the special prosecutor was arguing that they had. after all of that, they reached the $64 million question. what is the scope of executive privilege? the president was arguing rough his lawyer that he had absolute privilege that the court did not have any right to demand information about presidential conversations. they were governed by executive privilege, period. the special prosecutor was arguing that there was no absolute right of executive privilege and whatever right existed was out-weighed by the need of the evidence. so those were the four basic questions presented to the court. the case was argued by the supreme court. it was a long argument f. it is unusual for the court to hear argument in the month of july. that's generally their summer break. it is unusual for the court to hear from the district court before waiting for the district intermediate appellate court to decide. the court said there was a public interest in the prompt resolution of the matter, and itt's why they dealt with it in in way. >> it was the point tha

the case was argued on july 8. it was a long argument. it is very unusual for the court to hear an argument in the month of july. that is generally their summer break. it is unusual for the court to hear argument directly from the district court, rather than waiting or for the immediate court to decide. interest inpublic the prompt resolution of the matter and that is why they expedited it in this way. to thate come back point, the point of executive privilege. around 1973 by president richard nixon created we know how the court decided it was a unanimous decision. explain that point. >> part of the working executive calledge is sometimes the liver to process privilege. while the president is having conversations with advisers, deciding what to do and not to do, there has to be some scope of confidentiality in order to be candid and not fear that publication of their advice is going to cause them a problem. that is the notion behind executive glitch. the court is considering that is a valid notion. scope and how would it outweigh? >> will

but there's a rule to put time consistent will place will argue to think paul volcker is arguing today that we do need rules. we don't want that kind of fiscal flexibly to allow -- again if the bankers think that will come and bail them out, it's called moral hazard, and there's references to take on a lot of risk. so when i first got involved was in the '80s with the s. and l. industry. they pretty much had access to the government bailout and they took advantage of it. so there's another example where, if you're careful about how much flexibility you want to allow, and i'll admit it's a tough issue but generally speaking i lean on the side of rules that her time consistent and commitments that we can make come and we do tide chance to some extent of fiscal authority. finally, the third example i would give, this is one i've been involved with. this is fiscal freedom, fiscal flexible at the state and local. i know jeanne was talking about at the national level, but the same principles but with all kinds of fiscal flexibly when it comes to economic development. cities and states use th

we argued this for many, many years.the president of our bank in 2004 wrote a book "too big to fail," and we argued in that book, look, guys, if bankers know -- especially the large banks know -- that if they take a lot of risk, heads they win, but tails the taxpayer loses. you're the coo of that company, you're going to take that bet anytime. you're encouraging risk taking. and the rule was supposedly we're not going to bail out these banks, but everybody knew the fed and treasury had this fiscal, we'll call it fiscal ability the come this and bail out these banks. we argued in '04 that what we should do instead and put some time consistent rules in place, rules that said if your bank gets in that kind of trouble, the president of the bank and the executives in that bank, you're gone. stockholders, gone. uninsured depositors, maybe we would, we would back some of you, but you would have to take a haircut so that we put a number of people at risk, their own skin in the game, and we argued that would help prevent a financ

you can argue. way beyond what is necessary and i guess i've been saying that people. may suffer from too much stress on how things are how they look how do you draw the balance because. you know that's. very important yes i agree you know it well let me say this first of all there was this idea that beauty and beautiful products and nice things were all for the elite and for the rich but i've been arguing for thirty years as a designer that should be for a majority now i'm not saying poor necessarily but at least middle class so any if you watch what's happened with robotics and technology and product design we buy things that are incredible for so little money it's quite amazing actually and i think we forget really how brilliant we have a kind of technology that costs so little you know in the sense of we've got a better world and it's not like we have. to be well off to have it. so in that regard that's number one number two is this obsession with kind of you know a lot it's always been as i said it's been a part of history if you look back at. the ming dynasty of

and they argue that the roberts bot, jrr, doesn't follow rules. second claim is that a jurist, right, has to take what hla called the internal perspective. that is he has to understand the legal norms of his society as being his norms and as applying to him and as basically, internalizing them. that's the whole idea. the external perspective, they argue, is the perspective that they associate with jrr, the roberts bot, in which, in fact, the norms are not sbeerinternal as being one's norms. they're externalized to the entity. the third argument they make is based on the philosophy of ronald dworkin. the most important point about dworkin for their purposes is that dworkin argues that what a jurist does in deciding cases is to articulate and apply and be in sympathy with the norms of the community in which the jurist is. and they argue that the john roberts bot, being a robot, cannot, in fact, be a member of the community and has not internalized the community's norms. so all of these arguments really revolve around, it seems to me, a set of assump

that's what we argued. and if there was a need to provide these drugs to women for free they could do it directly noting the most straightforward way for the government to meet it's compelling interest is to deliver the drugs directly. >> ira, does this extend the notion of person hood in r ifra. to individuals? >> i think it takes us some place new neither the first amendment's had not been interpreted this way. this was an open question, and so the court decided that open question in a way that puts us in a new place and opens up the possibility of other sorts of corporate religious freedom claims. >> now as we look back at juris prudence, in religious exercise was something inherent in a human being, in an individual. corporations can't go to church. they can't wear certain garb, they can't perform rituals. >> i was enter waded to the government's side of the case. but at this point whether corporations could exercise religion, i was not on the government side. we all know that corporations can corporate

we believe it as represented to be a recycling center, and that would be allowed and they want to argue that it is not a recycling center, which i guess that it would not be allowed if they don't meet those requirements. and so that is a little bit confusing in the first time that i heard it today and i know that they stated that staff had made, you know, statements that this use will be allowed without the neighborhood notification and is seems to flip back and forth and first they say stop told them that they need the notice and a prepared notice and they did submit it as part of the brief and notification and the materials that were presented last year and they went back to the planning department after that, a few days after that in december, and the staff told them that they did not. there is no documentation of any of this and there is no evidence that they spoke to four staff members and what the actual determinations were, or more importantly what they presented to the staff at that time. and we don't know exactly, what they presented as the use to the staff at that time and thi

that was his argue.f you look at where china started from, and we mentioned this earlier -- in 1980 it was one and a half to a dollar. over 20 years, that rate went up to about eight and a half. this wasn't an accident. this wasn't something that just happened because it happened. it was an act of deliberate policy, and the chinese -- the strength of the chinese compared to ourselves in the west and britain and america, if you like, is they have a very long-term view. american politicians were accusing the chinese of currency manipulation in the early '90s. bush one was saying, you guys are manipulating your currency. you're driving your currency down to flood our markets. but of course as a new president, always a new cycle, the chinese kept doing thearÑ se thing and they have a steady plan and that's what i tried to outline in the book in regard to their own currency. it's very easy to forget this but as late as the late 80s, '85, '86, a bit later than that, china was running a trade deficit if you can

as henry argued in 1864, it might not be possible for egregious acts. cases, a larger body could he held responsible. a city, army or entire community is sometimes punished for the illegal act of its rulers. southerners looked with scorn upon the protests after the earning. how they raise this vandalism. and those who have been the most outspoken advocates of the and suffering inhabitants. wished that they have not stooped to the level of the area, they had the areas that it before as hypocrites and cowards. out northerners pointed that it was thought the news who are hypocrites. they noticed the ruins are evidence of the tender theifully fast mercy of rebels who boasted so loudly. was a vengeful at inherently contradict three. they have their own goal of preemptive violence through act of revenge. use this to justify and sometimes fueled their actions ofinst civilians in the fall 1864. he pursued them, catching up to them in virginia. many contend they yelled remember chambersburg and surrender your villains of a shot. appeal,n further consider their a

we were graphically arguing that a code red with. that policy is just absurd i think janet yellen do is figure out some way through to bring out her inner helicopter and they're going to figure out how to put money more directly into of main street pockets now i don't know what form that's going to take when you look at what state and fisher did when he was head of the central bank of israel he's one of the most respected economist in the world he pushes and everybody's ears now used by steere of the pit when they had their crisis he bought anything that wasn't nailed there for get government bonds or our assets back he was buying securities and he would buy anything was moot but he was trying to pump money into the system and i think they did good at least as creative if not more creative the next time this country's never gone more than nine years without a business cycle recession. and if they normally yerbury we get a recession every three to four years if you go back that you question wondered so . will this one we're going to d

as henry argued in 1864, it might not be possible for egregious acts. cases, a larger body could he held responsible. a city, army or entire community is sometimes punished for the illegal act of its rulers. southerners looked with scorn upon the protests after the earning. how they raise this vandalism. and those who have been the most outspoken advocates of the and suffering inhabitants. wished that they have not stooped to the level of the area, they had the areas that it before as hypocrites and cowards. out northerners pointed that it was thought the news who are hypocrites. they noticed the ruins are evidence of the tender theifully fast mercy of rebels who boasted so loudly. was a vengeful at inherently contradict three. they have their own goal of preemptive violence through act of revenge. use this to justify and sometimes fueled their actions ofinst civilians in the fall 1864. he pursued them, catching up to them in virginia. many contend they yelled remember chambersburg and surrender your villains of a shot. appeal,n further consider their a

it really was a defining -- i would argue the defining moment in the modern republican party. there had been this right/left, conservative/liberal, northeast/western battle for a long time. there had been strong conservative forces behind bob taft, for example, of ohio. but what happened in 1964, it's one of those rare moments in history where you can really, really see and the television audience did. this is the first real television convention as well. >> that's important. you could see the page being turned. it wasn't simply that barry goldwater and his forces took over the republican party. it's the old eastern establishment that had dominated and rallied around rockefeller and scranton were permanently relegated to a minority status tom wicker who wrote about this july keepth, 1964 described as a complete state of exhaustion for more than eight hours for those not old enough to remember. this is when conventions really matter. >> platted platforms mattered. the out-voted liberals, we will call them, the eastern establishment, if you will, rallied behind a pro-civil right

in getting four years ago that's what i was arguing this and i mean we were grossly arguing that a code red with. that policy. it's just absurd i think genet yelland do is figure out some way to to bring out her inner helicopter priya and they're going to figure out how to put money more directly into. main street pockets. i don't know what form that's going to take when you look at what's getting fisher did when he was head of the central bank of israel he's one of the most respected economist in the world he pushed reason to everybody as they are now used by security. with they had their crisis he bought anything that wasn't nailed down for good government bonds or asset backed he was buying securities and more he was buying anything it was moving it was even trying to pump money into the system and i think they could get at least as creative if not more creative the next time this country's never gone more than nine years without a business cycle recession and they normally are every we get a recession every three or four years if you go back to quest two hundred so. we're this one w

. >> host: you argue that a return to the gold standard would be impractical. >> guest: i think it's impractical for what i'm saying is the current system is very vulnerable and in a way it explains what happened in 2008. i talk about that quite fully. i mentioned the fact that many actually predicted that this would happen when you have a system where you have fiat currency essentially printing money you will get a vulnerable and unstable system. that's something that we have to consider. >> host: what about the effect of war on 2008. obviously 9/11, seven years earlier but your argument was that it wasn't just about 9/11 but about something much bigger than that. >> guest: it wasn't that complicated but if you remember, i was with jpmorgan. i think that sort of a swear word in this country. i was a banker and the first thing that happened was obviously the index went down 10%. the dow jones went down i think it to personal amount, the same amount and the response of the central bank was to lower interest rates. interest rates have been coming down all through that year from 6.5. th

i have argued three. tenor is a little different because they seem to have less of a clear sense of what they think about the right answer going into the argument. time, they seem to me to have a pretty good sense of what they think and they are asking, really probing and hard questions, which is their job. it is what they should do. sometimes, it will be justice kagan giving me a tough time. that is their job. they should be probing for weaknesses. they should be challenging the of the united states term chart to work through what of whatications agreeing to the united states point of view would be. that is what they do. that is their job. this is a really smart group of sit on, the justices who the court, and they are incredibly well-prepared. it makes it a great challenge to argue, but it also makes it incredibly rewarding because you do feel like, win or lose, they understand what is at stake in the case. they understand what the issues are. the case is going to be decided on the basis of the legal is

i would argue him. clean that history is absolutely on my side -- i would argue absolutely that history is on my side. i would argue that hate speech has been a resource for gay people in this country. a man died the other day named fred cell. a crazy person. what he did was illegal in any country in europe. he picketed with signs that said "god hates fags." and that is pushing it even for me. but the thing is, he did so much to expose the hate on the other side that it helps us. when they are out there front and center, we have 20 years of an extraordinarily successful minority rights movement in this country to prove it. >> it can work that way sometimes, as in the example you've just given. but it can work at other ways at other times, which is what air just said. i think in this context of anti-semitism. there is a general feeling in this country that anti-semitism, at least in the united states, is a phenomenon of the past. or at least the kind that was very active in the 1930's and 1940's in this

i think i'm the only sg that's argued a patent case. i've argued three of them. the tenor of the argument is a little bit different in those cases because i think they are cases where the members of the court seem to have less of a clear sense of what they think about the right answer going into the argument so their argument has a different tenor as a result of that. most of the time they seem to me the justices seem to have a pretty good sense of what they think and they are asking really probing hard questions which is their job and it's what they should do. there will be some cases it will be the chief justice really giving me the tough time. some cases it will be justice kagan. that's their job. they should be probing for weaknesses and challenging the position of the united states in particular to try to work through what the implications of agreeing to the united states's view would be. that's what they do. that's their job. this is a really smart group of jurists, the justices who sit on the court. they are incredibly well prepared. so it makes it a great

and what they want to argu argus that a robot cannot enter into a form of life and participate in the community and therefore it can't follow rules and missing a a normal church split. church split. similarly, the whole idea of the prospective they argue is borrow something or does something to the theories about language and find. they would argue again the internal perspective is not just a state of mind that comes from beating a part of a particular community and if they are participating in the norms and seeing the norms and then of course the idea also seems to be related. so this is the part where i want to ask questions for them to develop their thesis. at the way in which the paper proceeds these three criteria of what it means to be fixed to be the true rest are articulated that some links. but then when they apply it to the john roberts robot, they just come close to restate they do not believe you can follow rules and they do not belief that he can take the internal perspective and they do not believe that as a member of the community that he can internalized the community

that's what i would argue. i think it's more not by the historical record. >> host: in terms of debt and deficit, your fascinating chapter on thatcher and reagan, what went out of the window was that balanced budget and your word almost a fetish, and in the end itself. i think of this extent reagan talked about fiscal responsibility but in the end -- >> guest: reagan was a great figure. his idea, he was very much, great metaphor about government spending related to alcoholism. you look at his speech asserted from the early time, we been on this massive bench him we've got a terrible hangover, we need to sort ourselves out. that was the rector, the metaphor to use. when you look at his record throughout the '80s, and yet you're right, because a defense spending, because of the cold war, there was this deficit. that was a time i think we certainly people on the conservative side of the argument here in the american worker focus on tax cuts regardless of expenditure might argument is really to the '60s the u.s. co

you can argue we have no authority. >> i will argue that in a moment. but i am arguing now only that you should not. i'm arguing now only that you should not because it would involve this court inexorably in a political process which has been determined by the constitution to be solely the function of the legislative branch. it cannot be that the impact of this court's decision in this matter, which is one of the principal matters now pending before the house, would be overlooked. it is a matter of realistic fact it would have a significant impact. the beneficiaries, the six defendants being tried. what the president has made freeze them completely. >> it may. the brady issue we don't believe it is properly before the court. it has not been briefed by us nor my brother. it was not decided by the district court. i would say in the experience i have had in connection with the mitchelluch as peace in new york, the case in washington, the case now going on, there has never been a clue the presidenthat has not made available appropriate brady material. what

their lawyers argue that's no longer legal.ar all persons human and corporate citizen and foreigner, resident and alien enjoy the special religious free protections of religion freedom restoration act. the defense department said it's aware of the filing and will respond through the legal system. >>> how does one harvard law professor plan to rid politics of super p.a.c.s? by forming a super p.a.c. may day p.a.c. was founded in order to elect officials who are committed to campaign refinance reform. the group argues large contributions from a few individuals destroyed the capacity to governed and blocked needed reforms on both sides of the aisle. the super p.a.c. has raised over $7 million since may 1st from more than 52,000 individuals. >>> finally one washington pet store owner stands by her product. all the way to the dinner table. dorothy hunter wants to prove her pet food is not only healthy enough for cats and dogs but for humans too. hunter is halfway through a 30 day pet food only diet and knows people may think it's cr

the school argues same-sex marriage goes against church doctrine. there is no federal or georgia state law that bars an employer from hiring or firing a person based on their sexual preference. but dollar's lawyer argues getting fired for not conforming to traditional gender stereotypes violates title vii of the civil rights act. title vii bars discrimination on the basis of sex. the point's been argued before and mostly dismissed, except for a case this past april that raised the hopes of gay rights advocates. a judge in washington dc allowed an employee from the library of congress to sue his supervisor for penalizing him for being gay. he argued that female co-workers, also sharing an interest in men, were not subject to the same harassment. the equal employment opportunity commission, with whom dollar has filed a complaint, also says gender stereotyping is a form of discrimination based on sex. is that right, congresswoman norton and former eeoc member holmes-norton? >> i was surprised and pleased that a judge here in the district of columbia in

allen argued the case before the supreme court, the leading supreme court case involving recognizing the second amendment as an individual right and he successfully persuaded the court to recognize that interpretation of the amendment so we are so fortunate to have him here today. he's been named by the journal online america's most influential lawyers. he's worked as a deput a deputyy general for the state of california and the senate judiciary committee anjudiciaryw teaching at georgetown law school and we are thrilled to have him. thank you so much for joining. [applause] i was looking left and should have looked right. the second amendment creates unusual bedfellows. to my left is the author of a superb new book. the second amendment a biography. michael is the president of the brennan center for justice at nyu law school and nonpartisan heart of the institute focuses on preventive systems of democracy in the constitution and he directed speechwriting for president bill clinton and is the author of my fellow americans and three other books publishers weekly has called this book t

as people used to argue back in the nineteen seventies in the one nine hundred eighty s. that there should be expanded commercial ties because that conditions and makes both economies co dependent on each other and that would be the real solution to preventing unexpected political outcomes. you know but a lot of me i don't think we're going to see that because it's you know you either surrender or you know we're going to take one because the rhetoric coming out of a western capitals particularly washington i mean in a way and i don't want to be i don't want to exaggerate this here but we are at war not of the conventional sense of more of a hybrid war i mean there is every attempt to damage russia is much as possible here and it's across a wide array of sectors it's not military right now thank goodness but in every other sense there's been a declaration of war. and yeah i agree with this point of the big neil single out important difference in terms of the west there is a lead and there are common people and the balls even is that he's as recently as right after this pla

they can argue all they want about this. this is a take. >> reporter: pebble partnership along with state of alaska sued the epa. the inspector general is looking into it and the government oversight committee is investigating but hitting road blocks a key now retired epa ecologist can't be located. >> we are not overreaching in terms of the work of the agency but applying the law as we're supposed to. >> reporter: bristol bay is a $400 million a year industry. pebble partnership insists it can do a mine without any harm. the question is will they ever get a chance to make their case? >>> police are crediting a doctor who wasn't supposed to have a gun at work with saving lives after a patient opened fire at a hospital psychiatric unit yesterday. the gunman killed a case worker and wounded a psychiatrist. the psychiatrist pulled his own gun out. critically wounding the gunman who had dozens more bullets in his gun. hospital policy bars anyone except on duty law enforcement from carrying weapons on campus. >>> presidents come

we have never argued, and of course there would be no basis for arguing that the mere grand jury finding, whether on the face of the indictment or in the grand jury's minutes, that the president or any of the other 18 unindicted co-conspirators were members of this conspiracy would, itself, be enough at trial to want judge's admission of extra judicial statements given by those co-conspirators. we are not making that contention here. the issue arises because a motion to quash a subpoena was filed prior to trial. and, the basis for that motion was a claim of executive privilege, a governmental privilege that exists fro the benefit of legitimate governmental processes. we countered that apart from nixon versus sirica and the balancing process, and apart from the waiver argument that we also develop in some length, this president, as difficult as it was to say this not because of the evidence but because of the inherent awkwardness of it, this president is not in a position to claim this public privilege for the reason that a prima facie showing can be made that these conversations were not

their backers in washington and brussels can argue and are arguing therefore the ukrainian government can prosecute an offensive of any nature now knowing that the americans and the europeans are backing them so that no matter how bloody it will get the ukrainian government knows that western media is not going to report on it because western major follows the line of western foreign policy and if things get to difficult for the ukrainian forces in say donetsk undoubtedly there will be some form of military assistance being given by the americans and the europeans that could be expert soldiers sent there to advise the ukrainian commanders it could also be in the form of satellite information logistical support but also we can't rule out that the ukrainian forces could be receive in military hardware from the americans possibly former soviet equipments you said yourself that the u.s. has no morals when it comes to bloodshed around the world but still we're seeing dramatic footage we're seeing the videos we've seen the humanitarian crisis right now in the east of the country where is th

also arguing for judicial restraint. what we now have is a judiciary that has in part been selected and chosen by republican presidents and confirmed by republican cynics who have adhered or claimed to adhere to a philosophy of judicial restraint in which they will defer to what they consider to be the more authentic or accountable branches of government, either congress at the federal level or state legislatures at the state level. this is been a big mistake. it is been a big mistake but one of the reasons why it was possible for john roberts to save the law by adopting a saving construction, which was not what the law actually said but enough construction or to uphold the law was because he had behind him sort of the impulse of judicial restraint that they put it on the court in the first place, and put other justices on the court and it is almost a miracle that the four justices who also got on the court adhering to various strains of judicial restraint actually realized that at this point is time for judicial engagem

some have argued the real crisis in chinese football goes deeper.t's a social and political one and there will be no easy fix. firstly the country's massive boom has left parks or playing fields. then there's the high pressure education system which leaves your average student with little time for sport. any way, who would want to kick a ball around in pollution that gets this bad? if china is serious about its football ambitions, critics argue it needs to widen access for all not just those that can afford the $6,000 u.s. a year it cost to come here. bbc news at the ever grand football school. >> india doesn't do well either, another big country. this time it's germany that has become the first european country to win the world cup in latin america. a billion of us around the world watch had the match. the trophy will be on show in berlin tomorrow. we leave you with some of the best images from what many have felt have been a magical world cup. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ you tap the bumper of a station wagon. no big deal... until your insurance compan

different if you put this argument across this time around and i think you you do precisely that you argue that the russian state of the russian government still relies on walk as a means of manipulation social control and essentially making money off its citizenry there's certainly an element of that it's what economists talk about is a revenue trap that once you find a good source of revenue it's really hard to find a replacement for it this is something that has unfortunately very deep roots in russia and you're perfectly right that in comparative context alcohol revenues have been a primary source of government revenues if you go back to the. hundreds in many cases . primary source of revenue the thing that changes i think in a bit of the russian context is just the degree to which it is encouraged sort of a legacy of over intoxication and stymied any efforts for a long time at temperance well you just mentioned this legacy of intoxication. in relation to the soviet union and it's true that the soviet government had a monopoly on what the production but i would really taken issue with

would argue that parts of the marketer clearly stretched.he talked about parts of the high-yield leverage market and i would argue i think they will do reasonably well and still do their job but are they elevating the industry? >> i know your expertise is not necessarily in equities but it's in investing. discernre trying to what the premium is in the market as a result of zero interest rate policy, what could you talk about in terms of multiples? if the s&p 500 is trading at 18 x --? >> i don't think there is enough good quality work done on cash flow generation relative to the cost of companies financing. if today, the subsidy to the equity market is extraordinary. you take the cash flow they are throwing off relative to the cost of financing, it is an extra in early attractive levels and that's why companies will buy back a tremendous amount of their stock or activists will force them to. happened inat has nonfinancial, does the last time the -- 10 years as they have built a cash position because they are concerned about conditions and wh

in your political hat, you would argue what? >> i'm probably better with my lawyer hat. >> can it be one in the same in this case? >> a slight difference of opinion with amy about this. it's a now you see it, now you don't type of an opinion where there's an appearance of narrowness but the implications are very broad. take the closely held corporation, for example. you suggested that the case is open to closely held interpretations. their basic position is that all corporations essentially represent the sum total of the beliefs and alcohols of the believers, the shareholders, the employees, the officers. there's nothing really to distinguish closely held corporations from others under the court's analysis. >> only these nine people, basically what these five are saying, that they wouldn't, that they're not going to accept a larger company trying to do this? >> the court decides cases on individual facts brought before it. they try to inti dmate we shouldn't be concerned t doesn't prejudge, in any way, future cases. >> john, you

he argues that smoking is not as risky as many people believe and says the data on secondhand smoke is unreliable. he further argues that lifetime medical costs for smokers are less than for nonsmokers, so taxing smokers for being a burden on our health care system is unjustified. this is about 50 minutes. >> welcome, everyone, to today's meeting. i'm corey swanson, executive vice president with the john locke foundation. it's a pleasure to have you all here today. and also i wish to extend a warm welcome to our c-span audience. it's a pleasure to have you with us today as well. i'd like to ask you, if you have a cell phone, to please put it on silent or turn it off. that would be be most appreciated. today's talk is by our good friend, dr. john staddon, from duke university. john is no strange or to the shaftsbury society and to the john locke foundation. he's been a friend of ours for well over two decades. john, it is rumored, when he started to talk that his first sentence was i am and forever an icon no be dallas. -- iconoclast. he's also known for his critiques of behaviorism and

their well being of their citizens have exercised some sort of social control but what you seem to be arguing is quite the opposite that successive russian governments have intentionally encourage alcoholism as a way of filling state coffers am i reading you right yeah that's one element of the call revenues or essential part of russian state craft going back hundreds and hundreds of years well but i think if we go back a couple of a couple of hundred years let's say a nineteenth or even eighteenth century many states throughout the world used. to hold revenues to that kafir it's quite different if you put this argument across this time around and i think you you do precisely that you argue that the russians they have the russian government still realize and want to as a means of many place and social control and essentially making money off its citizenry there's certainly an element of that it's what economists talk about is a revenue trap that once you find a good source of revenue it's really hard to find a replacement for us and this is something that has unfortunately very deep roots in