delivers her annual christmas message from the united kingdom. former speech writers discussed the importance of presidential rhetoric and their personal collaborations with president bill clinton, george bush, and barack obama. ♪ host: good morning. it is washington journal on christmas day, december 25, 2021. quiet day in the capitol as members of the house and senate, as well as president biden and vice president harris, spend the holidays with family. good morning and thank you for joining us. we are taking a different approach to this holiday. we are going to look back at some of the most important discussions we have had. topics include the pandemic, the economy, civics education and more. we begin in august when the u.s.

pulled troops from afghanistan. several guests joined us to share the unique perspective on america's longest war and how it ended, including a lecturer at the university of afghanistan. he decided to stay in kabul after the u.s. left and explains why. guest: many more people who are more deserving and in much dire threat than i was and i thought they should be prioritized. i have been helping facilitate their escape and evacuation from afghanistan. i already grew up in exile and i am an aspiring poet. i have written a piece saying i do not want to leave home. again, we have done this before. i did not want to do it again, for better or worse, it is my country. i lay claim to the land

as much as the taliban do. host: are you safe right now? guest: with regards to physical safety and security, the taliban says there is a certain blanket amnesty for people, but yes, there have been individuals who acted on their own accord and taken out dissidents. for now yes, i am physically safe and i am hoping it stays that way. host: you are speaking out though against the taliban. would you classify yourself as a dissident? guest: the idea is i am a dissident in a way where i will not lay down and let them construct a world of their own accord. i think if the taliban truly are concerned with the brain drain

in the country and want the talented people who left the country to feel safe enough to come back and work for it, they will have to create an environment that is more sustainable. we will have to create a society that is more acceptable, that is more in line with modern values, and does not necessarily have to be a completely liberal system. there can be an idea of reconciliation of different visions. there is a lot of work obviously and it is not very hopeful times. these are the best of times, the worst of times. when conflict happens, especially in post-conflict societies where you can transform the societies into something better if you put the right amount of effort into it. host: what is your life like today? guest: i went to the city today. i needed to get a few things.

what was interesting i passed by the bank and it was finally open after more than 10 days i reckon. there were a lot of people standing and there were taliban fighters asking people to respect the line using sticks. beyond that the city is slowly getting busier. not as busy as he used to be but there is getting more and more traffic. the taliban don't really interact with people other than i think two nights ago they stopped me to check paperwork to make sure it was not stolen vehicle because there was looting on the first day. you do not see a lot of women on the road. women are dressing up a bit more religiously, so that has

changed, but also the number of women on the road has changed and decreased. it is different and i think the city or the country is going to be the same for a long time. we will have to see what it becomes. host: when you have interacted with the taliban the past few days how is it you are able to get past their checkpoints and carry-on? guest: look, i think there was a misperception on their part as well. they thought everybody here, everybody part of the republic, that they were outsiders, that they were diasporas of the west. i grew up in a cultural family. i speak the language. i know the nuance of culture. when i interact with them for them it is a pleasant surprise

for someone to be in formal pants and dressed in a western way to speak their language or greet them in their own way. i can see that pleasant shock in their eyes and i think that gives me an opening to be able to speak sense to them, to the little margin we can. there have been issues i have had to navigate, people i needed to help and actually ask them to help or -- that is a unique position i have that i am trying to use to the utmost advantage of the people that need it. host: you have helped people get out of kabul. can you tell us who they are? how do you talk to the taliban to get them to the airport? guest: good thing is, again,

without naming people as i do not think that is the safest thing to do, i have had friends here who were either working for the government or generally very out in the open, being celebrities, and they really did feel in danger. they had been threatened before. which meant i had to use a lot of my contacts internationally as well to make sure they were connected with the right organizations that facilitated their documentation to get out. and then there are fixers on the ground that help people get into the airport. . you either use specific embassies. now i think a few are using the serena hotel in kabul as a hub for people to be gathered around and moved in buses. some of my friends managed to get to the airport on their own accord.

they spent six days sleeping on the floor of an airplane. 50 people sharing one toilet, having packaged meals only to eventually, on the seventh day, being flown out. there have been instances in regards to the movement or security or general logistics of foreign organizations here that have faced difficulties and we have had to reach out to the taliban to facilitate either the movement or secure logistics. i have been able to do that and i think that is a little difference that would not have happened. i am glad i can do that. host: you referenced fixers on the ground. describe who these people are. guest: first off, there is something to be said about the

social hierarchy you have created with the phone numbers you have given out. beyond that the fixers are different people. they are either people commissioned by international organizations in order to help either move people that are in danger or locate them and move them to safety. they have taken this up as a means of thriving in the shadow and they charge people a lot of money for movement into the airport. when the worst of times hit us the best nature of humankind comes out, but unfortunately, that is not what we see. even if they are rare cases, it breaks your heart. you would expect everyone to

give as they can to help. but there will always be people amongst us who thrive on other people's suffering. host: can you give us an idea of how much money they are being charged? guest: well, the initial days it was a few hundred dollars to move a person and it went up to $2000 or $3000. the funny thing is there was an old lady we had to move to the airport and one of the fixers quoted $25,000 to me a few days ago which is mind blowing. who has that sort of money lying around in a country that does not have a government and where banks are shuttered? yeah, it has been quite overwhelming. host: what have you heard about once you get to the airport? what is happening around the perimeter? guest: it is very crowded. you hear fighting quite a few

times in a day. with regards to the u.s. and the management of the airport with seeing documentation, too many people to entertain, and the taliban do not know who to let in and who to let go. there is very little communication on both ends. just a lot of people have gone in, spent a day or two with the airport, and had to get out again because they were not facilitated. some had documentation, they were still turned away. people who had worked with foreigners who were under threat. there was a lady who put up a post on her facebook the other day saying, despite how much work i had done for this country and for the third country she worked for they had given up on her. she was rejected at the airport. she felt like her life was over and she was under threat.

there has been instances of that sort as well. imagine armageddon and everyone running around and everything being chaotic and you have the airport in kabul. host: lecture at the american university of afghanistan joining us from kabul. he has decided to stay. before get to the calls what is your message to america? guest: there is a very interesting piece from the new york times today about the chief army in afghanistan who has also fled the country. basically the essence of it is he said we lost because the united states tied our hands behind us and biden calls us cowards for not having fought. he said we laid down 1/5 of our army for the cause of defending

this country. don't belittle what sacrifices we gave to the country. beyond that i would say the american populace has the power of its own voice and it really needs to keep president biden in check. he acts like none of this was his responsibility. he acts like he did not owe anything to afghanistan. i do understand the withdrawal. trust me, we did not want foreign troops to stay any longer, but there were better ways to go about it. there were better ways to support the armed forces. there were better ways to get the afghan government that was extremely corrupt in check. they failed at all of that in the least that can be done is engaging with the taliban, making sure a more proper and safe mechanism for people to get

out is ensured, and making sure the population that was given the dream the past 20 years are not stripped from it in the near future. a fragile state in afghanistan will haunt the region, will haunt the world. it has done before and we really hope it does not get to that. you know what? the moment the united states decides to isolate afghanistan, impose sanctions, they will leave truly suffering people as the common poor people of afghanistan and they have seen a lot of war, a lot of suffering. generation after generation have been stuck in this vicious cycle of violence and poverty. let's break those. let's try to find a way to work this. this is not the ideal society or the ideal political situation afghanistan wanted or the united

states wanted but we will have to make the most out of it. host: according to the pentagon more than 800,000 american servicemen and women served in afghanistan from 2001 to 2021. we talked with an afghanistan veteran about growing mental health issues. he started about telling us about his own tours of duty. guest: my first trip to afghanistan was in 2002. i made five other trips over there throughout the years and then i started going with the foundation taking wounded veterans out of afghanistan. my last tour was in 2018, 2019 and i got to see the country transform. the good that a lot of times is not on the news.

the effect we had on the civilian population. they would come up and say, thank you for being here. we don't want you to ever leave. roads being built, women going to school, all the changes throughout the number of years, that is what kept me going back. really to see how it ended. it was a little disappointing. i feel liquid up and abandoned a lot of our allies. ones that were supporting us in one's working with us on the ground. -- ones working with us on the ground. it was very unfortunate that we lost some more american soldiers over there during our exit. host: we are here to talk this morning about warrior call

which you are the chair of warrior call day. can you tell me what warrior call is? guest: it is a pledge we came up with. we went to the past two dod suicide prevention conventions and we found out we have every resource to help just about anybody with anything out there, veterans and active-duty. the ones we are losing are the ones who have isolated themselves. the ones that are feeling so alone they get to that point where they think the only answer is to take their own life. we set, how do we find those people -- we said, how do we find those people? the ones that are not calling in? how do we find them before they make that ultimate decision they cannot come back from? we came up with this idea to

make a pledge to call one person a week to check on their well welfare. have honest dialogue, to check on their welfare, and to have the conversation that could save their life and find out where they are happy for the get to that point. and also to have honesty with yourself and others to take that call. if somebody is calling you and needs help, to be able to do that once a week is too simple for any of us. we just need to check on their welfare and reject of the folks we have not heard from in a while and say, hey, how are you doing? i will tell you, i had physical courage my entire life but what i lacked was emotional courage. i was afraid to call out to my friends and i realized i had a

great support network and i was struggling with some things and i am glad i reached out eventually before it got too late. i was seeing three psychologist at one point. if one was not available i would go to the next one and i did not stop until i needed what was essential to me. my wife and i went through marriage counseling. we have all faced adversity at some point in our lives. i will tell you what, people are out there. they are just waiting for us to reach out to them. the day you're are born in the day you will die, you are not alone. there are family, friends, peers, leaders, even strangers that will help you if you reach out. host: can people -- is this only for people who already know

those who have retired from the military? or can anyone participate in a warrior call? how do you do that? guest: anyone can participate in a warrior call and a warrior call does not have to be over the phone. it can be someone who lives down the street, a neighbor, a friend, a relative. you just have to recognize they served in the military and say, hey, how are you doing? it works better if you are friends or if you know the person, but the great part is anybody can do this. you do not have to have served to be open to somebody and say, i want to help you. we cannot help everyone but everyone can help someone. this is something small that we can all do. you may not have the answers. you might come and say, i am struggling with this or that,

and understand i don't have all the answers. someone came to me with a difficult situation, i didn't have the answers and i would tell them honestly, i don't know what we can do but i am not going to stop helping you search until we find the answer to what we can do. host: one of the things we see a lot of people in public sata veterans is thank you for your service -- public say to veterans is thank you for your service. we see people saying thank you for your service but should we ask how are you doing on the end of that? guest: it never hurts. it never hurts to ask. you never know the answer until you ask the question. also, that being said, be that person worth saving. be that person worth risking their lives for and return that

thanks by checking on their welfare. host: leroy, tell us what should and shouldn't be said when we are making a warrior call. are there things we should say? are there things we shouldn't say? guest: i would stay away from promising anyone anything. once you say, ok, i am going to do this, it is a promise, it hurts more to have that broken. try to stay away from promising. try to say, i will try my best. that is all anyone can expect from you but no guarantees. get to know them a little bit. even if it takes a few more minutes ask a few questions like, where are you from?

what are you doing now that you are out of the service? what has been the hardest thing for you during your service? the first thing i would start off with is telling them it is ok if you don't want to share, if you don't want to answer any of these questions, but here's what i am curious about. no questions off limit. it is up to them to answer or not. they may take offense and that is when you know you were headed in the wrong direction but usually the tone of voice, the way they react, if you see them physically, physical reaction is the key to, hey, you are asking the wrong question. look to help someone and if you cannot help, hook them up with someone who can. host: these calls can be

important because as we have seen i am going to show you data that shows the suicide rate for veterans has been consistently higher than for civilians. this comes from the rand corporation where they point out for the past 12 years suicide rates have been consistently higher among veterans and nonveterans. furthermore, since 2005 the suicide rate has risen faster among veterans than it has for nonveteran adults. you can see the chart here where that number is clearly going up faster for veterans than nonveterans. i want to point out now there is a veterans crisis line that you can call, 1-800-273-2855 for veterans who need someone to talk to. that is a veterans crisis line. let's let our viewers take part of the conversation.

let's start with joe calling from west plains, missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam veteran and i want to thank this man for his organization. but i am going to tell you, once you are back from these crap ho les, i don't know why you would commit suicide. you are back to the world, you are safe now. i don't understand why you would be committing suicide now or thoughts of it. you are safe now, ok? second of all, i am pissed the way we left afghanistan with all those weapons. how dare he leave those weapons and he we had paid for those with taxpayer money. with all the training and everything and all the crappy advice these presidents get. george w. bush should pull this out the first eight years but i

am pissed at the way biden left it. thank you for your organization but i am pissed. host: go ahead and respond, leroy. guest: first of all, thank you for your service. a lot of people don't talk about it when they talk about 22 per day it is higher depending on who you ask. suicides, for the longest time, the highest percentage has always been the vietnam veterans. we are trying to stay ahead of it so our generation does not become the higher percentage and it is difficult. a lot of times people have difficulty dealing with the way things are going, the way they left the country because they saw the good over there and now they saw what it is going to become and it is going to fall apart.

i got to remind myself as well that i did my best while i was over there. that was not my decision how we left. that was not my decision that we left at all. i got to be content that i did what i could while i was over there and that is all anyone can expect. i cannot cry over spilled milk, i cannot change the past. i look at the things i can change and that is reaching out to people around me that i can save their lives. host: leroy, is there any help from the v.a. on this standpoint or are there any discharge procedures people go through before they leave the armed services that help look out for some of these issues? guest: about seven years ago things had changed. i recently came back from a week

at twentynine palms. would take wounded veterans out there to visit and we talked about warrior call and suicide prevention and building resiliency. it was amazing. the command out there really cared about their troops. first three days straight they kept going to the auditorium or the theater with troops in the morning and evening. it was mandatory. a lot of these young kids were trying to explain, hey, this might not help you right now but down the road we want to be able to save your life where you save the life of somebody else by listening to their problems and helping them out, taking care of one another. i will tell you, to see the command team that knew how important it was reminded me marines do the best to take care of their troops and it really showed by the amount of time they gave us to talk about such a serious issue going on right

now in our military. unfortunately, and in our veterans. host: earlier in the year we talked to author sarah rose of bout other heroes, three women bringing down axis forces occupying france. she talked about how she started researching her book. [video clip] guest: i knew i was interested in women and war. women in hyper-masculine spaces were interesting and i was looking for a story that might tell the story of women in combat. was reading around and at some point i realized i did not know who the first woman in combat was. there's always a first, there is always a ceiling breaker. who was it? once i started asking that question i thought i was going to get someone in iraq or vietnam but it did not occur to me it would be world war ii and that it was the special agency with these great stories behind

it, especially coe. the book opened up to me. these were the first women in organized combat who were given uniforms, answered to command and work soldiers. we had not heard about them at all. host: we have become so familiar with the invasion that took place 77 years ago today as the boats carrying the soldiers crossing the english channel and arriving along the french shore but what role do these women play in terms of that operation? guest: between 1940 when france falls and 1944 when the allies come back france was entirely occupied and there is not an allied soldier on the continent. at dunkirk we take everyone away and we don't return for four years. in that time there was this idea

that even if we could not fight in europe, we could not go face-to-face against hitler, the anger of occupied people was something that could be militarized. if we had an organized group of guerillas the can we can hitler, he was dependent on his conquered territory for manufacture for his army. what did he have to lose? why not arm and organize a subterranean force that can weaken the enemy and then on that day dries up and really attack the enemy? it worked. we don't hear about this part of d-day. we hear about the beaches and the landings and they are dramatic but on june 5, 1944 the bbc sends out an alert to all of france to all of these units percolating underground and it says, tonight is the night. this is what we have been

training for, this is what we have been organizing you for. we need you to rise up. we will be there in the morning. that night the france resistance make 950 cuts across roads and bridges and rail lines and can occasion lines. in the morning, normandy is isolated and this matters a lot. we hear about how a fight it was to get off beaches into europe. in a trip that should've taken hitler's panthers three days it took three weeks because the french resistance has so thoroughly damaged the infrastructure the panthers needed to get to the beaches. it was not the critical determining factor but boy did it help. host: i am reminded what dwight eisenhower said in his address to the soldiers, sailors and airmen saying they are part of the great crusade. the letter is available through the world war ii museum we are showing on the screen. my question is, did these three women fully understand what the

crusade was all about? guest: i am certain they day. each woman was affected personally. let's give a little background. they were recruited in 1942 and this is the lowest moment of the war, for britain certainly, but the allies. it is the height of the german empire, the height of the japanese empire, and nobody has won a battle. not since they get kicked off the continent. they have been getting bombed in britain and all able-bodied soldiers have been called up. everybody who can be put to war has been put to war. they need native french speakers because you have to send in people, they are going to drop behind enemy lines, they are going to arm and train the resistance. they need to be deeply undercover. they need to the germans, which is not so hard because they are not native french speakers, but they have to full the french.

there is a manpower shortage so they start recruiting women. and each of these women was affected by the war in a different way. odette, a young mother, she has a british passport and is called by the soe and they say, will you parachute into france? with three little girls she says yes. she is not enjoying her life in the country. she is shipped away in the blitz but she says yes, framing it in the leg which of motherhood. what happens to my girl? what happens to my daughters of britain falls? what happens if that goes away? what life to these little girls have? i will do anything as a mother to protect them in their future.

the second woman helped get downed pilots out of france. she was really good at it and it really good asset until someone blew her network. she got out of the underground network, got to london and said, send me back in. she did not think she had done enough for france and that she could be useful for france. the last was a british colonial. a french-speaking colony that was captured in the napoleonic war. she is french-speaking with a british passport and she is fashionable, smart, wealthy. the day hitler roles and she becomes an enemy alien. her british passport makes her an enemy so she had to get out. each has personal motivation for joining the war and they were also intensely patriotic.

nobody liked what was happening in france. host: you tell some incredible stories in the book of how they literally were able to get past the nazi soldiers. explain. guest: well, one thing that was fascinating was the demographic of an occupied territory are almost entirely female. men have been killed in the battles to defend the nation or, in world war ii, they were working in hitler's factories. all of the officers were kept throughout the war. french officers were not allowed to repatriate after the war. when you send a woman behind enemy lines they blend in better than a young soldier who happens to speak french because that draws attention. what are you doing here? the men are gone. they had a natural advantage for one of being female and also,

the "if their jobs. they were the first female sabotage agents. they are bringing down power lines, blowing up railway bridges, and they are building the networks that will be on the normandy coast, all across the channel coast, for the day, whenever it comes, for the allied army's returned to the continent. all of those pockets were armed and trained by these women and their colleagues. host: d-day began in june, continued into august. courtesy of the london telegraph here are details of what happened 77 years ago as the troops landed. 156,000 total, 73,000 american soldiers. the armada included 6900 ships and landing aircraft, 50,000 vehicles, in just over 11,000 planes. the casualties on d-day along with 10,000 injured, the death

toll was 4000. from june through august those killed or missing along the allies was nearly 73,000, among the french civilian deaths nearly 20,000. several rows, how did you go about researching this book and where did you travel? guest: there were different phases of research. first, i did not speak french to the first thing i had to do was moved to france and get around french. i did. i can get around an archive but i am not very good at speaking. second, these women were ordinary women. they were not these macho g.i. jane types. they were women who happened to speak french. the whole span of productive adult womanhood was considered and their one skill was french. they were mothers, one was about to become a grandmother, and

they were nothing special in terms of the other skills they brought. i thought, i am an ordinary woman. if they were picked off the street and taught how to paratrooper and sent to boot camp, i am good to try that. i jumped out of an airplane, i tried boot camp, i tried to learn morse code and i built a radio. i tried to acquire the skills these women had and i was very poor at it and i would make an awful spy, but it gave me respect for how they lived. then i wanted to walk their footsteps. lisa was a commander on d-day of the french resistance in normandy behind the lines. i knew where she lived, i bicycled normandy to see what she felt. and i spent a lot of time in the. archives.

host: as you travel through normandy you get the sense of going back in time because so much of it remains evident today. guest: absolutely. every day someone says in the newspaper, another piece was found in a cow field. host: are there descendants of these three women? were you able to talk to any of them? guest: some more receptive, some were not. i talked to a lot of the families of other members because this was an organization that had about 400 agents behind enemy lines and got very close to some of the families. there is always a balance when you are researching. the feeling if you are doing it on behalf of someone, you owe them a geography instead of detached historian.

because i came to the story so late in the game very few normandy vets are alive. i did not get the time to build those relationships but i could be the first one in with a fresh perspective. the, i don't owe allegiance to anyone living. i found that an advantage as well but still close to some of the families. host: from your perspective why do you think so often those from this generation did not talk about their experiences when they came back home? guest: they were traumatized. although the son of the leader of the paris resistance said, we are english. we don't talk about this thing. host: there were several major anniversaries this year including the 100th anniversary of the tulsa race riots. at the end of may we travel to the tulsa historical society to hear from author hannibal

johnson about the massacre of that city's black wall street. he begins by telling us what triggered the unrest. [video clip] guest: the trigger incident for the 1921 race massacre involved two teenagers, a 19-year-old black boy who shined shoes downtown and a 17-year-old white girl who operated an elevator in the drexel building. they unfolded may 30, 1921 which was memorial day. dick is working. he has to use the restroom and knows there is one available in the downtown building on the upper floor. he walks over to the building towards the elevator be operated by young sarah page, something happened on the elevator. we don't know what it was. something caused the elevator to jerk. dick brushed up against sarah.

she overreacted and began screaming. he was frightened. the elevator landed in the lobby. he fled. sarah, distraught, exited the elevator. she was comforted by a store clerk. she told him her story of being assaulted on the elevator. she was concerned. he called the police. sarah page would later retract the original story or recant that story. she refused to cooperate with prosecutors who had arrested dick groat went and charged him with attempted assault -- dick rowan and charged him with attended assault. it might have been solved if on may 31, 9021 an article was

published mad negro for attacking girl in elevator. they said that he attended to rape sarah page in broad daylight. the article went out of its way to make sarah page look virtuous and as a corollary make deck disck rowan looked villainous. a crowd of white men gathered on the large lawn of the courthouse. they began talking about lynching dick rowan. some of the black world war i veterans gathered together, armed, and vowed to protect dick rowan from the lynching. the white mob continued to swell, numbering ultimately in the thousands.

not surprisingly as the black man approached a white man tried to take a black man's gun and according to one of the survivors all hell broke loose after that. that is the beginning of the 1921 tulsa race massacre which devastated the thriving greenwood community. black men put up a robust defense initially against this onslaught. but the white mob spilled across the racial dividing line, burning, looting, shooting, murdering people. some of these men in the white mob were deputized by law enforcement and we know members of the mob prevented the tulsa fire department from putting out the fires. at the end of the day we believe somewhere between 100 and 300 people, most of them black, lost

their lives. hundreds more were injured. property damage conservatively estimated at the time was $1.5 million to $2 million which would be tens of millions today. at least 150 homes were destroyed as were other establishments including a hospital, schools, churches, etc. some in the black community were rounded up and taken to internment centers throughout the city. ostensibly for their own protection but according to the survivors, they left the greenwood community defenseless to those who would come in and burn and loot. host: we have photographs of what the scene looked like and we will show you some of those. i should point out as we begin our conversation we are going to show some photographs you might find disturbing. we feel it is important to give a sense of what happened. i wanted to jump in and ask you about the district called black wall street.

what can you tell us about greenwood? guest: the original designation was the negro wall street of america but it was like wall street. these were commercial establishments, restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, movie theaters, dance halls, pool halls, confectionery's, all manner of small businesses coupled with service providers like doctors, lawyers, dentists and accountants. really commercial district of the type you might find in many places across the nation. the difference was this was a segregated black community. it was a community of necessity because black folks were not able to engage with the regular economy. they faced an economic down term.

host: the death toll has come under speculation. 37 confirmed deaths but you said between 100 and 300. why such a variant? guest: the official death toll is 37, 25 black and 12 white. but most historians and others who studied this incident believe the death toll is much higher, somewhere between 100 and 300. there were reports to that effect at the time, including the report of the red cross. the reason for the discrepancy really involves a number of factors including we know a number of people were injured mortally, left town, and died elsewhere. we know some families buried kin without record. we know the actual record-keeping back in that period was speculated. we know oral histories indicate there were mass graves somewhere in tulsa.

there was a mass graves investigation underway even as we speak. host: we are dividing the phone lines. if you are a current or former resident of tulsa, we would love to hear from you. (202)-748-8000 and for all others (202)-748-8001. our guest is hannibal johnson, author of a number of books that look at this tragedy. it seems there has been renewed renaissance in studying this. something that may not have been studied 55, 70 years ago. guest: a number of people talk about a conspiracy with respect to the history. conspiracy is a strong word suggesting, for me as a lawyer, agreement. i don't think we can prove that but there are psychological dynamics that kept this under wraps for many years.

when the massacre happened in 1920 one tulsa was on an upward trajectory toward becoming the oil capital of the world. the city fathers had an interest in minimizing if not erasing this history. there was shame understandably. shame this had been allowed to unfold on what people considered to be a cosmopolitan, forward-looking city. in the black community, there was posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and fear. fear that it could recur and anxiety about sharing the information with family, particularly children. knowing this information might somehow hobble or hamper them in their progress toward adulthood. those were all concerns. there was a number of breaks in terms of knowledge or awareness of this history. the first i think came on the 50th anniversary 1971 of a white

gentleman who published an article of the history in a black magazine. he received death threats. people told him, you shouldn't be talking about this. in 1982, the now professor of history at michigan called it the promised land. people became more aware based on that book but the major opening came between 1997 and 2001. the oklahoma commission to study the tulsa race riots held hearings, met regularly, released a report in february 2001 and that drew international attention. it opened the floodgates in in terms of awareness, acknowledgment and the beginnings of curricular reform. host: we want to thank you for being with us and we want to thank the tulsa historical society and museum for providing

us with the resources that we are using to tell the story of what happened a century ago, may 31, 1921. two weeks after the incident the mayor had this statement to the commissioners looking into the events in greenwood. i want you to react to this because i know it is in your book. "let the blame for this negro uprising lie where it belongs, on those followers that start of this trouble and who instigated it and any persons who seeks to put blame on the white people are wrong and should be told so in no uncertain terms." that from june 14, 1921. hannibal johnson, your reaction? guest: pretty amazing reaction from mayor td evans. blaming the black community for its own demise. in fact, post massacre several

dozen black men were indicted for inciting a riot. it is victim blaming, blame shifting, and unfortunately characteristic of race relations of that period. that period is known as the low point of race relations because of the structural and systemic racial issues that really were endemic across the united states. host: archival photographs and headlines looking at the events 100 years ago you are in tulsa. there had been security threats over the weekend. biden will be there tomorrow. how was the community remembering the horrors of what happened 100 years ago? guest: there are a lot of things going on in terms of the remembrance. this weekend when group held the

legacy fest which is a festival celebrating black history and culture and celebrating the greenwood history. tonight, weather permitting, we can expect a torrent of rain but there is a candlelight vigil around 10:30 which is the time the first shots were fired on may 31. we are also on june 2 opening greenwood rising which is a world-class history center going up on the corner of greenwood and archer did tell the entire narrative of the greenwood community. it is important to people in the community we not just fixate on the massacre, that we understand we are talking about a community and the community consists of people. these were remarkable african-american people who created this incredible community, who nurtured to the community, and sustained it through the destruction of the

massacre, rebuilt it substantially, and it thrived through the 1940's and 1950's and early 1960's. the events are really marking both the massacre, the anniversary of which we commemorate today, but also black wall street, that economic and entrepreneurial character that made the community the talk of the nation. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television company's and more including comcast. >> you think this is just a community center? it is way more than that. >> comcast is partnering with 1000 community centers so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. announcer: comcast supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front receipt to democracy.

♪ announcer: sunday night on q&a, catholic theologian, author and distinguished senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center talks about some of the people he profiles in "not forgotten," his book of reminiscences. >> sargent shriver and other portraits here, lindy boggs, these were people who went into public service to get things done. some of them were sparkling speakers. some of them were door norwegians like scoop jackson but they were all people who wanted to achieve things not so much for themselves but for their country, for their

constituents, for the common good. announcer: george weigle sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on the new c-span now app. ♪ announcer: at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those on c-span's new podcast presidential recordings. >> season one focuses on the president lyndon b. johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the presidential campaign, the march on selma, and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson's secretaries knew because they were announcer: test with transcribing the conversations. they were the ones that make sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs.

>> you will also hear blunt talk. >> yes or? >> the #to me now -- >> if i cannot ever go to the bathroom i will not go. i will not go anywhere. announcer: presidential recordings. find it on the c-span mobile app or wherever you get podcasts. ♪ announcer: both the house and senate have adjourned for the holiday recess and will return early january for the start of the second session of the 117th congress. upon return the senate will take up the president's climate of social spending plan. despite joe manchin announcing his opposition to the bill. democratic leadership also hopes to take a voting rights legislation which may require

changing filibuster rules. there is a february 18 deadline for both chambers to pass additional spending legislation to avert a government shutdown. watch these developments on the c-span network once congress returns or full coverage on c-span now, the new mobile video app. head over to c-span.org for scheduling or to stream live on demand. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> how exactly did america get up to its neck in debt? >> we believe one of the greatest characteristics of being american is we are striving to provide equal opportunity for all citizens. announcer: c-span's video documentary competition. students across the country are giving us behind-the-scenes look as they work on their entry using the #studentcam and if you are middle or high school student, joined by entering the

c-span studentcam competition. create a five to six minute documentary using c-span video clips that answer the question, how does the federal government impact your life? >> to express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will receive it to be. in the greatest country in the history of the earth, your view does matter. >> filmmakers remember the context is king. be as neutral as it possible -- as possible in your portrayal of both sides. >> c-span awarding $100,000 and you have a shot at winning the grand prize of $5,000. entries must be received before january 20, 20 22. for rules, tutorials or how to get started, visit our website at studentcam.org.

>> get c-span on the go. watch today's biggest political events live or on-demand anytime, anywhere on our mobile video app. c-span now, access top highlights, listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts free. download c-span now today. ♪ >> washing area host: merry

christmas. back at some of the most interesting and different guests we have had on this program. in february congress was reeling from the january 6 events at the capital and the second impeachment proceedings against former president trump. sean spicer, now a host on newsmax, joined us to share his thoughts. host: i have a show every night -- guest: i have a show every night on newsmax. we have been covering it for a while. we will cover it tonight. i look at it from the standpoint of, what are other people asking ? what are the questions we have and how can we break it down for them during the hour we have? >> the questions would be what and how would you answer them? guest: i get asked the questions instead of having to answer

them. i definitely inject my own opinion. there are lots of questions in particular with this with respect to the former president. the constitution is clear about the purpose of impeachment being for removal of office. if someone is no longer in office, you have to question what is the purpose of the proceedings themselves? we have for example tonight, alan dershowitz on the show and we will break it down from a constitutional perspective. a lot of times we get lost in political arguments and forget to step back and say, the constitution is clear about what the purpose of these things are and in many cases the procedures by which they will be held. we have a discussion on the show about, what is actually, what the political arguments are, what the constitutional arguments are but i think the fun part is, you get to look at a lot of the questions you are getting everyday on washington journal and a lot of times that is what i will say.

i'm hearing a lot about this, can you break it down? it is more of that discussion between other experts, political or legal, to have a better understanding of issues in politics that are going on. host: the president, did he incite the crowd on january 6? guest: i think that is not entirely true in that that is not necessarily the question. the question is, can you impeach somebody who is no longer in office? the second western is, if so, those events, are they impeachable offenses? are they high crimes and misdemeanors? i think you have to answer the first question first which is, are the proceedings relevant for an office holder no longer in office? the constitution says clearly, shall be removed from office. if you are no longer in office, what is the remedy? host: with that in mind, you

have heard several legal scholars say there is a question over whether this is capable or not for the senate to even start the trial. how would you respond? guest: it is interesting because i have obviously read, i have heard those arguments from legal scholars that you can do it. to me, it is an interesting argument on their behalf because this isn't, you know, the constitution says clearly in article two, section four that officeholder shall be removed from office. that is the exact phrasing. that is the remedy. the question is, if the officeholder is no longer in office, you have to question it. i have read the briefings and articles and summations that these scholars claim you can go through the motions, but i have yet to have that discussion with them because i don't get how you can make the case that if the sole purpose of, in other words if we have a criminal, a system

of justice in this country, if you are guilty of a crime or suspected of a crime, you go through that. we have a civil process by which if you personal feel wronged, you can sue them for civil damages. we have a sickly impeachment, which is a political means of adjustment. you can remove an officeholder if you feel they have broken a law or committed high crimes and misdemeanors or treason or all the other things the constitution enumerates. impeachment is a political form of justice. if the president is guilty of criminal acts, this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss because there is no other remedy. you candidate mutual somebody -- you can't impeach somebody and send them to jail or impose a civil fine. those are other forms of proceedings. the question is, if the president was guilty of something, this isn't the proper

forum to judge him in. host: i suspect you have looked through the impeachment managers pretrial motions. is this part of it? they write that, those who had come to the rally looking for a signal from their president found it in his remarks. he promised to carry on in the fight. the remarks delivered to an armed, angry crowd prepared for violence with the militaristic demand that they must stop what is occurring at the capitol, when you see statements like that, what goes through your mind? guest: it is an interesting question because you can take the president's comments, he clearly said we need to go to the capital and peaceably processed -- protest. you covered this on c-span all the time, the demonstrations,

the protests, the rallies that occurred in washington, d.c. in a pre-covid world. it is almost weekly that there is some group gathering on the national mall or other places in washington, d.c., supreme court steps, to highlight an issue or seek redress from the government. this happens regularly. can you go through and find somebody's comments and make one case or another? i think there is clearly, as you point out, in the impeachment manager's brief, they are making the case that if you look at these elements of the president's speech, they point to this but i think his defenders will point to parts of his speech where he says make your voice heard, go peaceably protest at the capitol which is a time-honored tradition in america. either side could cherry pick the speech and pick out things you want. i think the thing that is interesting, and i would expect -- suspect the president's

defenders will bring this up, i know rand paul brought it up on the senate floor the other day, when you look at the comments of the last cycle that maxine waters made where she said you get up in the face of trump officials, when you see them, get in their face, when you look at eric holder who said when they go low, we kick them, it incited people to get in people's faces. i question whether the impeachment managers are not going to be careful that the words of their colleagues get thrown in their faces. if they say the president is guilty for telling people to go do this, what do you say to your own colleagues who incited violence, who told people to get in people's faces, told them to kick them? i think it is an interesting path they are going down. host: our guest is sean spicer,

formerly of the trump administration. you can ask him questions. our first collar is from eleanor in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm trying to ask a question that bothered me for a year -- for years. when i was a little girl, i was taught the devil made me do it. then what was trump made me do it. i wonder where the terrible behavior of the american people are going to go next. it was outrageous, the way they treated mr. trump. it was outrageous. i'm shocked, i'm ashamed, i'm ashamed they did it and nobody stopped them. nobody stopped them from doing it to that man. i can imagine, i can't imagine the horror he and his family are suffering. host: that is eleanor.

mr. spicer, go ahead. guest: there is no question when you look at the media coverage of how president trump treated during his tenure as president and how we have seen the first three weeks of the biden administration, it is vastly different. the press corps is more in line. mostly because he fits into their ideology. i think it was a personal vitriol among the press cord towards -- the press corps towards the president. on the right, we have dealt with this basically forever. it got amplified to a degree i had never witnessed during the presidency of trump when members of the media made it very personal. >> the year began with republicans in control of the senate. on january 20, with the inauguration of president biden and vice president harris, democrats assumed control of a divided senate.

majority leader schumer and minority leader mcconnell negotiated an agreement on how the senate would operate. 20 years earlier, trent lott and tom daschle also made a power-sharing agreement. they joined us to talk about that. host: joining us is tom daschle who led the senate as majority leader from 2001-2003, democrat from south dakota. also trent lott led the senate from 1997-2001, republican from mississippi. other roles they have had over the years but thanks for joining us. guest: good to be with you. guest: good to be with you. host: can i start with both of you? the senate is about to engage in the second impeachment trial today of donald trump. you have had experiences looking at issues concerning bill clinton. what did you learn during the process with president clinton

and how do you think that could play out dealing with the second impeachment trial with president trump? guest: first of all, the leaders need to communicate regularly every day. after the house voted on saturday to impeach william jefferson clinton, i called senator daschle and said, tom, this thing is in our lap and i would like to work with you to make sure we get through this in the proper way and get to a conclusion where we can go right back to work. i thought it would be relatively easy to agree on the rules of how to proceed, but that took us a couple more weeks. we can talk more about that in a moment. guest: first of all i want to commend senator lott for the extraordinary leadership you throw through the process -- showed through the process. he didn't have to make sure there was that kind of communication but he did. i think that is the key, cooperation and communication.

what is normally a very political senate, trying to depoliticize it and stick to the facts, recognize your constitutional responsibilities and carry them out. host: as far as looking at establishing rules, one of you said compromise is not complicity, or at least trying to get into everything. how did you make those rules, keeping true to your various caucuses you had to serve? guest: probably the term came from tom. go ahead, tom. guest: compromise is not capitulation. it is the ockham -- oxygen of democracy. when you are working through complicated issues like this, it takes compromise. like trent said earlier, it takes cooperation and coordination. compromise is the essence of that. guest: after the call to tom on that sunday, we went back to washington thinking we could come up with the way to proceed

quickly. turned out it wasn't easy. it took us as i recall a couple weeks and we wound up going into the old senate chamber, the republican and democrat senators all in that room. we were making a little progress, bob gave us a tutorial on how to proceed. we asked for a blessing on the proceedings, and i wondered how it would work. ted kennedy spoke and bill graham spoke and they seemed be saying the same thing. we agreed, that is it. we will go with the graham-kennedy proposal. tom and i went forward and we figured out exactly what it was and i think it was a unanimous vote proceed with the rules. the fact that mcconnell and schumer have already come to an agreement of the rules to proceed, and it looks like it will be unanimous, that is a

good achievement. host: how much of establishing the rules back then was based on personal trust, and how much trust do you think exists in the current senate on making the rules? guest: i agree with trent that i think personal trust is key. we trusted each other. we had worked together on a number of other big challenges facing the senate and we worked through them. we began to trust each other and develop a relationship that has lasted to this day. it is really essential. i like what i have seen so far. i think trent is right, it looks like at least in this context, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer have developed a trust necessary to move forward. they have an organizing resolution week ago and now they seem to be in agreement on the way to proceed on the impeachment. i like what i am seeing the last couple weeks between the leaders. host: leader lott?

guest: i agree with tom on that, as i usually do. they have agreement on the rules a lot quicker than we did. i guess we were setting the precedent, because there had not been an impeachment trial in the senate for decades, maybe even a century. i was on the house judiciary committee, and in 1973-1974 with nixon that didn't go to a vote because he resigned. we were trying to figure out how to proceed. as i recall, it went on for over a month and we had some depositions and witnesses. we had several votes. it wasn't a matter of voting on the rules, you could go to a vote on the articles of impeachment. it was a pretty long process. i think the leaders are committed to not dragging out this time. they are hoping to get it done by next week. that will be a monumental

achievement if they can get through the arguments in a satisfactory way and get a vote and a conclusion. host: if you wouldn't mind sharing your impressions of january 6, at a place where you used to work. what were your impressions of the day and what played out? guest: i was horrified at what i was seeing. i worked in and around that capitol building for 39 years of my life as a staff member to a democrat, as a republican congressman, as whip in the house and senate and as leader. i knew that building as our citadel of democracy and freedom. to see windows broken out, police ian shoved out of the way, and -- being shoved out of the way, and people losing their lives, i was at the point of tears. i was depressed by what i saw. i hope the leaders are giving some thought to security of the capitol building. i don't like the wire, the

fences and all that, but there needs to be an assessment of the security in the building for the future. guest: you can't say it any better than that. i agree with every word trent said. i had the good fortune to serve 30 years as a staffer, a congressman and a senator, and i think i know every inch of that building. i used to love to give tours of the building and still occasionally do that. i fought back tears, as well. to me, it was a metaphor for politics in america today, and i really lament that. it wasn't just the physical desecration of a sacred building, it was the desecration of the political process we have endured for some time that we will have to figure out a way to repair. it was a sad, sad day, one of the saddest days i can recall. it brings back memories of 9/11 when trent and i were leaders at the time, just extraordinary

nightmarish circumstances we hope we never see again. host: as far as security measures, would you go as far as leaving a permanent structure like we are seeing today or establishing more magnetometers? guest: i must say, i look back, in 1968i was a college student when i came to washington for the first time. i walked into that capitol building and you couldn't find a security guard anywhere. there was nothing. i walked around and i was in off -- in awe. so i really lament the fact that it has become so much more secure in its nature and the environment around it. but it is necessary. i remember almost shedding tears at a caucus once, the senator from arkansas lamenting about 25 years ago how much security increased since he had come to

the senate. that has gone way beyond that now. i don't know what the solution is. i agree with trent, we can't ever allow this to happen again. i hope it wouldn't require a secure fence like that, because again, it is a metaphor for politics and democracy in america. the more we enclose it, the more we restrict it, i think that symbolism is one that concerns me a great deal. security has to be a high priority. guest: i agree with that. when i was in the house and senate, i worked with the leaders on the security. we did improve it some. our policeman at that time had a sidearm, a pistol. we didn't have the policeman on the steps of the capital with automatic weapons. we did do some other things in case there was some biological or chemical attack but we spent

some time, i wanted to put the lid proof i guess glass -- bulletproof i guess glass around the gallery because -- but the members didn't want to do that. i loved it went -- when i first went there. i loved giving tours. i read the book "the lost symbol," i looked for things described in the book. it was special just to be able to walk in to a congressman or senator's office. but these are different times. people know too much, right now people seem to be angry. have the social media. so i do think the leaders need to take a serious look at how to secure the capitol without shutting it down to the american people. host: as far as different times, i will get your thoughts before we take calls. president biden, son of the

senate. what phases him now, particularly in the senate to get things done over the next four years? guest: i'm hopeful when president biden talks about unity, i like that. they are struggling with how to do a covid package so it can be bipartisan and not much too much expenditure but make sure it gets people, the small businesses and airlines, the help. i worked with senator biden on a number of issues, including the crime bill, the iraq situation, and we did bipartisan deals. i do think he has a good relationship with senator schumer and senator mcconnell. in fact, biden was referred to in the obama administration is the mcconnell whisper. -- whisperer. they came up with a budget agreement that lasted for four

years. i'm hopeful, but he will have a lot of pressure from his progressives, and he has some moderates in the senate that can swing the vote when it is 50-50. one senator switches position from the party, you've got different results. but i'm hopeful for president biden. my attitude is, look. i worked with democrats and republicans. i worked closely with bill clinton. we got a lot of good things done. i worked with george w. bush. joe biden is our president and we should be supportive where we can and help him when we can. guest: first of all, let me say that trent enjoyed a remarkable relationship with people in my caucus the entire time he was leader. for one reason, he was inclusive. that word to me is so important, inclusion. when i was elected leader, i got elected by one vote.

i had a pretty tenuous hold. joe biden called me and said, i want to come over and talk about something. he came over and said, i've realized that you probably only got one chairman vote in the caucus. he said that has to change. i would like to help you do that. he said, include us. why don't you invite all of us to lunch every other wednesday? that is, the chairman in the ranking members as it was at the time. and listen to us and hear us out. and it could make a difference. well, two years later, one of the chairman, robert byrd, nominated me for reelection in large measure because i took joe biden's advice. i would urge him to follow that advice that he gave me and invite the leaders down to the white house at least once a week. invite members of both sides down frequently, both from the

house and the senate. invite the leaders to camp david. talk about things you want to do for the coming year and announce it. those inclusive members can go a long way to create bipartisanship. the best way to persuade is with your ears. if he starts listening, i think you will start persuading. >> this year there was a lot of discussion on what should that should be taught in schools. former republican governor of indiana daniels explained why his institution would be requiring a civics class for undergraduates. host: hardly a new idea. for decades, people across the political spectrum have noted and lamented the abysmal lack of understanding of our institutions, usually measured in young people but now across the whole population.

some of the data would comical if it weren't so alarming. only a quarter of american adults can name the three branches of government. only 50% nola -- know how long a senator or congressman is elected for. almost two thirds believe a defendant can be compelled to testify against himself or herself. that sort of thing. ideally, this would have been solved before a student gets to college. today's college student measurably know less about our history and civics traditions than high school graduates did in 1950. k-12 sipped some -- system is not delivering for the country. a public university like ours feel we have the duty to do so. host: this is not a purdue problem or an indiana problem, it is nationwide in terms of

civics literacy. what do you hope, what do you expect students will get out of the program? will this be the sort of program they will get a great coming out of taking this were wire metoo? guest: -- host: taking this requirement? guest: there will be a reasonably low burden. they will get a certification. it will be civics certified. when they leave, they will understand the rhodamine's of their rights -- the rudiments of their rights as a citizen of a free society. we think first of all, this is the responsibility we have is the responsibility we have as a public university. we shouldn't send young people into the world if they are not prepared to be a participating, informed citizen of a free

country. secondly, i regret to say, this may give them a slight advantage versus some of their peers that they are not part of this sad phenomenon of ignorance i mentioned. host: we touched on this, but when you say the word civics in terms of the parameters of what we are talking about, what is the range of topics that the literacy program will cover at purdue? guest: that is a very important question because it shouldn't simply suffice to know the fact. that is where it has to start, the fact of american history, the fact that this country represented steady progress of freedom in the past and present. it shouldn't be limited to simply understanding the mechanics of our system, the three branches of government and their roles. the why is just as important.

why there are three branches, what is separation of powers supposed to accomplish, why are the powers mentioned in the constitution enumerated? not handed down by a tour medical government, -- eight to radical -- a tyrannical government. what is federalism? the fact that there are 50 states, they have their own -- why is that? what does it do to protect our freedom and diversity of values in the country? that is what we hope will come from it, not simply a factual understanding, which has to be the starting point, but also some sense of how this system operates in their favor to protect their personal dignity and their chance to have a

successful life on the basis they decide -- they determine. host: our guest is the president of purdue university, talking about their civics literacy program that is being introduced at purdue this year and more broadly, the area of civics. the headline that purdue student paper, purdue plans to require civics literacy exam for all new students. the requirement is optional for program students, voted on by your board of trustees on june 10. i understand it was rejected by the faculty senate. what was the pushback? guest: timing, i think and discussion about how it ought to be put together. there are three pathways a student can choose, and this was devised by a faculty group. there has been lots of input. the senate represents one point

of view on campus but hardly the only one. so some of their concerns were taken fully into account. the board of trustees believes this is a responsibility we have as a public university. having heard all the pros and cons, they have said move forward. host: i don't know if you are aware that c-span has been involved in the civics literacy issue with high schoolers with our annual cram for the exam. we bring in teachers to help prep students for the ap government courses, the tests, and the ap history test. we did that a week or so ago on this program. the kids that, the students that come to purdue, do you think they are pretty well prepped by those types of classes? do those civics classes give them a leg up? guest: better than their peers.

we have measured this, and our students that do substantially better than their contemporaries across the country on the sample tests we have given them, it is not good enough. 100% of our graduates should at least know the fundamentals of our system. that is our goal. i have to say that there is scarcely an institution i can think of that has done more to help americans understand their system of government than c-span. you will permit me to take a little pride that it was founded by a purdue alum, our school of communications is named for your founder, and we hold the c-span archives here, a great tool that any student can access. i'm tempted to say that if every american watched a little c-span once in a while, we wouldn't

need courses like this. we wouldn't see the distressing data that we do annually about the lack of understanding and knowledge of americans have. host: the podcast, the civics literacy program, is being produced at the c-span call -- scholarship and engagement center at purdue university in the school of communications, correct? guest: that's right. there were three pathways, one is to take a course in history and civics, a one semester course, and an alternative is to attend at least six events that we will designate the ones that count. the third is to go through a series of a dozen podcast put together by our c-span archivist friends. they are excellent and available to the general public, or will be.

followed by passing a fairly straightforward exam. so yes, c-span, we have taken advantage of the wonderful asset and relationship we have their and incorporated it into this civics proficiency process. host: colleges have multiple requirements, math, english. do you know of any other college or university that introduced a similar sort of civics requirement? guest: no, but i think this is a coming phenomenon. we do see now, state legislatures going into requiring it of their public schools and universities. i think perhaps at long last, we will see vigorous action on this. again, there have been leading americans, i remember justice o'connor almost as soon she left

the supreme court began an organization to deal with this. president obama spoke about it very eloquently. but not too much action until recently. i think we will see something. >> in june, c-span released its fourth historian survey of presidential leadership. we are joined by our advisors on the survey to hear their analysis of the results. we begin with historian douglas brinkley on how the survey was conducted. guest: c-span put together a group, all of us on the air today our advisors come on how to rank these presidents. we want to make sure people realize this isn't a scientific ranking. the purpose of it in many ways is to be fun and the lightning, -- and and lightning, stoke -- and enlightening, stoke conversations. you are breaking them up into categories, so a president will

be judged on foreign policymaking or race relations or the environment or public persuasion, media relations. you get the idea. it is broken up into numerous categories. you go on a 1-10 scale on each of those categories and at the end, we add them up and there is the list. the key ingredient for the historians and scholars, there are only a few of us on air today but really, the top biographers, academic historians, journalists who have written important biographies, they are all part of this survey. we try to get around 150-140 people answering the survey. we are proud every four years of the list because we can all quibble over someone being ranked higher or lower but there is something sustainable going

on here. every time, every four years, lincoln holds the number one spot followed by george washington, than franklin d roosevelt, then theodore roosevelt. those are the big four. after that, you start getting presidents influx with their realm -- reputations going up or down. the fact that eisenhower has been able to corral the fifth spot is interesting. there wasn't all this talk about and eisenhower memorial on the mall, eisenhower had two terms, he could have had a third. he got us out of the korean war and avoided another war. the only time he used government troops was to go into little rock, the civil rights endeavor. he created nasa, the st. lawrence seaway, the interstate highway system. he was very moral, not a lot of

corruption during the eisenhower years. i could go on. you are starting to see the rise of somebody like eisenhower, who not that many moons ago was ranked fairly, pretty much in the middle. people thought he didn't do much as president. now with the archives open, we can see he was a hands-on president, not a hands-off one. the rise of eisenhower i find particularly interesting. he is now one of the american greats. host: you went to the top five. to round out the top 10, in sixth place it is truman, seventh jefferson, eighth kennedy, ninth reagan, the 10th spot this year is barack obama joining the top 10. president trump, coming in at 41st overall in this year's ranking, the first year he is part of this survey of presidential leadership. plenty of time to dive into

those results, but why do this? is it helpful historically to do this, to compare these presidents over so many years? guest: absolutely. it's always important to talk about what has happened in terms of government and leadership. it is important to look at them over a period of time because historians like to view history from afar. we don't like to look at current events so much. if you look at these rankings of these presidents, over a period of time, you get a better understanding of how they are doing in terms of the country's memory of them or how the country views them over time. so you will see these kinds of changes in rankings because of the passage of time and because each generation sort of makes its own, comes to its own

conclusions about how successful these men, hopefully someday women, have been in terms of their role as the leadership in the country. host: this isn't c-span's ranking, this is the ranking of 142 historians. how do we select those historians? who gets to be part of the survey? guest: good question. there has been a concerted and i would argue successful effort since we began this back in 2000, two and large and diversified that academic a electorate, if you will. there were 58 participants in the original survey, 141 this time around. that is up about 50% from four years ago. that didn't just happen. there was a deliberate effort on the part of the survey

organizers to specifically, i would say diversify. find more women, more people of color, and more conservatives, because it is no secret, certainly 20 years ago, historians, academic historians and political scientists tend to vote left. even more than that, if you look , doug talks about the stability come at the stability is in fact the first thing that jumps out at you. not only at the top of the list but at the bottom of the list. the same three pre-and post-civil war presidents are deemed being almost universally have failed in the job. they are there where they were 20 years ago and have been on every of these surveys. in between, picking up on something he said, it is fascinating, if you look at where the movement is, if you

start at the top and bottom, it is in between. we will talk about this later, if you look at someone like andrew jackson, who in the 20th century, in the age of arthur's lessons are -- arthur schlesing er, was considered one of the seven or eight most important and successful presidents. in our ranking he is at 22nd. the fact that ulysses grant, who was traditionally seen as scandal-tinged and a reconstruction era failure, the fact that grant surpassed jackson in the overall ranking is really revealing about the different criteria that are being applied 20 years on. end of course to some degree, those who are doing the voting. host: the last survey in 2017, andrew jackson was ranked 13th

back in 27 -- 2017, and grant up from 33 to 20. that is the deep dive into the results we will be doing over these two hours. this is your first survey, first year of the survey that you have been on the advisory team to help run the survey. what was your impression of the survey in years past, in the previous three surveys? what surprised you about this year? guest: thank you, i'm honored to be here to join c-span steam. the survey -- serve -- survey always impressed me because we included not only star academics, but also stars in the field who might not be phd's or professors. we are glad at the -- of that. i'm one of those. there is no snobbery at c-span,

which has always been one of its strengths. you look hopefully for serious people. that is why you get a sound pol l. i was happy to see the new diversity. the poll looks more like younger america and we are thrilled about that. host: your reaction to donald trump's ranking, the first time he has been included in the survey? we do this survey every time there is a change in industry should, since the year 2000. president trump, coming in 41st. his highest rankings in the area of public persuasion and economic management, lowest rankings in the areas of moral authority and administrative skills. your reaction to the 41st debut? guest: it gets harder to do the closer we get to the presidency. you have to ask yourself, where

the historians as objective as they try to be, answering whether they would vote for trump next time or were they really ranking him? i say that in good conscience, it is hard to rank when people look at the recent jump up of president george w. bush. that is one of the factors when you look at president bush 43, he went up. you have to change lenses real fast when someone moves from being a live figure took quote-" history. i believe that played a role with trump. i believe president trump deserves a higher ranking for economics and i think history will bear me out on that. but let's look at the other things. you see jackson going down, president trump is more like andrew jackson, more of a cowboy. cowboys don't do well in american opinion in this poll.

host: president trump's debut at 41st, your reaction? we asked historians to rank the presidents on public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative relations, relations with congress, vision setting and agenda, equal justice for all and their performance within the context of the times. do we get any further definition of what that should mean as historians make their rankings? guest: one of the problems is, it is always best to have 25 years until you wait to judge or president. that is when our national archive ostensibly is released and documented through the freedom of information act. you can start getting papers to start reconstructing a president. you will tend to see up to 25

years will have a few of the trump presidency -- a view of the trump presidency that might be different than we have now, it might be better or worse. but we don't do that. we have decided to include william henry harrison who was only president for a month. that creates kind of a line in the sand. you want to be below the president who was in the white house for one month and died of pneumonia? that is where president trump finds himself. that means you are doing a negative job as president. that means you didn't help the republic forge forward. i personally thought trump would be fighting for the worst spot with james buchanan, who was inert and inactive in trying to avert the civil war. he is always claiming -- clinging to the bottom rung. trump has a chance to move up, as we just heard. his chances would be a

reelection, suddenly he is not the two time impeached one-termer, he is the two-term president to let a populist revolt in the united states. his future is still wide open. and maybe down the line he will rise for other reasons, when people re-look at the program to get our vaccines so quickly distributed during the covid crisis. george w. bush was very low. people assumed he would stay low because of the great recession, because of the iraq war which was unpopular. and because of what's in -- what some people sauce feckless foreign policy. he is rising. why? people start reflecting differently. he scores well, george w. bush, on things like moral authority or sort of decency factor.

this past year, bill clinton and richard nixon fell some spots. you have to say, why? i think because watergate was in the news so frequently, because of the lewinsky affair being talked about during the double impeachment of trump. and just saying nancy pelosi said during the impeachments of trump, many democrats said we are going to taint trump in history. we may not remove him from office with the impeachments, but there will be in his armor. this shows the debt. when you -- the dentist. when you have a double impeachment, it is difficult to see why people will be looking at that as being a successful uniting of the nation. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government.

>> cox is committed to providing families access to affordable internet. urging the digital divide one connected entity at a time. cox, bringing us closer. >> bringing you c-span is a public service along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse our products, apparel, books, home decor and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase hopes support. -- help support our nonprofit operation. shop anytime at c-spanshop.org.

>> sunday night on q&a, catholic theologian, author and senior fellow at the ethics and public policy center george weigle talks about some of the people he profiles in "not forgotten," his new book. >> henry hyde, scoop jackson, sargent shriver, lindy boggs come longtime member of congress, these were people who went into public life and public service to get things done. some of them were sparkling speakers and wits, like henry hyde. some of them were dour norwegians like scoop jackson. some of them were charmers like lindy boggs. but they were all people who wanted to achieve things, not so much for themselves, but for their country, for their constituents, for the common good. >> george weigle sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a.

you can listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our new c-span now app. >> sunday, january 2 on in-depth , a civil war historian joins us live to talk about the early intellectual history of the united states. the civil war, and the reconstruction era. his book titles include " redeeming the great emancipator" and his latest, a biography of robert e. lee. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets sunday, january 2 at noon eastern on book tv. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. here many of those on c-span's new podcast, presidential

recordings. >> season one focuses on lyndon johnson. you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, the 1964 presidential campaign, the gulf of tonkin, the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> johnson's secretaries new because they were taxed -- tack -- tasked with transcribing the conversations. they were responsible for making sure the conversations were taped. johnson would signal through an open door. >> you will hear blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number of people signed to kennedy on the day he died and the number signed. if i can't go to the bathroom, i won't go. i won't go anywhere, i will stay right behind. >> presidential recordings, on

c-span now and where you get your podcasts. >> the house and senate have adjourned for the holiday recess and will return in early january for the start of the second session of the 117th congress. upon return, the senate will take up the climate and social spending plan known as build back better. despite joe manchin announcing his opposition to the bill, senate democratic leadership hopes to take up voting rights legislation which may require changing filibuster rules. there is a february 18 deadline for both chambers to pass additional federal spending legislation to avert a government shutdown. watch these developments on the c-span networks once congress returns, or watch our full coverage on c-span now, our mobile video app. had to c-span.org rescheduling information or stream video live

or on-demand any time. c-span, your own turf -- unfiltered view of government. >> each night this week on c-span three, we feature american history tv programs as a preview of what is available every saturday on c-span two. monday, it is oral histories from american war veterans who served in world war ii, the korean and vietnam wars. u.s. army nurse patty justice treated the wounded while serving in afghanistan. later, former senator bob dole, who passed away this month that 98, speaks about his life and political career. enjoy american history tv beginning monday eight :00 p.m. eastern on c-span3 and every saturday on c-span2. ♪

>> washing -- washington journal continues. >> we are taking a different approach to this holiday, looking back at the program over the year and showing you interesting discussions and guests. former senator bob dole, who died a few weeks ago, was instrumental in the passage of the americans with disabilities act, signed into law 31 years ago. tom foley, executive director of the national disability institute, joined us to talk about the law and its impact. guest: the national disability

institute is the first and only national nonprofit disability nonprofit that works exclusively on issues of economic policy and empowerment for people with disabilities. for the last 15 years we have worked on policy issues, research, to really increase opportunities for people with disabilities and their families. host: tell us about your journey as a disability rights advocate. how did you get into this and why is this important? guest: particularly around economic empowerment, i was fortunate enough to have a class in high school about financial education. i fell in love with it. as a blind person, i realized my economic future would be determined based on decisions i made. for the last 30 years, i have been fortunate to be able to

work in underground employment and economic empowerment for folks with this abilities, looking at those complex drivers of economic inequality in trying to address them through research, policy and partnering. host: how many people do you work with through your organization? is it national or are you based in washington, d.c.? guest: we are based in washington, d.c. there are 38 of us but 15 are in the washington office and the rest are spreading across the country impacting from d.c. to alaska to colorado and california. host: this past week was the 31st anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. i want to show our audience a clip of then president george h w bush and what he

that they are endowed with their creator with certain inalienable rights, these words up in our guide for more than two centuries as we labor to form are more perfect union. for too many americans, the blessings of liberty have been limited or even denied. the stark fact remained. people with disabilities were still victims of segregation and discrimination. today's legislation brings us closer to that day when no americans will ever be deprived

of basic guarantee of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. this act is powerful in its simplicity. it will ensure that people with disabilities are given the basic guarantee for which they have worked so long and so hard. independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to blend equally into the rich mosaic of the american mainstream. legally, it will provide our disabled community with the expansion of protections and basic civil rights. it will guarantee fair and just access to the fruits of american life, which we all should be able to enjoy. host: what made the americans

with disabilities act so significant legally and socially? guest: thank you for that clip. it's a great reminder. it was really a moment in time where people with disabilities were recognized. having the same civil rights and opportunities as everybody else, to be able to pursue independent living it, to live in the community, to be equal -- the economically self-sufficient were used in the ada, they were promises made it to make sure everybody has an equal opportunity to be successful, to work, to build an economic future. host: i want the audience to take part in the conversation. we will open up special lines.

for those of you out there, people with disabilities, people with disabilities, also their families and caretakers, we want to hear from you this morning. for people with disabilities, we will open up a special line. that is going to be (202) 748-8000. once again it, for people with disabilities and their families, we want to hear from you this morning at (202) 748-8000. everyone else, we will open up a line for you as well. that line will be (202) 748-8001 . for everyone else, (202) 748-8001. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media. tom, have there been advancements were people with disabilities since the law was

passed? has technology been able to help in anyway? guest: absolutely. i think there have been a lot of advancements. from just the civil rights legislation from this becoming a more prevalent issue that we talk about in our communities and on c-span. clearly, technology has played a role in that as well. i am logging then on zoom. i was able to join you today. from the economic development standpoint, the phone here that i use every day allows me to do things around banking and investing and saving money that i couldn't have imagined 30 years ago when the ada was first signed into law. a lot has changed over the last 31 years.

there are a lot of economic and societal barriers that we still need to continue to address moving forward. host: i want to read two pieces of the americans with disabilities act. i want to get into talking about those barriers you talked about. the first part, it per habits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, school, transportation, all public and private places open to the general public. it also guarantees equal opportunity for individuals in the public accommodations, employment, transportation it, government services, telecommunications. you just brought this up. given that the ada is in existence, what barriers remain for people with disabilities? guest: that's a great question.

we work on issues of economic inclusion. according to the bureau of labor the cystic's, people with disabilities were employed at a rate of 18% did it is 61% for the rest of the population. when we look at the percentage of people who live below the poverty line it, 26% of people with disabilities are below the poverty line versus 11% on average in the united states. i think this really catches it for people with disabilities across all groups, average net worth is $14,000. for people without a disability, it is nearly $84,000. even beyond that, if someone is african-american who is living with a disability, there that

worth is only $1221. we see not only a differentiation between disability and people without disability, but even within disability, that intersection of race and disability is an economic outcome that we need to address. one fourth of people with a disability live below the poverty line. that compares with 11% of people, a little more than one in 10, people that a disability live below the polyline. having a disability seems to make you more likely to live

below the poverty line in the united states. why? guest: there are a number of reasons for it. some are societal, some are around opportunity. if someone is on federal benefits, there is a $2000 asset for them. if a person gets a job and is trying to save money, the moment they save more than $2000, they can lose their ssi linked medicaid. that is just a huge disincentive. assets and income limits are a disincentive to saving. it's a disincentive for hope. host: you brought up a second

statistic. for a working age person with a disability, the average household wealth is $14,180. for that same person, if they did not have a disability, that wealth would be $83,985. what do you think the government should be doing to address this huge income and wealth gap? guest: there are a number of policies that can be taken into consideration. one of which we are excited about is the asset limit i just talked about. by 2014, we passed a law called the achieving a better life experience. it creates an able account. these are tax advantage accounts for people with disability that don't a fact the federal benefits.

you can save $100,000 and not lose your assets. we can see how these accounts can be transformational. people can buy a house, they can start a small business. they have an economic downturn it, it helps them save more financially. even during the pandemic, employment for people with disabilities would hit harder than any other group. if you have a few thousand dollars in savings, you are going to be able to go through those times of employment downturns more comfortably. the disability onset has to be before age 26. if someone becomes disabled at

age 27 or later, in an accident or an illness or veteran is injured, they are not eligible for those special counts. host: even his vaccines became widely available, the economic impact endured. among the most hard-hit were women. the christian science monitor broadcast explored that issue. the host of the podcast joined us to talk about how what they found and how their show found its focus. guest: it became pretty clear that the pandemic was having a disproportionate impact on women, especially women in the workforce. we felt it was a story we couldn't ignore. we wanted to focus on women specifically. the monitor has tried to push

forward our audio storytelling. this felt like the story that would benefit from hearing voices, putting them in people's ears. that was the beginning of this podcast. we started reporting it in early 2021. host: the pandemic has affected everyone. what made you decide to focus on women? guest: when you look at the job numbers, it was striking to see how many women were forced to drop out of the labor force. at the beginning of 2020, we were celebrating huge gains for the first time, 50% of the labor force was women. the pandemic hit a few months after that. we lost a generation of progress.

by 2021, 11 million women dropped out of the workforce. i think those numbers were so striking. we wanted to focus on not just why that was happening. the headlines focused on the numbers and a lot on the dramatic losses and how quickly we saw them. we want to focus on women to put a face to those numbers. we wanted to get to know these women, find a diverse group of women that could represent a lot of experiences. we felt that focusing on their stories would help people understand not just the statistics behind what's happening, but the individual people who are being affected by the pandemic. host: how do you find people to focus on for this? how do you make your choice of talking to this person as opposed to that one. guest: one of the things we

wanted to focus on was a variety of women from a variety of different industries, places in life, age. we wanted to make sure that we were intentional about giving voice to a diverse set of women. we looked at industries were most affected. leisure and hospitality, which includes the performing arts, they were a big part of that. combining all of those different factors and trying to find women who could speak to the experiences of other women who were working in those sectors, we wanted to make sure that we got women of different ages, mothers, different socioeconomic statuses, we wanted to give voice to his many as possible.

host: stronger is part of a wider project at christian science monitor. it focuses around resilience. tell us what that focuses about. guest: when you look at news coverage of challenging events, the pandemic, this is an unprecedented challenge across the world. it can be easy to focus on the challenges and barriers that are happening. especially in stronger, when you talk to people about the challenges they are facing it, that is a big part of the story. women opened up about how difficult the past year has been. at the same time, these women really leaned into the ways they felt the year had help them grow. how the year his brought their

families closer together. we felt that resilience was important. not just for these individual women, but for us as a country. stronger actually, once we publish the series, the monitor decided to start an effort around resilience. we have a new series called finding resilience. resilience is shining through in a way that is important to the biggest challenges at this time. host: the podcast focuses on six women and they are in las vegas. out of everywhere in the country, why las vegas? it's a great vacation town. guest: that's the question we get asked the most.

we wanted to find the city that was really affected by the pandemic. las vegas because of its reliance on tourism, gaming, it helped the pandemic. in february, 2020, the unappointed rate in nevada was pretty average for the country. by april, it was 28%, the highest in the country at the time. we wanted to capture what that was like for the people that were there. it's easy to imagine las vegas as the casinos. a lot of the income trickles out to the other industries and people who live in las vegas. a lot of those folks feel it

when the rest of the city or the casinos are affected in that way. that's why we wound up focusing on las vegas. one of the people we spoke to, the nurse worked for the county hospital. she mentioned how shocking it was for the city to see those casino doors close and see them closed as long as they were. her work was affected. she could feel the effects of the resources the drain on the resources when there aren't tourists coming in. host: you focus on it las vegas, i want to point out for our audience cnbc reported that of the 235,000 jobs added recently, only 11.9% went to women. that's a sharp decline in job

close -- growth. there is been a decline in women seeking employment. it has not dropped this low since 1988. we have seen the pandemic have a huge effect on women. when you talk to the women for your podcast, you talk to women in different industries, different ages and races, what was the commonality of what you heard from them about how the pandemic affected them? guest: one huge thing across the board regardless of how old you were was the level of multitasking and pressure women faced. for many of these women who did lose their jobs, they wanted to be working. the stress of that, wanting to

work and you can't, was challenging. they are trying to make it work and all these different ways. then you have the women who are working because they have to. it's not a choice, even if it puts their family at risk. we've talked a lot about the caregiving crisis of women who've of always been predominantly the ones at home providing care. now they have to do that on top of trying to sport their families financially. whether that's having young children at home, if that's through remote learning or having older relatives that were more at risk and needed more care at home while trying to work, the nurse we interviewed, her story showed the pressure that women are facing when they tried to do it all.

sometimes you think about women's work as being extra. in her case, they are the primary breadwinners of their families. they don't have the choice to step out. i think they did a great job of highlighting the pressure in the multitasking of trying to do it all. host: thank you for that perfect segue. i want to bring part of your interview. she was a frontline health care worker and a mother who became the primary breadwinner for her family during the pandemic. here is a portion of that interview. >> she just quit her part-time job at a private hospital. it felt like the right decision. a couple of weeks after she quit, her husband injured his hand.

leo is a carpenter. the injury was bad enough that he could not use his hand. he couldn't do much at home or work. not only was that an unexpected pay cut for the family, she suddenly had to run the household alone. >> i felt a lot of responsibility. i was the one bringing money into the house. >> this was our last zoom conversation. >> he was getting unemployment, it wasn't the same. it was very stressful. he was already stressed out. i felt i had to. >> did you ever regret quitting the other job? >> i look at the glass as half full.

i look at the positive. it was meant to be. i was supposed to quit so i could take care of my husband home. host: was that experience, and among the women that you talk to, juggling everything going on in their lives? guest: we spoke to six women. their experiences really varied. i think sam did a good job talking about the commonalities among them. being the breadwinner was something she had already been doing. they were both working prior to the pandemic. i think for her, it was this factor coming together. coalescing to create this stressful situation. listening to her talk, it was inspiring. you could see how determined she

was. i think that was something we saw in all the women regardless of what they were facing. host: there are over 2 million podcasts. in october, we talked to podcast posts. they told us about the stories they gather on going for broke. guest: as a group with the economic hardship reporting project, we looked at a lot of the journalism going on about america's economic challenges. there is not a lot of good coverage where people who are struggling with the current situation get to talk about themselves and their own lives. they get talked about. they get observed. they rarely get the privilege of self-definition. going for broke looks at some of the really severe downward

mobility that workers have experienced. it gives them the chance to explain it to an audience what that's like, what it involves, trying to make ends meet, trying to make three weeks worth of money last until the end of the month. i will let alyssa explain more about it. it had a pool of wonderful storytellers able to tell finally observed stories about what it's been like getting through pandemic times. host: i will let you take it up from there. tell us more about it. guest: the economic hardship reporting project started in 2012 with the -- he didn't want the rich to write about poverty. she started this organization to let people who are middle-class

and working-class report and tell their own stories. we have supported hundreds, over 1000 writers and photographers to write about income inequality. i was realizing in these years of running the organization, we had these amazing stories. that's why i decided to do going for broke. i want to hear with the grocery store worker while they are chasing shoplifters, what it's like in that store. i want to hear the story of the person being evicted. host: i will follow-up with that. how do you find these people to talk to? how to get people to tell them your stories? guest: you can write to us.

that's our address. you can send in pictures. we also have people from twitter storms. i will look for really good writers on there. blog e -- who is writing about income inequality firsthand. there is no shortage. hedge funds are buying up newspapers, trying to turn more than 20% profit. they have laid off their experienced reporters. some of those people come to us. host: you are on one side of the microphone. on this, you are one of the stories. guest: that was not the easiest

thing in the world to do. for a long time, the capital i key is not one you use. i had experienced lengthy unemployment. also challenges with my health and the confluence of those created some hard times. i had to come from behind the remove that reporters were cap and talk about my own life. i think it's a good episode. she had to work on me a little bit. host: when you make that decision, did you do it willingly? were you hesitant in that idea? guest: i had to think about it. i think there are so many late in career workers, in their 50's

and early 60's who are experiencing the downdraft of the labor market. the data tell a discouraging story. you're trying to prepare for tyrant, take care of the obligations that remain, income declines, jobs declined. you are cycling through jobs more quickly and it takes you longer in your 60's to find the next one. i didn't tell my own story so much as tell it from the vantage point of a man in that time of life and what we are all experiencing. host: the common themes that run through the stories, what would you say they are? guest: people blame themselves for the condition they found themselves in. our society is very unforgiving for people who have economic struggles area heisey a lot of

self blame and people who tell their stories. i see a lot of little things that could be done differently. we have a contributor whose mother couldn't afford hearing aids. this is common in a lot of different programs. a lot of insurance doesn't cover. aids. that little fix would make a huge difference. she couldn't communicate with her mother during covid. when you lived closer to the ground, you have your finger on the pulse of these experiences. that's what we are trying to capture. how do we capture that struggle and get it out? i just saw a recently that it's starting to change. host: the same question to you. guest: