so it's effectively now a system. so we talk to promote any sort of -- encouraging growth or expansion with society's systems quotient, whatever techniques we can do to shift away from the cool gadgets and sort of transcend to the idea that innovation is everywhere. innovation is pervasive in all our systems. it's within the not so testy financial systems or administrative systems but there are better ways of doing this. how do we integrate growth in

systems, systems quotient, to make these processes -- talking about the processes and not necessarily just the products that typically visual or typically gathering the most attention. >> i'll simply say, develop and encourage relationships between people. when you die, you're on your death bed and the people you remember most the friends you had, your family, people ask the most influential person it's usually a teacher or family member, someone they know personally so if you can talk to a cull -- fostary cultural relation palestine your organization that will inherently create the innovative organizations that rely on people as the foundation for everything you do. >> i like the iceberg analogy.

and i'll go back to what i think is important for young professionals. what lies below the surface -- i'm not a tech guy. i'm as impressed by new really good design that solves a problem, very practical, but i don't claim to know a lot in the tech field. but critical thinking and what -- when i say that, i mean how do we go about solving problems? is one of those skills that lies below the surface line. the second is appreciation of diversity that we don't have the answers and we're going to have to go to places where thinking is different than our own, that thing wes disagree with and take on a viewpoint that we're uncomfortable with in order to learn. the third would be, as i said before, emotional intelligence, and the fourth is what we're looking at now which is leadership. and we talked about -- you said there are beacons, places, folks that are natural allies, mentors, that you should seek out. they're going to want to talk to

you, i think, and they're going to want to listen to your ideas. >> one more question. okay. >> i have a question. i was wondering if the panelists could give their personal opinion on what is the most important short-term barriers or short-term problems facing innovation for national security? >> i think the fact that there's fear to spend money on innovation, even though it will have long-term results, and i'll give you an example. this was brought up to me today. specific program managers are afraid of applying l.e.d. technology because in the short term it costs more and they're evaluated specifically on a one-year time frame for momentum. even though the systemmings the lifetime of the system that l.e.d. light will save thousands of dollars in man hours and

replacement costs. that's not what the program managers look at for monetary reasons. they're legacy systems that are not optimized to spend money now to save money know long run. >> well to piggyback on that, i come from industry, and even in industry innovation finds a long time to end up in the widgets and gadgets. look at cars. cell phones have been ubiquitous in people's hands for a long time. finally in 2014 models are starting to advertise there's a cell phone holder next to the cup holder. that's not even technological innovation. just someone that says, i'm designing a car. i'm just going to cut a piece of the dash, and this is industry, right? this is a bailed out industry from detroit that says, we're competing with the best of the best. so it's just a mindset.

although it's a -- tablets have been ubiquitous, but legacy systems like airlines and car manufacturers are just starting to put them into -- adopt them. now, if industry, cutting edge, competing with a lot of other competitors, internationally, takes this long to bring these technological innovations and adopt them in their products, the government, which is a monopoly, takes a little longer. so, the biggest challenge that i see and that was a great question -- how do you still have quality control but find a way to rush to market or whatever the appropriate -- for the government, technologies or even just nontechnological innovations that could help make the product or service better.

>> i would just simply say i think we covered it earlier, the biggest barrier is the fear of failure, and not being able to learn from failure. and that i think goes to government in terms of personnel systems in terms of being able to admit when a program isn't working, and that risks are so high and it jeopardizes careers and jeopardizes programs, jeopardizes your ability to continue working. how did you learn -- how did you learn in life from people patting you on the back or people saying that was not the best way to do something. hears other -- here's a better way. that's a practice we take from our personal life and don't apply it in our professional lives because the constraints are so great. >> great. well, before i turn it back over to priscilla and eric, i wanted to remark on one key point i'm

going to take away from this, which is that the title, innovation and national security, do they mix? is daunting in some sways. sounds like you're trying to solve a big problem, a big important problem. and what i am coming away with is the emphasis that i heard from the panelists and the impetus of the question wes have heard from you, on the importance of the human dimension, on the relationships, on the individual passion and commitment, on the almost innate desire to be playful and collaborative at work, and this is wonderfully simple. on the suggestions we have heard from the panelists to go back to your work places and just do, is incredibly powerful in its

simplicity. so, i just wanted to thank the panelists for letting me leave here a little more optimistic and for the great questions from you all and thank you again for allowing me to be part of this. i'll turn it over to practice sylla and eric. >> thank you, beth, and how about a round of applause for our distinguished panelists and moderator. [applause] >> i think we all have a greater understanding now about the challenges, but more importantly, the opportunities for innovation in national security and foreign policy, and while we may have more questions than answers right now, asking those tough questions amongst a group of people like this is really the first step in bringing about the innovations we desire. >> and i'd just like to thank everyone. the staff, c-span, the moderator, and great panelists, all of you for being here, and

really contributing to such a great conversation. i really appreciate it. and i hope that you can join us at cities, it's around the corner, at 919 19th street and we'll try to continue the discussion in a less form setting. have great night. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

one of the most fun times i ever had, it was 2006, and it looked like democrats were going to take over -- take back over the house, and it was looking pretty bad for republicans, and vice president cheney's office call and wanted to know if we could come over and have breakfast with him. so we had breakfast with him and i'd met him before but i didn't know him, and first of all it's unbelievable how much he knew about -- he had been to so many of these districts over the years as one of the republican leaders of the house of dismiss that, but basically the was asking us how bad is this? and we were saying, yep, it's pretty bad. but that's kind of fun when you

get to do that or talk to caucuses on both sides and get a glimpse of the inside and the players. >> with more than 30 years as political analyst, charlie cook uncovered the trend while tracking every congressional race since set -- see the rest of the interview sunday night on c-span. >> book tv and primetime continues now with in-depth with amy goodman though, and becktive producer of democracy now, and joined us earlier this year to discuss war, politics and grassroots activism. she has written or cowritten five books. here's her interview now. >> host: amy goodman in your first book, "the exception to the rulers" you write, and you're quoting the "washington n

post." amy goodman as the ininvited guest. >> guest: we're not supposed to be the feature any party. we're a journalist. there's a reason why our profession is explicitly protected by the u.s. constitution. we're supposed to be the check and balance on power. >> host: in that book also, war and peace, life and death, the role of the media in a democratic society to provide a forum for this discourse to do anything less is a disservice to the servicemen and servicewomen of this country. >> guest: that's right. you know, i've just flown in from denver, where i was at the national conference on media reform, and when we flew into the airport at denver, that's where people hold up signs when you come out to pick you up, and as we were walking there were soldiers there, and they were going to be picking up a general, and as we walked by, they were waving, and i thought maybe the genoas behind me because they had a sign for the

general, but i said i want to go back and talk to them. so i went back and said, do you watch democracy now? and they said, every day. >> so i said, really. why do you watch? they said, it's objective and you cover war. you know, it is not about whether you're for or against war. it's about covering the most serious decision a country can make. i see the media as a huge kitchen table that stretches across the globe, that we all sit around and discuss the most important issues of the day. as you quoted there, war and peace, life and death, and anything less than that is a disservice to the servicemen and women of these countries. they can't have these debates on military bases. they rely on is in the civilian society to have the discussions that lead to the discussions whether they live or die, about whether they're sent to kill or be killed. and anything less than that is a

disservice to a democratic society. >> host: one of the recuring themes in your writing is the corporate media a, as you call it. what is the corporate media. >> guest: it's what most people see on most channels, not at all and that's the hope. it's the channels, nbc, cbs, abc, cnn, the break for the advertisers, that turn to corporate support. see the hope is public media, media brought to you by the listeners and the viewers are who are deeply committed to independent information. while we cover war not brought to you by the weapons manufacturers. when with cover climate change north brought to you by the oil, the gas, the coal companies, the nuclear companies. when we cover the healthcare debate, not brought to you by big farm ma, the drug companies or the insurance industry, but brought to listeners and viewers

by listeners and viewers who feel that information is power. that information is essential, the oxygen of a democracy. >> host: back to "the exception of the rulers". >> what do you mean by sound barrier. >> guest: so often on the network we get a small circle of pundits who know so little about so much, explaining the world to us and getting it so wrong. we build to the communities to talk to people in this country and around the world who are at the heart of the story. it's not always easy to find. but people sense authentic voices. it's why so maybe young people lit ton democracy now. we have such a diverse audience in this country and around the world, because it's that sense

of people knowing what they're talking about because they're talk from their own experience. i think that's the best kind of journalism. providing a forum for people to speak for themselves, providing a forum for people from different strata of society, to debate and discuss with each other the critical issues, but hearing those voices of a great diversity of people. that is the role of journalism in a democratic society. >> host: when did democracy start and when -- how is it funded. >> guest: started 17 years ago the only daily show on elections. it was february of 1996. the second election of president clinton ultimately, we didn't flow that at the time. and we -- i was actually in haiti when i got the call from pacifica radio where the show

was first established. and when they said do you want to host democracy -- do you want 0 to host this daily election show? i thought it was very interesting challenge because i've covered places where people have -- get gunned down when they good to the polls, and prices like east timor and the other side of the earth, and places like haiti, and yet the overwhelming majority of people vote. why, i wondered, in this country don't people vote? i should say, the majority do not vote. and i don't think it's apathy. and i didn't think it was then. but i was interested to follow the primaries as a kind of map of the country, and go to these states and see what people are doing in their communities, how are they physically engaged? so, i did the show and the election happened and we thought that would be it. but there was more demand for the show after the election than before, and so we were broadcasting in a few dozen

community radio stations, and it kept growing, and then the week of september 11th happened, september 11, 2001. we were slated to go on one tv station, it was in new york. it was a public access tv station, and we were broadcasting from a old firehouse that had been turned into a community media center. >> host: down by the twin towers. >> guest: yes. the closest national broadcast to the world trade center. so, on september 11th we were going to be broadcasting on television as well for manhattan neighborhood network. we were brought -- now broadcast 8:00 eastern standard time. then it was 9:00. the first plane hilt the first tower of the world trade center at 8:47. we didn't know it was health we're in this old firehouse. the second plane hit at 9:03. we still didn't know it was

happening. we were, though, doing a show that day on the connection between terror and september 11th, 1973. in chile, when acken day, the democratically elected president died the palace and the pinochet forces rows to power, and kiss skin jerry backed the forces, nixon backed the forces, itt backed the pinochet forces, and he was a dictator who was ruthless, who ran that country for 17 years, thousands of chileans were killed. september 11, 2001, is not the first time -- september 11th, that september 11th is connect with terror. it's happened around the world. september 11, 1977 insuring d -- in south africa, a member of the consciousness movement was being

beaten in the back of a van by are par tied force -- apartheid forces, died in the early morning hours in guatemala, the an to the -- anthropologist was killed by got guatemalan security forces, sadly u.s. backed security forces. september 11, 1971, here in the united states, in my state in new york, that was the attica uprising. september 9th to 13th two days later governor rockefeller was called out the state troopers and they would open fire on the prisoners, killing something like 79 prisoners and guards. killed 39 prisoners and guards. critically wounding 88 others, and injures hundreds of other. september 11th is not the first time that terror has come to u.s. soil. ask any african-american about slavery, any native american

about what is happening to this country, but september 11, 2001, was horrific moment. 3,000 people incinerated in an instant. we'll never know actually how many people died because those who go unnamed and undocumented in life often go undocumented in death and they were the undocumented workers around the world trade center, but is was horrific, and i think you uneated us with people around the world who have been victims of terror. >> host: so democracy now has been on the television since -- >> guest: exactly. once we went on the manhattan enabled neighborhood network, public access stations started calling saying we want to run the broadcast. and we were dealing with breaking news so i didn't think we could just mail to them elm didn't have satellite. we started fedexing guys.

would have huge black bags full of video cassettes and send them around the country, and then in the communes where it i it started run only television, the local radio would say, can we run the show? so we were on community radio stations, college stations, pacifica station, npr stations and now increasingly on pbs tv stations all over the country. so we started in 1996 and today we're broadcasting on over 1100 public radio and television stations around the country and around the world. our headlines are also available in spanish for any radio station to take, and also writing a weekly column for hearst to give voice to the people who are not reflected in the media but reflect the views of perhaps most people in the country.

>> host: funding? >> guest: divided by the networks that run us, foundations and listener and viewer support, which is most critical. all over the country and around the world, people committed to independent media. >> host: the exception to the rulers, back to your writing. journalists are not entertainers. we're reports, and go to places unpopular. where were you in november of 1991? >> guest: well, in november of 1991, i went to the small country called east timor, which at the time was occupied by indonesia. i went there with my colleague, allen narron, a superb journalist in this country, investigative journalist we had gone there the year before to investigate what was happening there, and then returned at the end of october 1991. indonesia invaded east timor

december 7, 1975. at the time it was president ford, secretary of state henry kissinger. they gave the go-ahead to the invasion and as they flew out, the indonesian military invaded east timor, by land, by air, and by sea can just for a little history. they occupied the country. they closed it to the outside world. and so for the next 17 years or ultimately for a quarter century, they slaughtered the people. one of the great genocides of the late 20th century. the genocide was worse than pollpot0s cambodia. the difference was people knowing what was happening is pollpot was an official. media would cover it because the

president and secretary of state talked about it and the immediate use should heave covered itself but in the case of indonesia invading east timor, he was an ally of the united states 0, whether it was ford and carter and reagan and bush and clinton, they did not talk about the atrocities in timor so we went to east timor to do our job as journalist to go to where the silence is, and what we found there was a real hell on earth. november 12, 1991, they occupied, and killed a third of the population, and on that morning, the people went to church to the catholic church, most of the country is catholic, it had been occupied by portugal for many centuries actually. and they went to the church that flagship church in the capital of east timor, 300 miles above

australia, and they, after the church, went out into the street and in an unheard of demonstration, because in indonesian occupied timor they did not allow freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly. but two weeks before, right after we arrived, the indonesian military surrounded the church and they had killed the young man in the church at point blank range. they had a funeral for him the next day. we went and a thousand people turned out and marched to the cemetery, and two weeks later they were having a commemoration procession and this land without freedom of speech, press or assembly, the people marched into the streets. you would see a girl in her catholic school uniform, and then a woman in her old timorees garb, and what girls and boys would pull out banners they'd written on bed sheets and they would hold them up and they would say things like, why the

indonesian military shoot our church? they appeal to president george h.w. bush, and appealed to the eun, and marched through the streets, retracing the steps of the funeral two weeks before. some putting their hands up in the v sign-chanting, viva east timor, viva independence, incredibly brave. and i that marched from schools and home and march to the santa cruz cemetery. when we got there we were interviewing people. why are you risking your life to do this? and they would say, for my mother. for my father. for my village. it was wiped out. and then from the direction the procession has come we saw hundreds of indonesian soldiers carrying their u.s. m-16s at the ready position marching up on the crowd. 90% of the weapons used were

from the united states. the army was armed, trained and financed be the united states. and in this day it was no different. the soldiers marched up ten to 12 abreast. alan and i were interviewing people in the middle of the crowd. and allen suggest we walk to the front of the crowd, because we knew that the indonesian military committed many massacres in the past. never done it in front of western journalists and we thought maybe, just maybe, our presence could head off this attack. we always hid our equipment because anyone caught talking to a "wall street journal" journalist could be disappeared, killed, but this time we wanted to make clear who we were. i took my tape recorder out and slung it over my shoulder and put my head phones on, held up my microphone like a flag. allen put the camera before his head. we walked to the front of the crowd. the soldiers marched up, they rounded the corner, they swept past us, and without any hesitation, without any warning, without any prove provocation,

they opened fire on the ground, gunning people down from right to left. a group of soldiers gathered around me. they pulled my microphone away. waving it in my face as if to say this is what we don't want, and then day took me down, beating me with rifle butts and but boots and allen got a photograph of opening -- of them opening fire and then threw himself on top of me. they took the. 'm-16s and slammed them against his skull it was fractured. allen was covered in blood. the soldiers, then put the guns to our heads and firing squad fashion, and they shouted two things. they now stripped us of everything. the only thing i had left was my passport and i threw it at them and they were shouting two things: australia and politik. they were saying it was political for us to witness

that, but that's our job to go to where silence is and they were asking if we are were from australia and we knew how dangerous that was for us. and so 17 years before when indonesia invaded east timor there were five australian based journalist covering the invase. they were executed. there was a sixth journalist and the day after the invasion, december 8, 1975, roger east, he was reporting from a radio station in delhi for the world and they broke into the radio station, they dragged him out and as our shouted i'm from australia, they shot him into the harbor. the australian government hardly protested the killing of their journalists. because we -- we believe because years later, australia and indonesia would sign the timor

treaty dividings timor's oil between australia and indonesia. oil is the source of so much pain in the world, and as we lay there, allen covered in blood and they're shouting at us, australia, with the guns to our heads, we shouted back, no, america, america. i had thrown my passport at them. i was born here in washington, dc and they would kick me in my stomach and as others joined the firing squad i would say, america, america. at some point they took the guns from our heads, we believe because we were from the same country their weapons were from. they would have to pay a price for killing us they never had to pay for killing the timor yeast, a red cross jeep pulled up. we were able to get into it. the driver of the red cross jeep picked up the timorees man who was in a sewer ditch next to us and everytime the soldiers beat him, he would put up his hands in the prayer sign and they

would smash the butts of their rifles into this face. we drove as a museum -- human mass to to the hospital. at the hospital, when we got out, the doctors and nurses started to cry when they saw us. ...

people can march in streets here, and they saw that that day. and that deepened their despair. we went hiding. we knew we had to get out of the country. we have not succeeded in stopping the massacre. the indonesia military killed more than 270. we went to the bishop's house. he later won the nobel peace prize. allen was covered covered in blood. he gave him a new shirt. it was like a bathing cap of blood. if we could get to the airport maybe we could get out on the only plane out. come get to fly out and get word to the outside world. we knead to the airport that closed down the whole city. the jeep and soldier through the street. we heard gunfire.

got to the airport, the military occupied the airport. there was a military-occupied country. they were shouting security. we don't know if they wanted to not kill us and a gap in communication. they decided to let us get on the plane. allen had electrical charges going through his body had to walk very, very slowly. we walked to the tarmac, on the plane. and at the flight attendant closed plane they handed me a silver bowl as we were flying out with water and said clean him up. we made the way to indonesia and bali. made a call to the west, allen reported in death -- details had taken place. i had -- when we were in hiding we someone take 18 pictures of us because they took our equipment. they knew they would deny anything happened. i hid that film away. and i had taken a towel from the

bishop and wrapped allen's bloody skirt around so we could show the evidence. when we we got bali and allen made the call to the west i kept wiping the phone off. the flood from his head was drenching the phone. we then got on to a flight to guam and we went to guam memorial hospital they operated on allen show of sue -- sewing up his head. it was there the mrm room the press from around the world and called in and became a switchboard for the press. "the new york"the new yorkthe new york thyme bb crb. they denied anything took place. an balance allen never stopped telling the story even as they sewing up the head. he the phone glued to the ear. we were going to a cnn outpost.

someone developed the photograph and said a mas consider is taken place. came to the united. when we got to washington, after allen was released from the hospital within hours, they resewed up his head. we had a news conference the national press club. we described the weapons were used. a masker has taken place. in 1999 eight years later, the -- they got a chab to vote for their freedom. in a u.n.-sponsored referendum. in a sadistic goodbye as the people went to the poll, the indonesia military burned it to the ground killing more than a thousand more in that voting process. the u.n. worked for three years and on may 20th, 2002, i tried to get in for the referendum but

the indonesia military caught me and deported me. three years later i came through australia. in may 20, 2002. allen there then. it was about midnight. about 100,000 gathered. the plane outside the cap tal. then the u.n. secretary general gave a speech and the rebel leader who was long imprisoned bit indonesia military ascended the stage. he was a founding precedent of the new country. and he unfold the flag of the democratic republican. there was a fireworks display, you could see the light reflected in the tear stain faces of the people. they resisted and they won at an unbelievably unacceptably high price. the nation of survivors had

prevailed. it's a lesson to all of us 11 years after it was established as an independent nation. whether we are journalists or business people, professors, doctors, artists, students, whether we are libraries employed or unemployed. we have a decision to make every day, every hour of every day whether we want to representative the sword or the shield. >> host: good afternoon from washington. you are watching booktv on c-span2. this is in-depth program. one author, his or her body of work and three hours with your phone call, tweet, facebook comment, and e-mails. our guest this month amy goodman. co-host of democracy now. five non-fictions book from 2004 .

in 2006 she came out with "static." "standing up to madness" came out in 2008. cowritten with her brother david goodman. "the sound barrier "in 2009. and the "silenced majority "story of uprising, occupation, resistance and hope came out last year. if you would like to participate this afternoon. it's postedded a the top of the page. you can make a comment under the amy goodman zek. you can send us an e-mail at

c-span.org. you can send in a tweet as well. >> guest: well, i really think those who are concerned about war people are concerned about the growing inequality in this country. people who are concerned about climate change, the fate of the planet are not a fringe minority. not even a site -- not even a silent majority. the silenced majority. silenced by the corporate media. which is why we have to take back. >> host: do you consider yourself objective? >> guest: i consider myself fair and accurate. and i think that that is the highest aspiration a journalist can have. >> host: how do you define democracy? >> guest: i think people have

different definition. it's about people in charge of their government. people participating in their government. i think we have to strive for that every single day. we, you know, democracy now is a grassroots "newshour," and i think providing a forum for people to have the discussions at the highest mission of a journalist to continually raise issues to heal -- hear them hashed out. there are not only two sides to the issue. there are many different sides and different perspectives to bring the perspectives out. not just give voice to those in power. i think the media can be the great equalizer just as the internet can be. providing a forum, no matter what part of society you're in to be able to talk to each other.

that's the role that journalism must play in ensuring a democratic society. >> host: one of the section in your newest book, "the scienced majority" you talk about try to get to canada to give a speech. [laughter] >> guest: well, democracy now -- every year we travel around the country, and we broadcast from community media public television, public radio stations all over the country and do fundraisers because the way public media supported. part of our mission is to shore up public media. you're describing a situation in 2009, where my colleague, dennis and i, who were with me breaking the sound barrier were going from seattle speaking there, just like two days ago, we broadcast in denver from the

denver open media, which was public access in denver where we broadcast every day. then we went to the studio, it was the first time this station had actually done a global broadcast. we pull a satellite truck up. we work with the people there, students, volunteers and dot broadcast. so that's what we were doing in 2009. we broadcast from seattle, then we were making -- it was thanksgiving time here. we figured the talks wouldn't be happening here. we talked turkey and canada. we were invited by three community outlooks to give a talk in vancouver public library . we are crossing the border with two colleagues and i, and we are about an hour from vancouver, and they pulled us aside. the custom. and when i handed over my passport and said we want you to come to the facility. it was pouring rain. we are already late for the

talk. it was not a good sign. we pulled over. went to a big warehouse facility, and they said can you come forward? i said i have to get -- i don't know can i call the chief librarian to say we're going to be late? they said we want to know what you're talking about? i said what i'm talking about at the library? they said yes, hand over your notes. i said are you serious? it's a public talk, you can come. we want your notes. i said i don't actually give speeches like that. i don't really have notes in that way inspect a no man's land on the border, and i knew i couldn't put up too much of a fight because we would miss the talk entirely. and so i said, what i do is pretty much whip off the column of the book and that was

breaking the sound barrier. so i said, i pretty much riff off the book. and they said, then give us the book. our car was filled with book. we got a copy of the book and handed it to the border guard, and one of them started reading it. that was a good thing. another one started writing in pencil everything i was saying. and another was typing to the commuter. they said what are you going start? i said i thought i would start with the last column. that is about the health care fight in the united. i said interestingly sarah palin's book come out at the same time and she went to canada. she was reaming your health care system. you didn't detain her here. i'm talking about virtuous of your health care system. i said this is about -- maybe i could take the book, because the title of the column of last column in the book was -- and i thought --

it was about i said health care reform need an action hero. imagine the scene america 200918,000 people have died in one year an average of almost 50 a day. who is taking them out? who is killing them. to investigate president obama might be attempted to call on jack bauer from the hit tv series "24" who employed torture and illegal tactic to help the president fight terrorism. terrorism suspect the culprit. it's lack of adequate health care. maybe it's not jack power but the actor who plays him. right. the star of "24" is keffer southerland. whose family has a deep connection in canada. tommy douglas is his grandfather. he voted in cbc in 2004. the greatest canadian. tommy douglas was the premiere

-- and as a kid he almost lost his leg, and the doctor saved him. he felt that public health care was critical. and so he fought for public health care just there. who took him on remarkably enough? the ama, the american medical association. afraid the con they onwould spread south. they won there. it became so popular it spread across canada and became the national health care system for canada. that's what i'm telling the border guards and writing what i'm saying down. i said, so maybe i talked about how southerland had gone to alberta and talk about how you mustn't privatize health care in canada. he if he would speak to the audience in united maybe we

would get public health care passed in the united states. and they said what else are you talking about? i said, well, i was going taunt -- talk about the economy. the terrible recession, prescription we're suffering. what else? i said maybe this is what they're getting at. i will discuss the war and iraq and afghanistan. what else? it's only an hour talk. they said are you denying you're going talking about the vancouver olympics. are you denying you're going to be talking about the olympics? and anyone who knows me, i don't deal that much with sports. i like that play them. but i said the olympics you mean that president obama went to copenhagen to get the olympics in chicago and he didn't get them. i said i know that. and they said you mean the real olympics? that made them think i wasn't telling the truth because the vancouver olympics were coming

up. are you denying you're coming thorough talk about this? i said, well, until now i wasn't planning to talk about the vancouver olympics. they pulled me aside and took my picture and my colleague's picture. they stapled documents. and i opened it up and said we have 48-hours to stay in canada. that's as long as our trip was going to be. i was speaking at the university of victoria. we raced up. they had gone out for beers. the audience had come -- because of what had taken place. i gave my talk. and asked why would people be concerned? raced to speak the next night. we stayed at the bed and breakfast. everyone was having tea before dinner at 6:00. i sat down quietly in a room where older folks were having tea and turned on the news. the first story was about me getting detained.

everyone looks over and i said i'm here to give a speech. the second story was about how in the vancouver city council had voted to that anyone who put up a sign against the olympics their house could be raided and athletes could not speak about the corporation that were sponsoring the olympics. the british colombia was involved. there was a great outcry about this. it got a lot of attention in canada they would detain american journalist demand to know what i would say if it wasn't satisfactory to them keep me from coming to the country. we came back to new york and the next show we did was about the vancouver olympics. let it never be said the state determines that what it's democracy now broadcast. on that day it provided -- >> host: two more questions. how many -- speeches do you give a year? >> guest: many. we did the with silence majority

about 100 city tours. sometimes three in a day as we're traveling we do the show in the morning and go to universities, we have public events, and mainly they are fundraisers for community media station. >> host: most of your books are dedicated or in memory of your parents. who were and are they? >> guest: my wonderful parents. george and dari goodman. my dad died 12 years ago. he was a physician. an ophthalmologist where we grew up in new york in long long island. and he was just committed to our community being a better place. my mother was deeply committed to peace. is she was a social worker. she taught women's history and literature in local community colleges, and, i mean, the

example of my mother who died a few years ago truly wonderful woman. such a role model for us all. the love in the community as my father was. she women's literature and history are at local community college. continuing for truck drivers and cop and whoever, you know, they get a couple of credits and would mean a higher salary. they come and -- we'll take women's literature. it will be easy. and she's teaching them about virginia wolf and tony morrison, the great writers and soon -- it was a time of women's liberation. their daughters. is this what they're talking about? by the end of the classrooms would be packed with those enrolled and their families. my dad was a famous face in the

local long island railroad station. they made poster of a there in a white jacket with a nuclear mushroom and said your doctor is worried. so my dad also lead the task force in our community when i was in elementary school, was chose ton lead a task force to integrate the school of our community. we had a diverse community, but it was pretty much de facto segregation where people lived. and so the schools would be the great equalizer. and i would go with him to cafeteria and auditorium of the school. there would be thousand screaming parents. i watch z z as he -- death threats against the task force that was going to be deciding what to do. but ultimately how he just so judiciously made his way through to a more just solution in our

community. that is my parents. i lost my parents but their legacy lives on in my and my brothers and all the community. they have been such an inspiration to us. >> host: amy goodman is our guest. author and host of democracy now. now it's your turn. we're going to begin with john in santa barbara, california. hi, john. >> caller: hi. as i was waiting, i was trying to think what show have i watched longer that. democracy now? c-span longer than democracy now. [laughter] but anyway, there is a solution to all of these problems, and it's in the constitution, article 5 convention. congress put out a paper last year about the article five convention. all we need is people like amy goodman and peter slen and c-span and bryan lamp to say it's time to --

[inaudible] and the convention. people at the convention thinking it's going to be controlled. it's just open discussion. there's nothing to control. it would allow for the discussion that you're talking about earlier, amy, where the people can actually come together and build consensus. so my question is, at any point will c-span and democracy now start talking about the need for an article five convention? >> host: amy goodman? >> guest: explain a little more what it's about? >> host: he's gone. i apologize. we've gone another caller. he's talking about a potential constitutional convention. >> guest: it's interesting and i would have to learn more about it. i don't want to be one of the pundit that comments on something i don't know about. >> host: john in fairfax, virginia, hi, john. >> caller: hi, peter, amy. you brought tears to my eyes for the first time watching c-span with your remarkable witness to

history for assault. i'm -- [inaudible] what democracy now and c-span are -- [inaudible] listen to you at 5:00 on wpfw and 6:00 on -- [inaudible] >> host: yes. > caller: i appreciate the ability to catch c-span and you too in the same day. i would like that recommend you have more author and book reports that also have a true story to tell. particularly about 9/11 and the war on drugs. thank you so much. >> guest: thank you. you tawsht -- talk about book author. i was just in denver for a book conference. remarkably i met a woman who you will soon hear her story. her name is carlotta.

for folks who live in little rock, arkansas, you know the stories. it's a story that made history in this country. she wrote a book. i talked to her yesterday. we'll be soon broadcasting the interview. i was so moved by her story. carlotta was the youngest meive of -- member of the little rock 9. she was 14 years old in 1957 when she signed a petition would anyone like that go to central high? she went to the african-american school, but she knew that the resources were at central high. she signed up. she didn't even tell her parents. the fall came around, and nine of these young people, i mean, she was fourteen years old. attempt to go to the high school. they attempt once. it's right after little rock explodes. literally the court house was

blown up. the fire chief's car -- they put a bomb under it. still, the kids went. they tried once, but a wild mob prevented them. then september 23rd, they tried again to integrate the school. she's 14 years old. they were turned back, but on that day she described how a group of african-american reporters from around the country, you know, from the chicago defender and chicago pittsburgh cure cur -- were cover the civil right movement were trying to cover them. and how to they were set upon and documenting that first ape tack. and they were being -- beaten and chased then the kids went back far third time. it's hard think about the arkansas the little rock nine as children.

how brave they were. and on september 25th, by then after what happened to the black reporters, president eisenhower called out the national guard they protected them. they went in to the school, and carlotta was the only female member of the little rock 9 who graduated two years later. she left the next morning. she left that city of so much pain yet of so much achievement. and it is voices like those we need to hear all over this country. she was at the national conference and media reform and talk about the importance of having media that tells the story of people at the grassroots who are engaging in these kinds of act of courage. even more than fifty years later. >> our production team tell us that article 5 going back to our first caller article 5 convention is a convention to

propose amendment to the u.s. constitution. do you -- have you thought about amendments to the u.s. constitution at this point you would like -- >> >> guest: well. we are covering them as we travel the country. we see the movement building. there's particularly the movement to amend. that's a constitutional amendment that would say that corporations are not people. which is a big movement in this country. the way corporations are treated. especially when it comes to pouring money to politics as individuals if you viabilitier that ability to give money, you're violating a person's freedom of speech. and many people consider that one of the greatest problem we have to face in this country today. the issue of money in politics. who gets a say? who determines who the leaders of the country are? who are the e lengted officials? once they're elected what they vote for. >> host: andy green felledder e-mails in, i think amy goodman

could have one of the best news program on the air. to do so she would need include multiple point of view. the program usually have a counter main stream slant, which i like because i can get plenty of mainstream in the "new york times" and. if she included a main stream guest along with a counter voice we could think through the whole subject and i think she would have a fabulous program. >> guest: that's an interesting point. i'm right here going to democracy now looking at our broadcast from just this past week. we had a really interesting debate. we have many, many debates on democracy now. two men from nelson, georgia, and they were -- nelson is the second city in georgia to pass a resolution that -- pass a law the city council

passed it unanimously. that every head of household must have a gun. so we had to two members of nelson on. two res dented of nelson. one a city council that said that way on the highway would pass by nelson if they were going commit a crime. everyone has a gun. we have someone opposed and said are you going center me arrested? there are category if you are -- and i'm not have me arrested. i don't want a gun. and we a debate about it. what does it mean? we had many debates on democracy now. >> host: katherine in connecticut. thank you for holding. you're on with amy goodman, booktv on c-span2. >> caller: hello. first thing, i want to say thank you, amy. i love democracy now. i think it's an important program. >> guest: thank you. >> caller: i have two quick questions for you.

you said -- there's something in the title of your last book about hope. i was wondering would you see sign of hope on the political landscape? and secondly, you mention the earlier you don't think a lack of voting in this country is due to -- what do you think t due to? thank you. >> guest: you know, i had an -- first of all, thank you for the call. thank you for tuning in to democracy now. people can check it out at democracynow.org. i had an interesting experience on election day 2000. we were then a radio show, not yet a tv she. we got an interesting dhal morning. we were about to go on the air. we got a call from -- well, they got on the phone and said hi, it's the white house. i thought they said this is -- this is -- they said this is white house communication. we were about to don't air.

the producers were in the studio. i was running in as usual. i said who would be calling right before the show. it's an emergency. the music is already swelling for the beginning of democracy now. and pick it up and say hello. they say white house communication. white horse? it's a famous tavern in new york where dylan thomas drank hymn to death. i said why would a bar be calling us at 9:00 in the morning. i said what do you want? they said the president wants to come on. the president of what? the president of a tavern? they said, president of the united states. i said white house communications. it was bill clinton. he wanted to come on the show. i said the president bill clinton wants to come on democracy now? he'll call you in a few minute. they said he was calling radio stations to get out the vote. of it when hillary clinton was running for senate, and al gore was running for president. so i didn't know if this was,

you know, a crank call or whatever. i said whatever. we went on the air i said to the producer the president might be calling. make sure you pick up the phone. he does. we went on with the show for the hour he didn't call. we were going coffee with we knew it would be a long day. it's election day. who knew that long day would stretch to five weeks? but we get coffee and start the election day coverage, and we hear a yelp coming from the control room. the next show is on, and latino music show and say get in here, the president is on the show. as i run in all of the music faders are up. the microfoafns are done. you hear president clinton saying hello, hello, is anyone there? and so i hurl myself over the board and i brought down all the music faders. bring up his microphone, yes,

mr. president, i understand you want to talk about getting out the vote. i asked him in the beginning about that. i said many people don't vote because they feel both parties are captured by the corporation. what do you have to say about that? he responded. then he was still on, so i asked him, you know, he was considering clemency for leonard who remains in jail. leonard is the famous native american activist who was convicted of killing two fbi agents on the pine bridge reservation in 1975. he a crime he continues to this day to maintain he did not commit. and president clinton had never spoken publicly about it. he addressed the issue. then i was with the latino music programmer, and we went back and forth asking the president questions. asking about the puerto rican

island, the u.s. navy island was doing that. asking when they would stop. asked him about racial profiling. edasked him. was a time when ralph neighedder was running. i asked him might he -- president clinton be responsible for needer's success? i think it was at that point he said i find you hostile, combative, and i asked him about racial profiling. because al gore said if he became president it would be the first executive order to do away with racial profiling. said if that's his intention you both have been in power for eight years. why haven't you.name it until now? anyway after a half hour he got off the phone. and it got at lough attention. the conversation with the president and the next day i gate call from newsday, local

newspaper in new york, and talking to the reporter, and i get another call and from the white house. and so i just put the phone call with the reporter down -- at the time we used tape recorders. as a physical place to put the phone down. i wasn't recording anything and i said one minute. the white house is on the phone. he happened to hear my end of the conversation. i just put the phone down. this is a time when we're using phone and not cell cell phones as much and i said hello. they said something to do with i would be banned from the white house. i said what are you talking about? they said i broke all the basic rules the agreement we had. i said i have no agreement with you. i mean, i was going on the air in one second you said the president might call. that's with the extent of our conversation. they said, we said he wanted to talk about getting out the vote. and they said something like questions one, four, and seven related to that but not the others. i didn't agree that those are the only questions i would ask.

i understand that's what he wanted to talk about. we are independent. we are journalists. and i said how many other radio stations did he call? they said many. he spoke to 40 journalists. and i said all of them just agreed to ask the questions that you wanted asked? and they said that's right. i said that's a very sad state of comment on the sad state of journalism today. they said and we said he had a few minute. you kept him on the phone for a half hour. he said he's a leader of the free world. he can hang up if he wants to. i'm doing my job asking as many question as he could until he decided to get off the phone which he ultimately did anyway. it was a very interesting conversation we had. and it got at lot of attention with headlines that said we went back and forth. that issue of an agreement that you have that journalists have with politicians, you know, i

covered the white house, been at the, you know, covering been at the white house press corp. coring the president, i'm afraid that too often journalists engage in, well, the access of evil. that is trading truce for access. maybe you get another chance to ask the president or and come back to the president or the website or whatever news organization you have the actual -- you are the 2000 ask the question. hole tickses -- politicians need journalist more than i'm trying to remember why i told you the story. you asked the question about -- asked the question -- >> host: lack of voting and hope. hope what gives us hope and lack of voting. that was a first question i put to president clinton, you know, the idea that people have across

the political spectrum that individuals are losing control that corporations and corporate power has -- is a tremendous threat to democracy right now. also the issue of privacy. but what gets me hope is that people also across the political spectrum are organizing. people are engaging in the highest civic duty which is to participate. and whatever comes out of that, what matters that the people not the corporation that shown determining the law of the country. >> host: amy goodman recounts that conversation with the president in "exception to the rulers "in a chapter called "not on bended knee ." there's a transcript here. and this is a first just the first answer and the fist question. mr. president, are you there? i am. can you hear me? yes, you can. you are calling radio stations

to get out and vote. what do you say to people that the two parties are by corporations and feel their vote doesn't make a difference? my guess is that is the last time you ever talked to president clinton? >> host: i have, let me see. when we interestingly enough -- they were establishing the u.s. embassy. we had a chance to actually challenge him about u.s. policy. which was people ghowld to democracynow.org and had an interesting interaction. i've never personally interviewed him after that. >> host: where did you have the presence of find jump right to a conversation with the president of the united states? >> guest: people prepare their whole live for an interview with the president of the united states. we didn't have that opportunity. he calls in and it's a huge

responsibility whether talking to a president or anyone else, you know, you are there and not at lack of a lot of people goat ask the question. i see when i hold out the microphone. there are so many people behind us who would have questions if they didn't have to be at work or could only gate -- get a job. and i take that extremely seriously. as i think many journalists do. what are the questions that make a difference for the most people in this country? >> host: clinton, now wait a minute. you started this every question you have asked has been hose time and combative. you listen to my answer. goodman: they have been critical questions. > guest: he seemed surprised that a journalist asked the questions. >> host: earnest e-mails in

does democracy now have credential to attend and ask questions of jay carney at the white house press gathers and if not, why not. why doesn't democracy now get a change to interview the president or the other governmental organization -- official. >> guest: we do. we are not at the white house right now, but i do believe we -- if we wanted to be in the white house prez corp. we could be. >> host: why don't you? >> guest: we continue have the resources to did candidate a recorder there now. we do a daily global "newshour." we are based in new york city. >> host: are you still based at the fire station? >> guest: no. we built our own studio. it's the greenest internet tv radio studio in the country. we have lead platinum certification. the counter top in the green room and the kitchen area are made of crushed recycled bottles

cemented together. we -- in, you know, data centers and our machine room that old tv stations or radio stations have to deal with in lots of places deal with data center. we really pioneered a way to -- because all the electronics give off so much theet work out a way to try to use less energy in dealing with this. because we really do belief that the medium has to be the message. and also what is interesting about the democracy now broadcast every morning at 8:00 live and stations can run it all day. you can go to our website and watch it live on 58. we put on transcript every day of every hoe. students come and watch the broadcast. whether graduate students or fourth graders, kids in high school and college. it's a tremendous opportunity, and, you know, really a civic education after the show when the guests come out of the broadcast. they goat ask some questionses.

we talk about what journalism is today in a democratic society. so it is a wonderful educational forum. we also have lot of volunteer and interns and fellows that these classes that come in to -- they come from around the world and come from new york city. t been a remarkable experience to be able to hold the forum every day. >> host: next call for amy goodman. lee in rockville, maryland. in the suburb. hi, lee. >> caller: good morning, amy. i thank you for -- coming. >> guest: it's great to be here. >> caller: i'm a long-time listener i listen to you every morning when i drive work. >> guest: where do you live? >> caller: washington. >> guest: jazz and justice radio. >> caller: i'm contributor. >> guest: excellent. >> caller: i've been a contributor for many years. i really take issue with your reporting on israel. you vilify israel and vilify

israel and vilify israel. i'm glad you pointed out this morning or afternoon or earlier how objective you are. when prime minister netanyahu spoke to the joint session of the congress a year and a half ago he got twenty or thirty standing elevations. twenty or thirty standing elevations by the members of congress. in democracy now reported on it, it was not objective, amy. what you said of the something to the effect of prime minister netanyahu shouted down by the demonstrators. one, one woman got up and started yelling "free palestinian" and she was not in the arab country she would have been carted off and flown jail and beaten and raped. in the united states and israel, they don't do that. i they just pick up her and, you know, read her her rights, and

then let her go. and you reported -- your reporting was -- knit yat -- netanyahu was shouted down. not he got twenty or thirty standing elevation. do you remember that? >> host: let's gate response. >> guest: i want to address the larger issue which is a serious one. it's covering the israel-palestinian conflict. how important it is to bring out the voices across the political spectrum. i fear that the media and the united -- it is changing, but as with reporting on power in the united states often acting as stenographer. we see with israel as well. journalists presenting the israeli government side. we very much bring out different perspectives. i mean, we interview, for

example, -- [inaudible] who is the former israeli foreign minister. you said it was the most extensive discussion he had in the united states about israel. you know, we don't just do sound bytes tfght and radio. we give the whole meal. we'll have extended debate and discussion about the critical issues. and, you know, we interview palestinian journalist the. people on the ground and georgia and we interview really. i think one area that is overlooked in the united states is the israeli pace movement. i think public opinion in the united is shifting dramatically.

to the number of palestinian prisonerses they are holding. palestinian prisoners who died. the protests giving voice to the protests. those in west bank and gaza. we had a reporter on what has been called the freedom -- document the attempt to to break the israeli embargo of gaza. what does mean to be on the ship as with other journalist organizations. sadly when the israeli military broaden the ship ashore, they took all of our reporter's equipment, computer, camera. it was more than a year ago. they have just written and said they're not returning it. it is very important we reflect what is happen on the ground. these are difficult truths, but the situation in israel, palestinian must be resolved. it's not good for palestinian. it's not good for israelis. it is a conflict that must be

resolved. if you can't get through on the phone line you can go to facebook.com/booktv. you can send us a tweet@booktv is our twitter handle. this is from our facebook page eye -- amanda sent several facebook tweet and comment. i want to address a couple of. it there one place on earth you haven't traveled you would like to? >> guest: there are many places i haven't traveled. what we do at democracy now is speak with people all over the world. there's a new film which i recommend to everyone that is coming out in april as well as a book with my colleague. he started working at democracy now in the late '90s. we went to nigeria together. we covered the delta particularly looking at chevron.

a few years before when i was doing the local morning show. maybe i should say what the stations are. i started at wbai in new york. 65 years ago in berkeley, california, it's very interesting. it went on the air in the spring of 1970.

it's the only radio station in the country whose transmater was blown up by the ku klux klan. they went on for a few weeks. stakeholder not as if they had the money to advertise the new stays and blew it to the consciousness of the potential listening audience. when they got back on the feet rebuilt the transmater. the clan blew it up again. it allow people speak for them. when you hear a palestinian child or an israeli grandmother, and fraudulent iraq or uncle from afghanistan telling their story, it makes it much more difficult to you don't have to

agree with them. you start to understand where they're coming from. i believe that the media can be the greatest force for peace on this earth. steady it's wielded as a weapon of war. i think that has to be challenged. >> host: one more question from amanda, which is -- >> guest: let me say i don't know if i said the name of jeremy. i almost he was a producer with democracy now, then he wrote the book his latest book is coming out in the next few weeks. it's called dirty wars. the world is beaght field.

rage bid the united states and the joint special operation command. what is happening ease specially around the issue of drone attack from yemen to somalia to prk. it's interesting we know what is done in our name. we went nigeria at the end of the '90s. we went to the delta to investigate. i met a man a few years before when i was just in the local station doing a show called wake-up call. he was brought in by a nigeria activist. i said our show is full. i hadn't heard of him. they said he's here for one day. he needs to go on. two minutes.

he introduced himself. he was one of the most famous nigerian. he was a writer famous soap opera. threw in his lot with the people. and he was taking on shell corporation, which chris cris crossed with the hype and unlike the united where it's ill reel. they would flair off the gas he said when i go home i'm a marked man and will be arrested. we dumped guest after guest that morning. of it so remarkable. i tried to resolve i would go to

nigera ya. he went home. and he was jailed with eight other minority rights activist. within a year it was november 10th, 1995, after a trial he was executed. we went back to nigeria we visited his family, one of the men in his community came forward after they sack a song and method his parent who since died. the man came forward and recounted for us the last speech in court. because there was an oil spill. and they were wanted the forest cleaned up and they wanted jobs. and ultimately the chevron threw in the military on the barge and

opened fire anded two other -- killed and did a documentary. it's those kind of stories that shed a spotlight on american might not know about. why is it could happen in nigeria? it's our job as journalist to go where to the silence is and bring back the story.

i think people are deeply concerned about the sucking sound. we are seeing the largest gap in inequality. we have to really evaluate the system we need e lengted leaders . >> an e-mail from richard. what happened to the occupy wall street movement of a year ago? did it fall through -- facility to achieve the objective? is such an endeavor hopeless? the general -- unmobilized for whatever reason? >> the occupy movement i don't think we have seen the end of it. i think it take different forms. but what happened in the last two years around the world was truly remarkable. first, you had the tunisia

revolution at the end of december. 2010. which sparked the egyptian uprising and the egyptian uprising.