well, look, there is something going in there, and i think it's incredibly simplistic. and the, the clean-up job is in many ways more revealing than the interview itself. this notion that anything goes. it's just either a case that i didn't say what you heard me saying or i'm going to imagine something different. that's exactly what the people who worked with her in the campaign have been saying about her. there is an alternative world that she experiences that is either nothing she lives or other people lives at the time or is just recreated out of whole cloth later on. >> and speaking of clean-up, by trying to deny she'd ever said it in that facebook post titled stupid conspiracies, governor palin prompted a lot of angry reaction on her facebook page from reporters outraged that she tried to backtrack. could this end up hurting her with them. >> live by the mob, die by the mob. it's very hard to try and control those populist tendencies. in the end, sarah palin, if she does have political ambition, knows that she cannot take the birthing questions very far. that's why

i hate to be overly simplistic, but there's plenty of hypothesizing that is what is going on. that is why we think this stuff keeps moving. it is all happening, and there are other techniques. when you talk about making ice cream into broccoli, yes kerrigan anybody working in the news hour should constantly be thinking about how do you keep it interesting. now that as with any communicator does. in some form, they always have. >> it is the same thing as selling a new product common and and what happened was for the longest time there was no real competition for that product. five we were like auto companies. there is a tremendous benefit to keeping people's attention, and you can keep their attention with techniques that have nothing to do with teaching them about the world. that is a classic, age-old struggle, but it is one that might be increased by the nature of our ability to manipulate mines for regan >> i did not think anyone would take -- to manipulate mines. >> i did not think anyone would take you seriously. >> i have a question. in the old days there were guys to pro

i was trying to confront a simplistic idea about success and say that success is far more mysterious more complex than that. does not simply about talent. -- it is not simply about talent. it matters what you're you're born and the culture you're born into. the book is one long attempt to kind of complexify this thing. we were talking about quarterbacks and teachers and how the impetus for that article was all about the fact that we cannot predict who can be good. we have been trying to simplify this and make out that if you simply have a teacher degree and day b.a., you will be a good teacher. my point was that no, you cannot predict it. it is messy. you have to let people try and pick the ones that are good and say goodbye to the rest. i feel like i spend a lot of time in my riding doing the opposite to what he says. >> you are in canadian history major? what is the difference between canadian history and american history? >> so much, how can you say that? >> what other canadian history professors0u teaching that we ae not? >> i say, we are a better -- very minor player in the worl

conversation about these issues than tends to happen, an opportunity to move beyond the kind of simplistic and false dichotomies that tend to define discussions about race and discussions about ethnicity in this country. >> ogletree: and donald, from your point of view, what does belleville represent to you? >> it's a human mosaic that we often take for granted, we don't get to know. and it's crying out for communication and to building that human mosaic into one strong community. >> ogletree: dr. mason, what does belleville represent to you? >> oh, it was a conversation about america, where we have a gorilla at dinner, and people either want to act like it's not there or are afraid to talk about it in an honest way. >> ogletree: okay, and, john, what does belleville represent to you? >> i'm reminded of ellis cose's observation that discussions about race are too often shouts and whispers. >> ogletree: and, bill, you've written a lot about this, thought a lot about it. and you've had a lot of interesting and provocative ideas. having the chance to look back, step back and look at bellevill

if you relegate the simplistic, something families understand and i think more families are understanding that, i think the politics will follow. >> thank you. mr. nussle? >> well, those who are -- those who are c-span junkies or budget junkies know charlie and i have had a few debates and disagreements over the years. just a few. but we come together on a commission like this and have proven, i think, in a bipartisan way that you can come up with a solution. you can come up with a mechanism. it isn't pretty. it isn't going to be popular. it isn't going to be easy. but like families -- i was at a family gathering over the weekend. and part of the reason we love each other and part of the reason that we fight is because we are sometimes more similar than we wish to admit. and there are many similarities between the parties when it comes to wanting things and not being willing to pay for them. promising -- promising things and not being willing to deal with the consequences in the short term. and that's caught up with both parties. and i think what you will hopefully see is a political solu

i think this kind of simplistic view does not help anybody understand much of anything.u are talking about the timeline is earlier. let's go to, as president obama made during the west point -- go to commons, president obama made during the west point addressed early in december. >> there are those who would want to impose a timeframe for transition to afghan responsibility. some call for a nation building project of up to a decade. i reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the afghan government. it must be clear that afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that america has no interest in fighting an endless war in afghanistan. host: ambassador neumann, there was pushed back after the president made those remarks from conservatives, concern that he was setting a deadline to put the administration said that "we're talking about targ

as americans we have a simplistic view of europe, they don't agree on much.wed them and asked the european union to consider a europe wide band. and there was legislation passed to make it illegal that iran use the shipping lines. and there is a review process of the sanctions they are likely to propose at the european level or international level in january or february. the point of the piece to point out that we are exceptionalists and that's not the case, there are momentum emerging in europe, the europeans look more serious than we do on confronting iran. the initial paragraph was obviously tongue in cheek, but it bears noting that the obama administration is on the cusp of a serious review of engagement of iran. it's not a secret that engagement has not met much dividends, and the question is what we do next. the thing i was trying to hammer home, what we do in the next steps we could learn a lot to look across the pond. host: we have ben on the independent line. caller: i am amazed at the state's intent of our country and how it pertains to iran. for a

that's too simplistic, that ampleght simple snraiting that point should be enough to refute it. states may do many things that the federal government may not if you do not drive a car, you do not have to buy car insurance. this legislation would require individuals to have health insurance simply because they exist. even if they never see a doctor for the rest of their lives. the defenders of this health insurance mandate must know that they are on shaky constitutional ground. the bill before us now includes findings which attempt to connect the mandate to the constitution. i assume that they are the best arguments that this unprecedented and novel mandate is constitutional. these findings fail in at least four ways. first, the findings say that the requirement to purchase health insurance will add millions of new consumers to the health insurance market. i cannot dispute the observation that requiring more people to purchase health insurance will result in more people having health insurance. i think that seems quite self-evident. but the question is not the effect of the manda

i think this kind of simplistic view does not help anybody understand much of anything.n would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the afghan government. it must be clear that afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that america has no interest in fighting an endless war in afghanistan. host: ambassador neumann, there was pushed back after the president made those remarks from conservatives, concern that he was setting a deadline to put the administration said that "we're talking about targets and goals, ramping up and then back down." guest: we need to distinguish the strategy from the discussion prepare the strategy has been pretty clear and the administration has been consistent across everyone's testimony -- cabinet, generals, ambassadors, all -- that the 18 months is the beginning of the process, conditions-based, which could be very slow. something could happen in 18 months, but it might not be much and it is not necessarily mean that many people are leaving. that is not an unreasonable strategy. there is a question of what point y

if you really negate down to the simplistic things families understand and i think our families are understanding i think the politics will follow. >> thank you. mr. nussle? >> welcome those who are -- those who are c-span junkies or budget junkies know that charlie stenholm and i have had a few key dates and disagreements over the years, just a few. but we come together on a commission like this and have proven i think in a bipartisan way that you can come up with a solution. you can come up with a mechanism. it isn't pretty. it isn't going to be popular. it isn't going to be easy. but like families, our you was that a family gathering over the weekend and part of the reason that we love each other that we wish to at night and there are many similarities between the parties when it comes to wanting things and not being willing to pay for them, promising things and not being willing to deal with the consequences in the short term and that's caught up with both parties, and i think that what you will hopefully see is a political solution to this problem. you don't want a market based mechanism or

classes in psychology, i'm getting into dangerously close to cognitive disidence i'm more of a simplisticguy. i prefer to say there are things we project or cues we send to voters based on what we're talking about that is going to allow the voter to learn a whole lot more about a candidate than just what i said inside that 30-second advertising. i will show an ad about that. we have tracked actual survey results how people's minds changed on issues we're not talking about based on what they have seen and said in one particular piece of advertising. corollary to this, i believe as a candidate what you say and what you talk about is who you are. what you say, and what you talk about is who you are. so you're going to see some michelle bachmann examples here in a moment. michelle, was first elected in congress in 2006. she was a state senator prior to that. biggest issue she had tackled in the minnesota state senate, there had been two. one she had promoted a traditional marriage amendment to minnesota's constitution, which she tried to get passed and did not get on the ballot for a vote. an

say people aren't informed and if you inform them they get rid of all this stuff is probably too simplisticof you. what we heard your mileage may vary in terms of what consumers want and how they feel about their privacy. and what's been interesting to us if you empower people with choices they may actually start to exercise them. i think many consumers, our perspective that many consumers do understand there is a bit of a bargain here. and that, part of the reason that all of these amazing free services exist on the internet is partly because of the advertising that supports them. so, there's a lot of work to do to unpack this. i think there are going to be more experiments like this in the marketplace. and, we'll see how, it will be interesting to unpack how people use them. >> joe, do you have information to add on this? >> i just wanted to suggest, while i understand what google has done with those categories, it is important to realize that essentially, from one consumer's standpoint, those are marketing categories. i mean you go to that google site and they say, first of all, it appea

it sounds simplistic to say you put it -- you put a camera and radar together, but it is difficult.appreciate your comments. i want to remind all of you, in particular, that you did not have many questions representing boeing. this is not about a witch hunt. this is attractive figure out how to make a system work. the american people are tasked with spending the money to do so, but we have such broad issues out there that affect so many people on a day-to-day basis that if we cannot get this under control, cannot work together, cannot figure this out is very difficult to work on some of these and have the confidence to work on some of these other issues that are out there. i want to thank all of you for being before us today, your valuable testimony. i want to thank the members for attending. members of the subcommittee, they may have some additional questions for you but i hope you get them to as it as quick as possible. hearing no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. . . >> cuban president raul castro said that a contractor arrested from nevada was accused regardin

i mean, i hate to be overly simplistic here, but there's plenty of hypothesizing that that's what's going- so that's -- why do you think all that stuff ceeps moving and the crawls and the this and the that, and it's all happening? and various other techniques. when you talk about making ice cream into broccoli, yeah. even somebody who works for the newshour is constantly thinking about, how do i keep you interested? what surprise do i offer you mow? yeah, what any communicator does. >> and in some form always has, right? >> well, sure. it's the same thing as selling any product, and what happened was that for the longest time there was no real competition for that product -- >> exactly. we were like the auto company. >> right. but there's a tremendous benefit to keeping people's attention, and you can keep people's attention with techniques which have nothing to do with teaching them anything about the world. that's all, and i think that's a classic and age-old struggle, but it's one that i think may be increased by the nature of our ability to manipulate minds at this point. >> see, now,

to make this, and began simplicity isn't simple and it isn't intended to make teeple think in a simplisticsimpleton way. what simplicity is is the way to take a very complicated thoughts and communication ideas and make them as consumable as possible. so, i would encourage you to read both of those books. and then to wrap up i'll go back to this. just to really emphasize this point. strategy without taxes is the longest way to victory. tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. if you have your strategy right, there's a good chance you can win. if you have it completely wrong, you have no chance. and so start off with that. so with that, we'd like to open it up to questions. >> through the way you were discussing it, is it better if you have for example a campaign nbc/"wall street journal" poll [inaudible] can you think of the change idea? >> changes a good example. a lot of things apply to that. a lot of people interpreted that the way they wanted to. new to the same thing in terms of the contract as well. he had ten items but he didn't do ten items. and then you could pick with

i hate to be overly simplistic, but there's plenty of hypothesizing that is what is going on. that is why we think this stuff keeps moving. it is all happening, and there are other techniques. when you talk about making ice cream into broccoli, yes kerrigan anybody working in the news hour should constantly be thinking about how do you keep it interesting. now that as with any communicator does. in some form, they always have. >> it is the same thing as selling a new product common and and what happened was for the longest time there was no real competition for that product. five we were like auto companies. there is a tremendous benefit to keeping people's attention, and you can keep their attention with techniques that have nothing to do with teaching them about the world. that is a classic, age-old struggle, but it is one that might be increased by the nature of our ability to manipulate mines for regan >> i did not think anyone would take -- to manipulate mines. >> i did not think anyone would take you seriously. >> i have a question. in the old days there were guys to pro