in much of academia today, we are taught that pursuing reason is the act of putting aside our dogmatism and bias from our own paradigm and world view and critically thinking in a scientific manner toward achieving a new paradigm which may or may not lead to truth. truth is what we believe is very until the necks scientific revolution comes along. as you have shown, this has began to permeate our culture and is beginning to us -- beginning to affect the state of faith in our society. what is the alternative approach in reconciling the academic approach of science and truth within academia? but it seems to me that in many formulations, -- >> it seems to me that in many formulations there is a profound and deep misunderstanding of science itself. there are many scientists who have no problem at all reconciling science and faith. their understanding of science is that they are, in fact, moving ever deeper into discerning the laws of the universe -- that which makes the natural world what it is, in the physical world what it is. they are struck by the patterns and complexities they find. it

as president of dillard universit and prior to that, he spent 30 years in public service and in academia, including serving as the first african-american chairman of the fulton county board of commissioners. dr. lomax has taught literature at morehouse college, spellman college, and the university of georgia, and he is currently a trustee of emory university. he is a member of that council of smithsonian institution's, the national museum of african- american history and culture, is my pleasure to introduce him now. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm welcome to dr. law -- dr. michael lomax. [applause] >> thank you very much, david. good evening. i am deeply honored to be here, and after watching that clip, all intimidated. as we have seen from that clip of then-senator obama's speech delivered here two years ago, it was an extraordinarily elegant and thoughtful speech on the subject of race. and in id, he found the path through the national mine field, and for a brief period managed to put the subject of race on hold and find the space to pursue his candidacy without being mired in

president of dillard university, and prior to that he spent 30 years in public service as -- and in academia, including serving as the first african- american chairman as the filson county board of commissioners. he has taught literature at spellman college and the university of georgia, and is a trustee of emory university, as well as a member of the teach for america national board of directors and a national -- member of the national museum of african-american history. it is my great pleasure to introduce him now, please get a warm welcome to dr. michael lomax. [applause] >> thank you very much. good evening. i am deeply honored to be here. after watching that clip, a little intimidated. as we have seen from that clip of the then senator obama's speech delivered here to -- two years ago, it was a very elegant and thoughtful speech on the subject of race. in it, he found a path through the national minefield, and for a brief period managed to put the subject of race on hold and find a space to pursue his candidacy without being mired in the turmoil that often attends that subject. even one

. >> and of course there are no rivalries in academia. the fact is, just as you say -- psychologically, there is something that is not presented in the right way. how you turn arts and humanities into a muscular set of terms is very intriguing. that does not mean it should be exactly the same, but how you can have a strong society without strong arts in society i do not know. >> i am from the washington national opera. i think in addition to the concept of sort of high and low culture and relevancy, there is the issue of orders. i am constantly telling my staff that the whole public does not see the cultural borders between high and low or in our case opera or musical theater or even pop music, the way we have generally treated them. in making a difference, we go to the actual experience. do you see any kind of initiatives, in terms of addressing this miscommunication or disconnect with the large percentage? i remember being asked about "la boheme" on broadway. she immediately said it was not an operatic experience. i thought "she did not

i keep hearing from people who are sort of refugees from either academia or some kind of, you know, sort of knowledge work and who are doing things in the trade. there's quite a few of them them out there and it's been great to hear from them. in my own case, i try to get an academic job and did not. there is such a glut of ph.d. s as you know. i did land the job of the think tank -- >> which one? >> i'm not going to say. and i hated it from day one. >> why? >> well, this was a policy organization, and like any such place it had taken certain positions. and so, there were some facts that we were more fond of than others and so the job sometimes seemed to require that i reason backwards as it were from some desired conclusion to a suitable premises and as the figurehead of this think-tank, i found myself making largesse i didn't by myself and the was demoralizing and by contrast, fixing motorcycles you answer to standards that are not open to controversy or interpretation. the bich either starts and run rights or it doesn't. i like about it. you might say the quotient is quite low. and it

the science and technology strategy looking at how we use science and technology in academia things to tackle some of those issues. so a whole raft of those things are broken out. in terms of cyber, yes one was aware, when i came into two half years ago i was in contact with the captain talk about cyber. but in the context of the national security strategy and looking at the domain, this was a clear domain what action and threat action is taken against the nation. quite clearly we need to have a strategy that tackled it within that domain. in the same way as the maritime domain was and the same way as space was another domain. i think was quite a good way of identifying those, and i don't believe we need to knee-jerk each little incident, although very often the government does have to react to what one might call a small incident. so for example, the chancellor are very worrying and afford office, very close to engage with trying to get them released. but that specific instant wouldn't necessarily say that we have to have a complete strategy on smaller boats in the indian ocean or som

academia, mr. ahmadinejad recently stated with regret that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, have remained -- had been secular and liberal. unfortunately, the islamic republic has been not able to do anything about it. so their first targets were in fact women, and like what has been said, been fighting for their rights since the 1800's, one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does, in order to legitimize what is, in order to legitimize its confiscation of reality, it first confiscates history. . . legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history. the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the futur

disciplinar a sus hijos sin saber que esto puede ser contraproducente, un estudio conducido por la academiala comodidad de tu casa, coger las bandas y jalar esto te da la cintura que siempre has querido, ejercicio dos, esto trabaja la parte de abajo y arriba del estómago al misma tiempo. el número 3, vas tratar de cruzar las manos en la parte de atrás haciendo un abdominal sin empujar la cabeza, estos ejercicios los haces 25 repetición, 3 series de 3 a 4 días por semana y recuerda arriba la vida! . >>> gracias josé y usted puede e enviar sus pregunta o sugerencia a nuestra página uniclave primer impacto vamos a una pausa enseguida le dicen adiós al chicharito, ya le contamos. se desató la violencia en una comunidad y la manzana de la discordia es la tierra regresamos con más de primer impacto. adolescente acusado de haberle dado la puÑalada mortal a un inmigrante ecuatoriano en nueva york entró hoy en la recta final. la fiscalía y la defensa presentan sus ultimos alegatos.qué tal, les habla maría elena salinas.esta noche en el noticiero hablaremos del arresto de un sospechoso de ser un alto

the academia, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad, recently claimed -- recently stated would regret.nd that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, had remained -- had been secular and liberal. and, unfortunately, the islamic republic has been unable to do anything about it. so their first targets were, in fact, women who unlike what has been said had been fighting for their rights since mid-1800s. and that one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does -- in order to legitimatize what it is. in order to legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history. the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the future. so they reduced that history of an ancient country. iran goes back to 3,000 years of h

the academia, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad, recently claimed -- recently stated would regret.and that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, had remained -- had been secular and liberal. and, unfortunately, the islamic republic has been unable to do anything about it. so their first targets were, in fact, women who unlike what has been said had been fighting for their rights since mid-1800s. and that one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does -- in order to legitimatize what it is. in order to legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history. the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the future. so they reduced that history of an ancient country. iran goes back to 3,000 years of

the reason you go to in academia is that you are not-- [laughter] [applause] the nice way of saying it is that you are intrinsically motivated, not extrinsically motivated and in transit we motivated is a far more useful way of looking at the world. so good for you. [laughter] >> you right in the beginning about your father who is a mathematician and you were always so intrigued as a child that he could spend the day working inside his head and other kinds of thoughts, but how much is a writer and you said he goes to new zealand in the amazon. how much in both cases are you working in your head and trying to make it come out right? even though you are spending a lot more time on the trail? >> in terms of-- like malcolm said they often have reconceived ideas or some intuition of what a story might be. but you often find yourself in different places, and i think some of my-- comes from insecurity and feeling like if i just work harder and get the information, can betty-- get a better story but for the case of the willingham story which is about this man who was executed for setting fire

the academia, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad, recently claimed -- recently stated would regret. and that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, had remained -- had been secular and liberal. and, unfortunately, the islamic republic has been unable to do anything about it. so their first targets were, in fact, women who unlike what has been said had been fighting for their rights since mid-1800s. and that one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does -- in order to legitimatize what it is. in order to legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history. the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the future. so they reduced that history of an ancient country. iran goes back to 3,000 years of

the other is academia. that is a whole different circle. they intersect. i once read a law review article in the "george washington law review." i cannot say i understood it, but i can say for sure that i could follow it -- the whole article. i feared for his career. in any event, i say this because it is academic at and i am outside both of them. i am one of the few people here who is genuinely an outsider. in fact, i now am the person on the second circuit, 20 judges or so -- i now know more about national security than any other of my colleagues. does that scare you or what? i am an outsider. as an outsider familiar with the press, i want to say this. in terms of secrecy -- it is hardly my insight. it was best put by professor bickle, in a book called "the morality of consent" in the mid-70s. the question is the rules of the game. this is an adversary process between the people on this side, that is to say the journalists, and the government. it always will be. nobody is going to solve this by saying "we have a new freedom of information act. now the pr

or to demean academia or the study of economics. it's just that i think being a professional economist has little or no relation with being a professional investor. there just isn't much crossover for the most part. yet you will almost never hear anyone admit that in public. and economics professors are often treated like they're stock market experts. gurus. let me put it this way. if i started critiquing academic papers in peer-reviewed journals of economics, then most people would correctly write me off as someone without the necessary experience to be taken seriously in that venue. but for whatever reason economists can come on and talk about stocks, and they're shown enormous deference when the fact is that the nobel for economics is about as relevant to investing as the nobel in physics or the nobel peace prize. the professors have become a confusing factor that we have to factor into the mine field of the investing landscape. you have to rule them out before they do too much damage to your portfolio with what i regard as their

the academia, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad, recently claimed -- recently stated would regret. and that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, had remained -- had been secular and liberal. and, unfortunately, the islamic republic has been unable to do anything about it. so their first targets were, in fact, women who unlike what has been said had been fighting for their rights since mid-1800s. and that one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does -- in order to legitimatize what it is. in order to legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history. the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the future. so they reduced that history of an ancient country. iran goes back to 3,000 years of

things that i watch for my last ten years in the military and 10-years-old in the business world in academia and it struck me when i wrote that book that we were not getting it, the world is changing so drastically in such major ways becoming much more complex, complicated that we are missing this and we are still operating under the old ways and systems and organizations. in the course of going around on the book tour for that book with audiences like yours and in the q&a period i would get questions and comments about leadership and is struck me because of the number and the frequency of those kind of comments and questions and the gist of what people were saying is it's not just a matter of the world changing and our environment changing, our leaders are failing us. they don't get. and i walked away from the weeks of that book tour saying this has been impressive by the nature and the consistency of those comments that i wanted to see if that was more just than the anecdotal information i was picking up. do people really feel that way? is there a since there is a crisis and leadership? so

it has a role in life and academia beyond just getting someone to buy the newest novel. but let's talk about that, katherine. >> well, i walk both sides of the street. and i feel that, in fact, the internet has now started to blur the boundary more and more between reading and writing so that for many people to read a book is to go -- i think amazon started it but now i think they've gone away from amazon. i think they're all at good reads library places like that. and to express some kind of an opinion about the book that actually is often quite infuriating to the author book who shouldn't go on there and read those interviews because it becomes a consumer evaluation. and they're reviewing the book the way they would review a toaster. it's a consumer decision or i liked the shiny buttons but i didn't like there were enough settings other than they are saying my worth of my books. i really liked this part or that part. if that's how you read a book, you know, you slot it into this book, this part i didn't like. but it becomes a consumer evaluation of a product. which i t

year as a clerk, five years as they newspaper editor, two years in the government, five years in academiahe was confirmed. judge frank westbrook, nominated at the age of 36, he spent one year as a clerk, five years in the government, seven years in academia. he was confirmed. let's talk about reality. let's leave these straw men complaints out of it. we have some many people sitting on our courts of appeals, nominated by a republican president, supported by both republicans and democrats who do not begin to have the kind of background that you do, nor began to have the kind of bipartisan support that you have. i think we should not forget that. the american bar association, the standing committee of federal judiciary, found you unanimously well qualified. that is the highest possible rating. strong support of both your home state senators. conservatives have commented that your qualifications are unassailable. tell us the difference between the role you have to play as a judge and any difficulty adjusting to a new role as a judge. >> system, mr. chairman. the role of the judge -- certainl

year as a clerk, five years as they newspaper editor, two years in the government, five years in academiahe was confirmed. judge frank westbrook, nominated at the age of 36, he spent one year as a clerk, five years in the government, seven years in academia. he was confirmed. let's talk about reality. let's leave these straw men complaints out of it. we have some many people sitting on our courts of appeals, nominated by a republican president, supported by both republicans and democrats who do not begin to have the kind of background that you do, nor began to have the kind of bipartisan support that you have. i think we should not forget that. the american bar association, the standing committee of federal judiciary, found you unanimously well qualified. that is the highest possible rating. strong support of both your home state senators. conservatives have commented that your qualifications are unassailable. tell us the difference between the role you have to play as a judge and any difficulty adjusting to a new role as a judge. >> system, mr. chairman. the role of the judge -- certainl

. >> echlin there has not been in academia and the economics the push to make money equal political power or the goal power there has not ben that discussion or desire with that in mind throughout the history of the united states the development of corporations how do or have you looked at the issue of legal liability when you talk about expansion comedies signed inflation? and the effects of genocide volatility and not narcotics terrorism and the high-end enterprise that you talk about with the olive part way? >> to you address the issue of legal liability for genocide for the conditions within the third world countries are poverty because creating poverty with inflation, designed inflation? >> that is not really in the scope of the book. the book it does not touch on act. >> i think with that stumper. [laughter] we will call it a day. the conversation and can continue books are available for sale and please feel free to purchase more than one per of your friends will love them and the authors will be happy to sign them. >> they make great gaffes. [applause] >> thank you for coming >> ra

i keep hearing some people who are sort of refugees from either academia or some kind of certain knowledge work and they are doing things in the trade. there are quite a few of them out there and it would be great to hear from them. in my own case, i tried to get an academic job, and did not. there is such a glut of ph.d.'s, as you probably know. i did land a job with a think-tank. >> which one? >> i'm not going to say. i hated it from day one. >> why? >> well, this was a policy organization and like any such place, it has taken certain positions. and so there were some facts that we were more fond of than other facts, so the job sometimes seem to require that i read backwards as it were, from some desired conclusion to a suitable premise. as the bigger head of this think-tank, i found myself making arguments that i didn't really buy myself, and that was a moralizing. by contrast, in fixing motorcycles, you answer to standards that really aren't open to controversy or interpretation. the bike either starts and runs right or doesn't. so, i like that about it. you might say that the mac s qu

did you ever work a real job outside of academia or government? guest: academia and now a lobbyist.aller: you've never worked a real job? you've never thrown garbage in a truck or bagged groceries or anything? guest: no. i consider being, you know, an academic also a real job. caller: so your entire life you've never had a real job? host: what's your point? caller: just curious. i just listen to these people. when harry truman left the white house, he drove his wife back to month by himself. at times he was asked by corporations to go to work for the corporations, and his response was, gentlemen, it's not this old job want, it's the office of the presidency, and i don't own it to sell you. the juxtaposition to today is we're looking at the fall of the roman empire. we are so crippled. gentlemen, you have no idea about the anxiety out here. host: thank you. thanks for your call. danny on our line for republicans in seattle, go ahead. caller: hi. i'm calling from seattle, washington, and i'd just like to say the prior caller who talked about iraq, he's right. we squandered all these b

. >> ella deberÍa de poner una academia de baile, claro! >> y quÉ cuerpazo tiene.a travÉs de su pasiÓn con estos bloques plÁsticos y están cotizadas a un nivel! y se venden hasta por la friolera de diez mil dÓlares! >> quÉ bÁrbaro. >> es increÍble. >> tÚ te imaginas, estudiar abogacÍa y renunciar despuÉs de practicar las leyes 6 aÑos y el hombre dice voy a jugar con los bloques. >> uno tiene que hacer lo que mÁs te apasiona. porque cuando uno hace lo que le gusta viene a consecuencia del dinero. hace lo que mÁs le gusta. >> fÍjate los padres! has lo que te guste, pero primero me estudias una carrera. [risas] >> y es que pudo haber estudiado artes plÁsticas o historia del arte, a lo que voy es que a veces por complacer a nuestros padres, cometemos el error de obligar a los niÑos a... >> sabes que estoy alerta a ver quÉ es lo que les gusta. porque uno tiene que dejarlos y estar atentos de las actitudes que los niÑos desarrollen. >> el caballero se llama nathan (...) y miren, de ahÍ nos vamos rÁpido con esta imagen que les va a encantar. una ballena pintora. >> cÓmo?

spent want to make one final point, a point about academia has been brought up. you know, one of the most that we already see just for any student in the world is itunes universe and yale lectures on line. there's probably a way in which the academic unit around the world could do something along, call it a floating university or something like that. part of the cold war efforts as well. i want to wrap my first of all thanking our panelists and everybody that was here today, and all of you. you know, they talk about how takes two to create a relationship and if once i get the other side invisible, they both suffer. and i think that's really an underlying thing about what we taed tay. so thank you all very much for coming, and thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke >> to prevent home mortgage foreclosures are top executives from some of the nation's largest banks testified before the financial services committee. the chairman is barney fr

year as a clerk, five years as they newspaper editor, two years in the government, five years in academiae was confirmed. judge frank westbrook, nominated at the age of 36, he spent one year as a clerk, five years in the government, seven years in academia. he was confirmed. let's talk about reality. let's leave these straw men complaints out of it. we have some many people sitting on our courts of appeals, nominated by a republican president, supported by both republicans and democrats who do not begin to have the kind of background that you do, nor began to have the kind of bipartisan support that you have. i think we should not forget that. the american bar association, the standing committee of federal judiciary, found you unanimously well qualified. that is the highest possible rating. strong support of both your home state senators. conservatives have commented that your qualifications are unassailable. tell us the difference between the role you have to play as a judge and any difficulty adjusting to a new role as a judge. >> system, mr. chairman. the role of the judge -- certainly

it's the holy grail in academia. i want to go inside and talk to these folks. i'm excited. now, mr. king. i know when you say that you send 100% of your kids to college, a lot of people don't believe it. >> right, right. >> so sometimes, for their purposes, you've got to introduce them to the wall. >> got to see some proof. >> this is a lot of proof here. tell me what you're looking. >> on this wall, every time a student is admitted to college, we take their admission letter and copy it and put it up on the wall at school. >> people see your results and they're going to say, 100% of your seniors going on to college, you must pick the kids. you can't be a public school. >> we get that a lot. people tell us all the time, you're a selective enrollment school, that's some private school. but we're not, we're a public school. we're a charter school, which means we're independently operated, but we're publicly funded and don't select our students based on any criteria. >> this is urban prep and urban prep is an oasis, an opportunity for children to believe in themselves and dream beyond t

holy grail in academia. i'm excited. mr. when you say that you send 100% of your kids to college, a lot of people don't believe it. >> right. >> sometimes for their purposes, you have to introduce them to the world. >> need to see proof. >> this is a lot of proof. >> on this wall, every time a student is admitted to college we take their admission letter, copy it and put it up on the wall in the school. >> people see results. they're going to say, 100% of your seniors going on to college. you must pick the kids. you can't be a public school. >> yeah. we get that a lot. people tell us all the time, oh, you're a selective enrollment school. we're not. we're public school. we're a charter school. we're publicly funded and don't select our students based on criter criteria. >> you have a striped tie on. what does that mean? >> this means i've been accepted into four year college or yurt. >> which schools? >> i've been accepted to 13. >> 13? tell me about inglewood. >> this here is a tough community. >> you hear that, people? it'

and certainly there is no rivalries in academia, but the fact is, just as you say, psychologically there is something that isn't presented in the right way. and how you turn arts and humanities into a muscular set of terms is very intriguing. now that doesn't mean it should be exactly the same, but how you can have a strong society without strong arts and society i don't know. >> sharon? >> i'm with national washington opera. i think in addition to the concept of sort of the high and low and relevancy, sorry, there is the issue of borders and i'm constantly telling my staff that the whole public doesn't see the cultural borders between high and low, or in our case opera or in musical theater, or even pop music, the way we have generally treated them. and so in making a difference, we go to the actual experience. and the see any kind of initiatives in terms of addressing sort of this maybe miscommunication or disconnect with a large percentage? i remember beverly sills being asked about being on broadway. and immediately she said well, it's not an operatic experience, but it could be a ve

ahmadinejad recently claimed and stated with regret that the iranians academia since the beginning of the last century had been secular and liberal. unfortunately, the republic has been unable to do anything about it. the first targets were women. they had been fighting for their rights since the 1800's. one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does in order to legitimize its confiscation of reality is to 1st confiscate history. in this country as well, those who want to impose their fundamentalist views upon the society, the first thing they do is confiscate history. the first thing they do is confiscate and redefine what it means to be an american or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing they do. history is used to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now and what will be in the future. they produced the history of the nature of the debate reduced the history of an ancient country -- they reduced the history of an ancient country that goes back 3000 years. after the invasion of iran, that is not mixed and mingled wit

i had always presumed, as did everyone in academia, regulatory areas, banks, presumed that risk potential was. having failed there mean that is we were undercapitalizing probably for 40 or 50 years. and that has to be exhausted. but the notion that somehow my views on regulation were predominant and effective as influencing the congress is something you may have perceived. it didn't look that way from my point of view. first of all, i took an oath of office to support the laws of the land. i don't have the discretion to use my own ideology to effect my judgments as to what the congress is requiring the federal reserve and others to do. as far as i'm concerned, if somebody asked me my view on a particular subject, i would give it to them. i expressed them in the book that you are referring to. but that is not the way i ran my office. i ran my office as required by law. and it's an awful lot of laws that i would not have constructed in the way that they were constructed. but i enforced them nevertheless because that was my job. that was built into my oath of office when i took over the feds

all of us in academia and know that the academic world provides many disincentives to trying to communicatelearly to the public. [laughter] >> in the case of america, in this moment in history, the think our system is resilient enough? what is your intuition? yet issued clarion call for us to do better. do you think we will? >> in principle, yes. in principle, our problems are solvable. i am not worried about an asteroid beyond jupiter hurtling toward us. our problems are ones we are causing ourselves. the question about whether we will succeed in solving them is, what will we americans decide? i cannot predict the outcome of the next elections. i can predict that if we take our problem seriously, we will be capable of solving them. there are reasons to be pessimistic about americans taking a problem seriously. on the other hand, last sunday we took something seriously and we took a vote on it. >> let's get the house lights up and get some questions from the audience. please wait for the microphone. there are a couple of ground rules for the next couple of days. please identify yourself and

i have always presumed, as did virtually everyone, in academia, regulatory areas, banks, presumed that risk potential was. having failed their means that we were under-capitalized in the banking system probably for 40 or 50 years. that has to be adjusted. host: st. louis is next, there'll come on the democrats won. caller: i'm not sure, but i like to ask, a bet that the rattner, paulson, bernanke, greenspan did not lose a dime during this fiasco. can you look into that? see how much money these geniuses lost over the last 10 years. we know the american people were hosed, the people do not have pensions, that wall street looted the country. could you tell much -- how much money that the rattner and greenspan and these clowns lost during the fiasco? guest: sir, you are in touch with a lot of the anger out there in the country. we have looked at the personal financial disclosures of those you mention. several have lost money. the one i know most about is ben bernanke. his stock portfolio went down considerably. of the people you mentioned, rubin is probably the wealthiest because he had a

all this in academia and know that the academic world does not provide much award and does provide disincentives were trying to communicate clearly to the public. [laughter] >> i won't let you off the hook. in the case of america as well, where we find ourselves in this moment in history, >> you are in california. [laughter] >> that is a fair point. do you think our system is resilience and of tax what is your intuition? you have issued a clarion call for us to do better. do you think we will? >> in principle, yes. our problems are solvable because they are all problems that we are causing ourselves. i am not worried about an asteroid beyond jupiter pearlihurtling toward us. whether we will succeed in solving these problems is the question of what will we americans decide. i cannot predict the outcome of the next election. all i can do is predict that if we take our problem seriously and sometimes we do and sometimes we don't, we will be capable of solving them. there are good reasons to be pessimistic about americans taking our problem seriously. on the other hand, last sunday we took something

clerk, five years as judge frank nominated by president reagan at the age of 36 spent seven years in academialet us talk about reality. let's leave these complaints out of it. we have so many people sitting on our courts of appeals nominated by a republican president, supported by both republicans and democrats who do not begin to have the kind of background that you do. they have the kind of bipartisan support that you have. i think we soon forget that. the american bar association found unanimously well qualified. you have strong support of both of your home state senators. [unintelligible] telos again the difference between the role of academic commentators as opposed to the role you have to play as a judge. tell us the difference and if you think you have any difficulties in adjusting to a new role as a judge. >> system, mr. chairman. the role of the judge -- certainly, mr. chairman. the role of the judge is to be an arbitrator of the cases that come to him or her. the way that that process works is through absolute fidelity through the applicable precedents and the language of the law, s

and i had always presumed, as did everyone in academia, regulatory areas, banks, presumed that risk potential was. having failed there, that means we were undercapitalizing the banking system probably for 0 or 50 years, and that has to be adjusted. host: alan greenspan earlier this week testifying before the committee. back to your phone calls. shawn is joining us from vancouver, washington, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd simply like to ask these two masters of the universe, mr. rube and inmr. prince, i'd simply like to ask them if either one of them is familiar with the novel by george orwell, "animal farm." as we all might remember in "animal farm," whenever the fat pigs that ran everything decided it was convenient for them to alter the rules, they would simply alter the rules and expect everyone else to not catch on. so here we are 30 years into deregulation and deunionization, americans have no job security, no vacation time, and these fat pigs have the gall to come on television and try and explain away their crimes. these people are so proud of their immodest

montgomery let me ask you about the state of academia on this, and that is are there studies out therewhere people have really analyzed maybe child psychology or how the industry really operates? is there a body of academic work on this but the subcommittee can look at to get some insight on how things really work out there? >> there is a growing body of research about how young people are interacting with on line social networks and other digital media. the mcarthur foundation deals with work in that area. none of it i have to say has really taken into account or looked at the commercial dimensions of the digital. >> or the privacy. >> or the privacy. there are some studies emerging on privacy that they are not looking at the whole picture of digital marketing. i will say also the experts in the food marketing area and i'm working closely with a number of them, because of the concerns about childhood obesity and the role of food marketing in that crisis had begun to pay more attention to the digital marketplace and i have been doing a lot of research in that area and in working with e

just some real world experience, not textbook and not an academia, i'm talking about out in my office practicing, last year practicing, something happened over 31 years, my patients got older with me and they started developing things. i saw 15 breast cancers myself the last year i was in my medical practice. i could feel one of them. the rest of them were picked up on -- i could not palpate the mass, they were picked up on screening ma'am grals -- mammograms. you know if you find that disease that early, the one of the great stories, dr. gingrey, that i like it tell. when i began practice, as all of us here are pretty close to the same vintage, began practice, 50% of the patients with breast cancer had a 50% five-year survival rate. today an early diagnosed breast cancer like that has a 95% survival rate. it's a wonderful story to tell. there's no reason for us to go backwards. i mean, it would be a tragedy of unbelievable proportions if we did that. i yield back. mr. gingrey: thank you. i'll yield time now to dr. paul broun from augusta. mr. broun: thank you, dr. gingrey. i'm asked

i keep hearing from people who are sort of refugees from either academia or, you know, sort of knowledge work. and who are doing things in the trades. there's quite a few of them out there. and it's been great to hear from them. in my own case, i tried to get an academic job. and did not. there's such a glut of ph.d.s as you probably know. i did land the job at the think tank -- >> which one? >> i'm not going to say. >> okay. >> i hated it from day one. >> why? >> well, this was a policy organization. and like any such place it had taken certain positions. and so there were some facts that we were more fond of than other facts. so the job sometimes seemed to require that i reasoned backwards as it were some desired conclusion to a suitable premise. and as the figure head of this think tank, i found myself making arguments that i didn't fully buy myself. and that was demoralizing. and by contrast, in fixing motorcycles, you answer to standards that really aren't open to controversy or interpretation. the bike either starts and runs right or it doesn't. so i like that about it. you might s

the other is academia. that is a whole different circle. they intersect. i once read a law review article in the "george washington law review." i cannot say i understood it, but i can say for sure that i could follow it -- the whole article. i feared for his career. in any event, i say this because it is academic at and i am outside both of them. i am one of the few people here who is genuinely an outsider. in fact, i now am the person on the second circuit, 20 judges or so -- i now know more about national security than any other of my colleagues. does that scare you or what? i am an outsider. as an outsider familiar with the press, i want to say this. in terms of secrecy -- it is hardly my insight. it was best put by professor bickle, in a book called "the morality of consent" in the mid-70s. the question is the rules of the game. this is an adversary process between the people on this side, that is to say the journalists, and the government. it always will be. nobody is going to solve this by saying "we have a new freedom of information act. now the pr

montgomery, let me ask you about the state of academia on this.and that is, are there studies out there where people have really analyzed, you know, maybe child psychology or you know, how the industry really operates? i mean, is that a body of academic work on this that the subcommittee can look at to get some insights on how things really work out there? >> there's a growing body of research about how young people are interacting with online social networks and other digital media. the macarthur foundation has funded a good deal of work and at any. not have it i have to say has really taken into account or look at the commercial dimensions of the digital -- >> dooming privacy? >> or the privacy. now, there are some studies emerging on privacy but they're not looking at the whole picture of digital marketing. i will say also that the expert in the food marketing area, and i working very closely with a number of them, because of the concerns about childhood obesity and the role of food marketing in that crisis, have begun to pay more attention to

. >> want to make one final point, a point about academia has been brought up.one of the models that we see for any student in the worry is i.t. university and deal mac lectures online. is probably a way in which the academic community around the world could do something along that model, call it a floating university or something like that. i guess part of the cold war efforts as well. i want to wrap my first of all thinking our panelists and everybody that was here today, and all of you. you know, in reading lolita it takes to create a relationship and once i keep the of the site invisible that they both suffer, and i think that's really an underlying theme of all we talked about today. thank you all very much for coming, and thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] . . the u.s. senate returns from its two-week spring recess today. they will gavel in two eastern for general speeches. and several other expiring federal programs. oklahoma senator tom coburn has been blocking the bill because not all the extensions are funded. sen

montgomery let me ask you about the state of academia on this, and that is are there studies out therere people have really analyzed maybe child psychology or how the industry really operates? is there a body of academic work on this but the subcommittee can look at to get some insight on how things really work out there? >> there is a growing body of research about how young people are interacting with on line social networks and other digital media. the mcarthur foundation deals with work in that area. none of it i have to say has really taken into account or looked at the commercial dimensions of the digital. >> or the privacy. >> or the privacy. there are some studies emerging on privacy that they are not looking at the whole picture of digital marketing. i will say also the experts in the food marketing area and i'm working closely with a number of them, because of the concerns about childhood obesity and the role of food marketing in that crisis had begun to pay more attention to the digital marketplace and i have been doing a lot of research in that area and in working with expe

and i had always presumed, as did virtually everyone in academia, regulatory areas, banks, presumed that risk potential was. having failed there, means that we were under capitalizing the banking system, probably for 40 or 50 years. and that has to be adjusted. >> host: saint louis is next. they are on the democrats lined for transfer of the "new york times." >> caller: i'm not sure but i would just like to ask him i bet you got your and paulson and bernanke and greenspan didn't lose a dime during this fiasco. can you look into that and see how much money these geniuses lost over the last 10 years? we know the american people were hosed. we know people don't have -- window wall street looted the country, but can you just tells how much money geithner and greenspan and the rest of these clowns lost during this fiasco? thank you. >> guest: sir, i feel your reflecting on the anger out there in the country. we have look at the personal financial disclosures of the gentlemen that you mention. several of them have lost money. the one i know most about is the current fed chairman ben bernanke

it's the holy grail in academia. i'm excited. mr. king, i know when you say that you send 100% of your kids to college, a lot of people don't believe it. >> right. right. >> reporter: so sometimes for their purposes. >> yeah. >> reporter: you've got don't deuce them to the wall. >> you need to see some proof, right? >> reporter: this is a lot of proof here. tell me what we're looking at. >> every time a student's admitted to college, what we do is take their admission letter, copy if and put it up on the wall on the school. >> reporter: people see your results and they're going to say, 100% of your seniors going on to college? you must pick the kids. you can't be a public school. >> people tell us that all the time. you're a selective school, a private school, but we're not. we're a charter school, but we're publicly funded and we don't select our students based on any criteria. >> reporter: this is urban prep. and urban prep is an oasis. an opportunity for children to believe in themselves and dream beyond their circumstances. creat