they were nacve, courageous but nacve.ents would go and get upset and there be arguments, families broke up. there is one book written called the tulsa courage written a few years ago about a family of three, four, five, six, two parents and four kids, three of the kids joined resistance. they survived the war but the parents and older brother were arrested and executed. how do you think that makes you feel? they didn't participate in the resistance. there were examples of that. they were family arguments. there were splits and the other thing that's interesting about this book, i thought this was a five year period there is a lot of growing up in those five years. 13 to 18, 12 to 17, see how much i can do this. 11 to 16. [laughter] there is a lot of there's a lot of growing up, of maturing, learning more about yourself, self awareness to me that makes the story more fascinating but more difficult to grab. it's very hard to start with somebody who is 13 and think they will be the same five years later at 18. that's what's

but he wasn't nacve about it and he realized there were risks.and one of the risks or to the party that he wanted and other republicans wanted to stay in power. when he was accused of just wanting down, he said of course you want power. to execute laws that will be in concert with why we fought to this war. which was not just to abolish slavery but the pernicious effects of slavery which is white supremacy and racism. so that's what i mean about that. your point about making a principled stand is idealistic and wonderful and i love it very much. at the other side of that political principled question is how to save really, the country and the ideals of the country. it may be in this particular case in 2019, with an election coming up, that impingement is not the way to do that. even though it may be a principled action. even though i hear what you say. one have to think of, as david within, backlash, basically. >> i think what is critical is that there be accountability. when a president violates norms, that there be accountability so that the le

i am not nacve enough to think let's the trilateral treaty and everything will be great because the chinese don't even acknowledge that inf matters, they don't. it's not a problem, we don't have to talk about it, we're not interested anyway that's otthe real problem for japan area interestingly enough, as you know the japan china relationship has been getting more in the problem solving mode and a little bit warmer. and i think some of the senior bureaucrats from the ministries of foreign affairs for disarmament, the bureau chiefs f have decided they need to have a little bit of a conversation about the possibility of discussion of inf. i don't think, it's hard for me to imagine how japan and thchina could have an effective treaty of their own. but it's interesting that it's rising a little bit in the japan china relationship at a lower level. reality is i don't think our government is interested in disarmament.>> and the conversation between japan and the united states don't seem to be there. >> they're not there either, exactly so last nuclear posture review and i don't want to bore you w

so i am not so nacve as to believe that those who would suppress the vote will always be soindiscreet i'd like to ask miss perez, can you address what kind of evidence we use to show disparate impact to show that there's actual discrimination occurring in these voting cases? >> under section 2 we have what many of us call a disparate impact was candor whereby congress in his wisdom set forth a series of factor that are designed to smoke out intentional discrimination because folks are exactly as members can one noted, a little bit more discreet. and that evidence is in fact prove it if of what people are intending to do if they felt like they could get away with it. in addition, we have the continuing evidence of current conditions which would justify section 5 of the voting rights act in unrealized voting rights act that includes a coverage formula that is rolling, dynamic and looks at a number of factors , both geographically and in terms of conditions that cause problems so taken together, a voting rights act has a robust section 5, a modern section 4 and a strong section to will b

but he wasn't nacve about it and he realized there were risks.one of the risks or to the party that he wanted and other republicans wanted to stay in power. when he was accused of just wanting down, he said of course you want power. to execute laws that will be in concert with why we fought to this war. which was not just to abolish slavery but the pernicious effects of slavery which is white supremacy and racism. so that's what i mean about that. your point about making a principled stand is idealistic and wonderful and i love it very much. at the other side of that political principled question is how to save really, the country and the ideals of the country. it may be in this particular case in 2019, with an election coming up, that impingement is not the way to do that. even though it may be a principled action. even though i hear what you say. one have to think of, as david within, backlash, basically. >> i think what is critical is that there be accountability. when a president violates norms, that there be accountability so that the lesson