Remember what it was like president obama had been elected on this massive wave of hope and enthusiasm. On election day 2008 elected on this amazing wave. The countrys at his back. All the forces of history are behind him, and he proceeded to continue the policies of president bush essentially unchanged. Im referring to his policies towards wall street, towards the investment banks. No big banks were ever put into receivership, no bailouts were unwound. No elite bankers were ever prosecuted. Obama and his democrats refused to change course when every sign was telling them to turn. When it would have been good policy to turn. When it would have been overwhelmingly popular to turn. When the country fully expected them to turn. And when i say the country, i mean the bankers themselves. The wall street bankers thoughtl they were going to be taken to the woodshed. And when it was fully within the president s and his partys power to steer this country in a different direction, they didnt do it. What im saying is on this matter there was no conflict between pragmatism and idealism, and this is a conflict that weve been hearing a lot about during the primary season, right . The pragmatic candidate, the idealistic candidate. But on this issue, what to do about wall street, there was no conflict. The idealistic thing was also the practical thing and the healthful thing. It would have been good for the economy, and the popular thing. U the public wanted him to do it. They were behind him in enormous numbers. And he chose not to. Now, i know that the democrats are the good guys. For a liberal like me, the democrats are the good guys. Or, rather, i should say the less bad guys. But when you start with Something Like that, its not a coincidence that all the economic gains of the recoveryre that have happened since then presided over by a democratic president , a president that we are often told is the most liberal of all possible president s if not an outright communist, right . [laughter] the gains, all the economic gains of this recovery that he has presided over have gone to the already wealthy. And this is not, or i should say not only because, you know, sinister, diabolical republicans keep thwarting the righteous liberal will. I know republicans are awful, and i know how they play the game. I live in d. C. These days. Theyre very good at it. They are dedicated to obstructionism. Its like a philosophy for these guys. But what im talking about here is something different. E. It is a straight up democratic failure. Obama played this issue the way he did because thats how he wanted to play it. We have to get our heads around that. Now, i call this a failure, but you know what the right word for it is. This is a betrayal. And the history of this betrayal goes back a long way. When i was young in the 70s and the 80s, the Democratic Party, you know, youd read the newspaper, and the Democratic Party was forever grappling witd its identity. You know, arguing with one another over who they were and what the Democratic Party stood for. This went on for decades all through the 70s, all through the 80s, up into the 90s. Different factions basically fighting like cats and dogs. Whats funny is they all agreed on one thing. E all of these different factions agreed on one thing, and that was what the democrats had to do was turn away from the legacy of the new deal with its fixation on working class people. Thats what they had to do. So the man who brought this, you know, closure, lets say, to this longrunning Democratic Civil war was, of course, president bill clinton. And i think if we want to understand where the Democratic Party and the country are today, this is one of the turning points that we have to look back at, and we have to scrutinize in some detail. Bill clinton brought a new kind of Democratic Administration to washington. Rather than paying homage to the politics of Franklin Roosevelt which is, you know, what democrats used to always do, right . He was the patron saint, all that sort of thing, clinton did opposite. He did these kind of singular favors for fdrs old enemies, for the banks, the radio networks, the power companies. Or basically, thes bosses. The bosses. He deregulated wall street, he insured and when i say he deregulated wall street, it wasnt just one or two measures. This was throughout his presidency, item after item after item, deregulating banks, deregulating finance. He insured that derivative securities would be traded without any kind of supervision. He deregulated radio and telecoms, and he basically put an end to the federal welfare system, the old afdc system. One of the things he did that most people dont know about is that in 1997 clinton had a series of secret meetings with newt gingrich, and they arrived at a plan to privatize Social Security. People the meetings were secret at the time, but its since come out. Its a known thing. People have written books about it. Its well documented. Gingrich now talks about it. But they had this series of meetings. They came up with a plan for privatizing Social Security, how they would roll it out, how they would introduce the policy. Gingrich had the votes, clinton would sign it, and clintongn actually took the first step in their proposed plan in his state of the union speech in 1998. He said, oh, jeez, what was it . We need to i almost said we need to end welfare as we know it, but thats not what it was. He said we have to oh, shoot. Now i cant remember what his exact words were. But you know what happened. The very next day after his state of the union speech, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, right . [laughter] that put an end to that. We can thank her for, basically, saving the Social Security system. [laughter] im quite serious. I think, i think Monica Lewinsky is a hero. Is a her [laughter] now, bill clinton, you know, interesting guy. He had this strategy as a candidate. When he was running for the presidency, he had this strategying where he would go out of his way to insult or distance himself from some Traditional Democratic constituency like organized labor or minorities and, thus, assure the public that he was his own man. The most famous example also happened here in chicago. H it was jesse jackson. Do you remember, they called this the Sister Soldier moment when clinton sort of arranged or contrived to insult jackson to his face before the cameras of the nation. And the democrats of the Clinton School had this kind of way of rationalizing this. They could insult these people with impunity they thought because, remember this phrase . They had nowhere else to go, right . Remember that . T . Now, whats interesting about clinton is that this Campaign Tactic eventually became a fullblown philosophy of governance for this guy, right . Body slamming the people who got you elected. And the classic example here is the north American Free trade agreement or nafta. And you remember what this was about. George bush sr. Had negotiated it with canada and mexico, but he couldnt get it through congress because congress at the time was controlled by old school democrats. But bill clinton could do it. And he brought in your currentur mayor, rahm emanuel, who was his point man on getting nafta passed. Come on now, folks. I remember this vividly, because i was living in chicago at the time, and i would watch this i lived down on 48th street. Well talk about that another time, but i would watch the debates over this on my stupid little tv set in that house. On my stup anyhow, so nafta. This is a fascinating story if you think about it. When clinton got nafta passed, clinton rammed it through congress. He wasnt merely insulting his friends in organized labor who opposed nafta, he was conniving in their ruin. Okay . He was assisting in then destruction of their economic power. He wasnt just insulting them, he was materially injuring them. He was right . Doing his part to undermine his own partys greatest ally, to insure that management would always and forever now have the upper hand over workers whenever they tried to organize or went out and complained about something. Basically anything. Because now management can always say, well, were going to move the plant to mexico. They can always make that threat now. Ow and this is well known, they do it all the time. And sometimes they even follow through on it. But by passing nafta, clinton made the problems of working people materially worse, okay . Now, nafta is interesting for a lot of reasons, and one of them is that it was as close to a straight up class issue as we ever see in this country, nafta was. And it gives you, when you look at the debate over nafta back in those days, in 92, 93, it gives you an idea about what our modern democrats stand for and what groups they mean to please. And like i say, i remember very vividly watching these debates on my tv set down in hyde park. And the debate came down, you know, it was very obvious who was on which side. Professionals and the rich were in favor of nafta. Working people were opposed to it. People with graduate degrees were always very impressed to learn that 283 economists had signed a statement talking about how nafta would boost Employment Creation and Overall Economic growth and that sort of thing. Now, ironically ory paradoxically, whatever adverb you want to use, the predictions of the unlettered Blue Collar Workers who opposed nafta turned out to be far closer to what eventually happened than did rosy scenario of those 283 economists and the Rhodes Scholar who sat in the oval office, president clinton. But, no matter. Bill clintons admirers, the new democrats they called themselves, regarded this as his findest hour. Finest hour. They use this phrase all the time. This was a particularly brave act. This was his greatest moment as president. Yo and you can find a version of this viewpoint in an admiring 1996 biography of bill clinton by the british journalist Martin Walker who said, yes, clintoned had done a few things wrong, but these things were this is a quote from the book in the end, balanced and even outweighed by his part in finally sinking the untenabling, old consensus of the new deal and the crafting of a new one. Thats why this guy liked him. Thats why he admired bill clinton. Because he killed the i new deal consensus, okay . So this new consensus that he talks about, this new consensus that came up to replace that old one. Who were the heroes of this new consensus . Well, the same democratic thinkers of that period that ive been describing, you know, who were always saying that the party needed to abandon workers in the new deal, they had the answer. Who should the Democratic Party serve . Ne what should democrats embrace . Well, it was obviously, right . The emerging postindustrialnd economy and people that the Democratic Party needed toto identify with were the winners in this new economic order or we were entering. The highly educated professionals who populated our innovative knowledge industries, right . Lawyers, doctors, the math ph. D. S who write the derivative securities. The biochemists who make the prescription drugs. Now, if you can remember back to the 1950s, youll recall that professionals were once very solid republicans back in those days. But by the time of bill clintonh they had entirely shifted, and today they are one of the most solidly democratic groups in the country. Y. And thats who . Democrats thats who the democrats are today. Th they are the party of the highla educated professional class. Es they have other constituencies, of course. Minorities, women and the young, for example. These are the pieces of what they like to call the coalition of the ascendant. But when you read democratic literature, you quickly realize that professionals are the ones who come first. These are the ones whose technocratic outlook always prevails in Democratic Party arguments. Its their its professionals tastes and manners that are celebrated by liberal newspapers, and its their particular way of regarding the world that is taken for granted by liberals as being objectively and obviously true. So what im saying is that professionals dominate liberalism and the Democratic Party in the same way that ivy leaguers dominate the obama cabinet. As democrats so a big part of listen liberal is me reading a lot of Democratic Party literature, magazines, statements, this kind of thing. And they have all of these wonderful, flattering phrases, these terms of endearment for their favorite demographic. They call these highachieving professionals the wired workers who will inherit the future. They call hem a learning the. A learning class that truly gets the power of education. I love that one, by the way. A learning class. So some people are in the working class, and other people are in the learning class, right . [laughter] isnt that great. U are going to the one youre going to know, they are a Creative Class that naturally rebel against fakeness and conformity. Theyre an innovation class that just cant stop coming up with awesome, new stuff, right . And Democratic Leaderscr themselves are, of course, drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of this very same Demographic Group that im talking about. Its not a coincidence that both bill clinton and barack obama and Hillary Clinton, for that matter, were all of them pluck from on security by prestigious universities. You look at bill clintons life story. Its sort of this classic tale who the democrats are nowadays. Hes a kid in hot springs, ash. Goes to georgetown hot springs, arkansas. Goes to georgetown, and the doors of the world swing open to him. He becomes a Rhodes Scholar and goes to yale law school. Thats who he is. And Barack Obamas life story is very similar, as so manymo Democratic Leaders are. The time that they spend at really fancy schools is what defines them as individuals. And you look at their cabinet choices, either clinton or obama. Its always the same kind of people. These successful professionals from a very limited number of institutions. Successful professionals whose wealth has been established by their achievements in college or graduate school. Institutions so think about what im saying here. They have, the party has developed a theory of history where this group is like the winners, right . They are the heros of history standing at the endpoint of all of the great dialectics of history. At the professional class. They are the winners. They are also the partys number one constituency, and theyre the Demographic Group from which all the partys leaders are drawn. Okay . What im describing here is a, basically, a complete shift of allegiance from the traditional working and middle class to this other group, to professionals. And this, i think, is what explains so much of what is frustrating about our modern day democrats. For example, this is what explains the problem that i started off with. The sort of vexing problem of obama and the banks. Why was it that the obama team failed to do what obviously needed to be done with the wall street banks . Why did they declare that wall street executives were going to be held to a different Legal Standard than ordinary criminals . Le and they did declare this. Ls the guy who said it had to resign immediately, but he did say it. S it did come out. Why did team obama choose wall street over average people again and again and again and again . Every time there was a choice to be made, they always went that direction. Why . Because for the achievementconscious people who fill the Obama Administration, Investment Bankers are more than friends. These guys are classmates. These guys are peers. I mean, the two groups administration, Investment Banking these two groups are essentially the same. People go back and forth through the revolving door in d. C. There is no difference. Democrats, you know, in the leadership clique, they look at wall street, they see its filled with these people of subtle minds, sophisticated jargon and extraordinary innovativenessing, you know . Making up derivative securities, plucking wealth out of thin air. Its the most amazing thing inin the world. This is exactly the kind of Creative Industry and creative individuals that Democratic Party theory tells us we must honor and respect, right . Theyre making these Financial Instruments that are so admirably complex. By the way, i have an anecdote here. I have a friend who was a Bank Regulator back in the 80s. Old school. He had a hand in prosecuting a whole bunch of s l executives back in those days. And he was telling me when he used to do this stuff, that he and his fellow Bank Regulators, when they would look at a bank and see undue complexity, like guys doing all sorts of youle know what i mean. They would say, ah, red flag. Fraud. Zero in on it, theyre up to something. Lets have a look at that, lets take a closer look at that. But with the obama team when they see complexity, its the opposite. Theyre like, oh sophistication, right . They love that stuff. Its like financial rocket science, as an Obama Administration official once said. And by the way, when he said that, it was part of an explanation nor why they hadnt prosecuted these guys. Nobody can understand it. And its the same for big pharma, right . So innovative. You cant import generic pharmaceuticals. No, you have to protect these innovative companies. And, folks, mega dittos for silicon valley, an industry that can do virtually no wrong in democratic eyes. These guys are so lovell bl lovable, so creative that for them enforcement of our cups antitrust laws countrys antitrust laws has basically been suspended for this one industry. When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she used to travel the world for something she sauled Internet Freedom she called Internet Freedom. Facebook, google, that sort of thing, access to these certain servers was a basic human right. Okay . So what does a party of the professional class believe in . Well, the most important item on the list is, of course, meritocracy. The conviction that the successful deserve their success and that the people on top are up there because they are the best. This is the First Commandment of the professional managerial class. S. Everyone gets what they deserve, and what they deserve is defined by how they did in school, okay in now, folks, this is wrong in about a hundred different ways. But the only way that im going to talk about here today is that this is not a good way to take on the problem of inequality. Indeed, this is not a doctrine for mitigating inequality, this is a way of rationalizing inequality, right . You know, you get what you deserve. Maybe you just, you know, too bad that youre struggling out there. Maybe you didnt got to the right school, study the right subject, maybe you didnt get a college degree. Maybe you got the wrong college degree. Its always a way of pushing it back on to the individual. Inequality isnt the fault of the system, its the fault of you. What im getting at here, the larger point is this there is no solidarity in a meritocracy. It is the exact opposite idea. Now, profession alleyeders of the professional class like these guys in the administration and on wall street show this enormous respect for one another. But they have almost zero sympathy for the less fortunate members of their own disciplines, right . If you think about the white collar workplace when somebody gets fired, their colleagues dont rally around them and protest or go on strike or Something Like that. They never do that. There is no solidarity. I could tell you my own story about i went and got a ph. D. Im a member of this class. And when i got out of the ph. D. Program, it turned out, well, there were no more tenure track jobs in the humanities any longer. We all had to work as adjuncts. The humanities are fallingal apart, folks. Its been happening for 20 years now. And whats the response . There still have people at top of these disciplines that have l lot of power. How much sympathy do they feel for the adjuncts . Ig thats right, folks, its a big goose egg there. Life doesnt shower its blessings on people who cant make the grade. Its not a hock or an in shock or an injustice in the system, its the way things ought to be, okay . So the story that i tell in listen, liberal, as you can see is a happy and inspiring one. Inspiring [laughter] this is the gradual coming together. Think about it, though, it kind of is in this 19th century way. This is the coming together of money and merit. Of success and righteousness. This is the marriage of finance with political virtue, and virtue and righteousness are what being a liberal is all about these days. But in another sense, the transformation of the Democratic Party has been a disaster. Think about it this way. Left of parties all over worldr were founded about a hundred years ago to advance the fortunes of working people. Thats why these parties exist. Go look at the cross of gold speech, right . But our left party here in america, one of our two monopoly parties lest we forget, our left party in america has chosen over the last 30 years to turn its back on these peoples concerns and make itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a Creative Class that makes these awesome, innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. And the working people that thee party used to care about, democrats figured, had nowhere else to go in the famous formula from the clinton days. Folks, they have found somewhere else to go. By abandoning these people, democrats have made inevitable both the economic desolation that you see in vast part ors of the midwest as well as a populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades. Twelve years ago i wrote about it and what it looked like in my home state of kansas, and today it is everywhere. The backlash is here. Its all over the country now, swarming up out of the deindustrialized zones, screaming its bizarre and ugly slogans. And just think about the Political Choice that that leaves us with this year. On the one hand, angry, rightwing, intolerance. And on the other, inequality forever. Folks, there has got to be a different way. Thank you very much. [applause] all right. Well take questions. Were going to tell chicago anecdotes. A few opinions. Im gary leavitt. You said your tv you watched was stupid. I dont know, since were on tv, maybe it wasnt a smart tv but this is important. Charles this is the way i talk. Just ignore it. I loved that tv. Drew lake drew weston and george have written books, political mind, a book about Charles Krauthammer said know thyselves is upraid. Neighborhoods led to crime and religious violence, and after 50 years of therapy they generally dont know what theyre doing and you wouldnt believe us. Be nice to kids and they think youre a pedophile. Why isnt there a nobel prize in psychology and could you nominate me to win it . You got is, man. Okay. I love chicago. Its a pleasure to meet you. Enjoy whats the matter with kansas. One question, do you think you might be too hypercritical in regards to the democrats and do you think the Democratic Party might be rolling back to its new deal roots . You mentioned, for example, the issue of privatization of Social Security. I didnt even hear that he that clinton and gingrich conspired to privatize they kept it secret. So Hillary Clinton is going to defend Social Security and expand it. Under obama we have gotten obamacare. They raised top rates for taxes. We did get dodd frank. At least it was something, do you think its rolling back . I think well, theres signs of hope. And i shouldnt the one mistake is that i think the one thing i will say about what you just described, they arent all the same. Hillary is different than bill, and barack obama is different than both of them. Barack obama heres a man whose heart is, i think, clearly in the right place. And yet, when you look at his great big three achievements as president. Stimulus, doddfrank and obamacare, and all of these are flawed in exactly the sort of the way ive been describing. Always reaching out for complexity when its totally unnecessary. Doddfrank you. Mentioned it. Its 20,000 pages long. And its getting longer by the minute. Theres this because they left it up to basically lobbyists and regulators to write this thing, and theyre in d. C. Right now working on the loopholes and exceptions and on and on. It would have been so much simpler to just choose a kind of elegant 1930s style solution. No, were breaking this industry in two. There it goes. It would have been so much simpler but that hey to reach for well, obamacare has the same flaw. So, its not that it think that obama is a bill clinton kind of figure. Think he is a different kind of president. As soon as i say that i pick up the newspaper and here he is pushing for the transpacific partnership. The thinks hes going to get that down. And im like, why . Why do it . So, every time i start to think, maybe ive been a little too hard on the democrats, they do Something Like that. Is. Thank you for being here. One of the selling points at the time with nafta was the success of put that in quotes of the u. S. Canada Free Trade Agreement from 1989. Seems in 2016 when the orange one attacks nafta, its more about mexico than canada. So i guess one of the things were missing in this discussion is enough of the flaw with the tpp. Its when you have countries of a certain economic strata competing with countries of a lower economic strata and being dragged down to the bottom instead of raising it. Im curious to get your perspective. If the u. S. Canada Free Trade Agreement just happened and mexico was not involved, would that have been a better example of free trade or can free trade only exist between countries you u. S. And canada are similar i understand i guess thats missing from the debate. Do you know what that deal did in canada . Canada hates it for many reasons. My canadian friends brought down the government there the voters were like, no way. Was it mull rooney . Yes. Down to two seats, and he had passed the baton to kim campbell and she lost her seat. Cataclysmic. Well deserves, mr. Mulroney. What people ondont realize and a half taste not the most harmel of the trade agreements. It was the first one we fought about. We had a big public debate. Its always remembered as the moment when this stuff happened. It wasnt it didnt by itself there were many, many free trade deals after that one but it was the big win. What people dont realize when they think at and a half tacoma tariffs in mexico were already very low. And tariffs with a lot of countries were very, very low. These deals are, like, and a half, is Something Like 2,000 pages long. If you wanted to do something that was like free trade with mexico it whoa be one page. Thats not what nafta did. Nafta is about securing the Property Rights of investors in mexico. It removes the mexican governments power to nationalize industries. So it made it so you could build a factory in the zone along the border and take advantage of all of their the labor laws and that sort of thing, laws is the wrong word but the Economic Situation there, and youre in no danger of the government coming in and nationalizing or doing any of the other things that government seems to do. Glory no danger of that happening. Thats what nafta changed. But tariffs were already low. You look at the transpacific partnership. Some of it is about lowering tariffs but a lot of protecting big pharma. And another thing i always have to remind people about trade agreements. We talk about globalization all the time. Everybody in d. C. Talks about globalization, as to the they know what it means. It means these people are winners, these people are losers and thats god doing that. Its the globe. Thats this power that we cant even question is doing that to us. But in fact, trade deals, which are how legal inization happens are written by humans. Theyre written bay specific category of humans. Theyre written by lobbyists, and theyre written to protect certain industries, defend certain classes of people, and to ruin other groups. I learned this when i was writing listen liberal. An economist friend of mine who talks about this constantly. He was around for the nafta debate. He talked about he knows the subject inside and out, and he loves to talk about how you could write a trade deal to ruin any class or category of americans and to protect any other category or class of americans. Professionals always think, globalization, its making me rich. Its not because the deals are written just because im so awesome. You can write a trade deal that would import enormous numbers of doctors and lawyers into the country, ensure they are qualified, and you would basically drive down the wages in those professions, like way, way, down. It would be great for people who consume medicine and legal services. You could do the same thing to education to any industry if you wanted, or any category. But thats never on the table. Its always, you and me that gets screwed, right . Sorry. I need to shut up. Im being told i need to shut up. Thanks very much for saying what you have said. I think if anything you have been moderate and cautious, and its what needs to be out there. No one ever says that but i try to be responsible. I try have a rope for saying the things i say. I was in working in a northwest india steel mill when nafta went down. Im one of those people. And we have been having this conversation for a long time about how we have two parties that both represent wall street. Theyre both devoted to wall street. When it first went down the Union Leadership said theres no way we are supporting clinton in 96. He has betrayed us. Guess what. But by the end it came to, well, we have to come to grips with this thing of having two parties of wall street but not this year. This year it is too dangerous. This year we could get bob dole for president . And then people would just be permanently replaced when they were going on strike . So, i guess Bernie Sanders is one of the names that hovers unspoken under this conversation, and i feel like the rebellion he launched is being told the same thing you have wonderful ideas and its so inspiring. Were so grateful to you. But you cant do it this year because this year is too dangerous. And so. I know. Eave year is too dangerous. When is going be were out of time but let me throw in one comment about that. I feel one of the things that just breaks my heartbeat organized labor is they work their butts off for the democrats every four year, the turn over their treasury to these guys, get out on the streets and go to opolls and do phone banks and drive people to the polls and work, work, work, and then its like then they go to, say, president obama, and they say, heres our one issue. Right . Employee free choice act. And obama is like, yeah, okay, and it dies. And then its like, sorry, guys, you dent good this happens every four years. Why . Because the fear of the republicans is greater than their anger at constantly being betrayed by the democrats, and they are constantly betrayed by the democrats. The democrats are like you have nowhere else to go and we know it. Thats the situation that all of us are in. And ultimately this comes back to the twoparty system which is failing us. Lets end there. [applause] thank you very much for attending this presentation. Thomas frank will be signing hick book outside the back. You can provide any feedback to us at our web site. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] and youre watching booktvs live coverage of thee printers row lit fest. As that was thomas frank. The festival will continue in about ten minutes with marsha clark. This is booktv on cspan2. Host where are we . Guest were on the second floor of a very interesting building on Michigan Avenue in chicago, illinois. 180 north michigan on the corner of lake and michigan. Were on the second floor because michigan is a highrent district, and we were able to find a beautiful space unadorned right now that we will put nine galleries and call ourselves the american writers museum. Host why chicago . Guest well, i wasnt in on the original planning, but the group out of washington, d. C. , o malcolm and werner and jay met i think almost six years ago to conceive of this idea. And then two years ago they decided that chicago was it. It was in the center of the nation, and maybe washington has enough museums. I cant say for sure. But im glad they chose chicago. Host how did you end up as coboard chair . Guest well, i was asked about a year and a half, two years ago to sit on what they called a founders council. And it was a group of book people and some financial people, and i sat on the board, said this is something im excited about. So and so its just evolved glssments so whats your background in the book world . Guest well, i was an owner of a bookstore in illinois host the book stall. Guest the book stall. And i owned it for 31 and a half years, to be precise. I did sell it almost three years ago to a local person, so im happy about that. I didnt have to close it. And my time was ready to move on. Host so were on the second floor on Michigan Avenue in downtown chicago. Construction space right now. What is this going to become . Guest its going to become, hopefully, a museum that people want to come to as families or as individuals to see the heritage of american literature. A National Museum that will honor our american writers. And our american writers, while they have individual, little homes across the country, were calling them affiliate museums, they are not all in one space. Eu and so that is everyone who hears the idea says i cant believe we dont have a museum like this. Host how much Square Footage are we looking at here . Guest about 12,000 square feet. Host and how much would you like to have . Guest oh, id like to have a museum like lucas has. [laughter] ill be a little high in the sky. No, i think for a beginning, for a startup i think 12,000 feet will be fine. Host now, is there any significance to the building were in as far as literature, literary life . Guest i dont think so except for the art deco display in the lobby with the tiles. So they had a little artistic bent to them when they constructed the building. But other than that, i think this was a law office at one time. Host now who sits on the board . Who are only of the supporters on the board some of the supporters on the board . Guest well, we have a board of around or 20, 22 right now. It fluctuates. Most from chicago, financial people from chicago. Chi literary people from chicago. Literati, i was going to say. Some women that were trying to mix women and men together, a couple of librarians. A bookseller. Ok seller. I think people who have been in chicago for a long time and who appreciate we have somebody who was on the Poetry Foundation board. We have two people from the Newbury Library foundation. So host what about current writers . Do you have any current writerso who have endorsed this idea and are working with you . Guest oh, yes, we do. We we have a sheet of current writers. S. David mccullough has been sort of the keynote speaker for our organization at this point. Hes written a beautiful endorsement. Aye personally ive personally received several endorsements from various authors, lisa see, stacy schiff. But across the board we have a lot of endorsements. Host okay, roberta rubin, were looking at a big, empty space. Whats going to fill in here . Guest well, you know, itse the first time that ive seen the raw space like this. Ive looked at the diagram so often, but i havent seen the raw expanse. One galley after another excuse me. Were going to have the mind of a writer gallery, were going to have a nation of writers galley, were going to have a chicago galley, a childrens literature gallery. And can theyre flow in and a and theyll flow in and out from one another. And when you get off the elevate arer, its going to be an open space with lots of books at this point hanging from the ceiling and welcoming you to american literature. Host how many people do you expect to come to this location . Guest this is a highly trafficked aspect or area of Michigan Avenue from, i would say, from the Art Institute north, there are a lot of people walking. We hope to have 120,000, 130,000 many time. I anticipate families coming and walking in and their children seeing the childrens literature room or sitting down and playinp a surprise. Theres an area of the gallery called the surprise play, and you can find different words and add sentences and bed interactive. And thats who i think this museum will attract. Host why are you here . Why are you doing this . Guest were here because we have to preserve our heritage. Our heritage of the written word. Our heritage of writers and authors and poets and playwrights who have produced such extraordinary material for america to symbolize or to tell us who we are. Thats why were here. Every year amazon puts out a list of the 20 most wellread cities across the u. S. Its ranking is based off sales data of purchased books, magazines and newspapers on their kindle ereader and in print. Seattle, washington, tops the list this year and is home of amazons corporate headquarters. The closeby city of portland, oregon, comes in second followed by the Nations Capital in third place. Sansan francisco and austin, te, round out the top five. The list goes on with las vegasg tucson, denver, albuquerque, new mexico, and san diego. Baltimore, maryland, is 11th on the list, making it the second most wellread city on the east coast. To find out which other cities made amazons top 20 list, look for the article on businesswire. Com. So i call this work, the social life of dna, after the work of an anthropologist who has published a book now 30plus years ago called the social life of things. And he suggested to us it was by following things in motion, right, that we can illuminate their human and social context. So if i wanted to understand why genetic ancestry testing was significant not only for individual identity and family history, but beyond these things as well, perhaps i could do this by following forms of genetic analysis around. So the social life of dna for me means two things. I means the way in which forms travel between social sites andc domains which ill say a little bit more about and the multiplee uses to which one type of yes net imanalysis is put genetic analysis is put. So we tend to think of forms of genetic testing and analysis in these domains, right . We typically, i think, researchers, regulatory bodies, those of us as individualas indl consumers often, social scientists distinguish between medical genetics, forensic or criminal justice genetics, for ancestry, genealogical and genetic analysis that might beti used in a sort of family Court Setting for family verification or paternity. What i found in the course of talking to people about genetic testing and genetic ancestry testing more generally is the way that individuals understand genetic testing really blurs these boundaries, right . In that genetics are a social life and social power because it has the ability to work sometimes simultaneously in all of these domains at once. T cancer runs in our family. Now that i understand my african ancestry test, a company ill talk about the difference between in the mother sign and the father sign and all that, i have a better sense who the genetic counselor as my Doctors Office was telling me. Martin said to me, i was never really interested in genetic science or the genome or whatever until i heard about this tested. Every took my test i wanted to learn everything about genetic. Started reading jeanettes tick articles in the newspapers, science magazines, scientific journals and those sorts of things. So, what i want to suggest here just briefly because i want to tell you more about the sort of social travels of the company that i studied over a decade is in effect that one category of genetic test draws authority with other forms or domains of testing and that experiences or attituded 0 about one form of testing for those interested in medical jeanette particulars genetics i would want to say for africanamericans and some communities of color, the general get tick ancestry testing becomes a threshold moment, the first moment that people think about genetics, might have an experience like martin. Or people like sarah, who have an experience in a clinical or medical encounter that is informed by her interest and experience with genetic ancestry testing, which is to say we need to understand the full social life of dna and how people think about it in these various domains if we want to understand hough its important and how we can use it with efficacy in a medical or clinical encounter. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. Booktvs live coverage from the printer row litfest continues with author marcia clark. Discussion her books without a doubt and blood defense. Id like to give a special thank you to the festival sponsors. Social media plug. The people for this years festival is what is your story and we encourage everyone to share the stories you hear this weekend on twitter, instagram and facebook, using the prlf16. You can keep the spirit of the litfest going yearround but downloading the printer row app which gives you the Chicago Tribunes premium book contests, free and discounted ebooks and the complete schedule. If you download today you can gate free ebook and five dollars off litfest merchandize. Todays program is being broadcast live on cspans booktv. If theres time at the end for a q a session, well ask all of you to line up here to your right and use the microphone so that the home viewing audience can hear your questions. Before we begin, the last thing i ask is for you to silence your phones, turn off the flash on any cameras you have. With that, lets please welcome Chicago Tribune reporter, david, with marcia clark. [applause] good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for being here, for waiting in line. [applause] faq for we team in nine. Good morning. Several weeks ago the planners the printers row after i would be interested in interviewing marcia clark for i had just finished watching the and miniseries the people vs. O. J. Simpson and my initial reaction was this is great i have so many questions i can ask. How many people saw and that . We will talk a little bit about that and as a public a rand a household name in that would not have been your choosing and as soon as focused on the character and probably a little bit more with the portrayal of the whole story. So can view atop about this experience as a career prosecutor and 70 but it is famous that way with the eventual path hear we are 20 years later. What about that carrier . Thanks for throwing leave the softball. [laughter] tell us about all of your life and how you feel everyde single minute. [laughter] relieved i was a prosecutor i was a criminal defense lawyer first then decided i wanted to stand up for the victims and i expected to do that the rest of my life. That was my game plan but then it simpson happened. Suddenly everything about the trial or everything i had been doing 15 years to try cases was turned upside down it was incredibly unsafe and circus to the judge handed the reins over to the defense said it was bizarre like a comic book. Me pu i was a kind of in denial of celebrity how we were all public figures a networked well for me intelligent and it stopped when it was before jury selection thedi case had become so hot so fast so the murders happened in june by august there is no where i can go without being recognized the first time that was a problem i was shopping with my kids in the little boy is our liking electrons i am alone i am running after them and a girl says give me your autograph. I said why . Amous. Did that was so revered. A and she got mad and said your fitness give me your scrawlaph. Then i was the issue coulded end up in my jury. Give her the autograph. [laughter] that is what i realized things had changed. And then did the cablen worse. E to get figure out how to dont it in a secure way. Had to be careful about going out with the kids, where i went with the kids. Fortunately, though, as people took videos and photographs of me with the kids the news media blocked out the kids faces which was one of the very few things i can thank them for. And then the trial happened, and it was a nightmare that didnt end. From day one there was something exploding and going wrong, and insane things going wrong. As everyone seemed to forget that there are two innocent people who were brutally murdered. This is a double homicide trial. It is not the dancing ito. It is not a sideshow. Everybody seemed to forget. Dont know if i can express the pain of seeing justice subverted every single day no matter what i did, objecting to it every day, feeling like i was screaming into a hurricane. Just didnt matter. So when that was over i was really spent. Was really disillusioned and disheart ed and i hat head and it walk out of the courthouse on the day of she verdict and never went back. And just thought, i dont know what else im going to do but im not doing that. I did recover. Imtook awhile to figure out how to be, who to be. Wound up being a correspondent Legal Correspondent for entertainment tonight. In i did a lot of weird things but that was at the funniest, the hardhitting news agency it was, i covered the Michael Jackson trial, covered robert blake. I go running out. So, they argue this motion about no, marcia, no. What was he wearing . Host how did it feel to be put through the wringer in that public way and then for your next act to have those be the best opportunities for you, were to stay in the public eye. Guest i didnt want. To it was a real serious consideration. They came after me to write a book about the trial. I thought, you know what . I do want to write a book about the trial because i want to tell everybody the truth. I was on the inside of it from the day the bodies were found, until the very, very end, and i can tell you about not only the investigation but also the trial in a way that no one else can, and i want to do it now while i remember it all, so that i dont have to keep remembering it myself and it will be there. If you want to know, there it is. And but if i did that, then id have to be in the public eye again it was so hot after the trial i couldnt go anywhere without being followed. The National Inquirer had a photographer sitting on my front doorstep practically. Theres nothing like walk another your front door and seeing a camera lens trained on the front door. Especially with children. So i really thought, maybe i shouldnt do this. My agent said, its going to be like this anyway for you. You may as well write the book. And then that just kind of became an isness. He said it will die down and it did. It did. And it was really cool, and then now its really fine. People they dont recognize me that much. The benefit of age. It can be a good thing. So, who knew. Host i recognized you right away walking down the street. Guest you did. Oh, well. Host so, the book started out blood defense the first scene is a young lawyer, defense lawyer, doing a cnn bit because thats what you do if youre a lawyer in l. A. And you have to get your name out there. Just part of the game, right . Guest yeah. Host you know well how that goes. Guest it really after the Simpson Trial this became a cottage industry, covering trifles became a new form of entertainment, and lawyers, especially the younger ones who need to get their name out there and pump up the practice, go on these cable talk shows. So in blood defense the lead is a criminal defense lawyer indiana. Samantha brinkman. She incorporated so much of my Life Experience as a defense lawyer, and im doing criminal defense now on appeal. I handle Court Appointed appeals for the indigent. So it get to incorporates all of the wild character is get to meet in it, and talk also about the way the world is for lawyer now. So she is sitting in the very beginning of the book, sitting in a studio, tweeting, come see me. Im on this live, sherry live, check me out and then the responses she gets on their twitter feed, which arent always as friendly as they might be and how she happens that. I incorporate everyday life, todays world in the world of legal practice. Host and so you draw on she is a younger defense lawyer. Tell us a little bit about your experiences as a young defense lawyer or that informed this book. She is on social media and she is on tv a lot but she is still living a little hand to mouth. Just because youre doing this media stuff doesnt mean youre necessarily rolling in dough. Guest thats a great point, david. Thats such a great point, and its true. People see you on tv and think you must be rich. Right . You know their faces and its this equation we make but its not true, and a lot of the people you say talking on tv are just living regular lives, or in samanthas case not even quite as good as regular. So she is sitting there with scuffed up shoes and her skirt held together with safety pins but you cant see that. The camera goes to here. She has hair and makeup wizards to make her look fantastic and she looks like a million bucks which the she needs to in order to get clients. Host so, when she also has a back story of not great youth and some abuse and it gives her some, i guess, sim the for their clients maybe that sympathy for her clients. Can you talk about having been a defense lawyer, then becoming a prosecutor and now back doing defense work, how you view how it changes your view of the criminal element and how that evolved and goes back and forth, depending on which side you find yourself on. Guest im really glad i start ifed a a criminal defense lawyer but a is demiss identifies the defense side of thing, the defense perspective. You realize very quickly that majority of your clients are just goofballs. Really most of them have bad impulse control, they just dont have great judgment. They act in the moment. They dont think about consequences and then they get bit by that. There arent as quite as much fewer of them are actually evil, actually out to do people harm for the fun of it. Thats a rare percentage. Then you have others theres a mix there but the balance really is on the goofball side of things. Then you also dish also really understood the defense perspective, and this is something that i think most people dont get. A Defense Attorneys job is to protect the clients interests, advance the clients interests as best they can. They are not concerned with a fair trial. They are not concerned with following the rule of law. That is not their problem. So i tell you about that mindset from samanthas point of view but a it is a very distinct and different mindset than the prosecutor. So, when i went over to the side of the prosecution, i really understood where Defense Attorneys were coming from. There was only so much i expected of. The. Know youre going to push the envelope expect everything you can for your client mitchell job is to october. The judges job is to sustain my objection and if you want to lance ito you might let him know. Better late than never. Host as one of the one of the powers you seize as a novelist you get to write the ending. Guest i love that part. You can control the outcome. Host i think in everything ive seenol you talking about the o. J. Trial, what you just said was from day one it was this steam roller and was just out of control and you had no ability to exercise the kind of control the prosecutor usually gets to exercise. Guest no lawyer gets to exercise control its up to the judge. The jump has the control. If he hands the reins over to one site or the other thats a big mistake. The judge is supposed to bev sifting in the middle and be the reef thea rethat holds down the rule the referee and i you have chaos when you have a miscarriage of justice on either side. Somebody gets convict whod shouldnt, somebody doesnt get convict whod should. So, thats where the power lies. Thats when people say being a prosecutor, being a trial lawyer, is kind of like staging a play or filling a movie. You get to call the shots. No, you set it up in a certain way, and we definitely do it for dramatic impact. Doesnt matter which side. We up do it to manipulate the jury. So, at the end of a day on friday afternoon when i know youre going to good home over the weekend and think about what you have just heard im going to try to make my last wilt of the day be a rock em sock em blow your mind witness as best is can. However, if the defense objects to something and it should be overruled and the defense instead the judge says sustained, and my witness gets and but if the defense objects and it should be overruled and he says sustained and and that does not work so really is more like you are working on the film and the director says cut you dont have that control so you said that as best you can but if somebody causally through something into the wheel. Talk about controlling the narrative in this book to friends are murdered brutally with a knife in the conduct of the place is called into question so where do you get ideas like that . Actually, it does [laughter] had ago because nobody would buy it. [laughter] actually does have thatec superficial similarity. [laughter] except the defendant is the lapd to detective and there is an actress the rate that robert byrd herded he was dating the actress so the theory is he is arrested for murdering her murdering her and samantha doesnt want to take the case that it will bump up the practice to pay the bills which is why her paralegal and best friend says youll take the case but she does but she did resist because of her own personal childhood where the police were not there for her or her children assertion does take the case and it winds up revealing a personal secret in her life that turns her world upside down cemetery is a question in the book about which picked up matters of which one doesnt because one is famous. Obviously that is a huge the met for you with prosecuting o. J. But also with the goldman family. I could not resist i do use my novel to make observations about the world and what has happened i think a lot of authors do that but of course, i have of perspective of that particular trial and it was painful to see that everyday that ron goldman was forgotten not that he was more important but they were d both important but i did observe that dynamicn bad happening where she was an actress san dead child star who fell on bad times falling down the tunnel with drugs but then pulled herself up into our role that would make her a star again and then in that moment was murdered everybody says we love you but her roommate was completely forgotten. I remember when the miniseries came out once again ron goldmans sister was out there i just think it has to be so painful i think everybody has said different experience to relive this for that family to have it go around again and again is not the focus. It is terrible and we have exchanged emails when it was about to air it she said her redoing . Scab off the wout you . Those being torn up all over again because it rips the scab off the wounds that were inflicted during the trial in the pain of loss is i cannot even imagine what they went through. But had to be a mixed bag a little bit because i really did feel that it was good and there was more of a nuanced narrative of what every with through whenever those flaws we got a completely different picture of who you were in what you were experiencing at least somebodys telling of it well all those lousy things are happening the first time. That was amazing i do believe all of us were turned into cartoons. Johnny and press and that will happen because the media delivers sound bites they cannot deliver the full story. So you picked up what you can for the evening or morning news but you will not get a full picture ofbe a c. The people. You me back then . Yes. I may be now still. [laughter] so i think the miniseries brought out who we were as people for the audience to see our humanity due in large part to the incredible a genius of the actors Sarah Paulson and i have been ago fan of hers for ever since i heard she would play me i was miserable about this being made honestly i thought maybe. [laughter] that is pretty cool. I have never talked to her at all they did not let them consults with us but i did end up meeting her when it was shot she wanted to be with me the whole time thatma they would not let her she wrote me a sweet email we had dinner and multiple drinks telomere is tequila with lime juice it straight up in thisot to plaste fantastic we drink them all night and got plastered. Since was sdepends on thehe quality of the tequila into live. Was she nervous . Yes. She is very sensitive and she said i really believe that working with the director he is responsible for getting this on the air but also for pulling out the sexes and involved in the trial which no one had ever and she was co to our mentioned in a never thought anyone would soar was surprised by that and she was concerned with the way we were portrayed she thought none of us got a fair shake during the trial. Someho i was pleased to let her go through these interviews that i thought she did wonderful somehow without talking to meet she managed to show how i was feeling inside and how i really felt. I dont know how she did that but she is brilliant. So with your book relationship with chris darden tell us. For the gloves ad there was a lot of screaming he took the blame for the gloves. Said biggest fight that we had it was one of those impulsive lets do this i know what actually happened rehab the glove expert on the stand we had to go to sidebar for Something Else those drove us so crazy and they went on for so long for a certain portion johnny and i agreed we would just looking at each other and stand at the back of the lawyer area to resolve it ourselves we wouldnt have to go sidebar and then the judge put a stop to that it was working well but it never should but that is out of control things were but the judges said he should try on the glove and i objected i said is improper experiment the delays speaking if you cannot duplicate the conditionsrelevan. Exactly or almost exactly been you should not because it isnt relevant to have to have the same conditions. I objected chris said want to do it i said can we have a minute . We stepped aside and had athe r big fight i actually called upstairs to the team and i said to use the any reason why it i dont see it at all t feel that i think it is a bad idea they all agreed dont do that the change he felt we needed a big dramatic moment. But anyone i have never interfered dont ever ask a question if you dont know the answer to there is bound to be questions if you have an unexpected answer but that is different with this situation and you do a demonstration with the defendant who has no motive to help you make it work. U put gloves on somebody doesnt want to put them on and see what i mean. Ld have of course, he had to wear latex gloves underneath that alone was problematic even if he was cooperative they had been tested and million times nothing about this was designed to work. Clearly that was the big mistake but on the other side, and i knew we would have the glove expert explain all of that and they know what you thought of that. What do you expect when this occurs . T in addition i knew we would have identical pair of gloves that were not frozen and unfrozen same size by the way nicole bought him those gloves we prove that with receipts from bloomingdales was a limited edition 300 pairs were made in she bought him two pairs of those and we did put those on him and he didnt have to wear latex and it b fit perfectly but nobody picked up bomb that. The media didnt make the big deal of it and that was that so we counter that but it didnt matter. One of the things i was thinking about illinois has been reluctant to put cameras in the core rooms and my First Experience even with the murder trial they can be dried and Awkward Silences and i just wonderedve do you think this case wouldti have been different if america had to absorber through the coverage of the l. A. Times rather than turning it on every day or picking a pair of free facial expression . For everything that happens all day long . The jury is still in theal room but you think it would have been different if it was not televised . It will lead in the sense and you put a camera and theha court ruled invalid diets it has them perform for the camera if you have a judge that like celebrity that is a problem or lawyers at strip for the camera is themakep problem motions go on forever that should not be made and worse you have witnesses that make up stories to make themselves relevant because they want face time or worse yet they refuse to come forward with important evidence so in that way it did have an impact as far as an impact on the jury, i dont think it did. The first time dash and a partner with cameras it was in detroit the camera was in the fact and the judge is not making eye contact withhatto anybody and he kept looking at the camera and he wasnt paying attention to people one of the things about this case with the miniseries that it didnt jive with myek recollection one recollection is because judge ito gets off pretty well so where did that come from . You said he was the greatest source of the misogyny in that trial. I dont know why. You have to ask them that maybe because it is so hard to deliver dramatically what the judge is doing wrong with the rulings and a newame n once they did show him making a comment about my hair and bragging about an t autographed picture fromn arsenio hall but what they could have shown there was a steady stream of celebrity in and out of chambers every single day periodically we were called in because they wanted to meet us. I am trying a lawsuit but i dont really need to meet with jimmy dean. I love your psocids. [laughter] it was crazy the judges set down for a six part interview about his life in the beginning of the trial. What . Why would you do this . That is what i mean by distorting influence cameras in the courtroom can be o. K. But for them to work you have to have the judge with the spine to hold them in check to make sure thing stowe spin out of controlay the and dont be entranced by the media moment so camerasppos. Cannot b l quarrel with the jury is not there so theyrs see on television with theirbu never supposed to see you to c have reporters but a Television Camera you to be bombarded by images when you go to a friends house if you walk to the bar at e hard to hold to that because it is everywhere so if you do right in handled correctly it can be something good i wish they had shown more of what the judge did wrong because that would be a teachable moment not just all of us before the judges but i do think they did go to school on him because i have not seen that since. Early on it was mentioned earlier that samantha cannot wht afford close and talking about she is preparing for the next day and worried about how she will be judge based on how she looks so when did you realize it in that trial this is really happening . A i am being judged. I am just curious what that was like in the midst of trying to prepare for of trial that is something you are worried about . That is an issue for a trial lawyers all the time you are concerned with what the jury sees what you wear hats to deal with your credibility we have but believe me suit normally navy that is conservative and in that way she also knows if youre on camera or not the point is my jury pool is watching any to create the image of a successful and strong lawyer it is all about dressing forin e success. Are the standards different for men and women . Yes and. To a certain degree it is always true they have to dress appropriately for credibility just like the women sit there and not judged as harshly because of their parents and that is t always tough to do with but in the context of the Simpson Trial my hair andtheyrt makeup but back then the media was every where now the cameras are not even allowed in the hallway and there is a camera in the cour courtroom it is through aa hole in the wall you dont see it the literally the anchors are standing aside the doors with makeup and hair and its i with the court almost every day and make a person would savect money put concealer under your eyes. S. Please. [laughter] that had to be a gianthould e distraction. I probably should have let them hindsight but it was like taking a stand t whether they concede the circles are the bags under my eyes that is my audience that is to write care about am not out here doing a beauty contest it was like no wine in the sand that i drew. I made light earlier about controlling the narrative when you write a book has that been therapeutic from you . Have you recovered . I am not sure. Ist when i wask i enjoyed the Creative Process i wanted to be a novelist as a kid ive been addicted to crimes as i was four years old i know that is weird but and wanted toto write crime stories ive loved nancy drew i just never thought i could make a living that it so now it is like coming full circle. How are you organize youruryu time and . How much of your working life is devoted to writing verses appellate work . It is really hard because appellate work is demandingthe m i will finish a couple of cases right to opening priest and i have to work on the book and then come up with the chapter break down for a few days and go back to the brief and served by having had a vacation in about six years so i just work all the time. We have five minutes left. Any questions . This. Do you think o. J. Was guilty . Moe. [laughter] hi. D would assure percentage of certainty . Train wreck i am not answering that question one more time. I always wondered why it his escape was not brought to trial. Here it is why it wasntca but it was allowed first of all, the cars and they escaped in was als car and the items in the car in theling dufflebag we could not prove to put them in there i dontpute know if if somebody had packed that for him and once you put up the evidence of the chase and the defense can counter with all the phone calls i love her i did not do it so i have a dicey piece of evidence that doesnt show he was planning to run kasai do not know who packed the car and he can put out all of his denials so the downside out wade to the upside. After the jury selection do you thank you had a a chance to get a guilty verdict . A hung jury was the best setup we could call for it when i read their questionnaires and in halfnl to go to jury selection toto know what would happen but the final selection did p confirm my fears because we had a jury pool pact basically with people favorable to simpson since what i should say first is jury selection is really a jury day selection i cannot but the street to set want you or you it is a pool and then i can do is read out the ones that they think are the most worse but rarely have so many challenges so n you work with what you have. To do have a choice of another video . We never did i know thatag story floated and it wasnt even a question at that time the santa monica courthouse was a jury risk with earthquake damage also it would be a long pause trial under the month. So they put this on the security for that is the only place they could physically try the case. Not media cases blow up because of Bad Police Work and when this start did you have concern of, god, happy theres not something something that is going to cause us problems. Guest well, we think that in every case. Oh, man, please dont screw this up. But the we were confronting the issue of the racial divide and the mistrust with which the black community in particular viewed l. A. P. D. For many years, many years in los angeles, and particularly in the Downtown Los Angeles courthouse where id been practicing for ten years, before the simpson case. So there would be an issue with the black jurors was never in question. The question was to what degree and the question was how do i reach them . How do i assure them that he didnt plant the glove. Its not contaminated. How die present that . There just was never an answer to that because when youre talking about a whole different set of issues that have nothing to do with your evidence, evidence wont answer the problem. So, that was just an isness that had been true for so many years in los angeles, and of course in this case, too. I heard you on wgn radio yesterday and you commented on the case of a young whom who hand been raped in california and you were speechless about the press comments about her. Would you give your thoughts on that now. Guest i dont think i can repeat them but were talking about the stanford case. This young woman was at a party, drank a little too much, passed out, this guy somehow got her out of the house and raped her on the ground behind a dumpster while she was unconscious. Two young men bicycling by saw what was going on and called the police, pulled him off. One of those young men who rescued her was crying so uncontrollably he couldnt give a statement for a while. Was that bad. He was arrested. They went to jury trial. He was convicted and the judge sentenced him to six months. And made a statement why, saying he thought longer than that would be damaging for his future, right. Guest damaging to his future. An adverse consequence on his life. Gee, you think it might have an adverse consequence on her life . Shell never be the same. Never be the same. And she wrote an incredibly moving letter to the judge, to the court, to talk about what he had done to her and how her life had been thrashed and how she will never be the same again, and how she suffers for it. And that sentence, that six months was because he was a very famous a swimmer who was supposedly an olympic hopeful and all of that. He was given this basically pass, and i have to say i felt two ways about it. Felt number one, six months . For rape of an unconscious girl . Is at outrage. Number two, if this had been a young africanamerican man, think he would have gotten six months . I dont think so. I think that in fact in a comparable not a comparable case but another rape case the young man got 15 years. So, which is what this one should have gotten. I just hope ive been hearing that the judge is getting a lot of flak and im glad. Cant get enough flak. Im glad that people are speaking out. Aisle really glad cnn is doing town hall. Ashley banfield read he whole letter which took half hour and she cried. So did i. Unbelievable what this woman had gone through. But i have to say on a hopeful note its progress that were talk about this. Its progress that people are speaking out. Its progress that this judge is getting the heat he is getting for giving this guy a pass, and i really hoch that people Pay Attention, parents Pay Attention to the fact that this mans father said, well, anything more than six months would be an awful harsh sentence given it was only 20 minutes of action. They come from somewhere, and it has to do with the way we raise our children. You got to teach them young, and teach them once and for all, if everyone is drinking no one says yes. [applause] if anybody has not read her statement its extraordinary document. You should seek it out go ahead. Inwant your opinion of barry sec sheck. And his dna the blood evidence. Guest barry schek. I had me biggest problem with him. Johnny and i got along. Can you recall and i got along. I had a big problem with barry shec conclude because i know he straightup lied. He knew dna inside and out and foundedded the innocence project, very important project that uses dna to exonerate people who were wrongly convicted. Ive sent a couple of clients to them. But what he did in that courtroom was unconscionable. Again, we were objecting, the judge was overruling. So, i can only take it so far with what i think of barry schek because the defense does what they do. But the thing that is funny to me i kept pointing it out but no one seemed to care the theories were conflicting. At one point he would say they planted the blood trail and then another point theyd a it got con dominated in the lab and let me gist says one thing about that. The notion that vannater had ojs blood and sprinkled i would between bundy and rockingham is insane for one reason. The blood trail was from was discovered that led from bundy all the way into rockingham, into his bedroom, before he came back from chicago. So, no one had him. No one had his blood. No one had anything, and the blood trail was already there. Many hours before he got back. So, not even possible. Go ahead. You have always been really inspirational to me in my life, watching you as a child. Work in corrective rehabilitation at cook county jail, and i just kind of wanted a piece of advice from a mentor how do you personally deal with working with someone that you know is innocent and then watching them get sense of sent away forever and how do you work with a person so forso many years and live your life knowing they are put away for something they didnt do. Guest first of all, thank you, and im honored. And i just dont know. I have a client who is right now doing 50 to life. He should have been doing at most maybe six years for manslaughter and its all wrong. We fought and fought and fought at every level, every level. We have a wit now with the Supreme Court. Dont know what to tell youve about that because its a heartbreak that i dont know what to tell you. Other than i keep in touch with him and i keep writing to him and telling him, i believe you. I know. The only thing that is left to offer because we have exhausted all of our remedies, and you can do that. But as far as how you heal personally, i havent found a way either. Dont know what to tell you. Bless you for the work youre doing. Do you find a danger of developing too thick of a skin because of stuff, the experience she says you dont want to expose yourself to that over and over. Guest i daytona. I dont knoll howl you could develop so thick a skin as to not suffer over injustice no matter which side of the lawsuit. At the end of the day whether youre a defense attorney or a prosecutor, it is all about justice. I think were out of time. Give me cutting my throat. Thank you very much. Thank marcia for being here. [applause] i hope people will go out and grab a book and have it signed and say hi to her. Sluice absolutely. And thank you all for attending this presentation. Miss clark will be signing books directly outside the auditorium, and the litfest appreciate yours feedback. Go to www printers row litfest to provide that. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] he [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] that was author and of j. Simpson trial prosecutor, marcia clark, talking about her work as an author. This is book of thes live coverage from chicago and will continue in ten minutes to get the full schedule go to booktv. Org or follow us on facebook, facebook. Com booktv, or on twitter, book tv. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] your book you write that a america is the Worlds Largest jailer. Yes, we are, and its the title we should wear shamefully. We have five percent of the worlds population but 25 of the worlds prison population, 2. 3 Million People incarcerated for spending over 50 billion a year on corrections and when it comes to the racial disparates in our system, there are more africanamericans under correctional supervision today than there were slaves at the height of slavery in 1850. Hough did we get there . Well, its all really goes back to the war on drugs in the late 70s and created disparates in sentencing and always goes back to sentencing tough on crime, sentencing lawses that it made it easier for people go to jail, easier for though stay there and stay there for very extended periods of time. Youre a native new yorker, and theres a period in the 70s where new york was pretty rife with crime. People were scared. Was there a different solution . Well, for one, fear is a terrible fear is not the thing to be ruled by when we make decisions as far as government and as far as these kinds of things go because fear makes you act rashly, and what happened was that this fear was played upon, and prison was presented and mass incarceration was presented as the only possible alternative, the only way to deal with crime. We know that there is no correlation between the drop in crime rates and the rise from mass incarceration. Study after study has shown this, and so we know that there are other routes. It decide not have to be this route for mass incarceration. Were in california, the home of three strikes and youre out. Has that been effective in any way . Hardly. In california, three strikes and your out with the drug laws in new york, a whole host of other tough sentencing laws that have landed, again, millions of people in jails and prisons and under correctional supervision, draining our resources, and draining us of the value of these human beings who could be contributing to society in all kinds of ways. You can watch this and other programs online at book of there. Org. Booktv. Org. The new boston post put together a list of the top ten conservative books to put on a Summer Reading list. The list starts off with Pulitzer Prize winning columnist george wills the pursuit of happiness and other sobering thoughts, collection of essays written in 1978. William f. Buckley, jr. Is next on the list withan explore asia of his Roman Catholic faith in near mr. God this to downing years by Margaret Thatcher discusses her time as Prime Minister in the u. K. In the way of the wasp, examining the personality and values of george h. W. Bush and his views on Public Service and tradition. The autobiography, the undocumented mark stein, is fifth on the new boston post list of suggested Summer Reading followed bill the closing of the American Mind which is allen blooms critique of american culture. Next on the list is former oklahoma senator tom coburns, the debt bomb, which lays out his plan to make the government more fiscally responsible. Wall street journal columnist Peggy Noonans the time of our lives is a collection of her columns and comes in eighth on the list. Finishing off the new boston post list of suggested Summer Reading or randy barnetts examination of the constitution and how it applies to politics toysment and restoration, another book by george will on term limits and the functional democracy. Booktv has covered many of these books. You can watch them on our web site, booktv. Org. The heart of the problem is too many principals and School Board Members dont know or dont understand the limits of the constitution places on their ability to control what students say, while others simply disregard the law because they dont like it. Is a worked on this book, almost everybody i talked to informally said i have a censorship story. Either from their own days in school or from their children. And longtime teachers incredulously told me they had no idea that students at had First Amendment rightses and asked where i came up with such a creative notion. So, in proceeding i have to begin by giving you a whirlwind tour of First Amendment doctrine as it pertains to students and then turn to stories that capture the particular contemporary del dilemmas, the First Amendment is very confuse and says Congress Shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. At interpret this means that the government and anyone acting on behalf of the government may not silence speech because of its content or viewpoint. School districts, and everyone who work for. The, from principals to teachers to School Bus Drivers are the government when we talk about students freedom to speak. My research and comments today are limited to Public Schools because the First Amendment doesnt apply independent schools, whether secular or religious. Theyre not the government. The Supreme Court first took up the issue of student speech rights in 18943. In one of the earliest cases in which it actually upheld the speech rights of any individual. Barnett versus West Virginia involved Elementary School students. They were jehovahs witnesses who were at risk of expulsion and being sent to a juvenile reform torry because they refuels told say the pledge of allegiance on the ground it offended their religions but it was not litigated or interpreted as a religion case. The consequences today of speaking up and being punished can also be dire. Many students enter the school to prison pipeline as a result of being suspended, expelled or sent to an alternative school for troubled students after they engage in protected speech