they're all the great philosophers of modernity, right? all of them think their task is over, the judaism of all previous philosopher. now, the result of this as i try to show in the book is that by the 20th century there is no aspect of modern culture that cannot be thought of in terms of judaism and anti-judaism. so much so that you find like in parliament during, an austrian, a member of congress in 1970 saying culture is what one jew plagiarizes from another. the great impresarios of this discourse, of this logic, were of course the nazis. but again we need to remember that this logic could be applied to anybody and everybody. of course, real jews, millions of real jews suffered from the nazis of this logic but a judaizers all of jews of culture. of the 112 artists that hitler and others condemned as degenerate artist, jewish artists, only six were jews even by the nazis definition of judaism. the others were all other things. the same is true of the many musicians like -- condemned. or the many mathematicians. tenacity with jewish mat

again it's comes out from one's philosophic thinking at a very young age and some people simply feel believe deeply that the government is the answer to running a society and others say wait a minute government should protect the individual but people need to run their own society individuals need to be the entrepreneur words of their own lives and that is a philosophical divide that we're going to work through for a long long time. so when it when can we expect the movie to be out. at this point we're still looking at happens to be a friday july fourth two thousand and fourteen friday that's what we're shooting for independence day you know any any reason why you put it on independence day well we want one of the give ourselves more time in part one i had restrictions. because we had the expiration of the rights for coming up with part two. i did except a few financings from other people and i did say to them we would try to get the movie out before the election so it came out in october two thousand and twelve part three there are no restrictions we've got budget we've got a good s

again it's comes out from one's philosophic thinking at a very young age and some people simply feel believe deeply that the government is the answer to running a society and others say wait a minute government should protect the individual but people need to run their own society individuals need to be the entrepreneur of their own lives and that is a philosophical divide that we're going to work through for a long long time. so when it when can we expect the movie to be out. at this point we're still looking at happens to be a friday july fourth two thousand and fourteen friday that's what we're shooting for independence day you know any any reason why you put it on independence day well we wanted one of the give ourselves more time in part one i had restrictions. because we had the expiration of the rights for coming up with part two. i did except a few financings from other people and i did say to them we would try to get the movie out before the election so it came out in october two thousand and twelve part three there are no restrictions we've got budget we've got a good scrip

that question is one for philosophers, not for scientists. the way many philosophers reconcile moral responsibility with the fact that activity is material brain that we are conscious and our actions flow for reason that we are conscious of and we can modify those actions based on reason. as long as we can do that, even if we are determined, then it is legitimate to hold people accountable. but that is a philosophical question. >> host: are you considering this observation is that we can see 300 milliseconds before you pick up this pencil that your use of that your brain is really doing a? >> guest: i don't think that is a compelling reason to think we are on conscience all the time, that our activities bypass consciousness all the time. you drove here. i am sure -- the kind of state were using looking out the window and all of a sudden you are here. lots of activities are so internalized they become unconscious. it's the opposite of psychoanalysis. you want to make the behavior conscious, but the point is we said before, strangers to ourselv

and that question is one for philosophers, not for scientists to be the way that many philosophers reconcile responsibility with the fact that we are the product of our activities and of material gains is we are conscious and our actions flow from reasons that we are conscious of and that we can modify those actions based on reason, and as long as we can do that even if we are determined, then it's legitimate to hold people accountable but that is a philosophical question. >> host: but then are you conceding this observation that mirror scientists made how we can see milliseconds before you decide to cut this pencil that you are going to use and that means your brain is doing the steering? >> guest: i don't think that is a compelling reason to think that we are unconscious all the time, that our activities bypass our consciousness all the time. sometimes they do. how did you get here? you drove here. but you didn't -- it's the kind of thing you are thinking looking out the window and all of a sudden you are here and these are lots of kind of activities that are so internalized and become on

why.not know i did not know what a -- asopher was area did philosopher was.he crises are more crises of humanity. what can we do? just interested in jobs so we can become? -- so we can be materialist? we have to grow our souls. the world needs us. tavis: i love you. you know that already. and philiped fdr randolph and the work they did together. week marks the 50th anniversary of the big march in .etroit area a lot of folks do not know this. the famous i have a dream speech we will celebrate 50 this coming august. before keying it got washington to deliver this, he went to detroit right about now, and that is when he tried out the team. he used detroit as a testing ground for a speech he would later give in august he most is famous for. he did that first in detroit. grace lee boggs was in the audience. she was one of the organizers when dr. king came to detroit for this grand celebration. i will let you tell the story. you are 98. i am only 48. tell me what happened in detroit. birmingham had happened. the movement for human rights had decided to boycott down

>> a critical aspect to that is a philosophical one. i would be interesting philosophically. d interested in hearing philosophically. >> there's a clinical or practical aspect to that question or discussion of that question. but i'm very interested in knowing about mike's philosophical take on it in general as well. when you think -- when you hear the high-profile suicides, the ones i've heard, they actually have been in the context of someone being cyber bullied. i think is the term that's now. where the social interactions within something like facebook and the like are so out there and open that what used to occur as called backbiting in the halls of our schools among children or among our high schoolers or middle schoolers, kind of remained there. so that it was more of a rumor thing and very painful and very destructive even then. but now it takes on the role in terms of the facebook type of socialization. where any time anyone feels something, it just splatters not to another person about the other person, but -- or not to that person directly, but it splatters to the h

but that's a philosophical question. >> host: right. but are you conceding then this observation, you know, some neuroscientist had made, aha, we can see 300 milliseconds that you're going to pick up this pencil, you're going to use these fingers to do it, and that means -- >> guest: yeah. i just don't think that's a compelling reason to think that we are unconscious all the time, that our activities bypass our conscious all the time. sometimes they do. you drove here, i'm sure -- >> host: through washington traffic. [laughter] >> guest: you didn't, there's the kind of thing that you're thinking looking out the window and all of a sudden you're here. there's lots of kinds of activities aren't so internalized they become up conscious. that's the whole point of sports. it's the opposite of psychoanalysis. you want to make behavior unconscious, and in analysis you want to make the unconscious conscious. but the point is, as we said before, strangers to ourselves, a wonderful book about the adaptive unconscious. we often don't know why we h

and that question is one for philosophers, not for scientist. the way that philosophers reconcile moral responsibility with the fact that we are the products of our activity is the product of the material brain is that -- with conscious, and our actions flow from reasons that we're conscious of, and those -- and that we can modify those actions based on reason. and as long as we can do that, even if we're determined, then we -- then it's legitimate to hold people accountable. but that's a philosophical question. >> host: are you conceding this observation from neuroscientists that, we can see 300 milliseconds before you decide to pick up this pencil you're going to use three fingers to do and that means your brain is really doing this? sunny don't think that's a compelling -- i don't think that's a compelling reason to think that we are unconscious all the time. that our activities bypasses our consciousness all the time. how do you get sneer you drove here. you didn't -- the kind of thing where you're thinking, looking out the window, and all o

not to interfere with the domestic politics bartered law it will try to present my question in a philosophical way in a gentle way i think iran is a clear example of how you can bring your mutual relation to a disastrous state. simply by. inconsistent. america and american. the focus. of course iran. i think it's really at its biggest growing she dressed with the u.s. because they rely on the principle who's those who are. not with us those are against us a friend of principle. and i think. suspicions invisible suspicions. that's more as we said lacking syria and assistance to the war russia has been a very pragmatic school in. direct confrontation with the us because you were understand the cost of. especially on the use of force which he cannot resolve the. bigger responsibility child you do find this line between what. voyaging confrontation. infects security but on the other hand. preserving the promoting these national interests. was there. against iran or against the need states was there. or the us she starts off going with. this is a question that you can. spend several hours. answerin

you have a philosophical basis for not wanting a e-mail. >> either philosophical or technical one. if one request to file paper would we put that into an electronic form? >> it would not be exactly the same. first of all when the paper copy comes in, it would be manually processed and it would not be available in a timely manner as the electronic filing would be. and then the second aspect would be when the electronic filing comes in we get two pieces of information. the data format and we are also getting it put on to the form. so in the future if we provide this information in a data format to the public, anyone who filed a paper copy would be excluded from that data set so to speak. the public has the potential for the information for those who file the paper copies. >> that is what i was questioning if one might want to do the paper one that less likely that the public would get the less access to it and you say file electronically and those are available to anybody going tolt website and pulling it up. >> and when you file a written one they have to come down here and look at

. >> and a philosopher. he said art is gymnastics in which we practice to understand what we don't understand. and i think that's what i love about art and also what i think would encourage people to come -- to become familiar with art. not to go there to learn now go there to lose themselves in things that don't necessarily make sense. (laughs) >> rose: why did you become an artist? >> i think for me it was something that i did second nature all my life and maybe resisted in some ways because i was always -- was thought of as the artist. but i think that in relation to your question in the show, i think, you know, one of the things that was interesting is this opening and, you know, i talked about in the terms of the sprawl of the number of countries that have come into the biennale but also the opening up of the boundaries of where the biennale is held, you know, the locations where it's held. one of the things i tried do with the pavilion is to actually do works that were unidentified as being part of the

it's not just philosophical, it's practical about balancing this notion of formal quality with actual quality. >> that's the most interesting .art about today's decision they are representing different ideas, the one idea being that quality is realized when people are treated si met triically and the narly si metically and use of race today is the same kind of use of race in the past. using race to include people is the same as using race and segregation to exclude people. in some ways it is a replay of one of the most emp mouse cases we had. the court didn't say that the 14th amendment permits inquality. what they said was segregation was not unequal because blacks and whites couldn't is it in each other's cars. all the symbol, the message, the conditions pushing people into second class citizenship, those are all asymmetries of race and 240es are asymmetries justice againstburg sizz the 14 ths amendment has something to say about. clarence thomas was saying all of the asymmetries, the fact that race doesn't mean the same thing, the fact there are all sorts of conditions associated w

she died in childbirth having had her second daughter who began a grew up to marry so the philosopher, her first child of was a rather bad levy behaved american who then made themselves scarce. >> host: was she considered radical in her time and what were some of her ideas that were their rights for women? >> guest: she thought they should have the same education and should have access to the professions. and she actually said at the end of this that she thought they should have the liberal rights and she was going to write about that later. she thought the whole sexual relationship was wrong if women were regarded as pretty toys or balls where men have a monopoly of reason. she felt that they should become much closer all of which i think has happened >> host: claire tomalin where did you grow up and go to school and first job here in london. >> guest: my father was french and my mother was an english woman and the war came so we were out of london and then i live outside london for a while with my mother and i went to cambridge university to study english which was important and i g

. >> practical questions to deeper currents, theoretical or philosophical currents. an intellectual is someone who the world into a series or image b he has. so if you take a broader view of a notion that an intellectual tries to connect theory and practice, then maybe that's right. that's certainly part of what my work tries to do. >> the information on your doing so many you things, what's the number one thing you do for a living. national editor of affair which is is a quarterly public of essays on policy and i'm the fellow of the washington. re in >> what do you do? editing, means editing. academic academics, think tank individuals we might say again. how do we fix social security? we fix it. american principles, the ideals, the challenges of this moment. my job is to find the writers, find them write for us, edit it's read make sure to get it noticed. as a think tank scholar, my job questions, toublic write about them, to try to influence the public debate in various ways. my work on that front is in the area of health care and budget questions. work some on,y t

but we share philosophical concerns. we jealously guard human liberty. i would say my philosophical journey started 10 or 12 years ago. >> a: what about you, john? is this a full-time jofor you? >> i am the chairman of the national board of organization for marriage, but it's a volunteer position. we have a full-time staff. but my day job is a law professor atay chapman universi. >> greta: before this, you were involved in these issues? is this new to you? >> i ran for attorney general in california in 2010. that was as a tea party move was kicking into high gear. i probably spoke to every single one of the groups in california in that campaign of theynire terrific people, home-spun american who is have had enough what have is happening in our country and wanted to do something about it. before they handed down something worse to tr kids. >> greta: any doubt in your mind you are targeeir and not a delay in your certificate? >> no doubt whatsr. >> greta: no. it's hard to claim tathis was inadvertent, when someone took the trouble to redact the irs informa

some of them aren't deeply philosophical -- some of them are deeply philosophical. it gives us a chance to edit their work and make sure that it is red and to get them noticed. really, my job is to study public questions and influence of the debate in various ways. most of my work is in the area of healthcare. deeper. work some on a questions, questions about how relates to theory in american politics. >> where did this all start? >> i started as a college student. i came to washington to go to american university. in the course of studying there, i worked on capitol hill really from the very first week of my very -- as a freshman. bob frank.for he passed away this year after a long fight with cancer. he was a member of congress. a member of the budget committee. i worked for the budget committee because of him after that and then i worked for newt gingrich when he was speaker of the house for the last year or so. >> what is the one thing you take away from the newt gingrich experience? >> working in college and -- working in congress in general is extraordinary for

series with fantastic conversations and film segments exploring the most urgent, existential, philosophicaland spiritual issues of the 21st century. so, settle back, take a slow, deep breath, as we join our trusted guide and host, phil cousineau, on this fascinating episode of "global spirit," the first internal travel series.

to have you with us aaron thanks for having me on before we get into specifics in this overall philosophical argument security versus privacy. where do you stand look i think what's difficult is it's not black and white at the end of the day after september eleventh we weren't sure when the next strike was going to come we weren't sure what tools are some national security team needed to keep us safe and at the end of the day the congress before i got here decided that they were going to err on the side of safety and give additional tools tools that had never been given to prior administrations to try and keep americans safe all while understanding that these would be used to target suspected terrorists people that were suspected to eventually do us harm or potentially do us harm both the bush administration and the obama administration both to reassure congress and the american people that these tools would never be used to compile information or go after everyday ordinary american citizens and i think what the latest development has caused a shiver down the spine of americans is that they

and i can think of at least two things where -- which are both philosophical questions. someone the ability to report. reporting requires a transaction between a source and a reporter and if those transactions cannot be private, that's the end of investigatory reporting. that's something society ought to think about. and the other is protest. the ability to protest and to dissent from the economic or the environmental or the political system that we have and if these methods started to be used to anticipate or suppress or cut off forms of protest then you're moving into a kind of government a kind of surveillance which has no happy precedence in history. and i think what snowden was saying is from his desk he saw this happening and he just thought, that's what we ought to be discussing. and you can't have that debate without introducing facts into the public domain. >> rose: there is no evidence that you have seen that he had any other intent or motivation except to be driven by theidea you just suggested? >> we have no evidence. there is -- i mean, what he's clearly try

the mayor will have the same philosophical approach for the retirees i thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> my name is kay walker i'm a member of po b prior vice president of the 10 to one retirees etc. i'm going to pick up where sharon left off. i'm not supportive of even though i'm in po b. i totally appreciate the fund and the fiscal responsibility but the thing is there's one other element this won't be fully funded until 20043. that's a long time. you know, and actually, i would like to see the mechanisms that the act require put out there before i would support anything. we do that in labor we don't just look at the written word we have charts and figures. i think this is lacking the background is lacking. and also in terms of the language and that's on page 6 and it gives so much upon recognition of the cities accuracy and i'm not of time; is that correct? >> you have about 30 seconds. is city and county like sharon said we don't know who's going to be on board >> thank you. next speaker, please >> goo

commercial galleries around union square, and it is because of their core mission, to increase social, philosophical, and spiritual change my isolated individuals and communities. >> it gives a statement, the idea that a significant art of any kind, in any discipline, creates change. >> it is philosophy that attracted david linger to mount a show at meridian. >> you want to feel like your work this summer that it can do some good. i felt like at meridian, it could do some good. we did not even talk about price until the day before the show. of course, meridian needs to support itself and support the community. but that was not the first consideration, so that made me very happy. >> his work is printed porcelain. he transfers images onto and spoils the surface a fragile shes of clay. each one, only one-tenth of an inch thick. >> it took about two years to get it down. i would say i lose 30% of the pieces that i made. something happens to them. they cracked, the break during the process. it is very complex. they fall apart. but it is worth it to me. there are photographs i took 1 hours 99 the former s

to my left is michael, he is a writer and philosopher. he has written many books and published in lots of amazing magazines. further down is thomas hardaway, a u.s. army veteran of 31 years. he now works as a child and adolescent psychiatrist and has a long tenure of working with children. charles love is right down there. he is a field professional in both geology and anthropology. he spent over 36 years practicing archaeology on easter island. our fourth panelist is not going to be able to make it today. for that information, check the web site. we have a great panel and to start things off, i will hand it over to michael. >> good afternoon. i am going to stand up because i am too short for people in the back to sea.-- to see. let me ask, can the people in the back hear me ok? the people in the back, can you raise your hand if you are hearing me clearly? thank you, much better. all right, so i am going to address that question, this is your brain on the internet, by first asking what that word "on" means. what does it mean to say your b

. >> this is a philosophical argument. i want to get into stuff -- >> it is not philosophical to say there is a pattern of lying to the american people about targeting adversaries. >> they are taking on water big time, and they should. but all administrations take the truth and spin it around. >> this isn't spinning, bill. this is lying. >> you got a million square foot facility being built in utah, powers. a humungous thing. and i'm going, why? why are they building that? for what reason. all up until last year. the nsa was able to operate in mir land or whatever they are. but now they have to spend tens of millions of dollarses building this big facility for what. >> that's my point. i'm not comfortable with them storing this data. >> that's the point about what this is or why they are doing it. >> and they shouldn't be allowed to store the data. it doesn't belong to them. you know, it is information, we have given them a little bit of space to try to go through this and find out if there is any terrorist connections the

you have a philosophical argument in which you have michael moore and glenn beck on one side and billaher and bill crystal on the other. that to me is a big help when you shake the box of political ideology and create a philosophical debate about something as important as privacy, it is a great thing. having said that, he broke the law but still could be a hero. >> but this information has been around a long, long time. we know the nsa has been looking into things, know where their sites are around the world for the most part, don't have access to their computer key boards, but this is not new information. maybe what obama meant by open debate, should we put this in front of everybody and say we do this. >> quickly, jay carney says president obama from last week said we have to transcribing a balance between 100% privacy and 100% safety. jay carney said the president feels he struck the proper balance. if that's the case, the debate is over. >> why do we have to have the debate. >> couple weeks ago his speech on drones, how it was the end of terror, this kind of undermines everything,

>> we are very philosophical. if you are getting philosophical i will be with j.k. rowling. harry should be pitching the living and not the dead. i don't think i want to be immortal. apparently this google guy, he was made director of engineering and it was on-line how he is brilliant and he came up with ways for the blind to read, but he is also a nutter. he has things like in 2033 virtual prostitution will be legalized. he is a bit strange. >> i can actually see that happening. >> but why 2033. >> isn't that porn? >> then it already exists. >> it really exists at my place. >> i wouldn't want to be immortal. it is like sleeping with girls like you. i don't like girls like that. i like fat chicks. >> of course you gave her that preview and she is absolutely sleeping with you right now. >> i don't want to ly. no thanks. >> you really have charmed imogen. that was one of the best come on-lines we have had on "red eye." while everybody else's brains will be hooked up to a super computer, yours will be jerry rigged to a slinky. i >>- q. i would -- >> i would like to meet mr. rig

just gone now for 13, fourteen we ousted to understand this fir first >> my second question a philosophical question. if everybody looks at this this is most difficult for all of us when we see we're still he spending on the categorical the most important thing is the improvement. even though we're still he spending it in the codes essentially i've referred to this as >> instantaneously money what we're using it to try to advance our equity goals to further the historic disempowerment issues. if we took that out and looked at the other categorical pieces that we still seem to be doing the same things. i think our discussion about the budget has to be different. i understand the fleblth the hammer hanging over us whatnot knowing if it was going to come back. from the accounting point of view but from the problematic point of view i think we're thinking the same way and acting like it's loopholes going to be organize. and instead of saying how this is going to deploy them and it's not categorized. there are a few things that have been my hobby we just did it. but we act as although we are it

. >> we have such a philosophical mission around bringing people together around food.so natural for me to come here. >> we want them to walk away feeling like they have the tools to make change in their lives. whether that change is voting on an issue in a way that they will really confident about, or that change is how to understand why it is important to support our small farmers. each class has a different purpose, but what we hope is that when people leave here they understand how to achieve that goal and feel that they have the resources necessary to do that. >> are you inspired? maybe you want to learn how to have a patch in your backyard or cook better with fresh ingredients . or grab a quick bite with organic goodies. find out more about 18 reasons by going to 18 reasons.org and learn about buy right market and creamery by going to buy right market.com. and don't forget to check out our blog for more info on many of our episodes at sf quick bites.com. until next time, may the fork be with you. ♪ ♪ >> so chocolaty. mm. ♪ >> oh, this is awesome. oh, sorry. i thou

today, only five showed up prompting the manager to wax philosophical. >> i don't think there would be a golf course. >> there was no one ahead nork one behind. it was near solitude. >> they cannot control my kid. >> we should add there was one business that did benefit today. movie theaters. long lines for matinees. >> thank you very much. happening now, members of five bart maybe yun yinz voting whether to authorize a strike. worthers have been casting their ballots in oakland all day long. the votes come as two sides failed to reach an agreement over pay and benefits. leaders filed a lawsuit accusing bart board of not negotiating in good faith. bart saying unions are trying to cover up demands for a 23% pay increase. the people that manage buses and ferries are meeting to talk about the service they'll need to provide if there is a strike. if there is a strike sate monster job. the trance bay commute is the biggest concern so far we know they plan to add 10 trance bay shuttle buses. take a look at how san francisco bay ferry service is going help. the sits tim operates eight vessels