>> and now joining us here on book tv i want to talk to you about one of your most recent books. doctor george, how do you define liberal secularism. >> guest: it is a view about human nature human destiny command human dignity that competes with other views, some secular but not liberal, some religious. very common in places like the one where we are right now.

i would venture to say it is the predominant view of the elite of our culture. prominent in europe as well which has become very secular. it embraces ideas about liberty and personality to the nature of human beings that are distinctive socially liberal views life-and-death issues generally identity issues the spectrum of so-called hot button morally charged issues in our culture. that is a view that i am writing the book against kemal i hope respectfully because it is a view that has very credible supporters and i want to do them the justice that they deserve. they put forward arguments. i want to put forward counterarguments have gone i

have found that secular liberal views are so widespread as to go largely unquestioned. as a result many yields to the the temptation to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is a big it all religious fundamentalist. reason and science they confidently believe on their side. >> guest: that is me have on anything you want to add to that? >> guest: i think i said what i want to say there. a happy to defend it. it is dominant in the elite sector of the culture. divided. popular opinion different from elite opinion. by definition elite opinion is more. he caught the spirit of that

when he talked about his preference for being governed by the 1st 800 names in the boston telephone directory rather than the harvard faculty. he faculty. he was recognizing the range of morally important issues if you ask 800 people in the boston from book were in the trenton new jersey from book the lynchburg, virginia fund but for their opinion about abortion, marriage, affirmative action , capitol punishment, you name it you'll get an answer very different from that you would get if you asked 800 people from a major professional association of the journalistic establishment our university professors. after one what are your three pillars? >> guest: respect for a person and his fundamental dignity. in a decent society human beings individuals will not

be regarded as means to larger ends, social ends going beyond. they will not be cards in a collectivist will but rather we will be the ends for which other things including the great institutions of law and the economy and the political system our means. the view that persons are what ultimately matter and persons have a unique, inherent, profound, and equal dignity. that is for the sake of which, for the sake of that we want there to be a productive economy a fair legal system a political system that respects people's basic rights and gives them the right to what we call democracy. the 2nd pillar is the institution of the family. the fundamental unit of society based on the marital

bond that brings people into the world and gives people they're fundamental care and nurturing and education, at least until they reach for 16 or 18 or 21 years of their lives. i think we go astray we try to substitute state run operations for the family. the family in my view is the original department of health, education command welfare. it does better than any other institution can the fundamental job of delivering services and transmitting to each knew generation the virtues the resources, the traits of character and understandings to be good citizens to be good people. all the other institutions of society, economy, political society economy, political system, legal system, depend on there being a fairly large number of people who are decent, honorable hard-working who will obey the law not because they

fear punishment for because they believe it's the right thing to do, they obey out of conscience. and those institutions cannot produce such people. people. business firms the employees are honest, managers who will be responsible purchasers of goods and services who will pay the bills but they can't produce such people. people. they produce the virtues that enable them to draw on the pool of hard-working, honest employees, managers peers the bills for goods and services. if those people are to exist they have to be produced by another institution. the same the same for the legal system, the political system. they depend on those people most of the time doing the right thing that because they fear detection and punishment but because it's the right thing to do. pres. president obama or bush can simply issue an edict saying there will be virtuous people. people.

the supreme court can hand are really requiring that people be virtuous. if people are going to have those riches it's going to be because they have been brought up in a tradition of virtue by the families. i think family is the 2nd pillar of a a decent society, healthy functioning, vibrant family. it is indispensable. now, such a culture will not be only the family but institutions that support the family and his work for religious is the tuition's, the other institutions of civil society to a neighborhood associations unions ethnic clubs fraternal organizations, civic associations of every sort boy scouts, campfire girls these sorts of institutions with the fungal assist.

now to say what i have said about the family is not to denigrate the role of government in the state. we cannot get along as a committee of families without any policy. there is there is a fundamental role for the family that cannot be substituted for. when the state steps in to take over the role of the family who will do the best he can, but it will be able to do well what a healthy functioning family can. a 3rd pillar is having a vibrant, productive fair honest with your system and political system one in which people's fundamental rights including the rights as individual persons to be

treated with respect and dignity are observed, honored people are protected against creation from private actors where the government itself restrains itself from interfering where it should not or for violating people's rights or reducing people to the status of mere means to other hands or cards and machine. when things go haywire what you get is tyranny. of the of the left of the right, communism, fascism. where you do not have a fair, efficient system of government pretty soon you will lose his other two pillars of society. these three pillars culture of respect for the individual person and his dignity a vibrant flourishing family culture and a fair and effective system of government are the three pillars of decent.

>> is the respect of an individual's dignity the same as respect for freedom? >> and include respect for freedom so i as we understand freedom to be not simply doing whatever you want whenever you want with whomever you want for whatever reason you want at anytime you want. what our founders distinguished as freedom from license respect for people's honorable liberties, the basic civil liberties, the freedom of speech the free exercise of religion, freedom of the press the basic liberties that we associate with our bill of rights. equal protection of the laws. the role government is twofold. also to respect themselves. the job of government is to

restrain people from violating each other's rights but also to restrain yourself from doing the same thing. government has to operate within its own limits even as it tries to protect people from other people violating their rights. >> often people think of individual rights they think of topical issues such as abortion. are those individual rights? >> it's going to be a moral argument in any case. if we want to vindicate a right to freedom of speech we need a moral argument because that is a moral proposition. the idea that people have a right to anything is a moral proposition that need to be defended. we need to identify the reasons for it. there are some people who believe that people have a right to kill themselves or

a a right to assistance of others and going themselves right to destroy the life of a child in the womb by abortion. i want to know the argument for that and be able to present the counterargument. i present the counterargument in both those cases. >> when it comes to family gay marriage gay families are those are those included in the pillar of family in your definition? >> i think family is the unit based on the conjugal relationship of husband and wife. i criticize the idea that marriage is simply a romantic sexual partnership of any two persons of either sex. i don't i don't think that any argument can successfully be made for abandoning a conjugal conception of marriage as a union of husband and wife in favor of you that would recognize marriage as persons of the same sex. by the same token evolving tale as a a matter of

principle the three people or four people were five people can be married in a sexual romantic partnership, raise children children together, have a house altogether and so forth. i think i think that if we recognize same-sex partnerships as to marriages we abandon the basic idea of marriage lose any principal basis for affirming the traditional norms of marriage such as exclusivity permanence of commitment subjectively people may feel that they want to stick with those norms socially) in an open permanent commitment but those will simply be subjective desires, not the principal reason for maintaining those norms. a principal basis would have to be in the idea of marriage is a conjugal partnership with the pro- creatively oriented union of

husband and wife. my argument is that marriage brings together man and woman and as -- as has been and wife to be father and mother to any children born of that union conferring upon those children the inestimable gift of being brought up in the committed bond of marital love of the two people whose union brought them into being and giving to those children if all goes well and things work out both maternal and paternal influences and care not every marriage will have children but every child while the mother and father. what i think we need to do culturally from a moral.of view is our best to ensure that as many children as possible are brought up in the bond of the mother and father brought them into being. it cannot always be true and

where it is not able to be true where it won't work can't happen because of death or desertion or marital breakup we have ways to deal with that as best we can. culturally it should be structured to maximize the odds. >> what is you come up with the title? >> it is the title of one of the essays. the chapters the chapters are essays i've written over the past eight or ten years addressing a range of topics in constitutional law ethics, political philosophy. the criticism of a report a report by the american college of obstetrics and gynecology which proposed placing strict limits on the ability of physicians nurses and other healthcare workers to decline to

participate in abortions and similar procedures that they have moral objections to. that disrespect for conscience is what produced the title for that essay in nasa began the title for the book. >> john finis was my doctoral supervisor at oxford a professor of law and philosophy regarded as the world's leading theorist of the tradition of natural law politics and morality that begins with the ancient greeks with plato and aristotle that we find among the roman jurists. such as cicero which was articulated in the middle ages by st. thomas aquinas. it it is addressed by some of the reformed and enlightenment thinkers that

equate protestant reformers from enlightenment thinkers like john locke and carries on to this day as one of the leading competitors in the field of political philosophy for the role of being the right view, the best you about law and morality and politics in the relationship among them. i learned an enormous amount from him as a student can continue. he is still very active as a scholar. >> professor at princeton. what has been your government service? >> i have had three wonderful opportunities to contribute to government service. hazard is a presidential appointee on the united states commission on civil rights. i was appointed on pres. president george h bush's last warning in office. if not midnight appointment

i was in an apartment and carried over into president clinton's 2nd term. and then in 2002 hours appointed by president george w. bush. the greatest bioethicist of our time of the university of chicago until he stepped down as chairman and handed the chair over to edmund pellegrino, and other distinguished bioethicist. and then since 2012 i have been serving on of the united states commission on international religious freedom. that is a bipartisan independent government agency in many ways like the us commission on civil rights. there are nine of us serving on the commission five democrats, for republican. i was appointed by the speaker of the house and elected by my colleagues. i have served as chairman of the commission. i served as united nations

commission, the world commission, the world commission on the ethics of scientific knowledge and technology. >> the country's most influential conservative christian thinkers. >> i am a conservative. i tend not to believe these the new york times said. >> host: contemporary conservatism intellectual pinups. >> guest: glad he said intellectual. i don't think he would want that were omitted. >> host: you have a blurb from elena kagan. people may be surprised. >> guest: welcome well, i am to have her endorsement. is she a friend of yours? >> guest: we're not), but we are friends.

i have great respect for her, honored that she would say such a nice thing about me. i have never had difficulty having good friendships across ideological lines. i learned from people on the other side. i don't regard them as adversaries. i regard them as friends. i regularly teach in their teaching now with my colleague and dear friend professor cornell west. he sees the world differently than idea. very much a man of the left. and yet i learned a lot from him. he pays me a compliment of st. you is a lot for me. our students learn an awful for the engagement that they witnessed. we have a bond that is stronger than what divides us the bond of wanting to get at the truth and wanting to engage with each other with the goal of getting closer to the truth, closer

to seeing what is really going on, deepening our understanding of things. if. if i can venture to say so, even to gain some wisdom from our interactions with each other. very often i find that i have misunderstood a position that he holds because i have not yet heard him make the argument. he he says the same thing about his experience with me he won't he won't understand why a conservative would hold a certain.of view until he actually hears the argument laid out carefully in a circumstance that is not a formal public debate with someone is trying to win. you are in the informal circumstance of the classroom or perhaps over a glass of wine made at night during the argument in presenting the argument and engaging with each other. i feel the same way.

although she and i disagree about most of the great issues that divide liberals and conservatives in constitutional law she is a person i learned from. >> is rejoined class a sellout? >> we do it as a seminar. we have to restrict it to 18 students. but this format does serve to enable us to engage each other in a very deep and serious way. i don't think we could do what we do with and for each other if we were performing in front of the class of seven or 800 students which i think is what we would get if we turned it into a large undergraduate lecture to a class. we have kept it as a seminar knowing it means that most of the students who would like to participate are not

going to be able to. >> host: something you talk about in your book. as does the judiciary branch have too much power? >> guest: i think it is claimed to much power. i'm inclined more toward jefferson and particularly can. the the founders of our nation, the great commentaries on the constitution that were published as arguments for the ratification, we see the judiciary picked it as depicted as the least dangerous branch, the branch that would be weakest and most powerful that would play an important role. i i don't think the founders had any conception of the judiciary as powerful as it has turned out to be in our own time. sometimes they use that power to do good for sometimes bad.

what i want to argue for his for every branch each of the three to strictly remain within the limits of their own power and to avoid usurping the authority of the other branches of government and above all to avoid usurping the authority of the democratically constituted american people who are supposed to be sovereign in our constitutional system. rejecting the idea of judicial supremacy. but we need is constitutional supremacy. that means that all three of the branches are going to have to take responsibility for constitution -- the constitution. protecting the scope and limits. >> host: a chapter called liberal fallacies. >> guest: i'm trying to remember.

you were supposed to know what you were talking about. the late governor of new york who argued famously at the university of notre dame that is as a catholic and committed pro-life person could nevertheless support legal abortion in almost any.in pregnancy and even the public funding of abortion. my argument there was that was strictly straightforward a fallacy. if you believe abortion is something fundamentally wrong, unjust a violation of human rights which would be the only reason you would have for opposing abortion because it is taking the life of a child in the home was a creature of being you accept that is the premise than the logic we will take

you to the need for that human being to enjoy the same equal legal protections as any other. now, if you don't accept that premise, if you think that there is nothing wrong with abortion because it is not taking a life where you think that is taking a human life but not the life of the human person because you distinguish human being from person and think that not all human beings are persons and if you take that view when you at least have a logically sound reason for your belief that abortion should be legal and perhaps even publicly funded . who was. , who was that he had good reasons for being personally pro-life but that they were not sufficient to warrant him support the use of public law to protect the right to life and the child. that was the fallacy.

>> why are you conservative? >> it did not used to be. i grew up as a liberal in the old-fashioned sense that we would call hubert humphrey a liberal or john f. kennedy little or martin luther king. they were believers in the democratic party in the united mine workers of america and in franklin delano roosevelt. maybe not always in that order. roosevelt in my house was worshiped nearly as a kind of demigod but that was a different kind of liberalism in those days. did believe that government should be active in helping people celebrated his new deal as having been important keeping people's

morale and putting food on the table for people who are needy and ultimately getting us out of the depression. many historians have come to doubt that story. it it is partially true but also partially not. the knew deal did not get us out of the depression, but that was the system of belief in which i was brought up. my high school years i was active in the young democrats and was twice elected governor of the west virginia democratic youth conference. i was an i was an alternate delegate from west virginia, the democratic national convention that nominated jimmy carter. i was myself a supporter. so what got me moving in the more conservative direction was a couple of things.

one was the one was the democratic party's embrace of social liberalism and particularly abortion. that was that was not part of the picture hundred people like hubert humphrey or john f. kennedy martin luther king, but king but it became part of the picture starting in the early 70s, the idea became democratic orthodoxy that women's rights to equality and liberty required the legality of abortion. that i thought was wrong tragically wrong with the democratic party on the wrong side of liberal movement of a profoundly important moral question one of the most vexing moral questions since slavery and one of the most divisive. the other thing was observing the failures of great society social programs that were very well-intentioned efforts to help people were very much in need and yet often they had the opposite effect.

and that began to cause me to question my faith in the old-time religion you do you great society. and to look for other ways. and i begin while i was still young reading work by people like irving kristol and daniel patrick moynihan, reading commentary magazine in the public interest and listening to and considering in a serious way alternative ways of helping people who were in need that did not involve large state-run bureaucracies and especially empowering the institutions of civil side he to deliver the health, education, and welfare benefits that they historically have been so good at delivering.

it does not mean that i am a libertarian. i am not. i don't think the government has no role. has an important role including in helping to provide a safety net for circumstances like those we found ourselves and as a nation during the depression. my conservatism is not a libertarian wing but i do believe in limited government. government should be small but strong and government should assist in no way impede or usurp the autonomy or authority or integrity of the institutions of civil society. society. government should not try to replace the family or the church in the civic association when it comes to those fundamental purposes of those institutions. i think very often what happens is government steps in and pushes those institutions to the margin and just does less well with

those of us citizens can do very well on their adequate and resources to do the job. so that all moved me in direction of what today counts as conservatism. but in an earlier era the work conservatism were not abused for that idea at all. ..

>> >> which provides a comprehensive history of the city is. >> always in columbus 40 years and was a teacher is a professor and are really interested in the history of the city as a historian but nobody had ever done a comprehensive for analytical history. think about how to organize it in the way that makes sense. as a researcher i am limited by the history i find it fascinating to think about what the general reader could take from the history and understand. so what i have done is to

organize around three things basically. one of them is columbus is situated physically and metaphorically on a fault line. that is a geological feature and north of that line the waters because of rapids and waterfalls so that is so far this inland point of navigation in the 1850's steamboat would come up the river and that was as far as they could come so, this was founded 1828 as a trading town on the chattahoochee river located at was then called -- the indians ahead lived in the areas of the whites had traded here and in 1826 and 1827 georgia had forcibly removed all of the

indians from the state support open western georgia for settlement. the state reserved the land around the line because they knew it would be valuable to have a town there so the mercantile center a trading town the votes would come up the river to bring the finished goods like furniture or agriculture and of farmers from east alabama and west georgia would bring produce especially cotton and it would be shipped down the river. the port on the gulf from there it would be shipped to england to the textile mills in the northland the other advantage is all the water as it comes down the river has great potential power. befalls 100 to 5 feet and creates 66,000-horsepower

potential days so quickly industry began to develop along the river to use that for power especially textiles. but columbus is pretty diverse economically. we had gristmills and shoe factories and furniture factories but textiles pavilion -- by the late century dominated the head of the biggest mills in the south 60 percent of the workers and the city work for that one bill and it was dominant. early on the river was critically important. we just did not have people who were completely competent at engineering dams and doing what needed to be done. and agusta they build a canal that allow them to

control the flow of the river in the city help to pay for that here all the development was private private capital, and the first teams built were not very effective in high water they would blow out. had we had a little more engineering expertise the early history and development may have been more successful. in 1850 we do have a guy who comes in who knows what he is doing and he built the mill that becomes after the war is a goal that rises from the ashes. that was columbuses finest hour because the demand for more goods caused the

industries and textile mills turned out uniforms and backpacks and it eagled mill made india rubber for the raincoats. other stores converted to a shoe factories we had one of the largest and the iron works was a producer with a confederate naval yard that was not all that successful but only produced one ship and it never did get finished. but the industry with the famous or factories a lot of industries the population of the city boom's there is a lot of well fetish generated by the war but it creates an ill felling at the same time because people thought profiteering was the wing on days industries where over

charging competitors for their goods and overcharging civilians that if you grew cotton you had to kinsella to the confederacy. there are at least eight postwar fortunes that i found based on cotton that the men hid from the confederacy once the war was over could sell at high prices that gave them the capital to rebuild after the war to keep going. it is a good thing for columbus but not exactly patriots. most of the early history focuses on the leaked. -- the elite. slime intent on having the voices of the people be a part of the history. 40% of the population is

african-american. more than that now but that is the historic average. years before the civil war most were slaves urban slavery was a little different in agricultural. irvan could have been a skilled worker a lot of slaves worked in industries like carpentry, bricklaying blac ksmith and sometimes the owners would allow them to vent themselves out to keep the proceeds. the newspapers were always complaining the slaves we're in town jews set up the business or selling stuff of the street without a white person controlling them so they were a little more independent when it was the urban system.

we had famous local slaves one was thomas wiggins and he was one of the most renowned in the country. blogging.com was his stage name. born blind and now we would call him autistic. he was a musical genius. he would hear at one time and play it note for note and composed his own music that was based on bird's one was a recreation of the civil war battle. the sad part about blind tom is that family that owned him as a slave kept control of him all of his life so when the 13th amendment freed the slaves the family went to court to have been

declared mentally incompetent so for the rest of his life to the end of the 1900's or 1800's their way to worry him throw united states and europe and would keep the proceeds. the other slave has a happier story. he was in construction and a bridge builder and he taught those skills there were more like partners and master and slave then he gave him freedom so then he becomes a rich builder across the south he built warehouses warehouses, mills he was renowned for the quality of his work and that is very unusual for an african-american person in the postwar south dennis

civil-rights movement comes along and it is challenged one of the most important people in history dr. brewer was not under the control of whites as someone who actually work for a white person so he could be of little more independent causally challenging jim crow asking for parks, paved roads, a sanitation in the black neighborhoods one of his fights was to integrate the public golf course. after the board of education k now the public schools was of focus for the desegregation became of lightning rod for white resentment. he began to get death threats and carried a pistol and in 1956 he was killed.

the grand jury ruled that a white store owner who was renting of a store that dr. brewer of he was a landlord that he killed him in self-defense. however there for at least to columbus police officers in the store at the time and more outside the store. the black community still believes that he was cut -- killed in a police assassination. then the man that killed him one year later is found dead in that was ruled as suicide under suspicious circumstances. it had a chilling effect on the whites in columbus black professionals moved out of the city because they fear for their lives. there was of vacuum of

leadership in the black community and in the '60s with the civil rights organizer came here and said they couldn't get anybody to do anything. they were scared. martin luther king wanted to talk but could not find a church to host tim. the masons' provided a place but as a historian and a look at the past through the lens of people's stories. all of us are historical actors in the all have a part in our history. you have to understand where you are and the community got to be as it is we can believe the myth but i think if we take a harder look at where we came from we end up living in our city more.

>> karen paget has set a long career as part of the boulder city council in boulder colorado then deputy mayor and the is led to her co-author a book running as a woman. the analysis of a woman's campaign 1920 through 1992.

during the carter administration she was appointed regional director of the federal agency that supervises the the peace corps and other volunteer programs. she has worked for foundations, for the office of the pentagon university of california and has written a great deal for the magazine the american prospect. what she has been doing the last 58 years is writing a remarkable book "patriotic betrayal" that is what we will talk about this evening and is thus subject of enormous importance even though fifth year 60 years ago very quickly you will see there is an echo in that book for the things that are going on today.

just beginning at the point in your life when you got involved with this story, you were a student undergraduate university of colorado in the early 1960's. then 1964 you attended a conference of the national student association. what was that? >> nsa was a membership organization of 300 universities and colleges in the united states that claimed to speak for all american students. it had huge a annual conferences called congress is that the big political parties and attended by a delegates and alternates from the member schools and there was about 1,000 i went as a wife not as the

delicate so my first encounter was as a volunteer that malice the paper was produced. i should say i married the student body president and is also the secretary of student government but it was a paid position because a wanted to be a secretary in haven't figured out that was a while was in college. [laughter] that was my initial engagement. >> did your book you describe the convention seemed to open a whole new world to use. >> as i tried to describe and capture, i was from a town in rural iowa never heard of "the new york times" never east of chicago , i did not watch network news, a cheerleader, baton twirler

twirler, it opened up all whole new world for so many people because there is never a way to have contact the accidents were different , jersey, texas, of boston and it was a time where people who participated in suited government were five vedic cap the a smart many were brilliant or raiders. -- orders. and a journalist and has then at cnn, abc, cbs was was that the diversity among of wisconsin so i had never heard political debate and i was from a family that was very engaged in the committee by the civic duty but i had no sense of partisanship i didn't know the difference between

republicans and democrats and almost failed in english exam on dickens because i didn't know the difference. that has changed. [laughter] >> here you were in a national convention with the student body presidents, newspapers, 1,000 people, a tremendously exciting. then your husband got an invitation? >> the following spring one of the officers from nsa visited and talk to him to invite him to apply to the international student relations seminar held summer 65 in pennsylvania of the nsa office headquarters at that point was in philadelphia. he applied and was accepted and we have a tidy baby by then so they gave us the

extra door room i just want to say that nsa baby she is in the audience tonight. and i was in a paid position to produce material with 12 hand selected editors in the area of specialists studied international student politics many became from international politics. >> one dozen students who was leading the seminar? >> to people who worked for nsa the director and associate director. at this point this is the

international part of the student association. and whenever my typing was finished and the baby was asleep it was fascinating and would go to the sessions >> during these of leaders have a chance to see what political opinions of the people in the room, the papers that they wrote so they got a sense of the feelings of the of participants of american foreign policy. >> i learned much, much later that we all live together six weeks in the storm but that was also the time period in which security background investigations were conducted on any student they wanted to hire at the end of this summer. >> what was the next up? then he was contacted?

>> my eighth husband was offered a position at the end of the summer for which he has zero preparation. we went off to another congress the office moved to washington and we moved to washington. it was thrilling and went back to school. then in october 1 evening we had dinner with two people who identified themselves as former nsa officials that after dinner we were driven somewhere to northwest washington. it was pitch black to a house and as we approached as soon as the door opened up the phone rang. one of the two men picks up the phone and turns to my husband and says i have inherent will you come? leaving me behind with the second person.

we went into the sun room and he said your husband is doing great work of the importance for the united states government i would like to tell you more about the nature of that work but before i do you need to sign this document. i was recovering from pneumonia of but we didn't know how to cancel the appointment but i of the daughter of several lawyers and i know i and to read the fine print. but i had no reason to mistrust the united states government as quaint as it may sound. 1965. nor did i have any idea what he would say. so i signed i remember words he said the news states government has to support

france with its war against the algerian revolutionaries but future leaders in this is part of what he is doing. i didn't have a clear wide unit states had to support france. i did not know the river algeria revolutionaries but the most important thing i retained every time i hear the word behooved for the rest of my life that basically he was a deputy director of the cia covert action the man who read taken my husband out of that followed the errant was the director of covert action five. i don't have words to describe house standing a revelation this was. i did not worked for nsa so

i have no responsibilities but my husband suddenly had a case officer, code-named and reporting requirements. >> what was the code name? >> the case officer's name was aunt alice i believe his was sinclair from sinclair lewis it cannot have been here. >> he had undergone the same ritual before i was but they undertook the wives out because they worry about pillow talk did not want to leave them covered.

>> then what retold or the penalties for violating? >> went through it quickly that this was a security oath under the espionage act and if i told anybody anything that i had learnt it was subject to the 20 year prison term. i was 20. [laughter] >> so then you and your husband remained in washington? >> that year. the was very terrifying because for the first time the nsa president tried to oust the cia quietly and almost single-handedly so not a normal year. he used to get the joke one of the tasks is to identify every foreign contact he had if they had pro communist word democratic tendencies

and those vowed to never identify anybody with pro communist tendencies and said they decided to say. democratic tendencies. an important point is that many people did not know who else knew and some people were on staff in their virtual because there is something in the security background that is a red flag not often of the student but the parents. >> to have a national staff how many people? >> since i was not in the office, there were two floors of two townhouses that house a national staff and to force the house to

the national staff so i would guess 40 or 50 by that time. >> but only some of them or virtually all of the money came from the cia? >> not just the money but anybody who scientists had a case officer and requirements. and the extra of money wired directly into their bank account status which is fairly unusual in those days. >> nobody had -- and ever heard of that. >> see you stayed there one year then you left. bin your connection with the organization terminated at that point? >> with one exception with the fall of 1966 or early

october aunt alice showed up on our doorstep and i thought we would never see these men. we were back in colorado my husband had started law school. i nearly fainted dead away he took my husband down for the unfinished basement and was in pursuit of a leak. then that leads to what happened in 1966 through 1967. >> right to. maybe i can tell some part of this story because i have a connection. >> early october 66. >> about two were three months after that i at the time was a very very young i leave reporter at a

magazine called ramparts which i am sure some of you here are old enough to remember. in the very frightened bushy haired young man named michael would cave in to my office with this extraordinary and a believable story having to do with the fact the national student association with secretly funded by the cia and had been for many years. have first the editors did not believe him. in day point people to check different parts of the story and it checked out in they began to look into the various foundations that were allegedly supporting the national student association along with the

foundation said nobody had heard of in connection with anything else ended turns out they're all housed in the law firm's travails said we cannot discuss our client's business than the researcher did some investigating look them up in the legal directory to discover they all had something in common which was at least one senior partner during world war ii had worked for the os us predecessor to the cia then at that point he knew the story was true. early 67 ramparts went public in a deck created an enormous ruckus because this was a world of organization presenting itself less democratic voice of america students were ready years

then something happened that reporters began to look at what other organizations were funded by these mysterious foundations so then several more were revealed to be secretly funded for some years by the cia. as a journalist was the most exciting story i was never associated with even though i worked on just a very small part so how was this expos say experience by nsa ephedrines at that point? stomach all those in law school at that point got very good grades because they all went to the law library of leaving the zero wives in charge of the answering the telephone. [laughter] but we still told no one.

we still took very seriously don't say anything you could be imprisoned 20 years. it was years before rates talked about it. but i remember at the time thinking because the controversy was the enormous eruption but then shut down fairly quickly and then there is so much more to this story. >> endued turned out to be the person that told that. >> little did i know. >> you thought of garner for years but then you decided you wanted to get to the bottom. >> wasn't antecedent the foundation of the early '80s

to do pro bono attorneys came to be who had filed a freedom of information suit of behalf of the united states student association it was government wide and at that point the fbi had acknowledged they had a lot of files but they would charge $0.10 a page. the two lawyers were sent to nobody space knew anything about the story so to their shock i said how many pages? the only granta awarded on the spot. they're purpose was so someone could use the documents to write a history of what happened in nightriders several years talking to people about writing this history one was from the yorker who was in

this international stick derivations summer with us this summer of 65 but the time was our right for him he was instrumental because a few years later we're talked about it again and he said why don't you do when? you knew more than all of us put together and that was the sea that sprouted that i finally committed myself in the late 90's when i saw an ad for the open society fellowship that was the largest monetarily i had ever seen in my life. [laughter] >> this brings me to another question of interest to the students how did you support yourself? >> i never realized it would take this long between three and five years and i was extremely fortunate not only

blessed by the fellowship of my former foundation colleagues gave me discretionary grants and others and individual donors gave me grants and family support including the nsa babied that is a high-tech entrepreneur was the donor and that helped the long distance run civic looking into this relationship and how it would originate it would operate on a big world stage funded almost from the start by the cia. how does that happen? >> i thought logically the story had to start in 1947 and nsa was founded 47.

three years i tried to fit square pegs into round holes and i could not make these pages in this story so i made the decision to go back and tell identified and found them all and the sheer number will stagger you because a ranges from veterans to liberals to the state department to intelligence agencies to the american catholic church and so forth they all play a role and why they did so is a complicated story but it was a time when nsa was founded that half of all students were veterans and far more important were the number two for reaching an essay. they all were from the same

agency and they didn't see eye-to-eye. it was not founded as an operation. it became tied to the cia and most imports a that covert action union was not formed until 48 years after both organizations were up. so why were they so interested and why did they connect to the cia? because the soviets were interested in students in they had a large international organization of students founded in prague and at that point united states had no national nationwide body who could claim to speak on behalf of all students so regardless of the many different political tendencies on campus they

all agreed they should form a national student association of was characteristic it was liberal and the same conundrum. what did the cia want with the bunch of long haired hippies? i was a liberal and that is important to distinguish three joe mccarthy or their right-wing conservative anti-communism days were liberals who were very much affected by the 30's shattering of a coalition including the of communist party when it was legal but when it turned out the party members had an allegiance to the soviet union and stalin they had hidden allegiances that shattered organization in san coalitions to

liberals concluded they were not reliable partners because they had hidden allegiances. they did not want to replay the 1930's and that is why there were so many other behind-the-scenes institutions focused to make sure there was not a replay of the american student union that the communist route from the get-go. >> one thing that made me realize that i thought i do something about i always thought the big scandal in fact, was run in manipulated and funded by the cia. after read your book i came to see a far darker and more

disturbing part of the story was not just uh disorganization with the vast american -- intelligence or those from other countries that this was passed onto foreign governments. tell us about that part of the story. >> i have massive amounts of intelligence reporting didn't pay much attention to domestic. >> because that seminar was replicated to make it was the tactic that had a purpose to recruit the using seminars with friendship exchanges throughout the rest of the world was a technique civic 38 seminars

in africa alone? >> 33 and former nsa president said that they were the actors but the best way to explain but many of the participants with the massive number of reports what was the pipeline? >> but the student leaders with the fact finding stomach every time the report was filed every foreign student you came

into contact with iran ended differed but this is why you have a case officer. probably in the mid fifties the u.s. foreign policy in a covert actions follow a different track send in the early part of the cold for everybody do that over policy was containment as a junior diplomatic thrust with their own international organization. but what was extremely important was to win friends by showing you stood in solidarity with the anti-a imperialists that mitt

demonstrating with the algerian revolutionaries in the shot dissidents. >> these were the contacts skin and not just individual contacts with the money went to the algerian students there is an argument over there our autonomy but they were students but not the way americans think of students. the nsa international stuff was intent on showing that american students stood in solidarity at the same time the u.s. wedges in cuba the dictator was aligned with france within the algerian quest for independence so

with foreign policy, a covert foreign policy it becomes a the question of access and working all sides of the street from the agency's point of view. they will justify to say we were just intelligence gathering it behooved us to know what kind of people say our but it was so much more than that because they're going into the mechanisms the dictators reusing to repress the students they were standing in solidarity with. these are complicated stories but one of the things that happened is nsa was succeeding tuesday and with the cuban students and had an operational friendship after the

revolution in the students went to havana of the leaders of venice they could be found around the pool talking to fidel castro and che and they came back and they were impressed and tell eisenhower decided the cia must counter the fidel influence in south america so that is one of the war -- a more complicated stories layout and with the students and the women there is a big distinction of over foreign policy and the covert level. >> but you found some of these reports educe say somebody identifies this is

a conservative french speaking african we're looking for. >> socialist but not too militant. >> and i have dealings with repressive governments. >> and presidents at a reunion meeting said my god did briefing your people for the shot? with united states supporting the shot of the state department kept trying to deport the very iranian students that nsa was supporting and had had-- exceeded there with have been executed by the shot in saved only because kennedy was you attorney-general and stopped the deportation. solo the geometry is really

amazing and no one could answer even career cia people all that were part of the nsc operation can answer dead these reports of the dissidents go back to the shot? for the secret police? some say i assume they did. he was our ally. the head of the iranian students association in the united states i interviewed him who is still in exile said my god they betrayed our secrets every one of us could have been killed. campus after campus there were stories where students that oppose the shot live in absolute terror. one story day wore paper bags over their head in such a letter to the editor.

>> we have to assume trading information. i will ask one more question and then open it to the floor. he worked on the book to under 15 years? >> i have the unabridged edition after 10 years. the last four or five for cutting handcrafting. >> you have a lot of cia people to talk to you. >> eight think mideast tell justified the relationship but what they are critics of, almost all of them is assessing what they did and whether or not it worked if the strategy is were successful. the harshest critics are the

participants. for example, there is a long history for support for the algerian revolutionaries and kiley said none of them amounted to a hill of beans. another quoted if you want to be of a democrat send them to russia make into a communist said into the united states. [laughter] >> they sound very cynical after all. >> some of them are repentant the early ones were more simple. maybe in their defense they were passionate anti-communist and described them saul says be leaving in the fight against communism as much as we believe than

fighting for civil rights and desegregation that is the word patriotic in is in the title but they did believe passionately it does not let them off the hook you have to make judgments and the consequences but i see no reason to impugn their motives but they have become quite cynical spin mb to give the folks a chance to ask questions and wonder to at least have some experience. >>. >> your husband and the other agents that were recruited were all there voluntarily serving as agents correct? >> no.

i will try to explain it. there were two routes on the international program. one is as i describe your hired, elected, somebody takes you out and asks you to sign a document and you do then you learn who we were really working for. was a voluntary? in the sense that yes they believed in the objective that was being described to them and i want to say forcefully because i think the puppet argument is irrelevant and it misses the point of a good recruitment program you were looking for people who will share your community of interest and at that point you agree.

did some feel trapped? yes. did some feel great? yes. and changes over time and depends. but it wasn't as if they were asked would you like to? and they could say yes or no. once you sign that security oath if you think of a good idea or a bad idea. >> you could quit? nobody would force you to stay in the job? you could not tell anybody what you did you just cannot write a report. >> i believe i am correct to say many only stayed one year but most tranfive years in their position. the people who felt the need to exit would exit after one year but nobody did quit.

>> what was the relationship between the cia and fbi? [laughter] hoover open-ended an investigation into the formation of the nsa and had agents and all the first meetings and investigated every single delegate and alternate and continued to do so through the fall of 1951 or 1950 to. then in 1968 not lot after the demonstrations and because nsa voted to abolish it by having a declassified

from them know says it is inconceivable this group isn't communist to the open an investigation but he had to do it carefully. >> so what you have described is the exact mirror of the kgb in terms of case study, handlers, names and writing about their daily life. >> our are many parallels. but i think somebody who is defending what they did early would say we have to fight fire with fire. that would be their defense but there were many parallels. >> i am wondering if you came across anything the immigration act?

so a lot of the students that met your contemporaries in 64 at international meetings of years later i know my parents came after the 65 immigration act but they had run into them in england gore india so did you think these were influential approved or not approved? >> i don't understand the question. >> it is whether the work of the yenisei and cia had anything to do to affect of the pieces were granted? for people trying to emigrate. >> for the professional visa

>> they could arrange for the visa. but i don't think it had in general for specific people in general had to do with immigration it was a very targeted person they wanted for many name server people they did not want some of that was in their power they're wedded to is an ally that would deny visa for anyone they didn't want to get to the meeting. >> this sounds like we are hearing the tip of the iceberg there is a lot more that you had to edit out to. . .

but many of them still feel that there is nothing wrong and many of them will say they didn't

understand that the cia was working on all sides of the street because throughout the 50s, i mean we didn't really know anything about the cia until the bay of pigs, the attempt to overthrow the castro regime in 1961. the first book on the cia was called the invisible government and that was written in 1964. the weeks to ramparts knew nothing about the cia and one in hot pursuit of the one book that existed. so you now, you can charge them with willful blindness but i think i don't because they genuinely felt this was many of them felt this was their country's intelligence service. they speak in terms of doing the lord's work, true believers and

believed that it was justified. >> when he started writing the book they put a lot of obstacles in your way, right? they reclassified documents that had previously been declassified. >> i'm not sure that was personal but i was stunned to find stunned to find many of the documents from 1949 reclassified in 2001 and i had a lovely young woman who was as stunned as i was at the national archives and she said i don't understand this. she said let me run it up to the class and she came back crestfallen and said i'm sorry, this has to go through other agencies and when they have to go through other agencies it will take a while. i said right, the cia and she said we are not allowed to give

out that information. [laughter] and there were three reports from 49 that i wanted. she said i just don't understand. i finally got to it and it took nine years. i got the two that told what we were doing to the bad guys. the one i didn't get excuse me i got the two decide what the bad guys were doing to us. i didn't get the one that said what we were doing to the bad guys. >> and wasn't there a sort of the hands of a threat against you when you started writing the book? >> well, one of the things people always used to say to me aren't you frightened? my flip answer was always i'm much more afraid of writing a bad sentence than i am of the cia and when they put obstacles in your path, and that's a good way to frame it, they are quite subtle so you are never quite

sure whether you just received a threat or not. but one person who had been a career agent who then posed as an nsa representative, who then went back into the agency who has long since retired, all of a sudden said tammy what are you going to do about clearing your book with the agency? and i said what do you mean? you sign the security of. i said i never worked for them. everything i'm doing is in the public domain. it's not a problem. they take that security oath very seriously. so that unnerved me a bit. >> can you talk a little bit about the intelligence community's response to the ramparts article and the people who wrote it and worked on it?

>> by all accounts, it's hysterical. that's by all accounts. that's not my words. that's all the accounts of the cia reaction. by the time rampart starting working on the nsa story, the deputy director asked for a rundown on the known ramparts people and i think these were freelance and occasional writers and the cia already had documents on half of the people know that worked for ramparts. one response was to set up a top-secret operation in the vaults of cia headquarters run by a man named richard ober to go after ramparts. we still don't know all the things that they did but evan thomas who wrote a great book called the very best men

interviewed a man who is no longer living named eddie applewhite who returned to headquarters and he told the story to evan. he was reported to his box fitzgerald who was the third ranking cia official at that point and when he described what they had done to ramparts, fitzgerald said eddie you have a spot of blood on your pinafore. eddie would not tell evan thomas more about what they did but he did say to thomas they had terrible things in mind to do to ramparts. >> i would be very curious, i can add a little bit to this. many years later i applied for my cia files under the freedom of information information act to make up many pages of them heavily redacted, sometimes just a few words on a page.

it was amazing because i wasn't very very low person on the totem pole that ramparts. i had only been peripherally involved in the story but i did come out of it without much respect for what we journalists call the fact-checking process. i will give you just one little example. they had a lot of personal details about me my parents, my wife's parents and so forth and one of the things they had discovered was well one of the things that happened my wife and i had briefly been civil rights workers in mississippi in 1964. we got married the following year and we asked people in middle of wedding presents to make a contribution to a civil rights organization such as the student nonviolent coordinating committee that we worked for her. this translated by a cia agent into the words gave his wedding

presents to good well. [laughter] if everything in their files was as wildly inaccurate is that who knows what intelligence gathering there is? but you never got a clue as to exactly what they were planning to do what ramparts. >> i know they have a plant in ramparts. i don't know who that was. what they also did is they felt this is not a point in which in general they could not believe the emerging dissent in the united states was homegrown. they were convinced it was funded by foreign sources. >> because this was 67 during the vietnam war. >> i'm sorry i forgot to say this before, one of their strategies was they immediately got the irs involved to audit

ramparts because they were so confident that they could find foreign contributions, foreign money they could shut the whole thing down and on the day that ramparts the way i put it by the time the ramparts published everybody had moles in each other's camp so nsa held a preemptive press conference. ramparts found out about it and took out a full-page ad in "the new york times" on the very day of that ad "the new york times"" the irs granted said that they would do it they would audit ramparts but by that time is too late. >> and they never found the mascot gold. >> and i will tell you this is a very important threat because people forget what were the watergate burglars looking for? lists.

foreign funders of mcgovern's antiwar movement. this notion that the soviets were behind it kordsmeier who was head of covert operations and therefore responsible for using students he wrote mmr and 84 or 85 and he likened the ramparts exposure to unilateral disarmament apocalyptic really vision of that exposure. >> patrick. >> i have a question on that point actually. i don't know this is in the scope of your book but the biography about the dismantling of the network of the networks that have been so carefully constructed over 15 or 20 years of operation that because of the ramparts lab now has to be taken apart with much regret on his part. but it seems to me they be with

some gap of time reconstructed through the national endowment of democracy beginning in 1980s but i wonder if the u.s. government finds any way to continue to do the operations that it feels like our important even after they are supposed to be shut down by order of the committee and administration. >> absolutely, absolutely, absolutely and that is one of the places i looked. >> andy. wait for the mic. >> i was a young reporter and producer in the mid-60s in washington and i worked for abc where my colleagues had been president of the national student association. mark furstenberg.

anyway later i was doing a broadcast for early pbs and it was about the use of intellectuals around the world, about the united states 25 years after the end of the war. i was in india and i didn't know anybody in india. i had a researcher who was a friend of this guy who said well i will get you a bunch of journalists. one guy was billed to me as the editor of a magazine, pretty liberal in india. india and those days were very neutral. this was the beginning of the vietnam war and 65. i was told he was an editor like the new republic, his publication. so i interviewed him. i interviewed a couple of other people in india but this guy was very -- opposition of vietnam. so the broadcast airs and i get a call from a magazine called

problems of communism. did you ever run into that? it was a cia operation. they have a lot of intellectuals running. >> it's a journal. >> nothing is coming to my mind right now. >> it was a great broadcast. he is one of hours. >> what do you mean? >> uses cia and the discovered encounter magazine which is a british intellectual magazine was also funded by the cia. >> the estimates of cia funding all international foreign-policy books for a 20 year period period is very high. 80% of all. you know lbj appointed a three-person commission and gave them about four weeks to report after the ramparts black which

is cia's word for catastrophe. they consisted of helms, the cia director the undersecretary of state and john gardner who was at that point secretary of health education and welfare but the real work jack rosenthal who had been "the new york times" foundation to make a long story short come he was escorted to langley and he is one of the few people who has ever seen the number of operations that were being run through private domestic organizations. he said there were hundreds. he was staggered. >> what about foreign operators? >> pardon me? >> what about foreign operations like this journalist in india. >> at south side of the scope of

the book and i don't hope i can answer your question. >> you mentioned robert kennedy briefly at one point and it made me think back to to the trippy trip to south africa which was at the imitation of the south african national students union i thank. i'm wondering in know the complexities of his relationship to the cia and so forth is very intriguing and i wonder if he came across interesting aspects of that in researching this? >> what will surprise people because he was so furious about his brother being into the bay of pigs starting under the eisenhower regime is that he actually became quite an advocate of covert operations and many of the nsa people who launched the anti-world counter festivals met with him and were praised for their work.

one of the msa president ed garvey when he was being reassured that all past presidents had quite rated with the cia and he adored the kennedy family. when bob kiley said would you like to have your picture taken with robert kennedy he said he felt like he had died and gone to heaven. so he was very supportive of these kinds of -- and arthur/and/or write a little bit about this. i have that and it's not directly in the book but in a footnote about what his rationale was. one of them was he saw foreign-policy was shifting, that it wasn't just diplomat to diplomat that it was involving much broader constituency whether they were used for students or journalists or lawyers.

>> in the fall of 1967 and number of us who were entering graduate programs here at uc berkeley were on five-year fellowships from the ford foundation. the idea being to find out whether a student has to be a ta you would get your ph.d. faster. the rumor went around a couple of years later that money was actually coming from the cia. i have no idea whether this is true or not. it turns out that a fairly high proportion of the people who got this fellowships were very involved in the antiwar movement and actually took longer to get their ph.d.s and other people because of the activity. so people thought that people were quite pleased that the idea that the cia was funding us. but i have no idea if this is true or not. do you have any idea whether the

cia was funding money through the ford foundation and its so quiet? >> well there is one instance in my book, i can't speak to it in general and attitudes vary. i was able to read some of the oral histories of ford foundation people. but there is one program that i've written about the foreign student leadership project which was a joint venture by ford and the cia. i think the reason for that in that instance is foreign students were being brought to american campuses under this nsa program and the cia is for bitten by law to operate domestically. and i think it felt it really needed you know i kind of mature partner of stature. so but it was handled by a special committee at ford. i have actually read those archives they have been involved

whether they are involved in that program i have no idea. the only one i know is the one i have written about. but the one i've written about did produce some illustrious student leaders, future leaders including kobe on in. >> given all your research into the cia and students do you look at the events of the arab spring differently than the average american and if you do how do you look at them differently? >> i shuddered when i saw the microphone going to this young man. my son. he always asks me the hard questions. it's a great question and i'm not even sure i can answer it satisfactorily but i would like to think about it. the one thing i have course

learned is what you see is not what you get. there are all kinds of things that were stirred up. i will give you a parallel quick example and that is that we backed all the national -- and the soviet union because we saw that they could maybe help to break up the soviet union. i would say in certain instances the chickens are really coming home to roost. if you stir up nationalism for short-term interest that you may have long-term serious problems and i think that's one of the lessons that comes throughout the book and i guess the other one that quickly occurs to me is that one of the strategies even among the revolutionaries was to pick the moderates to identify moderates. in revolutionary situations

moderates almost always lose out to militants almost always. we really don't do a good job of handpicking revolutionary leaders are moderate revolutionary leaders or leaders. even in "patriotic betrayal" it's littered with people saddam husein used to work for the cia. we used him to try to kill the iraqi leader and he missed. the cia finally overthrew qasim and 63 but this is why the senegal cia agents talk about renting people. because there can be a short-term collusion of interest but they say you can't buy or rent, and so there are so many in instances of were someone who served our interest today either turns against us or doesn't

serve our interest down the road. and apart from that i haven't really had time to follow the current revolution. >> about one or two more questions. >> the revolutions from ramparts were disastrous for nsa but you had referred to the fact that there were many institutions that were being funded by the cia and i wonder what the effect of those institutions was? >> nsa took the public brunt. most of the other organizations and institutions denied kind of try to tough it out. to this day some of the george

meany and archives are classified so there's a limited amount of research on the labor operation which which was mats it -- massive and huge. because of the exposure most organizations and institutions lost their funding so there are often institutions who you think have nothing to do it and suddenly you see 67 and 68 and you go back and take a closer look. the big consequence for nsa was in the short-term it grew very radical and students rallied around it but they could not do any international work. they were absolutely suspect and that was true decades later. to this day i don't believe that they do international work. and if they do it's very limited.

>> wait for the microphone. >> thank you for asking that question. >> was the title of the book you are doing? >> yes the title is my doing and it took me almost the whole 15 years to get the title. and i was searching for something that would capture the twin themes of idealism and duplicity. i very much know that these two terms patriotic and betrayal are in tension and where you come out as a reader is very much up to the reader to decide where you fall in that tension. i think that there is an objection by some of the waiting participants to the book it's

the title because they do not feel betrayal is warranted. and again that's the distinction between the aspirations, their intention, their altruism and a commitment to fighting communism and judging the consequences. i don't see any way around either wear at their it's a dictionary definition or because of all the things you read in the book. you cannot have a secret government operation run through a private organization whose reason for being is an exercise in democratic self-government. but it allows for people to say this was a patriotic operation. >> i have one final question and then i'm going to let you sign some books. is there a copy of your book on its way to edward snowden? >> i have no idea.

>> well i hope there is because i see a connection between these two revelations, yours and his up what happens when a country loses control of his intelligence apparatus. so i want to thank you very much care and for being with us tonight. >> thank you. [applause] and there are books in the back which i'm sure you'll be glad to sign. >> thank you so much for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we were talking today and we brought up troy aikman and i didn't think about this until that moment. in 1988 oregon state played against ucla in the rose bowl and we were down and oregon state didn't win a lot of games in the 80s, believe me i was there. and to play the rose bowl against someone like troy aikman and derek ball was on defense. eric ball was a running back. there was a roster of future nfl football players. so we got wired to play this game. every play was important and ibp offensive tackle bad and i got past him and iran right through troy aikman. i ran through him the way you are supposed to. the way that we are taught to play the game.

you make the play. you don't run up and hand touch a guy and say you're it. you make the play. you make sure the guy is down in the ball is secure so troy was out. i hate them so hard he was out and i didn't think about that until now. we have a highlight film that represented that play. it was a turnaround play for the game and potentially for the oregon state football team. imagine being responsible for that play and now reflecting on it thinking about the person that was on the ground. so not every one i think will be able to do that because it is part of the game you don't necessarily think about those individuals you are playing against. you are doing your job but when he know that people like i knew troy it's a difficult thing to revisit because you know potentially you had a hand in what they are experiencing

today.