now present a united and out with a new book god and government 25 years of fighting for equality secularism and freedom of conscience. it's a book that touches on your writings including this 2002 speech on page 61 lead -- where you say don't think the religious right understands government takes no sides and offers no help. that was a speech in 2002 i've included if anything changed medically from that time to now and it turns out these 13 years later it hasn't. i really think the religious right doesn't understand something fundamental. they understand the history in this country really demonstrates government works best and religion works best when you keep a decent distance between the two. the government shouldn't be hostile to religion. it should accept the claims of religion unless they come into direct conflict with the claims of someone else and their constitutional rights. i think we are better off when we keep that decent distance. i said in 2002 and i would say it's still true today. >> host: who is the religious right today in is that different from the religious right was 25 years ago? >> guest: fundamentally it's not. it's 20 to 21% of the american electorate treated this is a dramatically reliable statistic that comes out every time someone like john green does a survey. do you consider yourself a member of the religious right and a very powerful interest group and voting bloc particularly in republican primaries. >> host: what about a very specific interest group, politicians? are they more religious today than they were 25 years ago? >> guest: i don't think they are more religious but they perhaps talk about religion even more. it used to be even in the 50s politicians tended not to discuss their personal religious matters but now we find out recently donald trump's favorite book is the bible. hillary clinton gave the same answer some months ago. her favorite is the bible. i think this is indicative of how important it is for politicians to think at least that they are communicating with people by saying i am godly and i can prove it cause i read the bible. other presidents have tried to prove that, george bush the first tried to prove his favorite bible verses. he apparently got it reversed. he messed it up another people howard dean got into a lot of trouble not being able to figure out what it was about the democrats and republican have a tendency to want to make sure that any religious voters on their side know that those candidates are just like them. >> host: 254 new book democrats are working hard not to get behind on the jesus momentum. >> guest: it's absolutely true. this is something that is a bipartisan problem in american politics. frankly what you should do something like bill bradley when he was running for the senate and then when he had that aborted run for presidency he for presidency he was asked for presidency was ousdahl the time about his religion and he said frankly this is a political campaign. i don't choose to discuss my personal religious beliefs. it's okay if you do but if you pander in your explanation of those things then i think you are making a big mistake. megan kelly during the debate on fox with a 16 or 17, the 10 people that were there in that part of the debate she asked about god. i got a lot of notes and complaints from people the next day, why did she bring up god but i like it when people say so what do you think about god and god's relation to your campaign? the folks that night did not get clear answers but they have in the past. john kasich for example told me when asked how are you going to decide whether to run for president and he said i'm going to let the lord lead me and tell me what i should do with the rest of my life. he's now running for president so i guess he got the word or at least he thinks he got the word, god wants him to run. ben carson said when he decided to run he felt the fingers of god. i'm not sure what that meant but clearly it meant to him i'm going to be the next president and it goes on and on and on. frank he if you have four or five people who say in one political party god wants me to be the next president is clearly a failure to communicate or understand what the communication was because they all can't be right. >> host: if you're just joining us in the conversation republicans to conversation republicans (202)748-8001 if you have a question or comment for reverend barry lynne democrats (202)748-8000 and independents independents -- the bob -- the book on government .2 years ofe fighting -- how often are people surprised to learn that you are reverend? >> guest: frequently they are but i think and they also are surprised that i fight for secularism but there are two kinds of secularism. there are atheists who believe there is no god and then there are those of us who are theistic secularists who believe whatever you think about the god question the existence of purpose in the universe these kinds of questions we should debate them in appropriate venues but right now as i said the american atheist convention a year and a half ago we have about 25 more years to use save the first amendment. the ring we theists and on theists ought to agree about is a clear separation between church and state are you. >> host: how did you get into this were? >> guest: i discovered after working in civil rights and against the war in vietnam we once had a conversation with one of my roommates in college and said where are you going for spring break and he said london and i said that sounds like fun. he said it's not great what do you mean? my girlfriend and i have to go to get an abortion. i said you can't get an abortion in new york state? this is close but not prior to roe v. wade and he said no comments just to dangerous here. we have to go to a place where it's legal. this was an eye-opener for me. powerful religious interest at the time the roman catholic church primarily had such control that they could tell women exact with what they were permitted to do and what they were not permitted to do with their own bodily integrity. it was a shock to me and i figured i had a lot to learn and i did learn a lot. most of my life is then devoted to the first amendment. josé can read about it in this book with stories of the past 25 years governor perry lan -- reverend barry lynne. should be calling in from from virginia line for republicans. judy, good morning. >> caller: good morning sir. i barely -- very respectfully disagree with the reverend. our stuff in magna carta basically is still on the judeo-christian system. murder was murder theft was that the adultery was adultery etc.. the danger with the slippery slope is that we god rove eco-wade in 1973 and now we are looking at it again. marriage the supreme court and i would submit to you as much as i don't sit ported or may religious standpoint people marrying doesn't kill people. abortion does and i want to know how we got so far away and screwed it upfpo out of what mt of us would consider outright murder? >> guest: judy the idea that the magna carta somehow directed the united states constitution i think it's a startling correct. it's like the mayflower compact and other things that my friends on the religious light -- religious right in the do a lot of friends of the religious right but i think they are fundamentally wrong about that. we setup the united states constitution the first thing we did was article iii no religious test for public office and then we have mandated that the bill of rights passed by congress ratified by the states with this very clear unequivocal comment that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. people say that's congress that we passed the 14th amendment and frankly at that time republicans leaving the charge for the 14th amendment and it was very clear that their intent was to apply the bill of rights to the states. this new found interest in the 14th amendment on the partisan candidates maybe they should go back and look at what their own partyu thought the 14th amendment meant at the time of its ratification. >> host: james in rochester michigan lines for independence. you are up next with the reverend barry lynne. >> caller: my comment is a reference to your previous guest who said very clearly i think a couple of times that his opinion is such that the united states was founded solely on judeo-christian principles. i'm going to prequalify my question with the understanding that i'm catholic but i don't disagree that somehow religion played a role in the founding of the united states but to solely separate judeo-christian principles and the only basis really rubs me the wrong way because they think it marginalizes other religions and other -- and i'd like to get your current guest comment on that area. >> guest: james i think you're absolutely right. certainly there were people who were practitioners of religion and even a fairly conservative christianity but the real framers of the constitution want to make clear that this country country -- want to make a short note. tonight we have c-span live here filming the event. also just to make you aware we have politics and prose sponsoring this event. we are entering a bus boys locations. we are here at the tacoma location. we are also at the brooklyn location so you can see us there as well. one of the great and if it's being here can order food throughout the event and love to have you do that. you can purchase the book afterwards at the front of the story. as i mentioned tonight we have stephen harding here. world war ii in japan and in cease-fire but there were a few final moments for the story to be told. stephen harding chronicles an american soldier and the side of his final flight to japan in the book "last to die". publisher weekly called the book meticulously researched account of the days following japan surrender conspiring as harding's determination to. harding expressed his commitment as a journalist and is not emotionally attached to the middle story that he told. he admits to his personal connection with tony from his service in the vietnam war to a detailed journalism of american affairs. stephen harding is the author of eight previous books including "new york times" bestseller the last battle. he is a longtime journalist specializing in military affairs for two decades on the official magazine of the u.s. army reporting from northern ireland israel egypt new zealand kuwait zimbabwe and iraq. currently is editor-in-chief of military history magazine and his contributions on the defense topics of aviation military and maritime history have appeared in the "san francisco chronicle" the smithsonian world war ii defense weekly. he currently lives in northern virginia. without further ado, stephen harding. [applause] >> well that was impressive. thanks very much. i want to thank you for that nidetch eduction -- nice introduction and for having me here tonight. i don't know how much you know about the story that makes up "last to die." i want to give me a brief overview and i will tell you a few things about how i brought the story together. in a nutshell, this book is the story of the last american killed in combat in world war ii his name is tony marciano and he's from pottstown pennsylvania and he was about a week passed his 20th -- 20th birthday. he was sent an obscure american aircraft called the p. 32 bomber flying over tokyo august 18 over 70 years ago when the aircraft was attacked by japanese fighters and tony died and two other people on the plane were seriously wounded. tony's death was a tragedy obviously of his life for his family and the country as a whole but it would have been a little more than a footnote to history except for the fact that his death could very well have wrought about the prolonging of world war ii toward that most people assume was already over. a little background. i first heard tony marciano's story 30 years ago. i was working in san diego as a matter fact and i co-wrote a book on this obscure airplane that i mentioned earlier. the p. 32 was built about the same time as the b-29. the difference was there were several thousand b-29s build and only over 118 b. 32 dominators. the reason for that while the p. 32 is actually quite a good airplane when it worked it often did not work. it had issues such as engine fires, landing gear that wouldn't come down or go up when it was supposed to but when it worked it was comparable to the b-29. only a handful of e. 32's made it to the pacific and literally in the last works -- weeks of world war ii. i thought i was a great story and i wanted to tell it so i waited 30 years because life gets in the way. you have families. i did a lot of reporting from various parts of the world and finally a couple of years ago i thought this is the time to tell it because we were coming up on the anniversary of end of the war. most americans i think have a slightly incorrect view of how world war ii and the pacific ended. if i asked most of you when you thought v-j day was if you understand what it means victory over japan you would probably say august 18 whatever year we are in but that's not entirely accurate. world war ii ended on september 2, 1945 when the surrender documents were signed by the japanese aboard the uss missouri in tokyo bay. august 18 comes up in most people's mind for august 15 and a lot of people's minds because those two days are significant and they are dealt with in the book. if you remember on august 6, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on hiroshima. three days later august night on nagasaki. you would think watching to the major cities in japan disappear beneath the clouds would have prompted the japanese to end the war at that time. it didn't. there was a strong movement within senior leadership of the japanese military and government to continue the war not because the japanese felt that they could actually win but because they thought if they inflict enough casualties on the allied forces they could win a negotiated settlement because if you remember at the potsdam conference allied said no conditions that no conditions at also these japanese diehards figured if they cause enough trouble for the allied forces we would negotiate. emperor here quico saw it differently. he had seen several hundred thousand of his people vaporized not to mention the firebomb raids that we have been conducting for months before that. he like most knowledgeable japanese assumed a ground invasion of japan was in the planning stages and it was. it was called operation downfall. it had two parts. one would have started in late 1945 in the second part in early 1946. it would have been the largest amphibious invasion in history and it would have been even had it been successful disastrous for the attacking allies and the defending japanese are the casualty estimates among the allied invading troops and these were americans australians brett were in the hundreds of thousands are in terms of the japanese casualties to rake in millions because of the resistance. so here he'd tell decided he was going to go against literally hundreds of japanese and the japanese militarist in the 1930s had manipulated to become a political concept rather than a cultural concept. rashida always be interpreted, surrender was shameful never acceptable and japan would have defied on until victory. he surprised many of his advisers by agreeing to the terms of a pottstown declaration on august 14 he recorded an rbi message that was to be broadcast the following day by the japanese people in which he announced his intention to surrender. that recording in the knowledge within the die-hard militarist sections of the government and military triggered a palace coup on august 15. it was ultimately unsuccessful but for some number of hours the imperial palace complex in tokyo was in play. there were troops and people were dying. a very senior general was shot and decapitated because he failed to go along with the coup plotters. ultimately the japanese announced to the allies their acceptance of the pottstown declaration for surrender although in his radio broadcast here quico never said the word surrender. he said things like we have to endure the unendurable and accept the unacceptable but he never said we are going to surrender. two military organizations now come into play. there were two fighter squadrons one of them was the 302nd fighter squadron outside of tokyo and the other one was south of tokyo and faced a place called obama. these two groups of aviators for very different reasons decided not to go along with the emperor's order to lay down their arms and accept the cease-fire and surrender. the people of the 302nd were driven by their commander captain named casano who was a die hard rashida driven militarist. he was also undergoing a relapse of malaria so he wasn't thinking very clearly. he infuses men with the thought that we cannot surrender we will shame our country and shame our emperor so his core group of fighter pilots who included some the best surviving fighter pilots that japan had and they had some the few surviving excellent fighter planes decided they would not go along with the surrender and they would attack and the allied aircraft that showed up over japan. down the road in the cusco them mood was somewhat different. there were fighter pilots there people like one of the best-known pilots of world war ii. they decided they would resist for another reason. they saw it as a question of national sovereignty. japan had not surrendered yet. no surrender had been signed so they saw it as a question of defending the sovereign airspace until the country surrendered. the court thing to remember is the atomic bombings at this point in japan have been conducted by two aircraft. both of the b-29s on each occasion. to the japanese at b-29 and ab 32 right chemical. four engine bombers with a big tall tale. on august 16 chairman douglas macarthur was the commander of allied forces in the southwest pacific and ultimately will become the supreme commander of allied powers in occupied japan wanted to test the fidelity of the japanese to see if they were going to follow through on their agreement to surrender. on august 16 you sent for the 32 senate aircraft over different parts of the area around metropolitan tokyo to photographic airfields as part of the cease-fire fighter aircraft were supposed to have propellers from it so they can fly. he wanted to see if that was actually happening. on august 16 before b. 32's cruised leisurely over tokyo and took pictures and flew back to open outlook. on august 17 he decided to dispatch another for four specific set of missions. these poor aircraft on the other hand encountered intense antiaircraft fire which implies collusion between the governors and the radar operators and more importantly they were attacked by japanese fire. there were no casualties but some of the aircraft were damaged so they can flew back to okinawa at this point douglas macarthur had a decision to make. with this attack means the japanese would renege on their agreement to surrender or was it the work of diehards? he did something military commanders had to do throughout history. he had to make it very hard decision to send people back into harm's way to find out what would happen. really it's that simple. on august 18, 1945 for the 32 dominators took off from an airfield on okinawa. they headed off towards japan and being b-32s there were mechanical difficulties. at that point the other two aircraft continued to fly towards japan which in retrospect may not seem like a good command decision. when they arrived over tokyo they were taken under antiaircraft fire and intensely attacked by japanese fighter planes. at this point things went from bad to worse especially for tony marcion. tony wanted to be a pilot like a lot of people and when he enlisted in the army air force in 1943 his intent was to be a pilot. unfortunately like many pilots that didn't work out. he. with the crew and they were supposed to go to italy to bomb the germans. their crew was converted from it on barton unit to a aerial reconnaissance unit. they were flying ab 24 liberator. they get to okinawa and first they went to -- but by the time they got to okinawa there were very few japanese aircraft active anywhere except over japan so the need for aerial gunners had fallen off significantly. so tony and his fellow gunners were drugged and into being photographers assistance. they would help load and unload complex aerial cameras are being used. on august 15, action the 14th tony volunteered for a reconnaissance flight over tokyo, the worst decision ever made. the reason he volunteered because as an european theater house and anyone home depended on the number points you had. he got more points for flying over hostile territory which japan still technically was that everybody thought the war was going to end and on august 15 the emperor's acceptance of the surrender conditions made it look like a war was going to be over. tony who really wanted to get home had volunteered for what he thought was going to be a fairly long but uninvolved mission. that didn't turn out to be the way it was and on august 17 when the b-32s came back in that first contested grade i can imagine he was really regretting the choice that he made up by that point it was a done deal. on the morning of august 18 wendy's for b-32s took off tony was working as an assistant to an aerial photographer from holyoke massachusetts. joe had been a photographer and tony was interested in cameras. they sort of worked together couple of times. they were close friends but they knew each other. there was another man from their unit because they were not in the same unit that operated these b. 32's. these were from arab reconnaissance squadron -- they didn't know anyone on the airplane they gone too. tony had never seen ab 32 until the first day he got on one. he was amazed at the size. it was like ab 24 a product of the consolidated aircraft company so there were similarities in the general look but it was gigantic crater was really a large airplane. they got on the airplane and flied -- flew eight hours to tokyo and the attack happens. the irony is they discovered the aerial camera did not work. when they jerry rig away to put put it in the mobs in the camera it would work to they were flying over tokyo when it was attacked to the photographer had been crosstrained originally as a gunner said he and tony decided they couldn't take pictures. they would help the gunners on ó/ >> today there was a fatality and other injuries. so macarthur could have started the war against japan to seeking authorization to drop a third atomic bomb. as i mentioned earlier, there was an invasion plan. depending on what sources you read had a third atomic bomb been necessary it hadn't been ready in months. the japanese maybe surrendering, the united states and allies continuing the war against japan which would have resulted in ally casualty but certainly japanese casualties. he said, if those two airplanes which were marked and painted with green crosses, if they take off then we know that at least the japanese government is serious. if they don't take off, then we know that the japanese have decided to continue the war and at that point she would have decided from authorization from washington how far to go in resuming campaign against japan. if that had gone on, ultimately so would probably the landin vagues -- land invasion. i can can honest i will say that i'm sorry it didn't happy. macarthur waited a minute, actually waited 12 hours, and ultimately made way to manoa. the trio second group pilots they meard about -- heard about the surrender flight and they were going to attempt to shoot them down. imagine what would have happened then. carrying political personalel down in flames over japan in naval air force. and then, triggering all of these things. that is the crust of the story. a lot of the meat in this book is about the personalities involved. one of the people that play a big role is a japanese naval captain. you might recognize the name, he led the first waive of the attack on pearl harbor, he realized that to do so was what he believed. of course, after his death known as show-off. i want to tell you two other people that i was fortunate to meet. he was the only son. yet two younger sisters teresa and joldi, we met them and spent an emotional credible day with them. tony's death happened yesterday and to get them, they. >> very sharing and they talked about they gave me letters, photographs, it's painful for them to do that. part of the reason it was painful, it's because like everyone else in america the japanese were going to surrender and then days later comes in the announcement that their brother had been killed with combat. it completely devastated tony's parents. he was initially in an individual grave and his remains were not repatrioted until 1949 and they conducted a full military funeral proceeded by a catholic mass. it was a tremendously moving thing to talk to his sisters about those events, and it's being able to find people like that that make these sorts of stories real. you get too wrapped up in maneuvers and strategy when the war is about individual people, millions of them but individual. by being able to talk about tony, it really sort of brought it home to me. so that's the tbenl -- general thing, and no, i haven't told you the whole book. you have to read. well, no you don't have to. it would be happy to entertain questions if anybody has any. yes? [inaudible conversations] >> holdout of japanese sold -- soldiers there. did you -- how did you pick that because you can probably do other things to talk about? >> the way i came to the conclusion that tony was the last american killed in combat because it's listed as such, a long time ago a historian. it was one of sort of judgment calls. there were a lot american service personnel dying after it went into effect. they died of wound suffered previously, they died of injuries. a lot of people died of disease. but tony was the last american service member killed by direct enemy action in a combat action meaning that his comrades were shooting back. now, you're right in the phillipines came back in 1976, but the last people killed in combat is tony and there were some naviators before they got to seize fire. sir. >> the -- thank you. i'm a journalist of 50 years in washington. but where do you sort out the pieces -- two of my dear friends are sister megan rice who went to jail for three years, you know, for getting into our -- our armory at tennessee and tom, a great, great -- tom -- i gave him the title of the retired fired bishop of detroit. these are two of the most highly motivated people i know. megyn that moved to washington last weekend, was the person at 83 years old to a so-called in tennessee. tom is the cofounder of catholic here in -- in the united states. how do you -- what -- when you hear about those people, how do you sort them out? >> people that are against the concept of nuclear war? >> yeah. >> everybody has a concept of nuclear war. >> well, one of the wars -- [inaudible conversations] >> well, again, i think any rational human being is against violence if it's at all possible. in terms of a world war ii, because in writing about the last days of world war ii in japan, which was something i did not know a whole lot about before i started writing the book, you find out that the japanese were equally separated by ideology about the war but after the dropping of the atomic bombs japanese leadership was divided about whether to continue the war or not. begin, -- again, the japanese didn't know how many atomic bombs we didn't have. what if there had been a fourth, a fifth or a seventh? what would modern japan be like that if tokyo would have been vaporized. and to that sense, it's probably a good thing that it had taken a while to prepare additional bombs, but in that sense the question about world war ii history, was it necessary to use the nuclear weapons or was it not. i think you can find arguments on both sides, but again, i think, had the japanese not been sort of shoved brutally into thinking about surrendering, the consequences would have been even worse in terms of casualties. we are offered a mock-up of the little boy bomb to put on display. we thought about it long and hard because it would have been install for free. do i really want to put an atomic bomb on display in san francisco in the late 1970s. i had to say i chickened out and said, no. is that message -- in this book the atomic bombs are part of the background story, but you could write volumes about what might have happened. in fact, a review book came across my desk someone saying there were seven atomic bombs in the locker. i don't want to consider what would have happened and what the world would look like today if it had happened. >> i'm curious about your research process to understand the japanese perspective on this. i'm sure you have more ces of tony's story. how did you get in the minds of the japanese strategists? >> the japanese destroyed a lot of records within a very short period of time after the surrender. the japanese that were involved in the attacks were essentially told to go home and hide and they destroyed their own military records and, of course, the ally bombing of japan had destroyed a lot of records as well. so the short answer is there has been a lot of scholarship in japan making use -- ally reference. the strategic bombing which gave a list of all of the targets we hit in japan and japanese occupied areas. there's a lot of that available. it's actually the basis for the japanese writing about in english because it's created by american ally military organizations. the other secret sources is i have a japanese translator. it turns out like any modern journalist i went to google and i found a very nice gentleman who just by complete coincidence lives in the town of california where i was born and raised. it's called oxnard. born in japan. i first contacted him just by sheer coincidence. he was about to leave to japan to do research on a completely different topic. i have been doing it for years. japanese records not so much. having to su being able to do it, and the usual other places, the air force history center in alabama, consolidated in san diego. it's all about pulling together not just facts and try to make the most logical conclusion on those facts. you can get carried away. there's a phrase called research rapture. you have to force yourself to stop researching and start writing. i did that a couple of times. and the book that i have coming up next summer, it was a real problem because of the fascinating story as are my other books. you have to really be no love with what you are going to write about or fascinated by it because it takes long hours of research and i haven't yet figured out how to write with a partner. i can't. it's just something i do by myself with my wife's support and seriously without her support this would not have happened. anything else? great. >> i think i have one more. >> sure. >> was there discussion when they broke down, maybe we ought to go home, now you are sending two planes out alone and unafraid and they can't protect each other. did that come in your research at all? >> it came up. i first started, although, i didn't start writing the book, i was fortunate to interview the participants, almost all of them are gone now, which is sad. but i did long hours of personal interviews with the pilots, gunners, with the guy who helped tony, so i believe able to find out that there was quite a lively discussion between the mission commander and the aircraft commander and the other. the aircraft commander was firmly of the opinion that they had to turn around, but the mission commander was -- had some information that the oh guy didn't about how important this mission was going to be, so he did, again, he had to make one of those decisions that you make in the military in times of conflict specially. he said we're going in and they weren't mutually supported because they were supposed to be flying different recon patterns. they were miles apart. they were on their own, which again in retro spect probably helped lead with the tragedy that occurred. thank you very much, i appreciate your interest. [applause] >> thank you all for coming tonight. he will be around to sign the book if you like and you with purchase them up in the front. thank you so much for coming. have a great night. >> marks the tenth anniversary of hurricane katrina with special programming. one year after the storm as c-span tours hurricane damage and speaks with those on the ground. that's followed by a house hearing featuring testimony from the new orleans resident who left the city. here is a preview. >> why were we held hostage? i didn't go anywhere. why were we held hostage and not allowed to rescue our people. we have proof of it. why was that the case? call the police, i'm going to stopy talking when i finish the messages from the community. i didn't come to represent me. i didn't come representing french coal. i came representing the people sitting on the street right around a brick fireplace because that's the only heat we have in december. the hurricane happened in august. somebody needs to hear why we are less than 500 people spread over 50 states, it's a question one of my neighbors want to know. >> it's not for us for it to be rebuilt or not rebuilt. we have a flood protection system that's, you know, going to work. when you see this and you know, just a few blocks up the road, this wholey cross with all the vacant housing, you will say, well, first thing is first. maybe get people to higher ground because that house cannot be rebuilt. it's not possible. you can still smell that death now. you will all notice it later when somebody tells you you smell bad. they bring the dogs first. >> watch our special programming on the tenth anniversary all this week beginning 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> tonight on the communicators, this summer marks the 25th anniversary of digital television. author talks about the development of the m -- medium of the 1990s. >> consideration for the next generation broadcast standards. we weren't quite sure we wanted to do that because we were satellite and cable guys, but we ended up doing that. all of a sudden in june 1990, our cover was blown, what we were doing. at first people said it was impossible, but sure enough a year or so later, all of our competitors were following us and it became a real race. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the role of immigration. alfonso aguilar latino partnership direct or for american principles in action will join us. john luís vilson, this is not a test. we will take your phone calls, emails and tweet. live every morning on c-span. >> a labor reporter. suffered a major setback last week. >> last year the north western football players filed a petition for the union election and the argument was that they're employers of the school. the basic idea that a scholarship for work rendered. there's lots of things they have to do and there's quite a workload that comes with it. they claim that they were employed and they wanted to join a labor june. this was a big setback from the board last week, a regional director from the board did i remembered that they were employees and they gave a green light for the election to go forward. this time around the board in washington, one step up, simply decline to assume jurisdiction in the case. what that means that north western players are not going to unionize. they did vote. now we will never know what the resultsel are. so the board -- it's sort of amounted to a big dodge. i had one lawyer describe as a punt because the board, they sort of dodged the basic question here whether or not these players are employees. they decided that it was not in the players' interest. was this a surprise or are they considered to have a liberal majority, yeah, i thought the ruling was going to the players way. it's three democrats and two republicans. t liberals are more disposed of what the players are making. i can't speak to what was going on to the board's members minds. you had members of congress weighing in on this, republicans in particular, this would be disastrous if players can unionize. congress funds the labor board. so had they given the go ahead for players, i think the politicses is it would have been very big. >> we will talk about the topic in the next 20 to 25 minutes. headlines for the republicans. special line for current and former college athletes. i would love to get your thought on unionization on the players who try to unionize. what did they try to bargain for? >> guest: they are not asking for wages. they are not asking for money, not at this point anyway. one being guarantee of scholarships. it's still possible for a player to get hurt playing football, basketball, whatever sport and lose scholarship and a lot of people view that as unfair, another is related to medical coverage. a lot of players not surprisingly want to know that if they get hurt while playing for their school that they have lingering medical issues, that that is is going to be covered. that was another big issue for them. again, we'r te not asking for payment, although a lot of people felt that the possibility of wages and money entering college boards was sort of the --in >> the headline, worked on north western football players went get a union but their fight doesn't end here. explain the second part of that headline? >> this is the end of then,oe rd for the north western players, this group. it's not the end of the unionization efforts in college football and it's certainly not theeg end of larger legal battls as it relates to pay and general treatment ofs the athletes. a few things can happen here. when the board claims for jurisdiction, not to get too deep into the weeds here, the essential issue was no question being a private school. labor board and federal labor laws cover private sector. that was the basis for filing petition. but the vast majority of schools and big-time college schools are public schools. public schools would be subject to collective bargaining laws in those individual states. so really you're just talking about a handful along with north western that would be private schools and big-time private schools. if you grant this one union, it can really upset things in a broader field where we have no jurisdiction at all. so that was the main reason for why they decided to step back. now one possibility here is that maybe a state does come along and grant collective bargaining rights to athletes in some fashion. i personally think it's unlikely. again it goes back to politics. it's considerable that a liberal state like california, people disposed of doing that. but the politics of this gets very heated. i don't know who or what governor would really want to weigh into that. waiting.john is john, you're on with dave jason of the huffington post. >> goodgood morning. is nothing more than in my view another cynical form of slavery. there was a form of ground university president that once said, the big institutions, lets stap and have all universities declare either absolutely amateur in nature or academic standards from the entry level to the graduation of process and or declare that you are in a proleague, in which case you did not have to have any standards whatsoever academically. .. would live, and then put the product out on the field for what it is. and if they chose to go to class and eventually get a degree in whatever subject matter, fine. but i think that is where it is. to me, mightily -- minor leagues for professional teams, they should be paid. they are >> host: dave jamieson the system that he described is that possible in this environment? >> guest: a lot of people share the callers perspective. a lot of people now are increasingly feeling like this idea of amateurs amend college sports is kind of a sham especially when you're talking about college football and basketball with billions of dollars of revenue coming in to new