play jazz, and from there he was able to find his own way to go that was so powerful he influenced a lot of other people. >> we've talked with the columnist from the new york daily news and author of this book coming out in september of 2013, "kansas city light ning: rise and times of charlie parker," this is booktv on c-span2. >> up next, six students from university of montana who found absolutepoker.com, and shows early success with revenues of over $1 # million a day, and the eventual scrutiny received from the department of justice which shut it down in 2011. this program is about 40 minutes.

>> good afternoon. thank you, all, for joining us, and thank you all watching on booktv on c-span, you teaming throngs of billions around the world. when they asked me to come here and interview ben mezrich, i jumped at the chance. he's one of my favorites in the literary world. you know the films based on his book, as well as his book, "disattal billionaire," "the social network," bringing down the house became "21", and you titled the book "sex on the moon" because you knew they wouldn't change the title for the film. the newest is "straight flush," how poker players created an empire, sort of, and i want to begin by just drawing your attention to -- from my money, the greatest author, jacket photo since hemmingway of ben right here.

you look like someone that -- >> for the moment anyway, i'm excited john is doing this with me, and we hosted a television show once, which i don't think any of you watch, that's called the world series of blackjack, and it was on gsn, and he was the host, and i was the blackjack expert, and he was in a hotel in vegas for a month, a few weeks, watching degenerates from around the world compete in high stakes blackjack. some, our cameras caught cheating. >> right. >> we watched them do unsavery things in the lobby afterwards, and i got to know ben well because as much fun as i had hosting the show, they messed up the audio, and almost all audio

was lost so ben and i had to spend about six months going to malibu every week and sitting in a tiny four by four booth, recreating the excitement of watching a year old card game together, and i came -- i was already a fan of him as a writer, and i came to him as a man and craftsman, and how he went about making readable pieces of work. it's an honor to be here. have not read "straightn, those flush," give us an overview -- >> sure. >> and why the story drew you? >> sure. it's a story about a group of fraternity brothers from university of montana, regular kids, most very poor, one was so poor that he sold a cow to buy his first car. they were montana kids. they used to play poker in the basement of a local bar, a bar called stockman, and one got the idea that putting poker online

makes a lot of money. online poker had not started yet. there was only one other company. this is back in 1999, prewhat we have on the internet, and they built the first and biggest online poker sites, moving the from fraternity to costa rica, lawless wild west craziness, and built this over a few years with setbacks into a million dollar a day business. they were weeks away from ipo'ing for millions of dollars, and they ipo'ed for 13 billion, on the verge when the government decide the online poker was illegal. in 2006, a bill passed, attached to a port terrorism bill so nobody could vote against it, and it said that online poker would be considered illegal. these guys stayed in the business until 2011 so they didn't fold them, i guess, is the way to put it, and in 2011, the department of justice raided

all the poker sites, and the guys are facing 80-year indictments, one lives on the islanden antiuga, a fugitive, but they know where he is, but he's hiding there, staying there, not returning to the u.s.. his brother, another main character, is doing 14 months in federal prison after turning himself in. it's a wild story. there's a cheating scandal in the middle where one of the insiders in the website turns out was cheating, seeing people's cards, so someone playing online parker thought there was cheating going on, there was, they paid back the money to those cheated, but it's a wild story, and i guess i was turned on by it because it felt like a blend of "21", and the "the social network." >> that was the next question. the back story of the collegiates, mit in "21"; right? >> yes. >> and made a lot of money, and how in a certain way, it all

went wrong, if you consider facebook going wrong, which the movie did, but that drew you to it? it was a good story? >> yeah -- >> when you write a nonfiction book, what's the criteria? >> i get 20 to 30 pitches a week. in the last couple days, i have a dozen alone, and they are crazy. they are not things i would write about. usually every college kid who does something bad e-mails me. i get every kind of scandal or scheme you can imagine, and most are from prison, some are just out of prison, and every now and then, it's wilted. this turned me on because it was about an industry i didn't know anything about that vanished in one day. i knew a lot of people played online poker, coast rei conscious costa rica was wild, lawless, girls, money, what i like to write about, and it intrigued me. the guys built something huge, and had it taken away. they were on the verge of being a mark zuckerberg, but they went

to prison or became fugitives. it bleepedded together. it's a blend of 21 and social network. >> when you commit to writing a book that turns you on, how extensive is the research process? how much digging do you and deer viewing do you do before the narrative? >> six month researches, research is a part of the story as much as i can, getting on a plane, hanging out with the fugitives, or with "2 is 1", strapped money to the body and we want two and from vegas every weekend with a team. with zuckerberg, i couldn't, but hung out with the twin rowers, perfect, hollywood would have invented them if they did not exist, but i try to get into the story, and then i sit down, get all the law cases. every one of the books has tens of thousands of pages of legal case work. i go through all of that. i try to make sure it's right,

and i sit down and write. >> and when we first talked about this a few years back, you mentioned to me your style of writing back then was lock yourself in a room, preferably a vegas hotel room, and that your practice was 16 pages a day, and if you got 16 pages done, then you were allowed to have a life. >> right. first of all, i don't recommend this to writer out there. it's miserable way to live. i write in a desperate, horrible situation. i don't find writing enjoyable. i love the research, but sitting down and writing is torture. anybody out here who is a writer knows that, but i like to lock myself in a room for long hours, did 16 pages a day, now it's 12. i'm getting older, slowing down. >> you have kids now. >> two kids now, exhausting as anything can be, much more exhausting than writing, and it's one of the those things where i have to be in the room until the book is done, and so for me, it's anywhere from two to six months basically around

the clock writing as much as i can, and, you know, it's intense. i'm sure a lot of you out there are writers. it's just one of the things that it's hard to describe why you're doing it, when you're doing it, but when you are finished, it's the greatest feeling in the world, but, you know, yeah, the process is very much still similar about 12 pages a day. >> and do you write by hand at all in your process? either in the researching process or in the drafts? >> no, nothing is by hand. i actually, most recently, stated dictating to software. you know, i know that's an ad here, but mac dictates -- i dictated a good three quarters of the book, and you reteach yourself to speak like you are writing, the tricky part, and edit it, but that's more freeing. for me, nothing is by hand, i go the opposite direction. >> do you work from an outline? >> i do. outlines are incredibly necessary. they are hateful. i don't know anybody who likes outlines, but if you don't, your book gets away from you. i have -- i outline to the point

where i know the page number of every chapter before i write. it's a very severe outline. >> do all your books fit into a certain story structure? do you use a traditional 3o5x structure? >> i do. i get attacked for it quite a bit, but i write nonfiction like a thriller. when i write it, i have plot points, what happened in the story, and then i essentially outline it as if it's a movie, and i write it that way. you know, you know when the big dramatic moments occur in the plot. look, reality fits the thriller structure. all of us live the lives, but we have obstacles, fall in love, and we die. that's the 3x structure. reality fits well into the structure, especially a story like this where the guys came from nothing, rose to a million dollar a day business, taken away, and they end up spiraling down with drugs and girls until they end up fugitives. it's a perfect thriller in that respect. i do write in that way, yeah. >> well, i want to talk about the research then because it

sounds like a fun part of your work spending time with the girls and drugs and fugitives. >> well, first of all, my wife is here -- no. i, you know, these guys were like any college kids who were placed in a place where there was no boundaries. they were right up the street from the larger whore house in the world where there's 200 women working there, and there's no law where they were. at one point, they flip a bmw, the main character runs into the bushes with a bottle of tekuila, a broken ankle, and a hooker and bribes the police. this was the world they lived in. in a story like this, i'm a fly on the wall. i'm a very neurotic, phobic individual. i don't dive in the way, you know, hunter thompson might have. i go there, i watch from the background. i try to stay as involved without being involved as possible. >> how do you do that? how do you insinuate yourself in

with subjects? does that take a period of time to get past the level of performing for the guy who writes about them? >> yeah, there's a lot of things. first of all, you don't know whether they are telling the truth. second of all, you don't know if they are better than they are. third of all, you want to be inside, get to be their friend, get close to them for the whole storiment i don't go in like a journalist with a notebook and tape roared. they don't allow that. i go in as part of the story. i'm going to be there as two in the morning in antigua hanging out with these guys. i fall for the people i write about a lot. i find them fascinating and incredible because i'm scared of everything, and they took enormous risks, and then, you know, i finish the research, sit back, go through it, and see what's true and not. it's like method acting. i want to live that story. of course, as i get older, i'm outagreing the people i write about so it's harder and harder to live the story, but that's an

example. >> an example of the character you fell for in the book. >> the main character is a complex individual, scott thomas, a lot of people hate him, but he's fascinating. came from nothing, a horrible background, ended up in costa rica, losing all money at one point, embroiled in a cheating scandal, but keeps going, and then the law is passed, and suddenly, it's illegal what he's doing, sleeping with a fun under the pillow, that kind of a world, but he believes what he's doing is not wrong, and he keeps going until literally the government runs in with guns and shuts it down. i don't know. i'm fascinated by that. it's appealing. i don't call them saints. one was doing so many drugs eyebrows fell out, locked himself in the room to the point he didn't realize the others moved out. he was living a loan in a house for weeks. he ends up in rehab, a

compelling story although they are not saints. mark is another example. mark is a genius. the guy built facebook, a difficult individual at best. i think people who are around him and know him find him difficult to be around, whether or not he screwed everybody, nobody knows. i got as close as i could get, but i worship him. he's fascinatingment the movie turns him into an over the top individual you can't hate. a lot of people want to be there. i don't know. i'm fascinated by the oversized individuals living incredible lives. you know, my wife calls it stockholm syndrome because i am with them for so long that i fall for them, but you tell it through their eyes. it's a book through the eyes of the main characters of the book. billionaires, is through the eyes of eduardo, and if mark wrote it, it would have been a

different story, and you would have never heard of anybody else. you know, it is what it is. i feel like telling the story through the eyes of the characters is more compelling. >> it's interesting what happened to the real life characters after the books are published and films made. "the special net," thrilling to see you on stage at the oscars. >> oh, thank you. >> i wonder, when you consider what happened since then, facebook public, mark's ups and downs, and the tax policies, makes mark the second most hateable character in the book to some people. do your subjects ever take issue with you post-publication with what you've done and have you ever heard what was thought of your books? >> yes, to both questions. when you write like this, i explain carefully to the characters, we don't know what's going to happen when the book comes out. they love or hate you. it could be bigger than you want or it could disappear. you don't know how people react. after the book comes out, after

all the excitement, there comes a period where the main character is, like, oh, i wish this never happened, i hate you, that kind of thing. not always, but often. it never works out necessarily exactly how they want it to. some people, you know ed got two million because of the book and movie. i don't he would have paid him off had we not done the project. he went to singapore, $2 billion, and didn't pay taxes. he lives in singapore, living the life that i guess we dream to live if we had $2 billion at 29. >> as fugitives. >> he's not a fugitive, but, you know, i feel that it's hard to prepare a character for what it's like having your life open to the world like that, and i try and make it as, you know, easy a process as possible letting them know what happens with the book, and these characters, most read what's in the book so they know what's coming, but in the end, you never know how they react. i'm friends with the guys from "21" still, close with most, and

accident accidental billionaires," not eduardo, he had to cut off restraining orders to get the $2 billion. in the thing signed, giving him the money, it said you can't ever speak to ben again, and for that much, i wouldn't speak to ben either; right? that's the settlement agreement. i don't know him anymore, but i talk to the others, and everything worked out. i ran into cheryl sandberg, we went to college together, the same year in college, and so after the book and after the movie, i was at a reunion, and she comes up to me, and i expected to get punched, but she's a wonderful person. i think she's a genius. we sat down, and she said, you know, they hated me for a year, went to see the movie in a bus, all of facebook saw it, and they liked it, and they invited me to come to facebook. i have not gone there yet. in the end, i don't think mark thinks one way or the other. i'm not in his thoughts often anymore, but the guy's worth $15

billion. hopefully he has other things to think about, but in the end, it works out great for facebook. mark looked cool. the company did great company of it, on the cover of "time" magazine, and a lot of younger people went into the interpret because of what they saw in the movie. >> young people went into the internet? >> internet companies, young people going into the internet well before that, but, i mean, yes, decided to try to become mark. >> so a decided theme of your work is really young people who are skirting the ethical lines? >> right. in the gray area of right and wrong. that's what i write about. people taking risks, college kids, who are really just going and doing something different, building a company. i'm obsessed with the great american myth, the idea of the great american success story, and college kids or right after who are willing to sort of take chances and do something great. >> don't be alarmed c-spas.

>> just woke up 800 people. the loud noise just came from c-span. doing it live on tape. how has what you've witnessed and documented as an artist affected your sense of ethics? have you just seen lines that you would not cross, or have you -- have you come to believe that a lot of lines are very movable? >> realm, good question. ethnically, as a non-fiction writer, the goal is not to screw anybody or write a story that affects people negatively without, you know, informing them to some degree that's the direction you are going. i feel, you know, i try to write true a story as i can, but i'm open about the process, i write thrillers that happen to be true. the facts in it are correct spars i can get there. dialogue is recreated, but i build the story as true as i can. there's journalists who do not like the way i write feeling

nonfiction should be an encyclopedia. it's a valid form. ethical things, it's someone's real life, be honest with it, truthful, and you have to not screw them over. also, i'm learning about money. a lot of the people did a lot of crazy things for money. i have to ask the questions, what are you willing to do for money, and this story, a question i ask a lot is how long are you willing to go to jail for $30 million. you can have $30 million, but you go to federal prison for a year. that's what some of the guys might be facing, turning themselves in, doing a year in prison. >> can we get a show of hands of the audience with that question. doing a year -- not state pen, a real prison, one year, 30 million. can we see hands? >> interesting. >> there's seniors raising their hands there. >> a year in prison, interesting. the other ethical question i asked people from the social network, two college kids in a dorm room, one of them comes up

with a brilliant idea, says to the buddy, you put up a thousand dollars, you get 30% of the company. the guy spends the next three years building the company by himself, launched it, worth $30 billion. first guy says i want 30%. does he deserve the 30% or does he not? that's a question i ask. when you asked young entrepreneurs that question, they say, no, he was there in the beginning, gets something, but he didn't build the company. when you ask venture fund people, they say, of course, he put up the thousand dollars. it's one of the things of that's what happened in the movie, he was there, mark said you get 30% of the company for a thousand dollars, and five years later, he wanted his 30 #%. it's, you know, you get a lot of questions like that that i'm fascinated by in the stories. yeah. >> you mentioned some of the critiques you have taken from nonfiction writers. how do you separate truth and

facts when you write a nonfiction work? >> truth and facts? >> you talk about recreating dialogue. >> right, i do all the research, get as much information as i can so i know what happened in all the different points of the book, and i sit down, write it like a movie. you can take a theme like that and say they talked about facebook. you can write a dialogue between two characters talking about facebook. i choose to do that. you know, it's one of the things where some journalists like it; others won't. the truth is more than the facts. there's always different points of view. eduardo feels differently than mark. the guys who built the company feel differently than the u.s. government who brought it down; right? depending on whose point of view you write from, you have a different truth. if you interview the fbi agent who followed the guys who was making notes of them with hookers and coke and watching people lose the money when it went down, they feel they

deserve to go to jail. talk to these guys, you know, they built the internet company like everybody else, and then it was illegal, and they didn't know what to do at that point. they had shareholders. the huge company didn't shut down. that was a mistake because they paid for it in the end of the there's multiple points of view to a true story. >> that was in 2006, do you know why the bush administration decided to make online poker illegal? >> yes. it was two moralizing senators, frisk from tennessee; right? >> yeah. now an exsenator. >> he knows more than politics than i do. john kyl -- is he -- >> in the senate, i think? i'm a political comedian, i should know this. >> they ran on a platform of antigambling. they couldn't go against that because we love to gamble. two weeks ago, we lined up for power ball ticketings, that's okay, but poker's not okay? there's no reason that poker is wrong and lottery is right. what they did is attack tached

to a port terrorism bill. there was a port terrorism bill going through, no one votes against that because that's antiterrorism. they attached a rider to it making the movement of money involved in online gambling, it it's already illegal -- illegal -- the movement of money into an illegal gaming site was money laundering. >> how many people lost money on that? >> when that went down, 150 million in player money lost, $15 billion industry disappeared in one day. it was a $15 billion industry vanished. television lost 300 million in advertising. the world series of poker went from 8,000 members to 800 members and built itself back up. it was a massive loss of an industry for reasons still unexplained. they didn't go after, for instance, row tis ri football leagues because the nfl wouldn't let them because the nfl loves that stuff, and they didn't go after lotteries or casinos or after horse racing in new york;

right? that's fine. they went after all fines you legally gamble on, but they went -- >> bingo. >> they didn't go after that, but you can't play poker. poker is a game of skill. the department of justice's own lawyers last year past a ruling decided poker is not covered by the wire act and not considered illegal gaming; however, different states have different laws. the state of new york considers poker gambling. that's why it was the state of new york in the department of justice that went after these guys. >> what you're saying is giving your credit card number to a website to game l is risky? >> that's the other thing. when the companies went down, all the players who lost money, i mean, most knew they were involved in an industry that was a little bit shady. i feel bad for all those who lost money, but you gave your credit card to an offshore bank that was an in between guy to an offshore gambling company. >> shocking. >> there was stuff that was going to go on. it's too bad it was not a regulated legal industry because, for instance, in the u.k., in canada, in most

countries in the world, other than us, iran, and north korea, online poker is legal, and in those places it's protected, insured, and they pay taxes, and there's no problem with it. when it is legal here, as it will, it's leal now in nevada and new jersey, almost legal in delts, and slowly everywhere, it will be regulated, taxed, and your money is safe. >> now to the point of the program where y'all get to ask questions. we'll just go by raising hands, there's a microphone. be patient. it may take ten seconds here or there, but let's begin if anyone has questions for ben. feel free to raise your hand. while i wait for the first person not to be shy -- oh, right over there. >> the best question gettings to keep the microphone. >> yes, and get ben's home phone number. >> how are you? >> excellent, thanks. >> good. so i know supposedly the next movie -- >> hold the microphone to your mouth. >> supposedly the next movie is

about the rock and nasa. what's going on with that? in addition, how much say do you have with regards to how the movie plays out? i know in "21", they change ad just names, kevin louis -- >> a few got chairnged in that movie too. >> how much say as an author do you have in that? do you find it insulting it changing your work of art for a movie? >> "sex on the moon" was the book about the kid who robbed nasa, stole a 600 pound safe full of moon rock to impress his girlfriend, put them on the bed, had sex on the moon rock, and

then that was sold, and will who did "easy a" and "friends with benefits," working on the screen play. i don't have any updates so i don't know when or if it's made this year. when you sell a project to hollywood, you give up pretty much all control. they consult with you on the screen play. yoir showing up on set, but as important as the caterer. nobody wants you there. you have fun with ac fors, and they make the movie they want to make. the goal is to set up with people that you trust, feel like make a good movie. when you have david and they want to make a movie, like, do whatever the hell you want. that's great. you don't have any control. they show you the casting. justin timberlake will be in it, really, and it's awesome. it's one of the things you don't know what happens, you don't have control, meet with the director, the screen writer, and most control is in the screen play phase if you are used as a consul at that particular time,

but overall, just an expert. they change a lot. you know, in "21", the main character, changed the name because he asked me. he didn't want to be known as the blackjack guy, and when the movie was made, he did want to be known as that, but he was changed to a white guy, and that was, you know, a decision made when they cast it, auditioning people, and jeff was a consultant on set. all mit kids were on set in "21", which was crazy because we were kicked out of casinos as the movie was shot because they can't play blackjack anywhere. i'm not upset. i've been lucky. the movies made are phenomenal. to me, i liked them both. i'm sure there'll be a bad movie and i'll be upset, but if you take the check, let them do it, it's their project. >> do some authors have more creative control or final say over scripts? >> i'm sure steven king has say

to some degree. you know, it it was an indy film, a small budget, i could be involved and make it mice eni would have total control. for me, it's go to a big studio, sell it to people who i respect and have always wanted to see make a movie and try to get robert pattonson in it, and it's awesome. i feel the movie gets so many people to see it so your story gets to a wide audience whatever east going to happen to make the movie made, i'm happy with, but, you know, with "21", we could have gone the rounders route that few people saw because it was intense, or gone the 21 route, a bigger movie that people saw. i was cool with either direction. i thought it was great. yeah. you don't have -- i'm sure authors have a lot more control in certain states or how they sell the project. i'm a witness to whatever goes

on. >> next question? >> in 2 # 1, what happened to the character? >> mice, so in the book, he's dwimpt than he is in the movie. he's not a bad guy. he actually still runs an mit blackjack team, recruits college kids. you know, the part in the end of 2 is was not based in the book where they run around, and he's getting taken away by people. that did not happen. in reality, he disappearedded, came back, and now recruits another team. he came to the 21 premier, the real guy who it is based on, and he seemed to like it. he's out there playing blackjack or coaching blackjack i should say. >> that's the spacey character. >> yeah. >> yes, sir? >> i'm curious where in your mind the law should be?

>> yeah, i believe there's no reason online poker should be illegal. i think that it should be regulated, an age -- i don't want to see high school kids playing online poker, but 21, whatever the right age is, regulated tax, and national, legal, online poker. no reason to go to a casino, play poker, and not play from the computer. there might be -- maybe there should be limits op how much money you put in at a time. maybe limits on the bet, but there's no reason it shouldn't be a regulated industry. first of all, that creates jobs, tax money comes from it, and it's a game of skill people play. there's a lot of people -- 15 million americans played online poker. 10% of the country wanted to play it at some point or maybe 5%. i don't know how many people in the u.s., but there's a demand for it. if the lottery is legal, on lie poker is legal. if you want all gambling, i think so it. from a moral point of view, but

i have no personal problem with it as long as it's controlled and regulated. i don't know how i feel about, you know, the loy ri. i feel like the lottery is more dangerous and upsetting to me than poker because there's no skill involved. toc just numbers. i play the lottery too. i understand why maybe it shouldn't be allowed. poker, i don't understand why it shouldn't be allowed. >> poker is a game of skill. >> do you or any subjects have a problem with easy access for gambling addicts? >> absolutely. they wanted to be regulated. in countries, they were. overseas, europe, they pay taxes, regular lathed on who could play, and certain countries would say to them we don't want it in the country, and they banned that country. the u.s. just left it gray. they didn't say whether they wanted if or not. until 2006, no clue as to what the federal policy would be on this. most agree there should be

regulation. like a casino, they shouldn't deal to you, but i've never been in one where they don't deal. people are dealt to who are lying on the floor, but they are supposed to take into account whether or not you look like you have a problem. it's hard to analyze. with online poker, you limit the amount of money played in a certain amount of time. you can't go back to the cred cards over and over again, but a limit, a monthly limit maybe or something like that. i'm not the one who drafts these rules and regulations. nevada now has it legal. you have to be in in evidence so they triyang late your cell phone, next to the laptop, and ping your cell phone to ensure you are there. >> let freedom ring. next question. >> i have a question while somebody gets brave -- oh, yes. >> [inaudible] >> mind asking it into the microphone.

>> have you sold "straight flush" to become a movie? >> we have not sold to be a movie yet. we have a lot of people who have called about it, and it's out with kevin spacey has it, interested in it as well. it will make the rounds over the week. you know, it's -- i think it makes an awesome movie. we'll see what people think. >> you once told me that you write books for people who don't like to read. >> ha-ha. >> can you unpack that statement? it's brilliant. >> i write for people who don't read. >> having said that, everyone i know who does read has your books in the collection. >> oh, for me, i write -- i feel like i'm competing with all forms of entertainment, and not just other books, the readers are guys or have been with "bringing down the house," and people who don't read a lot of books. they pick up the book or given it for father's day and read it

and realize they like to read books. maybe i'm the harry poupter of nonfiction. i like writing books that i would like to read. i'm someone who is obsess the with television, movies, and, you know, anything that distracts me will distract me like a cat with a ball. i need to write a book that keeps my attention so a lot of times the readers are people who come up to me and say this is the only book i read in ten years, and it's my favorite book. i don't know what to say, but i get that a lot. i've always find that that is kind of fascinating to me, but i like the fact readers come to me untrambled by reading. it's a great audience, and, you know "the social network," expanded the network. >> you wrote fiction in the past. will you go back? >> i just sold a movie to 20th century fox with brett radnor,

the director, a thriller in the da vinci code and indiana jones vain. i used to write fiction, six nfl novels none of you read, and i had a movie "fatal error," and there was a surgeon, a believable casting, didn't know surgeon did so many situps in between their patients, but -- i wrote for the x-files back when. i used to write fiction before "bringing down the house," and i have a children's book coming out next year which just handed in, and which is about a group of sixth graders who figuredded out how to beat carnival games using math and science. it's "bringing down the house" for a young audience. it's a children's book for next year. >> do we have any further questions from the most attractive crowd in literary park dwellers?

>> well, i want to ask you about your show because i have you here. >> not about me, but you and your book. >> no, no. >> i do a show on al gore that used to be hosted by keith, and will you come on your show? >> tomorrow. >> i'm so burned out on politics, i'd love to have you on. >> i know little to nothing about politics, it'll be perfect. >> i met ben in an unusual way hosting a strange tv show, and as we mentioned at the top of it, spending months and months and months in the airless box of malibu. >> we didn't even have a single window, eating tuna sand witches so the box smelled like tuna, and we had o over dub ourselves watching blackjack. >> ben, what does she need to draw next in >> oh, no, it's a six. >> that was the life. >> for six months. >> you're a good actor.

>> thank you. it was fascinating. >> definitely. anymore questions? all right, listen, thank you, all, very much. happy to sign anything you want me to sign. i appreciate you coming out today. have a great day. >> thank you, ben. >> for more information, visit the author's website, ben benmezrach.com. >> i suppose in looking at specific circumstances in the episode in algeria and looking at some of the hypothetical scenarios for something like

pakistan or north korea or some future nuclear weapons state, it is sobering in the sense that the first lose sons drawn from this is this is a perilous venture that is outside intervention in the circumstances. it is a long shot at the best. i'm not saying, therefore, we should never consider it; therefore, action may not be necessary, but one should not have any degree of optimism that we should do this. this is much more complicated than going after bin laden. i know we have, and justifiably so, great pride in abilities to carry off spectacular successful operations, but in the case of

algeria, there was one device. in the case of a pakistan, for example, we're talking about a potential nuclear arsenal of about a hundred devices and different places, plus weapons productions facilities and so on, so this really gets complicated. >> and the notion that we're going to be operating in a benine environment is also nonsense in this, so these are long shots, desperate at the end. if they are that desperate at the end, then, of course, that brings back a powerful argument for nonproliferation efforts which is if you can't solve the problems that might occur, you probably want to do everything you can to prevent people from going down that path. what's interesting about u.s. policy is sometimes i think we

exaggerate the threat of nuclear terrorism and make claims that readily provide nuclear weapons to terrorists which i think is less likely which i just can want see that as a likely se scenario, but it's used as an argument against proliferation, and say, well, why are we against proliferation? they'll give that to terrorists, and terrorists promptly use it. look at the history of terrorism, yes, there's state sponsorship of terrorism. yes, there are efforts to maintain deniability, but nations opposed to individual bombers are rarely suicidal. nations don't like to give very precious powerful weapons where they might bear the consequences of the use to entities that

might not be under their control or might be penetrated by adversary intelligence so i just don't see it as a likely scenario. on the other hand, looking ahead, i mean, if we have further proliferation in the middle east and gulf or something and with nuclear iran and nuclear saudi arabia, nuclear all discussed, and we look at the -- we look at what is happening in the arab spring and libya and syria and so on, that, itself, is a scary scenario, and it's not to invent a terrorist boogyman, but it's to say we are really dealing here with circumstances that very quickly can go out of

control, and there's not a lot that can be done about it. now, there may be some -- may be some elements here where the international community gets together and thinks not only about the nonproliferation efforts, but thinks more seriously about what do we do as an international community? in these types of circumstances. we have hot lines and we try to think about things. in the cold war, actually, before the collapse of the soviet union, there were great concerns that if somebody were to get on top of either one of our nuclear devices or their nuclear devices, a rogue, military commanders or terrorists for someone else, how do the two superpowers communicate with each other to keep this from turning into

world war p -- world war iii. it could be appropriate to visit some of those things in what would be a more complex situation. >> booktv continues how with hosani talking about travels around afghanistan and relief work done there with the nation's high commissioner for refugees. this is about an hour. [applause] >> thank you, all, thank you, just beautiful, beautiful synagogue is such an extraordinary setting, and to see all of you here to really acclaim this amazing book. >> thank you, thank you. >> it is a work of fiction, but res gnat for those of us who -- resinates or imagine spending time in afghanistan so ev