united states, not a single american has ever been killed on u.s. soil by any foreign national from anynef the countries that have been banned on tru's travel list. the u.s. military thinks it's a terrible ea. the intelligence community thinks it's a terrible idea. a itoke to say that this is about preventing terrorism. this iof again, another example a demonstiable routine of racist s by this white house. vu: all right. now to your book, "god: a human history," it's more a study of how gods conceptualized rather than a history of god.a yothat most of us try to humanize god. what do you mean by that?la well, it's this sort of natural impulse that we have that we project upon god our own emotions, our own personriities, our own characics, even our motivations, even our own bodies. we create a god that basically looks and acts, feels and thinks like we do, and that's precisely why we have so many great religiors conflicts around the because really what we are doing is implantininin our sense of the d and so what i am aing forod is to reverse that process, to dehumanize god and try to think

guest: anytime we keep kids in the day -- anyn kids watching are going to hate me for this, but it'ster keep kids in the school building for longer in the day. it only benefits kids, parents, the school as a whole and the community. thing.the we talk about community building. a great arts is presence in any community, big themall, it only helps community, also on a business level. weekn, we're here this with the people who actually the musicuments, merchants. businesssee it from a level as well. the stores benefit. if there is a performing arts center in the town, big or small, every restaurant, every around thatre performing arts center does well. this is really a community builder. host: from georgia, independent line. hello. let's try another. centro, california, independent line. you're next up. morning.ood one thing i've learned about music is that it's really math. and i was in workforce trained years outor about 16 here. i set up a machine -- computer machining class. and in that class, the instructor was the machinist. and very good machinist. in the conversation, he mentione

. >> alan martinallen martin, anyn this? >> i agree with phil's comments that it is a hot space. other people are discovering the attractiveness. others move their allocation from private debt from 10-20 and they are a 40 billion-dollar company. last week, that was the number 1 area that they talked about in terms of the opportunity to earn extraordinary returns in what is otherwise not an attractive market. i think bill is right. there are a lot of people coming into this space. i think that the amount of money that is still dislocated from the financial crisis is substantial. there is an ability to, eight, i am still very constructive about moving into that space. we should be careful. i am probably more optimistic than he which the pace -- and -- at which the pace we could do it. you certainly don't want to be overly hazed because a number of managers that are very... those are not the ones you want to deal with. you want to do with the folks you have been through a cycle and know how to do it but it is a relatively new space. bottom line, you are right to adopt the allocation

at the beginning or end of argument, you don't hear any almost anyn contested case, get that much time to speak. >> and number one, the reason is not anything about affirmative action. it's all because of one guy we earlier,ing about antonin scalia. your public can listen to any oral argument on oyz.org and you type in brown or whatever case you want to listen to. after 1986. >>> when scalia comes on the court, oral argument becomes a very different thing. you could come up with a speech. now i go off with one line on a i get thatnd hope one line out before i get my first question. that's the first thing. then-justice heard question tok that mr. cox. rehnquist was a fabulous questioner, just phenomenal. lot ofestion typifies a supreme court argument, which is they are the -- the justices are readg to say, okay, i've your brief, but how far does the logic of your position extend to? they come up with hypotheticals, like, okay, it's 50 16 out of 50 seats, it's out of 50 seats. does your argument still hold? why not? what are the logical limits to your position? that's really what the art