men," how women are taking control of everything. " is next. . "washington journal" is next. . .

628, 0184 if you are an active duty personnel. obama losing hill liberals on war strategy. as president obama reaffirms his policy. emboldening critics in congress who think he should use a shake- up --

that is a "politico." here is the front page of "the new york times," lead story. pakistan is said to pursue and afghanistan foothold.

that is the front page of "the new york times." all of branch, mississippi. surely on the democrats' line. is it time to get out of and a

scant -- afghanistan question of caller: war does not benefit anyone except for a few who want to take over all the goods and resources all over the world. we see now that all of them are just too big to handle. most of us are just suffering and laboring under this war effort. we have given our sons, we have given our time. we don't educate our children right. our help is going to pot. we haven't resources to even take care of the emergencies like this problem in the gulf. we are just doing it to give israel what they need and is a route is becoming the first world and we are becoming a third world. host: seriously, shirley, what does israel have to do with afghanistan? caller: we are trying to do another crusade against islam. host: is it time to get out of afghanistan? caller: i believe so.

but my reasons are these. we talk about preservation of democracy. we put all of these troops. the places that need the most help, would completely ignore. the northern part of africa, look at the problems with drugs, ridiculous, and south america. everyone is afraid to talk to north korea. i think it is unevenly handed the way we have to decide when and where we will choose to spread freedom in the world. host: "the financial times" this morning. karzai still key to success of the mission.

that is "the financial times." on our republican line from new york is gary. go ahead. it's a time to get out of afghanistan? -- is it time to get out of afghanistan? caller: i would like to leave this decision to the troops. it seems like they get avoided every time -- either political or public. and the troops -- it seems like we should have somebody polling for our troops because who has a better vision of what is going on there than them? host: in fact, if you are active duty personnel, to 02-628-0184 is the number to call. the next call comes from jack in baltimore on our independent line. caller: thank you for c-span.

we can't get out of afghanistan. i think we are only fighting half of the enemy. i believe the representatives of afghanistan are really the problem. they seem to be holding the american troops up, or something else is going on there. it makes no sense. if we are going to fight a war -- i don't understand -- i am an army brat. mostly everybody in my family has been military. i had an uncle -- my father was in the second world war. brought up through vietnam and korea. at the same thing. i don't believe we are doing this the right way. i understand afghanistan and pakistan and the situation there. and we are just not doing it the right way. if we are going to go in and win, go in and win. if you are going to go and play games just to drag things out

for more money and more this and that, it doesn't make any sense. host: veronica, a democrat. reston, virginia. caller: thank you for your public service. first, my background. both my parents worked for the cia. and i have several questions. i hear about the training of the afghan military. now, we have been there, 80 years? either we are deliberately not trying to train afghan military or the united states army is pathetically incompetent. and after eight years, we should have had a stand up afghani army of, what, 300,000, 400,000 troops, but we don't. and on the legal side, what does a declaration of war mean?

is it a moot legal principle? either you go to war or you don't. host: in "the wall street journal" --

west virginia, janet on the republican line. is it time to leave? please, go ahead. caller: i just don't think obama is qualified to listen to the commanders. host: is it time to leave afghanistan? caller: i don't think so. but i do feel for those boys over there. and i just -- it just worries me

that obama is just not qualified to run this country. host: david is on active duty. he is in virginia beach, virginia. please, go ahead. caller: good morning. i don't think we should stay there if we are not going to see the civil-military cooperation have been the way it should. i have been to afghanistan twice. i don't think the troops should be pulled out for nothing. folks from usaid to build after we clear areas -- they are not coordinated, if it is not happening, it will be futile. there have been too many times where we cleared areas where we looked for ngos or the government to come in and set up things like hospitals and some of those facilities, the requirements that the locals need. if that is not going to happen, yes, we do need to pull out. and i think general mcchrystal

and his staff did this to call the state department and other officials to task so they could do more. again, i think we should continue the mission but if we are not going to get the support after we clear places, we need to get out. host: i was there in 2002 and in 2002. in 2007 -- and in 2007. in 2007, one of the things we would hear is we don't mind working with you, but we are intimidated by the taliban as soon as we have these meetings. if you clear these areas and then you leave, there is no one providing security. they don't really trust the afghan national army or the national police. it will be imperative that whoever comes in, said the position so they can gain credibility so the government can gain credibility. for the most part, in some cases, there is mistrust but it is not the route the country.

it just certain strongholds of where the taliban are. host: thank you for your perspective. this ad in "the washington post" this morning. a picture of the korean and u.s. flags. an ad put out by the republic of korea. thank you, united states of america, it says at the top. duncan, alabama. peter, on the independent line. caller: i would like to refer your listeners to an article about a year ago by a former assistant secretary of state. unfortunately i can't remember his name. explaining the situation with the taliban and the pashtun. the pashtun are actually and indigenous people -- they are comprised of 14 million people.

they really, they lost their validity at the time of the british colonization of india. they were carved up and divided between pakistan and afghanistan. and the taliban is their religious leadership. yes, they are extreme, but they aren't fighting against foreign powers in their country. i don't think anybody really focus on the past two -- pashtun. host: with all that said, is a time for the u.s. to get out? caller: it is very complicated. i'm 50-50. host: thank you for calling in. a reminder, for active duty personnel, 202-628-0184 is the number for you to call. it picture of prescott bush in 1989 with president bush. president bush, the younger brother of president bush, he

died yesterday. besides being an uncle of one president and elder brother of the other, he was the son of wealthy senator prescott s. bush. he spent much of his career as a businessman but dabbled in local politics in his home state, connecticut, for many years, at one point, serving as republican committee chairmen in greenwich. it goes on to say that prescott college in 1943 to move to south america where he worked for pan american airways before returning to work on wall street. mr. bush joined and insurance brokerage firm in 1952 and later became the partner, making the daily commute to new york from his home in greenwich. that is an "the new york times." next call is elisabeth, weet

virginia. arty on the republican line. caller: i think we should stay. and i think also -- i read or heard that the afghan could not even read the manual for the rifles. well, i just thought, why don't they make them an audio so that they can be trained, you know? there are people who can't read. i am sure they can hear. host: susan, democrat, for washington, maryland. should the u.s. did out of afghanistan? caller: absolutely. a short comment and suggestion. doesn't anyone see that this is the of giant subprime mortgage. we cannot afford unemployment for people who have no income. we can't afford health care. we can't afford anything, let alone a war.

i don't know why i'm the only one who thinks that way. it makes me feel a a little nutty. i would love to have james webb on your show, if he would come. he is the only one who talks any sense. host: what happens to afghanistan, in your view, if we leave? caller: the same thing that happened to vietnam. it would be tragic. but we cannot manage other people's countries. we need to figure that out. other people's countries will not be managed by us. the british got kicked out of ireland. you know, people want their country. if somebody was invading maryland, i would be an insurgent. i don't understand how we call people and surgeons in their own country. host: this tweet from "democracy hurts." from "the wall street journal"

this morning, u.s. congress passes no iran sanctions.

also from "the wall street journal" this morning, the front page. the next call on whether or not to get out of afghanistan comes

from the republican line from michigan. charles, you are on the air. caller: i would like to say -- we don't have the resources, we don't have the money. there are children starving here that needs those things without going to the war. we can't focus on 20 different things. we can only focus on one thing and that one thing is getting our jobs back in bringing everything back to michigan. thank you. host: the next call on our active duty line comes from don, long branch, new jersey. caller: yes. one of the reasons i believe we should get out, and it is something that is not talked about much is, is that after three tours there, i have come to the conclusion that a lot of people are not aware of all the billions of dollars that are being given to war lords. those warlords in turn fun of that money to the taliban.

not only that -- from money to the taliban. not only that, as the previous military individuals said, we clear an area and then we leave and then they just come right back. i just want to make one other point. the money we give, those billions of dollars that go to war lords -- and i am sure no one even things of this -- not only does it go back to the taliban and head into pakistan, but it is more than likely that that money comes and it funnels the terrorist -- to terrorist groups. i believe that with all my heart. even the money that came into new york with the failed bombing attempt on 42nd street. we have our priorities very wrong. and a lot of men, enlisted men, a lot of them, you won't have a lot of them calling into your show and say the things that i

say. but i think we are doing this all wrong. host: two things. what branch are you in -- caller: army. host: is it a military strategy that you think is wrong. caller: the strategy is all wrong. you know, one of your tweeters said it is a government that can't be trusted. he is head on. he is 1000% head on. i mean, we have areas we can't even fire in. we are trying to make peace. we don't even know who the taliban is in certain stages. we go into an area and they are walking among us. and we clear an area, and it is no wonder we are right back in the area because all they do is put down their weapons and they know we are going to leave as soon as we come in. and it is business as usual. and the people, they are afraid. host: thank you for calling in. we appreciate it. this tweet comes in --

kevin anbar independent line from palm springs. caller: we had a situation where the guy in michigan who is a republican who said we should get out and you have a democrat. i'm an independent from california and i say we should get out. and the exact same way it happened with vietnam. the congress should defund the project. if they have kept -- have kept funding vietnam we would still be there. we need to get out. we cannot afford it. host: pennsylvania, jeff, republican line. you are on the air. caller: when we occupied japan in 1945 after the surrender on the missouri, macarthur landed with a few hundred people and he actually traveled throughout with 30,000 japanese police arms, he said it could be worse

than alamo but the japanese turned their back symbolically on him as he drove to meet the emperor at that hotel. macarthur and move the enemy. he knew the honor of the japanese people this is the equivalent of tommy francs landed in baghdad in 2003 and going on armed down to meet somebody. it would never happen. one of the things i mentioned once before, japan -- host: but should we pull out of afghanistan? caller: i know you are the fastest gun in the west with the trigger on the phone. japan was a racially homogeneous with highly industrial people. we did not have to occupy it and keep them from killing each other. racially homogeneous people are always productive and peaceful. if anything we can learn from afghanistan and iraq the tribalism, of the diversity, we should learn after thousands of deaths that all cultures and races are not equal and that we should not let the muslims into

the west anymore. host: elin, eagle river, nebraska, you are on the air -- elaine. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been calling for at least a decade. first of all, i would say this, i spent eight years as a navy veteran during vietnam. my son spent eight years in the u.s. navy during the initial invasion of iraq. and my other son is air force. i would say it is time to get out of afghanistan. i don't even know why we are there. we initially went in for, i don't know, to save them from something or another. but now it has descended into chaos. the other thing is, afghanistan has been a country long before america was even conceived of their they have been invaded by mongols, the chinese, by india. it is the same scenario as viet nam. vietnam had been and -- at war with china, cambodia.

and we have no place there and we have no way of knowing how to fight them. it is not a stand up war. it is not an area where you could send an army in, as i heard mentioned before. host: let me read this tweet to you and get your response -- caller: well, that is another fear tactic because if we stay we can't prevent it. terrorism of those things that you cannot protect against. the only way to protect against terrorism is by eliminating the attraction for terrorists. as long as we are bombing and killing people we are recruiting tools for those who would send some one year with underwear and bombs or what ever. it is not something we can protect against. we cannot build a wall around america that can protect us from

an individual. we can protect ourselves from an army invading but we cannot protect ourselves from an individual and until we understand that we can throw the trillions and trillions of dollars that we spend on this "war on terror" and we will still not be safe. it is a waste of money. our infrastructure is gone. our children are not being educated. we are 29th in the world for infant mortality. yet, we keep spending these trillions and trillions of dollars on a country that has existed for thousands of years. if we left there to mark, they would maybe be sent into chaos but they will come out from it as they have in centuries and eons past as vietnam. host: let us leave it there. thanks for calling in. thanks for trying for 10 years, and welcome. this is from "the new york times" this morning.

more congressional action this week. robert, texas, republican. hi. caller: this is robert -- from texas. i'm here a vietnam vet. about leaving afghanistan -- the

only thing we need to do is load up c-5a with 27 pitch pipe gallon drums, stuff like agent orange, the foliage, the plants they are using for their money, the poppies -- so just like in vietnam. these plants will be killed clear to the root. nothing will grow for over 60 years. cut their money off. they have no way to fund their war. the war would be over for them. and we can keep our status among the world. host: front page of "the houston chronicle" this morning.

daytona beach, florida, on our independent line. you are on the air. caller: i have been trying to call for a while now they're trying to get through. some of these comments are hard to listen to. of course, we have to leave afghanistan. it is imperialism. that is why we are there. the idea that they can reign terror down on the united states with no navy and air force, kind of tough for that to happen. that is not a possibility. terrorism is a slogan. host: do you think we should have gone in when we did? caller: i am not even sure we should have done that actually. it was an overreaction to 9/11. the whole thing. we need to leave iraq.

but are we going to? nope. we have to be driven out. and i don't see that ever happening. i think we are going to be in afghanistan and iraq for the rest of the century. host:628-0184 if you are active- duty personnel. anthony, a democrat, costa mesa, california. should we get out of afghanistan? caller: my opinion is, we shouldn't. let me tell you why. first of all, the taliban and al qaeda have attacked us already in afghanistan. wherever else in the middle east they might be. that region is a platform for terrorism and funding terrorism against the united states and england and whoever else as well. so, i think it is more for us to try to break of this type of activity. of course, war has drastic consequences and it does cost money. also, one major point i would like to make is -- basically the

whole muslim culture does not like israel, for whatever reason. i believe that the jewish people, just like any other race and culture should have their own segregated territory just like everybody else. they deserve their land. and the fact that the united states has boldly invaded iraq and afghanistan, it sets the tone in that region that israel has a big brother and if they mess with israel that have to mess with the big brother. host: julien, republican -- julian, california. sorry about that. diane, republican bill caller: how is it -- are you doing this morning? peter, isn't it? i have a good memory. i was thinking the question really this morning is precarious since general mcchrystal was just relieved of his position.

in i eyes, i think general mcchrystal is a winner -- in my eyes, i think general mcchrystal is the winner and he won the war and he could still win the war if he was there. if we answer the question should we get out, the answer is, no. these are different times. i hear so many people calling and saying things that they are inside the box, like they are living inside a box. we are not in vietnam. we are in afghanistan. afghanistan, this is a different era. we now have the internet, we have other types of explosives, terrorism -- criminals, the taliban, everything is different. and our lives, it is a very dangerous, precarious ball to world as it is. and i hear people saying, yes, we are down on wall street -- like jobs, etcetera, etcetera --

but this has something to do with war -- the mortgage and the banks cause people to be unemployed in the united states. and i wish to general mcchrystal of the fortune in the world and general petraeus is going to need a lot of help. host: from page of "the washington times."

again, that is the front page of "the washington times" this morning. on the independent line, richard from laurel, maryland. caller: i am a very idealistic best thinking person but also been around longer enough to know -- idealistic-a thinking person but also been around longer enough to know that nothing can change in this country overnight, as far as getting out of afghanistan. yes, i would like to see it happen, but i know it won't simply because it is about the only thing going in our economy right now that is keeping things afloat. there is a tremendous military industrial complex that is being more of less catered to at this time. and the other issue is that, as

long as the war is going on, the president has a more stringent set of powers that he is not willing to give up. those are my comments. thank you. host: "the new york times" -- more congressional action.

the next call, south dakota on our republican line. gerry, you are on the air. caller: good morning. my history is one of unique -- i was in the marine corps back when carter sent us into the indian ocean for the first time, when tehran had our hostages. we were with the nimitz when they launched the rescue -- attempt that failed. i was in the army during reagan and bush. i did not think we will be able to get out and afghanistan unless we allow sanctuaries. it will not be about the money because we spend money on much bigger things that are wasted. and it won't be the lives lost. 4000. we lost more in shiloh. host: when you say sanctuaries, what you mean? caller: copps and firemen, there -- like cops and firemen,

there are not parts of the world -- city that they don't police. if we let them go back and do what they have been doing, they will be a sanctuary. people can plot and do what they want pretty much free of normal civilization. if we allow that -- i know the russians try and they were certainly motivated and have logistical advantages that we don't -- they can just drive across the border. where they failed is their country had to turn inward. they might have had some motives that were proper in taming the area -- just like back in the old wild west. the bandits would run into the hills. did we allow them to run in the hills and keep coming down and wanted to to rob our trains? eventually we put a's together and we did what it took to make it right -- we put a posse

together. >> this tweet -- from "the washington times" -- lawmaker faces heat for the remark.

of course, you can search the c- span video library. you can search it by congressman kantor's the's name and watched the video yourself name.gressmen kanjorski's caller: good morning. i think one of the big problems and afghanistan is we have rules of engagement with our forces. what it does is -- i'm a vietnam veteran. that is what hampered us over there. we had so many men, we could have won that, but we couldn't do this and that. an example was, when they were building the sam sites, like mccain said one time -- i heard him -- and they were not allowed to shoot those sam sites down.

and when they got bilked they were shooting our planes down. that is one thing in vietnam. the other thing was, if people were in the village and the vc was shooting at us, we cannot she back to kill innocent people. that is going to hamper the whole thing. host: republican, kansasscity, missouri. caller: i think we should get out of afghanistan. we might have been doing the right thing at the very first trying to get obama -- but i think the heroine issue is something that we don't talk about enough. there may be money going to the taliban for the heroine, but we can take care of that problem in the united states by just making it worth nothing. that would take a lot of that money out. and i think our own government kinda fun of that money, too, because there is so much power when in this country right now,

how could we actually be trying to stop it? host: this from "usa today," some numbers about the gulf oil spill. 67 days at has been spelling, up to 125 million gallons, according to recent government estimate -- this is also "usa today" this morning. it just an idea of some of the beaches that are open and some that are closed and some with warnings. and an idea of where the oil spill, the slick, is seen. you can see it here. this is where the sunken oil

rig, this is where it all began. the only close the beach at this point it is grand isle in louisiana. and some of the beaches that have oil on them but are open with swimming war make -- warnings includes gulf shores, alabama, pensacola, dune allen a beach in florida -- all the others are open. on independent line, dale. call. : thank you for taking my i called in to confuse the issue with some truth. you have people calling in saying it was israel behind 9/11, and this is why we went into iraq because israel -- we went into afghanistan, because of israel. well, i'm not a fan of israel, but we did not go into iraq and afghanistan for israel.

host: should we get out of afghanistan? caller: we went into their court china. if you google -- we went into it for china. if you google the oil contracts for iraq, who got the lion's share of the contracts? host: do you think we should get out of afghanistan? caller: it is not a yes or no situation. i think we should get out of afghanistan with -- but then, i think, how could we leave those people at the mercy of the taliban. host: the last call comes from nicholas on our active duty line in oregon. go ahead. caller: yes, hi. thank you for that last call from florence -- host: what branch do you serve in? caller: officer and the air force. i would like to reassure everyone who called with concern to let them know there is an

active plan, there are things that have been put in motion that i cannot really specify that will believe everybody's attention. the president's plan to be out by the middle of next year has already been started. host: you think we are pulling out already? caller: yes, we have begun the necessary steps that we need -- host: we will leave it right there, nicholas, thanks so much. this is from "the politico" this morning. it barely, it just happened about an hour-and-a-half or two hours ago that the conference committee on financial regulation passed a conference report bill. now the house and senate will both be voting on this conference report bill next week. and their hope is to get to the president by july 4. house-senate conference approves

a wall street reform, is the headline. and we will be right back with yalman onaran from bloomberg news to talk with him. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span is now available to over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books as a public service. created by america's cable companies. >> let me say to the american people, this is a change in personnel but it is a not -- this is not a change in policy. general petraeus fully participated in our review last fall. he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to head u.s. forces in afghanistan. general david petreaus has been on c-span more than 40 times. watches appearances at hearings, briefings, and other events on line, any time, at the c-span

video library. washington your way. >> this weekend on c-span2's "book tv," alex heard recounts the death penalty trial of willie mcgee and the beginnings of the civil rights movement. jerry van dyke and his guide to spend 45 days and a dark cell after being captured by taliban fighters. he writes about it. a veteran wall street journal reporter with an inside account of rupert murdoch's purchase of "the wall street journal." find the entire weekend schedule at book tv.org and join us on at twitter. more than 30,000 viewers already have. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from our studios in new york is yalman onaran, senior writer at bloomberg news. what happened at 5:45 a.m. this morning? guest: well, i did not stay with

it all to the end. i have many colleagues in washington who did stay up, unfortunately. but the congress conference committee -- senate-house conference committee, they finalll hammered out an agreement on the financial reform bill, which has been taking a while, but we are almost to the end of it, i guess, now. host: according to this article in a "politico," this is the broadest rewrite of the nation's financial regulation since the great depression. do you agree with that? guest: i do, i think everybody agrees with this. of course, i talked to a lot of analysts and because we really, we had the big reform after the great depression, which kept the financial system pretty healthy for 40 or 50 years, and then we started deregulating and the 1980's.

since then, it has really been in the other direction. this is 30 years later, the first attempts to er-regulate -- re-regulate. host: what is the volcker rule and what was the finer -- final outcome? guest: named after paul volcker, we used to be the fed chairman in the 1970's and 1980's, who beat inflation that was the big problem in those years, that whole had several goals. one of them was to scale down a risky trading activities of banks. and the other one was to sort of stop them from running and investing in hedge funds and private equity firms, which are also riskier activities.

at the end, there was a lot of compromise because that was a very contentious rule. so, a lot of this, the strength of the role has been weakened. it is still there. the restrictions on trading with their own money that the banks could do in the past remain, and the regulators won't have as much say on what those limits might be. so it is written into law, which is the good part. the negative part that was sort of that they can compromise the a little bit, was how they can run and invest in hedge funds. it was aimed to not let them do any of that activity. now they can continue to operate hedge funds in private equity firms, and they can invest up to 3% of their capital, which is small, not too

much, but it really opens up the risk that when, during the crisis, for example, bear stearns hedge fund, when they came to their aid. goldman sachs did the same. so, that danger, the reputation risk and how the big banks need to rescue their hedge funds, that was not really fixed so there was some compromise. host: so, the volcker rule, was this contentious and opposed by the big banks? the guest: yes, it was, because the biggest bank -- j.p. morgan, goldman sachs, bank of america, all of them have huge operations of hedge funds. j.p. morgan is actually -- it operates the largest hedge fund in the world, according to some rankings. so, they would really be forced

to spin off their hedge fund operations, separate them from their main businesses, sell them off. and the also have major investments in those funds and the private equity, especially their private equity. they invest heavily, along with their clients. they still have to scale those back, but it is not going to be as much as they steer it was going to be. host: 202 is the area code if you would like to talk about the regulations deal that was reached at 540 -- 5:40 a.m. by the conference committee of the house and senate. all the democrats voted for it at all republicans voted against it. yalman onaran from bloomberg, another contentious issue was the issue of derivatives and senator blanche lincoln of arkansas had a big role.

what happened? guest: senator lincoln, who faces reelection this year, at the last minute really -- this bill has been going on for about two years now starting at the house and the senate. she proposed that the derivatives operations of the big banks would be completely walled off -- it would be in the units that would not have anything to do with it, because it insured banking institutions. -- deposit insured banking and petitions. it would mean banks would have to set up separate companies that would capitalize separately, which would increase their costs and lower their profit. the last-minute compromise -- and there was some much pushed back by banks -- and the administration was not so excited about it, either, so they kind of or siding with the banks a little bit on this.

and the final compromise is still some of the derivatives activities will be put into a separate entity that the banks have to capitalize independently, but it is not everything. it is only the riskiest of the derivatives. credit default swaps, and the like. and especially credit defaults what not traded in exchanges. the derivatives build that is going to pass hopefully -- it is not at all finalize -- is already going to force a lot of derivatives to be traded on exchanges or cleared through clearing houses. what that does is really reduce the risk because everything is -- you have to set up margins, which means you have to put up money. if the bill goes down, then that money is taken away. so, the risk would be curtailed any way. but senator lincoln's proposal would go further, and now does a

little bit what she intended at the beginning, but some of it she agreed at the last minute that that would be fine and they don't have to separate all the derivatives business into separate entities. host: before we go to calls, another issue was the issue of a consumer financial protection bureau. how did that come out? caller: that one had several ups and downs while this debate was going on in the house and senate. it came out strong and it weakened and then it got strong again. i think the final outcome is good for consumers. there will be a consumer protection bureau. it will be housed within the fed but it will be pretty independent. the systemic council that is made up of all banking regulators, including the fed and the fdic and others, will have veto power over some of its decisions. if it threatens the financial

stability -- which is not an easy -- it is a high board to set. -- high bar to said. the agency will be independent and it -- another compromise was that it will not regulate the smallest banks directly. that the bank regulators will be looking at their consumer products. but all of those -- the consumer protection bureau is coming to life. and it idea behind that one is that the subprime products, the heart of the crisis, will not be any longer allow the because a different regulator will look at how these consumers are being tricked into such products and will stop banks from doing so.

so, it sounds like a good thing. host: yalman onaran from bloomberg is our guest. the topic is the deal were reached on the financial regulations bill. of the first call comes from palm coast, florida, jackie. caller: first of all, i enjoy your show. it is really sad -- yes. first of all -- host: we are listening. go ahead, turn down the volume and go ahead with your comment. caller: i, is that it is sad. -- my comment is it is sad. it has to be more art government and less people. you have to regulate -- it has to be more government and less people. you have to regulate the banks. the deregulation of the oil company. you have to regulate them. look at the mortgages and everything that is going on. you have people going in, and

know they cannot afford homes and get them and know the banks who knew they could not afford it and all the way around it a downward spiral of crooks, the american dream. host: yalman onaran, two things. re-regulation, and as jackie pointed out, does this affect mortgages and the way mortgages are handled at all? guest: yes, it does. the consumer protection agency that we were talking about will look at how banks sell any products to the consumers, and mortgages are financial consumer products. .

guest: we bailed them out in the crisis but what to do with them going forward. will they still buy the mortgages out there. they own big majority of the mortgages that are out standing in the country. how their connection to the government is where they continue to be private, public, how they do things. that really hasn't been tackle and it's not part of the spill but i guess we're looking

forward to that one next. >> randy. marietta, georgia. republican line. caller: good morning. i'm just curious about the bill and how that will play out next year when the mere o floats against the other currencies. caller: mr. yalman onaran. randy, you want to try again? caller: yes. from what i understand fromc nbc started floating against other currencies late next year. how that - guest: you mean the amero? the new currency for the north

american union. caller: we're going to move on to long island, new york. caller: i would like to ask, these banks. they are making the rules for these banks. i want to ask you, what's the rule for the consumeer? host: when you say rules you mean the protections, george? caller: yeah. host: mr. yalman onaran? guest: that's the consumer protection agency we talked about and it's supposed to look how the banks target the consumers. so when you get a credit card and there are hidden fees in your credit card and you're not aware of them, the consumer protection agency is supposed to see that and try to protect the consumer and tell the banks, no you can't charge the fees unles onoka you tell the consumer

clearly what they're getting into. similarly, with mortgages if you're getting no down payment mortgage and your interest rate jacked up after two years and you're not aware, the consumer protection agency is going to prevent the banks from selling products that the consumers don't understand. also, the financial regulation before the packet was completed, there were several pieces of smaller legislation that passed house and the senate and were signed into law by the president that have really put down harder rules to - in credit cards and other stifts that the banks do to reach the consumer so there have been rules in this. host: including a limit on debit card fees, correct? guest: that's part of the current packet making it's way through, yes. there's going to be limits on the cards that we use. the debit cards we use to make

purchases. host: next call for yalman onaran of bloomberg comes from florida. bob on the republican line. what's the name of your city? caller: home of the barefoot mailman. host: go on ahead. caller: i saw probably back in the late 70's or early '80s and they changed fannie mae and it used to be a conservative loaning process of three per tenth and ten then 10% for the next 10,000 and 20% for the next 10,000. when they departed from that and they raised at least on the government corporations for that are owned by the federal government and they upped it from maybe, a maximum of 70

thousand on up to 125,000 and then it just kept getting worse and then what we had, we had, we allowed some of the savings and loans to invest more than 3 percent of their money into real estate and we had the savings and loan crisis. i think if we pursue a safe conservative policy in the future for home purchases, that would be in a lot better shape and i think the building industry is a large industry throughout the united states and i think that's where the country is taking their hit on the chin and i think we need to put the people back to work and the best way to do that, i believe, is to rehas been all of these old homes that have led paint on them, through some form of government assistance and get the led out of the pipes and the lead out of the paint. host: we have a lot on the table. mr. yalman onaran, anything you

want to respond to? guest: um... i mean i don't hear a question, but there is discussion about what to do with fannie mae and freddie mac as discussed earlier and there's debate whether there should be a second stimulus bill and that hasn't gone too far. depends on what the economy does in the next few months. the practice in euro might effect the u.s. economy as well. if that happens and then i'm sure congress will start debating more closely whether or not we should have a second stimulus bill and if that, maybe some of the things the caller might mentioned might be in there who knows. >> any new taxes placed on banks or hedge funds in the compromise deal? >> i'm not so sure about that one. i think there was debate until the last minute but i didn't wait until everything was

finished and when i looked at thing this morning quickly, i don't remember that part exactly but there was debate on a bank tax which the u.k. just recently passed and france and germany said they supported and u.s. was also saying they supported but didn't make it into this one. i didn't see it this morning and i'm not so sure. host: how will the fm stocks react when the mark et opens? guest: it's very hard to know. there are some pretty harsh rules in here. nothing unexpected. new most of the rules that against that would curtail activities of the banks. they've been in discussions for months so that they were probably priced in. there have been some compromised

that soften some of the restrictions. but they, we kind of markets knew those were coming as well. overall, i don't see surprises in what happened last night. it seem as long the lines of what market prices were expected but then the mark et has a brain of it's own and you never know whether it'll react negatively or positively or not do much. >> next call from last crew sis new mexico. >> i just wanted to ask, i don't know if this pertains to credit cards or debit cards, while this in any way low tear interest rate on those kind of cards when you use them? or what do you think? host: mr. yalman onaran? guest: to low tear interest rate? i'm not so sure. the interest rate - excuse me.

the interest rate is dependent on the interest rates in the country part i which is very low now, but there still is termed by different ways. does the legislation restrict the rate? >> it makes sure that they're not - hmm... the consumer protection agency i think will look at those rates and make sure that they're not unnecessarily high. but is there something specific that will try to lower them? i don't think so. i think they're still set by if banks and you know, if interest rates go up in the next couple of years as economy improves, if the fed starts to raise interest rates, then i'm sure, credit card rates will go up and know one will try to prevent it but i think it's whether or not those interest rates, the fees charged

by the banks are fair and reflect economic realities, then they are costs and they can't do just anything they want. that's the only thing i know. host: mr. yalman onaran, did you find that new york legislators were pushing for different things since a lot of financial companies are located up in new york? guest: not that much. the biggest defender of some financial companies that emerged at the last minute was senator scott brown, who is the new messenger or massachusetts senator. he fought really hard for the state's street and a couple of custodial banks based in boston and that was related to the volcker rule. when he was doing that, i heard that some new york senators,

senator gillbran was looking at the issue and sort of involved in the discussion but she wasn't really such a strong voice in the debate. so i haven't really, not that much. host: what a custodian bank? guess guess great question. i've asked that myself after couple of times. but a kus doed ya'll bank is not the type of banking we understand typically. the commercial banks that lend out loans or not a message bank that under writes security. custodian banks keep the securities assets of mutual funds and other institutional investors like pension funds that deposit that managg our savings and that you know, they

do the back office for those funds, so they really, it's not their own deposit or their own assets they hold, but the pension funds and other institutional investors. that's what they do. host: doug. republican, virginia. please go ahead. caller: guess my question was answered about fanny and freddy. why did we let them kick the can down the road until after the election? and when are we finding out congress involvement in the housing problem. when we drill down and figure out what they did or didn't do to hurt or help the problem? host: mr. yalman onaran? guest: again, why is it being kicked down the road? i'm not so sure. again, there have been many issues to tackle and administration has chosen not to tackle that one. i think the biggest reason for

that is the mortgage or housing market which has already gone down. prices have gone down is still very sensitive if you really try to dismantle fanny and freddy right now or do something differently it could spook the mortgage market more and the practice could go down more and it could really, bring the reception or rec resession back and that's the fear on capitol hill so they have sort of been waiting for the economy to recover is my suspicion. and the second part of your question, i'm sorry, i forgot. host: housing markets kicking the can down the road is that caller said. think that's where he was going. mr. yalman onaran, he is a senior write wear bloomberg news, born in istanbul and got a

masters degree at colombia. he's been with bloomberg since about 1998, prior to that worked for theap. we have this tweet that just came in. a little off the topic but i'd love to get your response to it. too many americans think the dollar should be strong verses other currencies because, well, strong sounds good. guest: [laughs] i didn't realize that too many americans wanted the dollar to be strong. but i mean past administrations have slow kateed a strong dollar, and i don't always understand the debate on weak verses strong dollar and high we should have one or the other. i haven't followed it that closely but weaker dollar would help boost exports and stronger

dollar, probably helps us pay our debt easier. i think those are the true debates and i'm not sure. it's always something positive and negative for on both sides. hard to figure which one is better. host: another tweet if the big banks would buy back all the toxic assets it sold to freddie and fanny they could then dismantle them. any response? guest: well, i mean, i don't think the big banks really sold all the toxic assets to fanny and freddy. they bought mortgages from all the banks in the country, including the thousands and thousands. we have 8,000 community banks as well as small mortgage lenders that are not even banks, not even regulated u like banks so it's not as simple as the big

bank that's sold them toxic assets and most of the toxic mortgages and those that have gone bad in the last five years, is really started going bah bad after 2005 were not done by the big banks but by smaller institutions. the big banks help package them into securities. mart fwaj backed securities, we call them but still it was a widespread effort. not just a handful of banks. host: pennsylvania, go ahead? caller: a couple of callsing an a woman said we need more government and regulation. it's my thought that, the government started telling these banks that they were going to start lending money to the people that couldn't afford their mortgage. what role did the clinton administration and bush followed it up also, but what role did

they play in this whole mess that we're in now? i mean u, wasn't government involvement the reason why they loaned money to these people. how much has that played the down fall we've experienced? guest: it did play an important role. you're right. democrat and republican administrations did encourage banks to lend to groups of people who perhaps couldn't afford it that way. and congress pushed for it as well. there were several pieces of legislation passed and again, both sides of the aisle were encouraging the mortgage lending. home ownership to expand to more of america. it looks good. when you know, in theory that the wonderful thing. more americans should own homes

but as you said, it's riskier when people who incomes don't allow them to do that, if you lent to them, eventually it's going bad. for some years when the economy wasn't doing well and asset prices were rising. officially housing prices were rising that was okay because even if you have income that doesn't make you help you with the payments then the rising housing price helps you refinance and you stay current with your payments but when we hit a plethora and prices started decline and the economy stopped growing, then everything came tumbling down. yes, the dpovpts and congress, that is they encouraged wider hope ownership. without realizing and paying attention to what that meant, how risky loan where is being made. they did play a role too.

host: next call from mississippi for yalman onaran. john, hi. caller: how you doing? i have a comment. you know, this country has really been self destructing for a while. basically for money. for the war lords. my thing is, what does the luminac luminachehave planed? host: republican line. carol? caller: good morning. how you guys doing this morning? yes, sir. i wondered i was watching a special that had this last year on,c nbc with house of cards that explained how every thing happened and it showed that they would take these mortgages and rate them so they could sell them over seafoods so seems like most of the bad debt where is sold overseas.

we didn't hold themmed because new they were not good to begin with. the way it looked as they sold them fast as they could make them. they wouldn't keep them here and maybe that's why some of the overs is having some financial problems they're having now? guest: there's partial truth to that. a lot of the mortgage debt was packaged into mortgage backed securities and that was sold everywhere. not just overseas but here. in investors and pension funds bought them too. that's our 401k and our retirement funds. so yes, it did contribute to the recession. not the current european crisis but when we tumbled two years ago and the u.s. economy and the financial system came to the

brink of collapse. europe and asia were effected because of the banks and government and local governments holding some of the debt. the losses that are bourne by u.s. financial institutions and non-u.s. financial institutions, since the carry sis starts, are roughly the same. the total is 1.7 trillion dollars. these are on mortgage related securities that we're talking about and it's about half of it in the u.s. and the other half is the rest of the world. we did ship some of the toxic overseas but had enough to hurt us as well here. the current europe crisis is a different issue. it's based on their similar things. you know the spanish real estate market was over valued.

the uk market was over valued and those came down and greece borrowed too much and spent money without really paying attention to it's finances, so in some ways it's similar but it's really not because of the u.s. and what we did in our housing market. now they're sort of in the second phase which is their own problem. host: just to build off the last two callers. what internattonal provisions are included in the financial regulations deal struck at 5:40 am this morning? guest: what do you mean why i want independent? host: anything you can speak to that deals with international financial? guest: not that i can think of. well, i mean there's sort of discussion of resolution and sort of how to wind down systemically important banks and

institutions and that, those are all international active stuktss so that addresses some of the issues. but there is, there are separate efforts to set up regulations for all banks globally that would be international and you know there's a committee on banks supervision that really brings together all the regulators of european asian and u.s. together and they're discussing rules but that hasn't conclude yet. that's another addition to the rules we're trying pass here. and then there's the g20 meeting this weekend in toronto, and they have several other bank related financial related regulation topics such as compensation limits or, again, the resolution authority that

some sort of international resolution authority that would tackle if an international bank went under such as when leyman bros. collapsed it had so many subsidiaries in so many countries, no one knew how to handle it. the bankruptcy court here didn't have jurisdiction in london or tokyo. those have not been tackled. host: next call from deer park, washington. independent line. joshua? caller: good morning. i was going to take a completely different tact. i find how very nervous your guess got with international provision. we're not dealing with fractional reserve banking. some say the credit default swaps were one kwa drquadrillio.

we see a collapse that might be created on purpose. i know nine people that have not paid a dollar. not paying property tax or mortgages and no one is even coming after them. our system is going to collapse. i want to ask you a personal question. can i ask you a personal question. host: josh , go ahead. caller: does your guest have and advanced college degree and in what? host: mr. yalman onaran? guest: yes i have two masters. one in international affairs. >> any response to his points regarding mortgages and international finance that he discussed earlier? guest: he pointed a good thing i hadn't thought about which is the derivatives regulation that

in the financial reform back set very international. all the derivatives and the mark set very international. it's about 600 trillion dollars of derivatives out standing an according to the bank of international settlement and the rules that u.s. is about to finalize and pass, do really address the derivatives issue and force them to exchange and clearing houses and forcing more capital and collateral to put up when trading them and these, the derivatives rules that we're passing are actually going to be serving as an example to the rest of the world. europeans, asian countries. they're all looking at the same type of ideas and they're probably going to follow in our footsteps to regulate derivatives in a similar way in away this does have

international repercussions. host: dan, you're the last caller. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i wanted to make a couple of quick comments. your guest had mentioned that government or congress had a lot to do with encouraging loans that were, you know, low income and i wanted to flush out more detail on that. the - if you go look at the laws passed the last couple of details. specifically the code of regulations. title 12 you find congress passed lo laws that made 50% of their loans low income. banks tried to comply with that. in the end of 202008 when we had a tremendous failure that occured the fall of that year, we had 54 million mortgages throughout the u.s. and at that time, 26 million of those, had

been made to low income families and 11 million of the 26 million were held by fannie mae and freddie mac. now, those banks tried to comply with those 50% requirements in the title 12 code of regulations and the reason they did is congress put in there tremendous requirements on the banks. they currency had the authority to look at the activities to of the bank and to be able to refuse them things like expansion and putting new branchs in place. host: dan, you seem knowledgeable about this. what's your profession. caller: i'm an engineer but the banks tried to come my with those. can i make one other comment? the other thing i want you to do is put yourself in the position of the banks and say if you had all these assets sitting on your books that were poor, what would

you do about? it they couldn't get rid of them so their way was to then combine them and make other assets with some good loans so they ended up putting the proverbial bad apple in the bunch and tried to sell the whole bunch. host: mr. yalman onaran? guest: i mean he points out some of the problems that - it's correct. that's we said earlier, that congress did encourage lend together low income families. but of course, it doesn't have to be this way. you can lend to low income families as long as you stick to proper banking standards which is you look at how much they make. you look at what the value of the house they're trying buy and see if their income can help

them and help them make the payments. if you stick to good lending standards. it doesn't have to blow off this way. there's always 3%. 2%. defaults, people with pay. although they thought they could. they lose jobs or their income goes down. but they were really the banking system and not just the banking system but all the mortgage lender that were not even bank the shadow banking system that we call it. they really stopped sticking the standards that had been around for decades for. hundreds of years off good banking and that's why this all happened. congress did play a role by pushing them to make more loans but still, it didn't have to happen this way. host: yalman onaran is a senior writer for bloomberg news.

thank you very much, sir. hour and a half left in the "washington journal" this morning and in just a few minutes we'll turn to hill hill of the washington times. senior editorial writer. the case against kayingn in a few days on monday and in 45 minutes we'll talk with hanna rosin who wrote this article. the end of men. it's the coverage of the atlantic monthly magazine and we'll talk with her in 45 minutes. up next. quin hillyer of the washington times. we'll be right back. ♪

>> c-span is available in over 100 million homes bringing you a direct link to politics. history and nonbooks all as a public service created by america's cable companies. >> let me say to the american people this is a change in personnel but not a change in policy. general patraeus fully participated in our review last fall and supported and helped design the strategy we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to head u.s. forces in afghanistan. general patraeus has been on c-span more than 40 times. watch his appearances on-line any time at the c-span video library. washington, your way. >> starting mob day, watch the

confirmation hearing for supreme court hearing linda kagan. live and see replays every night at 9:00 eastern on c-span two. to learn more about the highest court read the supreme court. can candid conversations. available in hard cover auzion ane-book. "washington journal" continues. host: now joining us here is quin hillyer. senior editorial write wear the washington times. we're talking about elana kagan confirmation hearings beginning on monday. in fact the washington times has a two thirds after page editorial this morning. the case against kagan. mr. hillyer, it seems, before we get into the specifics, it seems that not a lot of people have paid attention to this supreme court nominees. that affair statement? >> i think that's fair with the

oil spill in the gulf and everything going on in afghanistan. this just hasn't made it to the top of the news. next week, it will. the hearings start. host: case against kagan. this is what the washington times and i presume you wrote this one. this is what quin hillyer and the washington times write. kagan is too political, too leftist and too experienced and too disrespectful towards existing law to be confirmd for the u.s. supreme court. let's take that one-by-one. too political? guest: too political. the memos from both her time with chief justice marshall, and her time at the clinton white house show that she consistently is results oriented where she tries to figure out what political results she wants to

get and then tries to twist the law to get there. rather than starting with the law and saying, okay, what does the law tell me to do. her legal analysis is not actually really legal but political analysis. she shows that again and again. host: too leftist? guest: you go down a whole list of issues, and her legal analysis doesn't just work toward political ends, but towards leftist political ends. she showed that she actually with held information from president clinton from the american college of gynecologists and obstetricians and that showed the partial birth abortion was not necessary almost any time. she was so dedicated to pushing partial birth abortion she with held information from the

president. she's very leftist on gun control where she's has said she doesn't this is an individual right and i could go down another whole list of issue. but issue after issue, not just on the liberal side but on the far left. host: too inexperienced? you write? guest: there's not been another justice on the supreme court for 40 years that has never served in any spot before as a judge. now, that doesn't mean you have to have been a judge at some level, but if you haven't, it mean use should have other some significant courtroom experience. until she by came solicitor general she had never argueed a single case in a courtroom at the appellate level. that's an extremely thin resume for someone to be in the highest court in the land. host: too disrespectful towards existing law?

guest: i could come up with plenty of examples but the most well-known is when she was dean of harvard law school and tried to keep military recruiters off harvard campus and she later knowledged she knew the law applied, but she was going to ignore it unless the pentagon enforced it on her. then she turned around and supported a challenge to the law and that was ridiculous the entire supreme court in a unanimous 8-0 ruling with one person sustaining ruled against her position. host: quin hillyer is our guest. here's their editorial. numbers are on the screen. (202) 737-0001 for republicans.

democracy employ democr (202) 737-0002 for democrats. the kay dpan hearing convened on monday and will be live on c-span. now, recent c-span pole, can you identify the individual named by president obama to serve on the u.s. supreme court. only 19 percent said yes. 81 percent said no. in 09, last time. 42% named son you so to mayer. guest: yes again this has not gotten the attention it deserved. i'm glad you're talking about it this morning. this is one of the lifetime appointments in the land. mrs. kagan can serve on there for another 35 years. host: one other thing before we go to calls. we know this is what you write. we know she believes foreign law is highly relevant to u.s. law.

guest: yes, that's growing issue on the court. is whether or not it is appropriate for u.s. justices to site foreign law as being strucktive about how to interpret american law. now most americans would say, wait a minute. what does a law in zimbabwe or england have to do with what we, of our own devices, have passed the united states? she is what is called, she calls it a trance nationalist. they believe that yes, indeed foreign law especially from international bodies like un should have an effect on how we interpret our own law. now, that is a huge departure only in the last 10 or 15 years and really only explicitly in the last five that's a human departure for only over 200

years of american tradition. host: on our republican line. oklahoma. please go ahead. caller: hi. mr. hillyer. yes. it is a blessing to get on c-span again, one more time. i have two questions for you. why is there a problem with this beautiful woman that graduated from harvard school. why is the question on gun control when i believe guns need to be regulated, and taken out of individual's homes. kids are killing one another. all over the world. - and why does she have to have so much of a background

pertaining to her college education and what she stands for? why does she have to be treated like sotomayer? the former appointed by president barack obama. host: start with gun control. sylvia thinks gun control is appropriate or gun recreation. you write in the editorial. we know she's hostile to gun rights. guest: yes, her memos and other comments show she does not believe the second amendment provides an individual right. i would assume a majority of americans think that just like every other right in the bill of rights this is an individual right. the right to actually own and

bear firearms and she has said, she is not sympathetic to that argument even though it's mostly the accepted argument among the american people. host: think she was going toward the nomination process and why she has to be quote, unquote grilled in front of the committee but will the republicans from what you've learned will the republicans on the judiciary committee go after her? work hard. guess guess i think they're going to ask a lot of tough questions. they're going to be respectful, unlike what happened with judges clarence thomas and works when they were really b put through the ringer. she is, by all accounts, a charming lady. she's somebody who get as long with people. and she, she does have a good

record at harvard law and they're going to respect her. but that doesn't mean they're going to let her off easily. they going to ask her to explain things in the editorial today. host: san antonio, texas. go ahead ryan. caller: i have a question. i want to know what are - what is like - what makes her qualified to be a supreme court justice? guest: what do you mean by that? caller: she has no bench. never been to bench. never been a judge before. as like sotomayer has. what makes her qualified to be on the ben snch guest: do you think she should not have been nominateed? caller: no. what experience does she have other than legal background? guess guess that's an issue we raise. she's not entirely unqualified.

having served as general solicitor of the united states even for one only year is something usually seen as a qualification. dean of harvard law school is nothing to sneeze at and clerking for supreme court is nothing to sneeze at. the question is, is that an enough? this is a courtroom job dealing with the very highest aspects of american law. and she has left courtroom experience that almost anybody else nominated in decades and decades so your question is, is very appropriate. most people would say that because of the harvard law stuff and because she did clerk for supreme court justice. she's on the borderline of being qualified. the question is, you know, is being just borderline enough. do you see this nomination being stopped or see her being elevated to the supreme court or

see it being stoped? guest: the numbers are with her. mainly because she's a democratic appointee and there's 60 democratic senators. i think the act of stopping her would be difficult. i don't think it's impossible. the-us in should be on the moderate democrats to explain why somebody with this sort of record should be confirmed to the supreme court and when the american public sees her record on partial birth a portion and her record on guns and her record on foreign law. i think the poles are going to be against her and the question is, will the senators follow the poles. or will the senators. do what they did with health care and ignore and go ahead and confirm her. ho host seems a lot of

conservative groups that would get active in a nomination bat or hearing have been quiet on this. is that fair? guest: a little it. there's been so much going on with the oil spill and such, but in the last few days they've started speak up. the national right to life organization spoke one the very detailed memo on her position on partial birth abortion. that's not ordinary partial abortion. it's the fairly grew some procedure that fairly most of the nation opposed. you'll have other groups speaking up i believe but they don't see it's a crusade this time. again, because she's done a good job through the years of being polite and being friendly, to everybody, even when she disagrees with them. part of it is personal. people tend to like her personally even if her record is of someone that's well to the

left as an activist. host: serve auzion senior editor for the washington times and senior spectator magazine. memphis, your on the ire. caller: just a couple of questions for you. number one that struck k me. that someone that writes for a conservative newspaper would state she should judge by the poles or congress should go by the poles instead of the law maybe before them or the bill where the supreme court or who sever in an official position should go by the poles. you said that, sir. another thing i'd like to bring up to you is that, on each side, no matter republican president or democratic president that nominates somebody for the highest court in the land. there's going to be people that are apposed to it. you said earlier she was too

political in the clinton white house of the that was her job. the job in the clinton white house was a political job. had to make decisions not only based on the law. politics also. i mean that's given. also, actually, was said that only 19 percent of the ammrican people are aware of who she is and who the president has nominated for the supreme court but i bet even less people are aware of other supreme court justices that did a good job for many years had no courtroom experience. could you please name a couple of those supreme court justices that had absolutely no courtroom experience? guest: to take the last question, first. i don't know that there were many justices at all that had no courtroom experience. now, way back in the 50's,

warren had been governor of california, but i think - i think he had significant courtroom experience before that as well. again, she is, kagan has never once until solicitor general had never argueed a case at the appellate level. to talk about your question on poles, i wasn't saying whether the polls should or should not influence i was talking about where they would or would not influence the senators. senators tend to follow the polls that a political reality. the question was would she get confirmed and i was explaining the political situation. it was an, is. host: served as press secretary for bob livingston that presented the north new orleans area. this next call comes from

william in new orleans. caller: good morning. very interesting to me that there's been a great deal of l talk about diversity in the nomination to the supreme court and yet when one looks at mrs. kay fwan. so list or the i think it's very interesting that we find the this kind of feminism in the courtroom but wheres the diversity. there's the ivy league background. deep within the tentacle office supreme court as a clerk. father was a very high powered lawyer. when you look at this. one is really hard pressed to look at the supreme court and talk about diversity. i don't think feminization or simply the placing of two on women on the supreme court counts as diversity or diversity

of life experiences. they all seem to come from the same general area. guest: the caller makes a very good point. peter, he - he's absolutely right. if she gets on the court, all nine justices will have gone to harvard or yale law school. four of them will have been from the new york area. the even the religious diversity that shouldn't matter. where there's diversity or not. you will have six catholics and three jews but no protestants and two from manhattan. you would have everybody coming from the same, everybody but i

believe one from the same northeastern corridor. you have clarence thomas and anthony ennedy from out west of the that's not very diverse at all. to me, diversity doesn't matter as much as qualifications and experience and adjustment. but the left always argues that diversity is important and yet, clearly, she does not make it more diverse. if they want diversity she is not it. and as a matter of fact she hosted a forum at harvard and i watched the video the other day, and they mentioned her. this was about two years ago and they mentioned her as a possible supreme court justice and she even laughed and said i bring the same life experience of the common man and she was laughing because she was making joke on herself because cheerily she doesn't. she's from the east coast can

lon. >> from your editorial times article she's willing to cut first amendment free speech for political purposes. guest: this is crucially important. it's really remarkable when you look at her whole history on first amendment free speech rights. there's only two issues on which she has let herself sort of get out front. one is on how much rights and free speech. she argued before the supreme court that, just last year, that the first amendments does not protect the right to publish political pam lets in certain circumstances. she was specifically asked, would this law properly ban books and she said, i don't know that the court would uphold that

and she said, probably. and that's astonishing when you consider that two pamphlets were, were the very heart of our founding. thomas painee's common sense and the federalist papers and she would say that congress could ban them under certain circumstances. she s had said in this. the circumstances would be in if they were funded by a corporation. and there's certain other subsets of corporations but basically, she was saying corporations cannot publish political pamphlets within certain timeframes, et cetera, et cetera. now tell that again, to the people that did the federalist papers were anonymous at the time. they wrote under the different name and the issue in this case

was whether there could be anonymous corporations - charitable corporations that don't reveal donors. well, the right to free speech but anonymous speech is central to the history of the united states. she is actually talked about redistributing expression and about the government. these are her words. redisindustry butting expression. talked about the government doling out free speech rights. not that the rights pre exist government but government doles them out. that's dangerous stuff. >> glendale, wisconsin. bob you're on with quin hillyer of the washington times. caller: yes, good morning. first of all. god bless you both, okay. the first question that i wanted to bring up is why did obama

nominate this person? and who else should be nominated? and i've been listening this entire period here. within the first 25 minutes the first time that mr. hillyer you mentioned anything about the christian and a portion issue, okay that's very - commemorative there. and then the other thing that i thought, well, while i was sitting here, our forefather's had no experience in anything either. okay? i think they were justified and today it's what our fundamental values that count and that is what has brought us to the present day and mrs. kay fan is a beautiful person, yes, i agree. but the fundamental principals are missing there. i would like you to comment obstacle that.

guess gues ge gu guest: there are people that are left of center that i don't think would get more than two or three votes against them in the entire senate. walter dillinger was a former solicitor general i think. merrill garland on the circuit of appeals. those are two names that spring to mind clearly left of center, but who would engender almost no opposition. the second question, peter, was it about - host: founding father's experience. it was kind of counter intuitive to the argument he was making. seems he was saying they had no experience but the beauties of our system. guest: actually most of them had plenty of experience in the

law or in public affairs, most of the founding father's or the people of the institutional convention were among the leading citizens of their time. most had tremendous educational background. they were very learned men and very accomplished men. of course, they had no experience in american law as america because america hadn't been created yet but they were some of - thomas jefferson was a broad at the time and when he heard who was going to the convention, he wrote back, this sounds like an assembly of demigods. direct quote. they were plenty experienced. lost host from shreveport, louisiana. dwayne? republican line? caller: i don't think she ought to be nominated with a xhaunist president wanting to put her on the bench.

we have the constitution being attacked and as far as i'm concerned she ought not be nominated. all i got to say. host: losing our rights left and right? you agree with that? guest: i think it might be slightly overstated but it's easy to argue, and perhaps accurate to argue that rights are being eroded and chiped a way at. when you have a president who is setting salaries for private corporations chief's, that's something that's never been done before. when you have an administration that's unilaterally changing the terms of debt, so that for instance, the bonded stake-holders, suddenly get the value of their holdings cut from

about 5.25% to 20% and the unions go from 25 to 40% with a stroke of a pen without congress passing a law, that erodes property rights so the man has a point. the question is, how far can this go before the american people say, you know, emergencies are one thing but we do have laws. >> from the washington times editorial we know she believes judges should automatically favor certain classes of people and impose their own desires for outcomes. . . .

toward anybody, everybody, rich and poor comes to you the same, and yet she would say, no, certain classes come with a certain extra call before the judges. again, that's not the american tradition host: next call from -- call comes from chicago. callee: i just listen to this person. and this is so totally extreme right wing. i mean, the most extreme decision made by the right wing corporate supreme court was

picking our president in 2000. the next extreme decision made by the extreme right-wing court was the corporate decision. and kagan is not my choice. i'm a liberal. i would rather have diane woods. as far as i'm concerned, she's qualified, but she is to the right of society meyer. i would rather have a liberal justice to counteract the extreme members of the federalist society who are sitting on this court now. host: uh -- guest: a lot of people believe that. that's a very consistent liberal view that our caller

just ar ticklated. and we just have a different -- a difference of opinion. i would strongly dispute i am anywhere near right wing, if you saw my history of fighting on behalf of the wet lands and against david duke and the lit any of things. -- lit knee of things. i'm hardly right wing. >> elena kagan will be introduced by senators kerry and brown and it will be carried on one of our many c-span networks and on radio and on the internet. so stay tuned just in case the house and senate are in. i don't think the house is in that day. i'm not sure. but it will be carried all over c-span. so you can't miss it. chandler, arizona. thanks for holding. go ahead, mo. caller: i've been reading in certain magazines that she's

gay. is that what -- understanding is? host: mo, where have you seen that? caller: i forget the magazine but it was body language, there were photographs, the way she was sitting. host: is that important to you? caller: no. just asking. host: ok. thanks. guest: i don't know. and i don't think it's any of our business. it's only our business if it directly influences how she rules. if she puts that ahead of the law. but other than that, i don't think it's our business to ask. and i would rather not go there, although it is worth noting the administration has said categorically that she is not. host: helen on our independent line. you're on with quinn hillyer of the washington times.

caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have one comment and one question. christianty played a pivotal role in shaping our -- i feel by electing her there's many fundamentals missing and sense we are not living in socialist, and communist nations, how would the transnational law apply to us? i would not support that. and then the other question i have is by having no protestants, i feel that it lax diversity. guest: ok. on the second question first, i up to on this ahead of time. i don't think somebody's faith or somebody's regionnal background should make a difference. but if you are going to yell and scream for decades that diversity is important, then when it comes time to appoint

somebody, then you should actually achieve diversity, and clearly she doesn't. but there's no reason why a jew or buddhist or anybody else should not be able to follow the law the same way a protestant or catholic should. it's not about faith. it's about law. that said, the question about transnationalism is very, very important. just last month the court, again, came up with one of these rempses to foreign law that really disturbed a lot of us who think that foreign law has no place in american courts. unless it's specifically having to do with a law pursuant to a treaty. the question was whether a minor, whether somebody under 18 could be given a life

sentence without parole. and even though i think it's 37 u.s. states say they should be if the crime is heinous enough. we're talking about brutal rapists and murderers that happen to be two weeks before their 18th birthday, the court said no. one of the reasons is world opinion is against it. and i think only one other country imposes such a sentence. maybe two or three others allow such a sentence. so to which a lot of legal scolers here say, so what? our american citizens voted on our system of government. the people of zimbabwe or china or london do not vote on our laws. so why should we pay any attention to them when discerning the right judgment

under american law in cases that are specifically american? >> tweeting in, kagan argued governmental motive is the most important factor. she's just another liberal who loves big oppressive got to the. caller, anne? caller: first of all, mr. hillyer i want to thank you for the washington times. i read it online and i really, really enjoy it. read it err monday through friday. most of my information has come from your editorials. and there are so many things, in fact,, that she has not been a real judge. and her eliteness manifests itself. partial birth abortion really gets to me, just to my heart. i was an r.n. when i was working. i'm retired now. i cannot imagine any nurse or doctor doing this.

so there's so many things. but again, i thank you. and for being there. bye-bye. guest: thank you, very much. host: what's the status of the washington times currently as far as ownership and everything? guest: i really don't know. we're told everything looks good. and i just go in and do my job and let the business side handle the business side. host: still owned by the same owners? has there been a sale? guest: no. there has not been a sale. host: barbara? caller: thank you for allowing me to speak. we now have the most far right court we have ever had. four of these justices, robert, legal, thomas and ask alya are classified as the most far right we've ever had.

kennedy's number 10. as far as foreign law is concerned, kennedy is one of the ones who most often sites foreign law. host: ok. barbra, where did you get that listing? caller: i don't remember. i pulled it up some time ago. the ones that we have on there who are liberals aren't the most liberal. guest: there's several ways to respond to that. first of all, theeamerican people don't think that. several recent polls have said do you think the court is too liberal or about right or conservative? and the plurality says too liberal. secondly, there have been really thoughtful commentators who have just recently analyzed this. stuart taylor who is as down the middle as it gets wrote a column and said no, this is not an extremely conservative

court. that on legal issue after legal issue, it is moderate to at times leaning slightly left. because kennedy on some very important issues, the swing justice kennedy actually tends to come down on the liberal side. so i'll go with stuart taylor's analysis, and again, stuart taylor is a centrist. a respected centrist. and he did a big study on it. so i would just stick with him. host: steve, you're the last call. go ahead. caller: hey, mr. hillyer, i'm curious as an editor of the "washington times" what's the dynamics as far as the marching orders you get from the mooney cult? we all know that well, i think a lot of us know that the "times" is owned by this cult.

host: ok. we got the point. mr. hillier? guest: i have never once gotten a marching order from anybody in ownership. they are remote owners. they do not come in and mess with the newsroom. that idea has been exploded even by most of the accomplish ment media after the first six or seven years of our existence. most of the establishment media started recognizing that, yes, the ownership might be different. but this is a very serious, solid newsroom. >> quinn hillyer. "a case against kagan." thank you for being on the washington journal. guest: thank you. 4045 minutes left. the end of men, how women are taking control of everything.

>> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes. bringing you a direct link into public affairs. created by america's cable companies. >> let me say to the american people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. general petraeus fully participated in our review last fall. and he both supported and

helped design the strategy that we have in place. >> learn more about the president's choice to head u.s. forces in afghanistan. general david petraeus has been on c-span more than 40 times. watch his appearances at hearings, briefings online anytime at the c-span video library. it's washington, your way. this weekend c-span 2's book tv, the death tile trial of willy mcgee. on afterwards, jerry van dike and -- spent days in a dark cell. he writes about it in "captive." sara ellison with an inside account of rupert murdoch's purchase to have wall street journal. >> and join us on twitter. more than 30,000 viewers already have.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: hannah rosen is on your screen. this is the front cover 06 this month's atlantic monthy. hannah rosen what are women taking control of? guest: everything, according to the cover. no. the truth is i started to look at statistics of a lot of things. college, what was happening in this economy. and when you do that you see something really surprising. a lot of the job growth is happening in jobs women usually do. women are more than 50% of the workforce for the first time and women are getting degrees at a far higher rate than men so i just try to pit all those different statistics together and explain how they connect to each other and the american marriage and how it's changing and women earning more than men in a lot of families. so these things are fairly new in this culture.

host: you've discussed a lot of things. here's what you write. of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most decade all but two are occupied primarily by women. indeed the u.s. economy is in some ways becoming a traveling sisterhood. upper class women leave home and enter the workforce leaving domestic jobs for other women to fill. what are the job categories? >> well, we know that there's not a lot of job growth right now. help in certain sectors of the economy. so in this post resession landscape the jobs that are growing are growing because women are more and more entering the workforce, thus opening up jobs that are things that they used to do for free at home. child care is one of them. nursing. elder care. food preparation. the kinds of things a housewife used to do that now we farm

out. so there's a lot of job growth in those areas. now there's no inherent reason men can't do those jobs but ironically women are benefitting from the -- >> few would hire an unemployed man as a babysitter. so they hire a woman. that was just one example of a kind of dynamic of job growth in our future economy. host: you say two of the areas of job growth are ones that are male-dominated. guest: january tore and computers -- janitor and computers. those are the two that men tend to do. host: you go back and in the great resession as you're calling the last couple of years. 3/4 of the 8 million jobs lost were by men. guest: yes. and i think those statistics that the resession didn't cause

this dynamic but certainly accelerated it. and they allowedtous see it a a little more clearly than we did before. to take a longer historical view, women have taken over jobs that used to be dominated by men. teacher and secretary are two classic examples. right now the vet professional turning into a female vet. but there are almost no exaverpals. now, you know, you have to think about why is that? think about how women have changed so drastically over the last century in temperatures of what we think they can do or is acceptable for a woman to do. a woman with children -- women didn't used to be able to work then married women now women work, married women work. women with children and small children work. so women have made really

drastic changes in how they -- men won't do certain jobs. they are less flexible in the jobs we considered acceptable for them to do, although that's changing a lot too. host: the end of men and we have divided our phone lines by women and men. 202-737-001 for women and 202-737-0002 for men. we're going to read a little bit more and then get the calls. from the article according to the bureau of labor statistics. women now hold 51.4% of managerial professional jobs up from 26.1% in 1980. >> i think that has to do with

educational degrees, basically. guest: the fact that for whatever reason, women -- whatever schools are demanding these days, women seem to be performing better in schools at many levels and if in getting degrees and i think that qualifies you for middle class jobbeds. >> 50% of all women are knts and hold banging and insurance jobs. >> yes. part of the reason i write this. is it's not a rah rah women article. part of it is to take stock of the fact that this is happening. so for example, we don't have great child care facilitated. if it's dominated by women, it's a different landscape. host: 45% of associates in law firms. and both those percentages are rising fast.

guest: yes. and that's a snapshot of the current economy, not taking into account what the medical school body looks like, which is at least half women. so -- and the same for -- host: and women now earn 60% of all masters degree, half of law and medical degrees, 42% of mba's and women earn 60% of all bachelor's degrees, the minimum an affluent life. t cases for >> those are big changes. host: quickly, how quickly did this happen and why? guest: women have been entering the workforce. in the 1980's was the big rush. in the 1970's and 1980's. and i think it's just sort of accumulated over time. it's just more and more and

more women. and part -- partly because the industries that got hardest hit were industries that were male-dominated. housing, finance sector. those are male industries. so i think during the resession more and more women have to work often to support. their families. so that's the kind of story of a zapped middle class. and it has to do with the end of a steady union industrial job. and that's been going on for quite a while. that's not something you can rely on so women have had to fill in some of the gaps. and the story there is different. because so many fewer people get married. 40% of children are born to a single parent. to a non-married couple. let's say. and that's also a radical change. that has to do with women not getting married and men not

being fathers. so -- it's a really different phenom including at the top which you couldn't argue that women dominate the top. that's something viewers will ask me about, because everybody does. and so -- host: so does this say that organizations like now are no longer necessary. title ix was no longer necessary. guest: i think if we all recognize that what i was saying was true and understood the job force was more than half women and was continuing grow that way, then we could have a more interesting debate. but nobody acknowledges this, so i don't think anyone's work is done because when off country where a workforce is more than half women and

there's barely -- at the very top, you know, something different is happening. men obviously do dominate the top. people talk ant this in terms of law schools. you've got half at least of first-year associates are women and then as you go up and up, the women don't hold those higher positions of -- who raises the children and leftover kind of stereotypes about who makes a good leader and what slip like. in my argument there's so much pressure coming up from the middle class and schools that that has to change. host: the end of men is the article. you are on with hannah rosen. caller: yes. peter, first of all, i'd like

to ask you why you let people call our president communists and things like that. you don't hang up on them. but when a liberal says s something negative about you hang up on fmple -- but for the lady who is there, i want to ask her if she thinks that within the next five to 10 years we'll have a female president. guest: it seems perfectly plausible. i mean, why not? 4 if you look at the success of female candidates in the last elections. they are the business women in california who did incredibly well. conservative women suddenly doing well in politics. you have talk of hillary clinton running again and the popularity of sarah palin. it seems so much more plausible than it seems what do you think

about -- guest: i think susan and christina hoffs got this debate going about 10-15 years ago with the notion of the boy crisis. and this wasn't so much about women are dominating. it was more about us taking a look at boys struggling. and this was an educational argument for fighter i have to say in other countries, it's completely skepped. like in australia they have programs in school that are basically affirm tiff action for boys in school. so they have boys-only schools or reconstruct the he's kind of addressed this head jan, using policies that basically are what we think of as affirmative

action policies for boys. as they do in some american colorages. in christina hostile he blames the feminists and says it's a feminist division -- host: i think we just celebrated the ooh 50th anniversary of the pill. does that have anything to do with -- guest: yes. now it's a really long history. but there's a new book written about the impact of the pill. and it just talks about the pill allowed so many things to happen. because once you control your reproductive cycle, it allows you to work and control more of what's happening to you in your life. >> in fact, we covered -- host: mountain view, california, richard, hi.

caller: yes. good morning. hi. host: we're listening. please go ahead. caller: thank you. i really love this topic and i have to share this with you. i actually was one of the early organizeers of the now movement in san francisco. and of course, i'm a male. and in talking about this topic, i mean, to me, some of the enablers to really create this current realization is number one, we had affirmative action. we have corporate got to thet sensitivity treatment of women in the workplace. we have the divorce courts elevating women to have greater rights. we also see the rise of the acceptance of lesbianism and at this point based upon -- and the institutionalization that women are smart and better

thinkers. guest: there's a few things i can say there. there was a recent case against a pharmaceutical company which was a sexual harassment and talked about the male managers and the things they said to female employees and when you read the case it feels like you're reading from a different century. things bosses would say to women routinely and now when you read a indication like that. it feels like you're moving back 40 years. there was something else you said. it wasn't about -- oh, gosh. i've forgotten. it was the last thing you said i've forgotten. so sorry. host: i'm a male. i wasn't listening. guest: oh, i remember! excuse me! it was about sort of women being smarter and better lateral thinkers. this is a vast body of very touchy research which many people have gone through.

there's a wonderful book calledal "through the lab rint" where a woman goes through the psychological research and what it says. there's no evidence men or smarter than women or women are smarter than men. they basically rate equals. there is some -- now all of this research comes from psychological tests of college students for the most part and then personality assessments. so it depends on what you think about those two ways of researching. but this is a tricky subject, because you don't want to say women are more disciplined, controlled. and it seems if everybody's equally smart there must be something society is demanding now which comes more naturally to women at this moment. that's not to say men can't master it or learn it but schools are learning and women are able to enact it more

host: -- host: the perception of the ideal business leader is starting to shift. the old model of command and control with one leader holding all the decision power is considered hidebound. the new smoled sometimes called post heroic or transitional. in the words of the historian the leadership expert james mcgregor burns. the aim instead of like a good coach, and channel your charisma to motivate others. >> partly their rises in the culture notions of what a leader should and -- that fits with a male stereotype that you

hadded this top-down leadership and those notions are changing and they are sort of stealing language from gender studies, basically. saying they are teaching you now in business schools how to read body language and take social qukus and things we often thought women are 3we9er at than men. they are broadening the notion of making him a good leader which allows women to come sit in a little bit. so think that's helpful at the top levels. host: lynn, chicago, hi. caller: hello. host: we are going to move on, lynn. sorry. gene. dublin, virginia. hi. caller: good morning. i've left industry and now work in academia. and i work with several student organizations. during a meeting of the mixed gender group one of the males said as a male i won't mention the university i'm associated

with. awkwardly accepted the fact that i'm evil. that opened up the flood gate because i left my kids here. i said do you mind if a have a chat with your mom. it was interesting to hear their mothers who did not think their son was being made to feel that way and i thought it was -- i think there's a study in here. but i got over 30 now, and i think it's got to go through i.r.b. if i do move with this. but if you look at what women are being elected into office. who are highly conservative. if they were males, no feminist would vote for them. guest: yes. men are evil. i'd like to think more of why

he felt he was evil? that's a 1970's view when women thought it would be easy to argue women were arguing to the patriarch. why is everything -- now when i hear for example, college admissions officers, and i quote one of them in my story, they talk about men and women and almost talk about them in a pitying way. evil implies you have power over people and power to do damage and now they are talk about them as if they need extra help. like these poor guys who can't get their act together. they are but they are slow to catch up. i'm not getting the materials right. host: they are. the story.%- and two things what gene just said. that was his name, right?

guest: uh-huh. host: what he just said from the article. number one the admissions process where women you tend to see being organized and make the appointments and the young guys sit back and let the moms do all the work. >> right. host: and the focus group in kansas city. guest: ok so let me address the college applications first. the admissions said part of the problem is not that women have gotten smarter. but the college a kegs process is incredibly difficulty. it's like applying for a loan. you have to do these millions of things. the girls of that age are mature you have -- to handled the process and get it done. this isn't every girl and every boy but they said as a rule the girls are much more together and don't need much help. one of the others things i wrote in the story which i

didn't print. the second thing you asked was about kansas city. that was really interesting for me. i went to kansas city, because i was looking for a place where there was father's group. there's a lot of men's rights groups across the country that are starting to take account for this. what their concern is child custody laws. they feel they have been really skewed in favor of women. so this was a class designed for men where men failed to pay custody and their choice was to go to jail or attend a fathering course. i was going there expecting them to be lectured by their teacher about how important it was to pay child support. be they had a charismatic teacher who was more in a group therapy mode. and these were the initial classes, so i within thed and where women were in the world.

and the quote will stick with me forever. he wrote on the board and wrote down $85,000. and then wrote down $12,000 and here's your salary. and he said who is the man now? she's the man. and everybody started clapping and going crazy so i thought about that a lot. i don't think that many of these guys wives made $85,000. but the fact that that image really struck a cord and was so plausible tells you a lot about where we are. host: we're talk about the end of men. go ahead with your question. caller: first time i've ever gotten through to c-span. host: welcome. caller: i want to ask her, who is taking care of the children while all this is going on? who is taking care of the children? the women are the nurturers. ok?

-- you understand? host: got it. guest: this is a huge, huge problem. and another reason that i wrote this story is another place i visited was the community college and what i learned about that class is that there are basically women are doing everything. it's not that the men are taking care of the children. it's that the women are hustling. they are going to school, getting their nursing degree. they go to school during the day. they work at night. the children are with various relatives and they are also raising the the children and trying to get child custody. i'm talking ant working class families. and so that's not good. it's not good for anybody. the imbalance is not great. that's why i said this is not a go, women! you go work! do your thing! we're not in that era. this is a time where many ways

women have made stridse but many, many ways it's not good for the children. host: our fathers even necessary. does the xy chromosome even matter anymore? guest: i think it does. the fathers and families i spend time with seem out of whack and out of ball and the boyz need role models. but i didn't write that story. host: how'd you get the idea for this topic? guest: i was reading some of the articles and felt like we had modest to the next phase. it's like you know there comes a study about american marriages and a study about women in college and the workforce. subtly i felt there was a pattern emerging but no one had quite connected all the dots.

so i try to connect the dots with a little bit of -- a little bit. host: who created the cover? guest: i don't know. the art department? i don't know. [laughter] host: oklahoma city, sharey? caller: hi. so happy to be able to get through. i've been calling for months. but listen, i really think it is a huge tragedy that we are actually making decisions bassed on -- based on whether someone is female or male in terms of dealing with the types of problems we're having now. it was actually sarah palin that opened up the -- of racism during the mccain-palin election. and think rina ran the company she was c.e.o. of in the ground. so we're not -- america's need

people -- guest: we may be moving toward where you're not thinking of a woman as a woman or man as a man but where you see people as equally competent. kagan doesn't write too much about being a woman but writes many things as the previous guest talked about. but that's just not really a huge part of her identity. so that's interesting. to think about. host: when you graduated from stanford, do you remember the male-female ratio in your class? guest: i don't remember. and the male-female risheo around big private universities are balanced because they can accept who have they want unlike state schools, so they

try to keep themselves, another group of people i sppnt some time with in these stories are college girls and basically walked around the cafeteria of a big state school and talked to girls and it was so different than the way we talked about our futures when i was in college. it was so different. basically to a person these women assumed they would be taking care of their husbands and they were going to make more money. they were going to be a surgeon, working all the time and the men were going to be staying home and -- they had a sense of their husband as almost an extra child. i certainly thought i'm going to work. doesn't mean they are going to be that way. because they don't know anything. i have three children and now i know what it's like to balance life and children. but it's interesting to note what their imagination of their

future is like and mine was an equality model. we works, we raise our children together an we're happy. even without a husband in the picture if you had asked me a general notion of my future life. host: is the term coed used anymore? guest: i don't know. i did ask them about dating life and what it was like when you had more girls on campus than boys. it was definitely a different atmosphere. host: but haven't we had a -- woman lawyer, or woman doctor or woman president or woman whatever. do we think about it anymore? guest: i think it's not a big deal anymore but there's still places like president, our politics and business is largely male-dominated. those are two areas where there hasn't been that many break throughs and i think it has to do with how much commitment is

required between the ages of 30 and 40 which is when women are having children. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i am so happy that you have this lady on this show. i have been telling people for years that i want women to take over everything in this country. men have made such a mess or things. they really -- all they want to do is fight. i've seen corporations where ladies are moving up in the world. niffles training up at a major corporation and i told some of the men i said ladies are going to take over the company one day. this was in the 1980's. next thing you know the lady was c.e.o. of the company. my wife and i sent eight kids the trends, we go for graduation and you see all these girls coming across the stage and one, two, three, four, five guys, one guy.

six more girls, one guy. i says what in the world? my daughters are going to be around 30 before they find somebody to marry. >> that's the vision described. and by the way congratulations, seven kids, impressive. i'm worried about getting three through college. but people describe honors and lines in school and in college and beneath high school that you've got the honors classes and why is there a parade of girls? and where's the boys? and it's hard to acknowledge that. or talk about that. it's interesting what you say. then the corollary when you say men are always fighting. it's funny. because in terms of the financial sector. there has been a lot of research all of a sudden about the effects of testosterone and were men too risk taking in the way they handled their business

decisions? are we going to find a link between testosterone and risky decisionmaking. but the point is perception. people are starting to see the male what we traditionally thought of as male leadership and having a downside. host: in chicago, a tweet. any particular reason why males aren't performing, pursuing education at the same rate as women? guest: there are so many here's the. to be perfectly honest i have not, myself, concluded which ones i find the most convincing. there's many here's the having to do with brain chemistry. another theory having to do with the college preparatory problem that boys mature at a different rate than girls and that there's a lot of emphasize on -- emphasis on achieving early in schools and boys are not quite ready so they start to think of themselves as

academically incompetent and that repation sticks with them and it'sen only those boys that wait. i have not yet made up my mind as to what the cause is. caller: hi. you talked about birth control, but i think birth control is so much bigger than the little piece you spoke on it. to control reproduction, -- i want to up to on the fact that in the world women are doing quite poorly, so it's really the opportunity being born here in the united states. i think you talked about so many other things but the most important things is women have multi tasking skills that were formed at home with taking care of so many things of children, taking care of dinner that we've taken these skills to the workforce and are more successful because men don't

have these skills that they didn't develop at home in this capacity. and that will be it. guest: that's a great theory. it's possible for women to be doing well and badly at the same time. i'm going back to my community college example where women are holding all the cards but are not happy. they are not happy, though, they are killing themselves. that's what i mentioneded going to scol, working, taking care of the kids. so it's not that they are doing great. there's a woman named katherine eden who does studies of women in this situation and writes about what women's lives are like. it's a picture of having a lot of decisionmaking power but being just completely worn down and overworked and hustling as this caller mentioned. so i think it's possible to be in power and unhappy at the same time. which is the situation of a lot of people. host: you gave a couple case

examples, women you interviewed talking about the fact that women may not find husbands. guest: right. host: not that they are necessarily looking for that. but a, they've got this job, this advance do so degree. where's the market? >> and the thing that she concludes is basically the main reason is the main reason that people are getting married at far lower rates, particularly working class people is women are setting the bar high and men are not meeting that bar. so a lot of people have marriage outside -- kids outside of marriage. but the men are just not meeting their standards. not coming up with the money or proving themselves to be stable. so they are just rejecting them so there's kind of a bullage of marriage where people turn 40 and it's almost like a retirement model of marriage.

but initially women are just choosing not to marry the men. caller: good morning. guest: hi. caller: let me just focus on the schools here. it seems - have two kids. both in college. a son and a daughter. and you know, honestly the admissions people there, they tend to be totally female. pretty much like the career planning -- t

it's possible that they become more like men. there is some research that

women make -- they have a different process of decisionmaking than men. again, these are lab researchers. that they tend to be while they are equally aggressive on some measures, they tend to take the ideas of others into account more than men do. that could be a blanket thought. but not there used to be this idea that women were these great moral actors. and they would impart their morals on these businesses and everybody would get along. you would imagine a woman feeling pressure would make the same bad decisions. host: and in your article you talk about middle aged women -- guest: there's this curious sense, i write about it mostly as a pop culture phenom that in the crime statistics there's been a burst of violence among women my age.

so i don't know what to make of that, because i haven't looked into that closely. but -- host: i think you've got a book there. caller: good morning. i have to say, peter, my favorite times are when you do open phones. host: you know what? those are my favorite times too. croich we can tell. host: when it's friday and we're all having a little bit of fun. but i'm very much enjoying learning hannah rosen's story here. caller: likewise. i just wanted to say on a political as peck. things like emily's list seem so outmoted now. the notion of getting behind a candidate because of a gender. it seems so last century. and in minnesota, we have a endorsed female candidate for governor. margaret keller, and she's running behind and running behind among women yet she is saying let's make history and

make the first female governor of minnesota. it's just not so really vent anymore to voters. it's issues not gender. guest: your comments became extremely really vent in the last election when the kinds of women who won were -- this raised a real problem for feminists when you have these very conservative, pro life women who are nonetheless ground breakers. first woman, first indian running for governor in south carolina. really impressive women or republicans feminists are for, the most part democrats and used to supporting democratic women and used to the idea of women rising out of public service to become candidates. or sarah palin who calls herself a feminist. that's the new thing among conservative women. and i think it's a challenge, because you have to say i do

support her just because she's a woman or now i have to start thinking, no. i'm not going to support her for that reason. i'm going to decide whether i agree or disagree with her various policies and she can call herself whatever she wants but you have to start seeing women as men panned support them because we support them not because we're in a sisterhood. host: was there an organization? guest: no. i think what you might be thinking is that i run the women's section of slate which is called double x. but it's a magazine. it's a website. so it's part of slate magazine, and i run the women's section of it. so we write about a lot of these issues that i have been talking about and your callers have been talking about as well. host: steve? caller: good morning. miss rose en, you bing up very interesting points. some defaults i see, in my area

i see a lot of successful women who are in the situation of the boys i see are a bit coddled. they dote on their sons and have higher, tougher expectations of their daughters. so the males are not getting in civilization where they would get the testing they would get from a more male presence in their household. and i don't know necessarily, it's dot deal with teenagers, and the women working hard and doing everything want to come home and don't want to have a confrontation, which teenage boys sort of need to straighten themselves out. and -- guest: i think that's true. you can only -- you can talk about that anecdotally. i begin my story with a ji net

cyst named ronald erickson. he invented a sperm spinning technology so couples could select boys or girls. he's an incredibly great character in just talking the way you are, caller, about relationships between men and women and how moms are raising their kids. and i used him because he invented this technology but then starts tore talk about his grandsons and nieces and the difference how the nieces are out there and having these great jobs and these power houses and the boys, he's got to slap them around and tell them to get out of their trucks. so he taaks in the same way you do and does atribute it to a lot of dynamics teens with moms and their sons and sons not being tough enough and how when he was a kid he would be on a horse without a saddle riding for 25 hours without a cell

phone and people asking where he was. host: do you have sons and daughters and difference? guest: i do naturally think of my daughter and it's partly because she's the older, like, she can do anything. i can just tell her anything and she can do this. but i do have a feeling that i have to do this for my boy so once the college counselor told me that i had to stop and set a schedule i don't know why moms naturally do that. i didn't set out to do that but it's true that it kind of naturally happens. host: johnathan, hi. caller: there's a benefit if women were being paid 78 cents on the dollar what used to be on the buttons that now used to promote that women would take over jobs in an economic period where people are trying to cut costs. if you have rough parity in the ability of the two sexes and an educational team, ihi