and getting help deftly do that if you can. and you have a cross rifles. i went to central back two years ago to the day. i went to the one in arkansas. okay. i forget his name. his like a walk-inwa refrigerator. i never went there. after i got out i went to israel. i wish i did. one of our guys. .. he went there right before the last performance. 2012. he said -- she said. aaron pierce. they are still teaching there. he is definitely there. i'm from texas. he kind of talks like this all the time. >> it wasn't me, was it?ibes eve >> no. doesn't really open his mouth. >> he'd always yell at me because every time we would write up a cigarette. his site you ever have a cigarette not in your mouth? do you ever have a tip not in your mouth? >> publicly say something else. anything else? you have something burning in your eyes. no? anybody? let's get it started, man. i am not big army is not taking anymore. >> to go to the italian? budget cuts, man. >> they filled up the 82nd. now they have the infantrymen with zero skill so we can't keep filling them out. >> are you going to stay in? !oss. go for it, man. go for it. i've got bad memory loss, man. i have to see a face. i'll never forget a face, but names are like -- i forgot the name which is to develop. peers. you are laughing, i'm being serious. >> are you ready on some books? let's do it, man. >> will start in the front row. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome to denver on booktv, located along the front range of the rocky mountains, this capital city is colorado's largest in the populated with over 3 million people, founded in 1858 nine encounter in the gold rush it is now home to a u.s. mankind is the largest wine producer in the world. with the help of our comcast cable partnerscome over the next two hours we looks where the city's history and literary culture including a visit to the tattered cover. >> tattered cover mr. tobias d. vogel and i think 1971. joyce cox or run the end of 1973, beginning of 1974 and in a lot of ways, joyce really invented what has become modern brick and mortar retailing. and i, if you look at tattered cover, you will see brass fixtures in dark way. the original superstores are modeled on this. >> while in denver, we also spoke with juan thompson, son of author hunter s. henderson -- thompson. >> uninvolved i would say. not that he didn't love me and care about me, but if far it's been i'm not going to go out tonight and see my friends, i will they home and hang out with the kids and make them dinner. no, that was not him. >> first, we begin with the ride along toward denver with reporter jon murray at the highlights unique locations that the city. >> this is downtown denver, colorado's capital city. >> i have lived here over a decade in the city changed and i liked the general direction of the city. >> this is jon murray, city hall reporter for the denver post. when we were in town on october, hezbollah denied local content vehicle to talk about denver's taste treat and the place we see today. >> it's my first time in denver. never been here before. if someone like me has never been to denver, hulk explained the city. >> denver is a city that was originally silver and gold and oil boom and bust city and in the last 30 years it has been kind of a western city on the rise. it still hasn't -- other industries, too. growth has been a big dynamic year for the last 30 years or so. >> denver is the economic stand appear. >> denver has gone through a lot of economic change for the gap is widening because it's growing so quickly. affordability is hugehere. they are living up very comfortably. the rents are going up pretty quickly. that is pricing some people out of the city. the dynamics that teachers and firefighters are finding it harder to stay in denver and so they are moving to the suburbs because it's too expensive. denver has added 85,000 people in five years. it is growing very quickly. >> what is bringing people here? >> a stronger economy, the quality of life is amazing. keep going straight. you can meet so many people who moved here in the last few years. >> tell me about the neighborhood ahead of you. >> so, we are about to head into one of the parts of denver that has changed the most and has the most money invested in the last 10 or 15 years. central platte valley includes lower downtown and also the river area in union station was just reopened a couple years ago after a $500 million investment in the transit center. an underground by center camera rail lines going in. some are open, some will be opening in the next couple of years. and then there's also a billion dollars of new buildings that have gone in. a whole new neighborhood around union station. >> what was that like previously? >> 25 years ago or 30 years ago it was a whole rail yard. the rail lines make space on all this stuff around here has gotten redevelop into actual neighborhood. >> who lives here? give me a picture of who's spent their time in the neighborhood. >> this is millennial sensual. it's millennial with college education and good paying jobs. the baby boomers who are more like retired nhl live downtown. it is mostly apartments down here, some condos. but they are kind of high-priced apartments. >> how is that changing the look of denver? it's a beautiful city. the rocky mountains or a backdrop. how is that changing aesthetically from warehouses over here but i see this new construction. >> this guideline is expanding for sure. it's making central denver a much more urban place. there are new mass transit lanes opening, light rail line and are trained to the airport that starts over here, just opened in the last couple of my. so all these changes are giving denver a much more urban character and more urban feel. we are still a city of transition, but that excites a lot of people a lot of people appear to >> give me the downside of it. if we are honest. >> at the rents an apartment come you don't know how much her rent will be going up. i've actually done that myself. my rent went up by double digits last year percentagewise. that's hard to deal with winter salary is not doing such. >> the cost of living and rising. >> it's like the rest of the country. wages are shooting up very much but the cost of living is. denver is a diversifying city. it's always had an interesting diversity as far as the quite a bit lower african-american neighborhoods and stronghold that they'll be going through. most of the ethnic diversity has been an annex. i think what you see is some of these new neighborhood that are higher-priced are overwhelmingly white. >> i also have noticed that i have to admit it's a beautiful city, but i see a lot of homeless is here. what is the solution to that? >> that's another big problem here. it is kind of similar to the homelessness dynamic ec in a city like portland or ross said for standard cisco, worried about denver is known no mythical pity, it is not used those spirits were tempered in the winter. people can get by except for maybe a few days. what that means is just as we draw for millennial and people on the higher economic society, it's also an appealing place for the homeless. and quite honestly the people moving here who aren't homeless that are lower income than they get here and don't realize how expensive it is to get forced out onto the street. that is a problem we are grappling with here. you do have that contingent fees may be younger and homeless because they might have some drug issues. they made a john by legal marijuana here. we're still figuring out what the dynamic looks like and how much marijuana is the fact you not. it's caused some problems and i would say the city is still working on trying to solve some of those issues and hasn't gotten very far. >> historically the african-american neighborhood going back to this. it was the part of denver that when the rest of the city wasn't so welcoming to african-americans have their jazz clubs and social clubs and just strong holds of the black community. denver doesn't have those larger black community is a lot of big cities do. it is a very close-knit community and still is in many. >> what are the whole voters from that neighborhood? >> are still historic loadings appear. quite a few folks have lived here their entire lives. but it is a rapidly changing neighborhood. we will see some older buildings but also newer building. >> if this neighborhood in transition. >> this is the historic five-point intersection here. and so they see have kind of the old businesses, but then also some new restaurants, some hipster joints. frankly there's a lot of white people who live in this neighborhood now. i have an african-american friend who has the latino husband. they are gentrifiers color, but that not a cold. more often than not white people are moving in and that does have a little bit of resentment because it is a very visible reminder of the change that's happening. >> if we were to come to 20, 30, 40 years ago, what would you have seen here? >> i think you would've seen a neighborhood that was much more african-american, much more culturally proud. it is still culturally proud. and also probably the 60s, 70s neighborhood that is struggling with the rest of central denver economically. >> tell me about the struggle. where is it now? >> back in the 70s and 80s, it ever was very reliable. so when times are good they were really good. when times were bad, the economy hit the floor. and so you had a downtown that was more like an office park and -- apartment. you had a little bit less of an urban downtown area or central denver area and all of that has changed. >> you're the city council reporter on the government day care. what are some interesting shifts that you kind of thing from that standpoint? >> i think you've seen last year a lot of turnover. one of the things that you did the if the influx of younger councilmembers. a few in the 30s and 40s like any urban city council tends to favor folks running the capital. more retire raise. now you have working age folks. we are recommending more of the millennial residence here and there pointed you. some of them are also on the reservation bandwagon, but some of them also are more in favor of the marijuana industry in hearing their concerns and tried to ballot that. i think he seen a listening on the city council in kind of a local iceni platitudes. >> we went under a seven-day period is there a distinction now that we are officially in a different neighborhood? >> yeah, it does. this is a peer. that neighborhood south of the highway, too. it's kind of our classic urban story from the 1900 when a highway system was built. it was a very proud working-class neighborhood. the federal government a highway right in the middle. and we've been dealing with the effects of that ever since. we have a ton of lower middle class. it has a very high latino population, spanish-speaking population. you have housing on the right and nonetheless you've got the national western talkshow -- stock show, which is the biggest in the country. >> for people like me, what we mean by that? >> it has a rodeo. it's got people coming to show cattle from around the country and all kinds of competitions. >> so here in this pretty urban area, you will just bring your cattle. >> yakima every january for a couple weeks it turned into a massive stock show. >> over here you've got sanctuary. that's a big dispensary, but a marijuana production facility. it tends to be because of zoning requirements and area for industrial and residential are mixed. that's been a big problem. there's been a lot of pushback because the industry is taking over all the spaces. they'd rather have a space that is going to constrain the neighborhood growth in the future. >> i'm sure people in denver and colorado get sick of the known for the place where marijuana is legal. but it is fascinating from the outside. you see there is some brutality they are. nothing like you see when you drive through denver. dispensaries lives, businesses businesses, it looks like apple's door. >> there're more dispensaries in denver than starbucks in the donald's combined. this last building is a production house for marijuana. and if we come out here, we'll turn left on 47th, but that this corner a star bud. it is interesting because it was the first big of a neighborhood push back. there is a small dispenser on the second floor. when it came up for renewal, the neighborhood pushed back and the city agreed with time that it was a bad influence on the area. it was going to hurt the plans for the neighborhood. so they're going to lose their license for the next month. they are going to appeal it and the court is likely challenging the decision. but this is the first time the city despite the renewal for a grow license. there has been some pushback had one of the debates right now that you can only use it privately. you cannot use it in public even though some people violate that law. there's going to be one or two ballot measures this fall. should we allow private clubs for people to go smoke up or invade date, especially to race. and then allow businesses including bars to apply for a permit to have consumption areas within their buildings. >> sort of like the old days when you had your restaurant you had your smoking and not smoking section here in the bar. >> over here is the neighborhood where the streets don't have sidewalks. it is still neglected by the city and it's a very big topic of discussion. >> would've been to three different neighborhoods in denver. we've looked at the good and kind of the bad and every city have that. what is next for denver? where do you see your city? >> denver is in some ways past the cusp of becoming an acre, more vibrant city. it has become a magnet for younger people are young professionals here. and lot of ways it is a success story. you can see in some of these neighborhood a lot of challenges left in that they're going to be the big questions that faces the next decade or so and whether it becomes economically equal, a city of economic equality or a city where there is a widening gap he cleaned the rich and the poor. denver doesn't want to become save the cisco. it doesn't want a giant old that exists economically there were people can't afford to live there. so those are problems a lot of cities are facing, but that is is hoping to put a stamp on those issues and all of them more than any other city has. >> we spoke with juan thompson about his book, "stories i tell myself," who talks about his father, hunter s. thompson. >> i think the public image of hunter is best captured by the fear and loathing character, which is really all about drinking way too much, taking way too many drugs and just be out of control. i would describe hunter thompson as complex. he was brilliant. he was sometimes crazy. he was focused. he was very ambitious. he was given to just be eruptions of rage for small provocations. he was a complex man. how do i describe hunter as a parent? i'm involved. -- i'm involved i would say. there's a few reasons for that. first, he was born in team or defects, so when he was growing up, he didn't grow up in an era when fathers were typically heavily involved with raising kids. so that was part of a. second, writing was always the most important thing. family with secondary for sure. not that he didn't love me and care about me, but as far as being i'm not going to go out tonight and see my friends. i'm going to stay home and hang out with the kids and make them dinner. no, that was not him. i have been asked many times, why do i call him hunter and i called my mom cindy. that is just the way it always was and i think it was because when i was a baby and parents refer to themselves, for whatever reason he was not going to be bad. i don't if you wanted my mom to be mom. he wanted tobe hunter, so i think when little babies, like hunter, not god, hunter. when he would have these out yours over age, the primary thing was just the yelling. he could really yell. this deep, booming voice and i think the scariest day about him when he was angry was he could be just savage with his word. he didn't get physical or rarely. his primary tool was to say some really cutting ambitious. because he was so smart and so perceptive, he knew exactly how to really just go right to the core of somebody. so that was the worst thing to see. and then, he also threw thing. he didn't throw things at people, but you know, throwing a plate of food against the wall, high-speed, that is pretty scary and i think that was his intent. it was to make a point and to make it clear that he was in control and that the thing to do less or other people to recognize that and submit. that was the point and it worked. he worked with kids. it worked with adults. their effect is. i was absolutely afraid of them. part of it was i was afraid of the possibility of him getting angry, so if i had a friend over in the middle of the day, and hunter slept odd hours. he was saved until 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon and then go to sleep at 2:00 or 3:00, 5:00 or 6:00. i don't know. during the day he was asleep, so there is this mandate, the deep quiet, and don't wait conjure up. it really wasn't an up or else. it was implied, it will be a bad thing. do not wake the sleeping dragon. and then he would have these outbursts. yeah, just the possibility of making him angry was terrifying to a little kid. and he was the big guy and he was loud and when he was a great, was really scary. so yeah, i was definitely scared of him. what was funny is he never hit me. i can't think that he really was verbally abusive. he certainly was two other people. but it's funny, that didn't matter. it was just the possibility, knowing that he could do that, being afraid that he would do it to me. when i think of hunter being angry, the event that stands out most clearly is one night after my mom and he had been arguing, you know, still they are in the house, she called the police, which is something you just did not do. she called the police and they came and my mom was trying -- she was getting some drawers of clothes from her room to take outside and put in the car to drive away and i remember him grabbing -- grabbing the drawer of clothes from her, say you are not going anywhere with that. and it was just such a cruel thing to do, for he had to just demand that obedience and to exert so much control, i just coming in now, i was like 11 years old, five feet tall. scrawny kid. i just lost it. i just started screaming at him and tried to hit him and a cop grabbed me and held me back. i was a little kid. i was just -- i couldn't stand it anymore. i was just so outraged at what a he was. and not really did set my perception of who he was for several years until i was able to realize that is part of him, but that's not all there is. the single biggest issue was watching those fight and how he treated my mom in the two years or so when that tension building that tension really erected and became visible to me and my mom decided to move out of the house and start the divorce process. and then, oddly, that kind of started the beginning of our reconciliation, too because now i no longer lived with him and i wanted a relationship with him. it was complicated -- a complicated time. on one hand, at times they just hated him. but he was also my father and i wanted a relationship. he would invite me out sometimes and spend the night and we would begin to build that relationship that we never had before. and then it took years and years of going to visit him and then things would blow up and more anger and tension and then try again. it could be tiny things like once i was better and he noticed that it took was missing from his bookshelf and so he started getting worked up and hand-to-hand -- team that baby had stolen his books. that is just paranoid thinking. sometimes i just get really angry and i yell at him. and then, you know, cool down and start again. but i'm just really grateful that those of us try. and as i got older, it got easier. i was able to have marred his students. it is a whole different thing when you could choose to be here as opposed to being in a house and knowing that if things get weird i can just leave. that made it a whole lot easier. the greatest part, she really tried to moderate, surprise his impulses when i would visit, at least for a couple days. the nature of our reconciliation was not based on talking about it. that was not the kind of guy he was. that was not his generation or his background. and by nature he was not a dido. talk about his feelings are particularly wanting to know how anybody else felt. so it was all in direct and certainly made it complicated. my generation is more about that they tell you about it. he didn't know what to do with that. it tends to be more indirect. one of the big things that i realized is that he would show his love and concern. he wouldn't say it. it would be things like as i was getting ready to leave after staking their weekend, here is $200. get some tires. at first i was like i don't need tires. what? and then with the help of some friends, begin to realize maybe this is -- but he is doing as he is trying to say he loves me and this really indirect way. when i started to consider that, it was like okay. it's like a different language. and that really helped a lot once i could look at what he was doing and what he was saying in that way. i am positive that he felt very guilty about how he was a father he felt guilty about all kinds of things. and yeah, i think he felt guilty about the divorce, about his behavior, you know, not being around. one thing he would tell his friends coming in now, when i was an adult, he was so proud that i had a regular job, you know, and got married and that i was not a drug addict or a felon. like he was so surprised that they seemed pretty normal and well-adjusted in spite of our family growing up and yeah, you know, the way he behaved. when my son will was born, it added something new and good to our relationships. part of it was just seen him hold this baby and i would never of thought that hunter thompson would be good with babies, that he really was. i would like asking a babysitter or anything, but he just held six -month-old baby just so gently, you know, really focus on them. i thought wow, amazing. and it was also an excuse to see him more often. hunter really did have a connection with my son. again, not that they would go spend lots of time together, but he really felt a bond they are -- they are. and it was -- i think my sons were was another thing to draw us closer together. it also helped me to understand how fathers feel about their sons. it helped me to understand that there is this unconditional love that his father has for their child. it's unconditional. it's not because of anything. it is because, you know, for me because he is my son. when my son was going to be born, the question came up, what do you want to be called? and he was adamant he was not going to be grandpa, granddad, none of that stuff. i think mostly just at his vanity he didn't want that confirmation that yes, you are 62. you are officially old. so he said he can call me 80s. not grandpa. hunter was not happy about getting older. he wrote many times that he was surprised that he lived to be 30 and he never expect it to live to be 67. a lot of things he didn't like about it. there was some of his really good friend or dying. that was very difficult for him. he was a vain man and getting older is tough. he was quiet as the track to too quite as many younger women and the use to be. the worst of it though i think was the physical -- the physical impact, which was a combination of age and also picked years of drinking and drugs really took a toll on his body and it became hard for him to just get around and to be independent and mobile. and that was especially for hunter, for whom independence was so important. that was tough to be dependent on other people for everything, was just a intolerable. so in a couple days before hunter died, wail and my wife and i had gone to see him and we hadn't been able to see him for christmas. we normally went there for christmas. so this was, you know, our post-christmas visit and there was nothing unusual about it. we drove up there and it appeared to be a pretty normal, a normal visit. there is no indication that he had something coming in now, that he was planning his suicide that weekend. that night there was an altercation between his wife, his second wife at the time and him and she got upset, he got upset, they were yelling. but it didn't seem especially -- i mean, that was kind of normal. and then, she went to bed. my wife and son were asleep in an offhand way he said, you might want to take some of the silver cups or this little silver jewelry box. i was like okay. i didn't really think much of it. adventurous back to he was definitely -- he was definitely thinking it was a possibility. he had talked about suicide for years and years, so that wasn't a surprise and i suppose i should have -- i should've heard what he was saying and this is kind of unusual. what is going on here? but i didn't. and went to bed in the next morning it was a really nice morning. his wife had gone to the gym and we were all just hanging out. my wife and will and hunter at night, we are at his table where he'd like to do every day. it was just a really low key, calm feel my wife and will when not to do some sledding at this nearby hill. it was unusually calm, but in a really nice way. and then, i was in a bedroom doing some vain and i heard this loud crack or some and i thought did a drop sent dan? did he throw something? didn't think much about it. came out of the bedroom, looked over and he was sitting in the chair at the counter with his chin down on his chest and he looked like he was asleep. that's kind of odd. called his name, didn't respond and started to worry. did he have a seizure? what is going on here? it never occurred to me that he had shot himself. there was no blood that i could see and he just looked like he was asleep. i walked over to him and then i saw some blood. there is very little, though. when people hear that he shot himself, they imagine blood everywhere and thank god it was nothing like that. very little blood. and once i saw that, then it all hit. i would say i panicked really and had this thought going through my head that, my god, it is finally happening. i've been thinking about hunter died sunday in the future and i figured it would probably be by a suicide, but in a really abstract way. sometime in the distant future, you know, i'm going to get a call that he is dead and he killed himself. but for that to all of a sudden become real bright now, if this happened and i just lost it. i decided to write the book because after hunter died, coverage in the media really focused on not, the wild man persona, you know, the crazy drug fiend. i really have a problem with that because it neglected who he was and why he was important. you know, he wasn't importuned because he was an alcoholic drug fiend. that is irrelevant, really. and so i was trying to figure out, what can i do? and then the idea of a book came to mind. and then, when it seemed to make sense was to explain who hunter was to me through the experience of growing up with him and how our relationship developed. i didn't intend by book to be a biography or the last word on here is the definitive hunter thompson. but it was importuned to me to show there's more to hunter thompson than just the popular conception. >> when you talk to folks who work in publishing here or who are writers here or who write in any way, shape or form, 80% of them it feels like i've worked here. everybody involved in letters in denver have come through tattered cover. >> we have been here about a year. in our first week we had president jimmy carter visit us. we've got hillary clinton here, we've had david mccullough, daniel philbrick, lots and lots of authors. >> owning a bookstore has been a dream for most of my working life and christine and i had tried a couple of times. we look at a couple of different options and nothing worked out right, so we figured go big or go home and tattered cover came into being. the deal was announced at the end of march and 2015 and it was the lead story. it was the number two story in the front page of the denver post. the next day, the denver post ran an editorial about what a treasury what a treasury choice mask as is and how much she has meant and then had gained christ in a basically said don't screw this up. so welcome to denver. the transition process is a two-year process. we started officially july 1st , 25th team to choice formally retires july 1st, 2017. we are right now exactly in the middle of it and it has been incremental and every month we learned a little more, take on a little more respond ability and get involved in different departments of the story. at this point we are barely functioning as full members of the management team. >> this was built inside an old theater that was built in the night teen 50s and brand for 20 years or so and then was an abandoned building. we took it over about 10 years ago and turned it into the next location of tattered cover. this is the room that we have far bigger events. we have 220 people and if there is no presentation, we sneak the line and you can get as many in here as they want. >> kristin and i come in with a lot of industry experience. i have a broad is because i've seen it from a number of angles and sale every day is like taking a sip of water from the fire hose. there's so much to learn in such a large, complex organization that we are learning all the time. tattered cover was started by a man named steve koegel in 1971. joyce thought the store at the end of 1974. at that time there was a 950 square foot store and joyce just as a master bookseller. the store quickly caught on an expanded and in a lot of ways, joyce invented what has become modern brick and mortar retailing. in fact, if you look at tattered cover, you will see in the story green carpets and dark wood. the original barnes & noble superstores were modeled on this. wherefore locations. we have three large-format location stores like this one and one tiny store in union station and also in a partnership with another company had three stories at the airport. this is our flagship. our offices are here, receiving his here. the selling spaces on the order of 18,000 to 20,000 feet plus another 46,000 square feet and we have depending on the time of fear and counting what we call the per diem staff, folks who work on call, we have about 150 employees. >> so i recently learned that every time i give it to her i say if there's ever an apocalypse in denver and you want to be in this building, in the last couple days i learned that this building was built in 1950 and this level was actually built as a fallout nuclear bomb shelter. so this is the best place to come. all of our main offices are in this bottom level as well as central receiving. everything comes in here and make it taken out to the different stores. they have our computer team down here. and this open area is where we do all of our returns. once the books have been on the shelves for a while, we can send some of them back to the pleasure on trent publisher and that is how this one happened. these are all ready to go. we have books that are ready to be on sale yet. we wait for tuesday is the release date. sometimes we have cars waiting to go out to and then bases throughout the books the books come into first and i received, entered into the computer and divide it up to the different stories and where they are going. down in this corner, we actually have a working, functioning workshop that has big power tools and saws, sixfold bookshelves, stanwood, lots of tinkering happens here. and this area over here, this around in here is opposite the door that leads right now to our dance area. we can bring the authors write out this story. we have pictures for this set up, the microphones, books for the event, just an easy in and out, very accessible. >> every day is another challenge that is often not connected to selling books. whether you are dealing with a staffing issue or something with the physical space goes wrong and you have a pipe burst or you might be dealing with different kinds of customer issues. we spend so little of our time at the ownership level dealing with the books. and i think we kind of knew that coming in. but there are days that i just want to sell books today because the debate is part of the job. i'm the vice% to talk about tattered cover -- but i would say we are kind of the beat of the heart of literary denver. we are a gathering place for writers groups did they meet here. we are a gathering place for publishers. i really believe that we are vital to denver's literary scene and as i said, i think we are the beating heart of it. i'm biased, but i think of the last people they might tell you that. >> booktv is in the mile high city of denver, colorado. to learn more about its culture. up next, we speak with derek everett on his book, "creating the american west" >> the boundaries are phenomenally important in american life it would interact with andres every moment of every day and often times donated egg about it. if you're driving your car, there's boundaries on the boat, boundaries boundaries in the parking lot. when you mow the lawn, you know you get to stop at a certain point in your neighbors in charge of the next-line for shoveling the sidewalk. there are these boundaries to interact with constantly. you think about them especially when they are violated. when you see someone who is parked the way they are not supposed apartat the grocery store, you get mad. there is this enforcement of the need for these definitions for how to organize our space, how would organize our society and whether we are talking about parking lots or whether we talk about states and countries, boundaries are exceptionally important. one of the points i argue in my book is the evolution of national boundaries. people talk about the treaty of paris and the louisiana purchase and the war with mexico in oregon and so on. there's a lot of attention paid to the development of the nation's boundaries, but it is almost as a state boundaries were always hiding in the back round because we talk about this area became colorado or california or wyoming or wherever. it is as if that was pre-determined. it was predestined and that was one of the reasons i wrote the book is to look at how these lines up in the country evolve just as often and often just as controversially, as contentious as boundaries between the united states and american indian groups, between the u.s. and european empires as well. there's a great deal of frustration and negotiation and diplomacy and sometimes often even outright battles between communities over where their boundaries are going to be, whether it's between countries or between states. the decision for where boundaries are going to be comes from a number of factors. of course there's general guidelines that congress had a doubt about where he stays boundaries will be with the territory before it becomes a state. and, their social often contributions from people who lived in the region, my new troops, finding groups, people who wanted to be sure their communities were embraced in one place and not in another. there is a fine line to walk between who has the most say. locals have the most say, congress has the most day. it was an incredibly diverse tapestry at how these boundaries are going to come about because of the 48 state lines west of the mississippi river, all of them were fought over at the national level, the local level. everybody had a big stake in the game. you look at the map and think that is where nebraska is supposed to be. where else would we put nevada. it was supposed to be right there. and yet those lines changed and evolved a great deal over the span of much of the 19 century. there was a major debate in the 19th century about using geometry or geography for a. the idea of geography was to use rivers, mountains, maybe river basin, water-based and as a bull predetermined limit for states and for these feature political communities. the idea behind geometry was to get the divisions made as quickly as possible and to define them as clearly as possible so that you knew exactly where your authorities stopped and the next places authority began. .. a good example of this geography approach. because there were a number of debates asked about the state should be formed north of california. for a long time there was talk, and to this day remains talk about putting the ballot along the cascade mountains. so you would have oregon and washington essentially about half as big as they are today, and then another state on the east side of the cascades in what's now the upper columbia river region for both washington and oregon. there was a lot of talk initially about just using the cascades going from california all the way up to the canadian border and having one long skinny state on the pacific coast and then sort of a no man's land behind that until such time as they thought it was worth bringing the rest of the pacific northwest in. you had others who advocated for using the columbia river as a boundary. it was a major geographical divide, certainly. it makes it difficult to interact from one side of the river to another, but when many of these boundaries were created, rivers were not seen as the fighters. they were seen as united. a river was a highway, so that was the core of the community rather than something that split it in half. you wanted major rivers at the center. for example, that's why missouri is the shape that it is. arkansas is the shape that it is with the missouri and arkansas rivers right at the core. you one of those at the heart of your community and not as its limits because that's where you're commerce one's. that's where settlement was. the columbia river was big enough that it makes sense certainly down toward the mouth, toward portland and that area, it made sense for the columbia river to use as a boundary. once you got extreme the boundary between oregon and washington shifts from the columbia river to 46 degrees north. that was a point of contention all the way up until the 1950s because oregon's constitution said that their border followed the columbia and snake all the way up into what's now the idaho state line. washington said no. we had that little corner of southeast washington where walla walla, washington, is today, but that's a part of our community. it was defined in two different ways. oregon state constitution have one boundary. federal law had a different boundary. washington state had a different boundary. and, finally, oregon excepted that it was not going to take walla walla away in the late 1950s but it took a center for oregon to decide that is going to finally relinquished its claim to that little chunk of pacific northwest. california and nevada boundary is a bizarre fight that has gone on ever since the california gold rush. when california was admitted to the union in 1850, it has a mostly geometric boundaries that we see today, with the accidental hinge in the middle of lake tahoe between its vertical line and then the diagonal one that goes from lake tahoe down to the colorado river. that was designed for california as usual because geometry was simple, easy, clear to mark so that everybody knew exactly where their authority was. the were a lot of people in california thought that the crest of the sierra nevada's made more sense as a boundary. it's a major, imposing, forbidding mountain range that if you don't get over it you have to eat your relatives when you're stuck with the donner party. so it's a major mental and physical block. primm, nevada, was organized in the 1860s, nevada's boundary was declared to be the crest of the sierra's. it just seemed to be an obvious place to have a limit. the problem was that nevada's boundary been overlapped california's territory, and there were a number of feuds between the territory of nevada and the state of california. and residents living in that region would often elected members to both the state and territorial legislators, in some cases the same person but serving sacramento and in carson city. nevada asked repeatedly for california to give up its claim west, or east of the sierra nevada's. and california refused in large part because if that your territory, you don't want to give it up. you've got your claim to it so you're not going to surrender it willingly. california politicians also pointed out that if the crest of the sierra nevada's was defined as a boundary, it would take a thousand years before they could figure out exactly what that meant, where precisely is the border if it's along the crest of the sierra nevada's? it's not just some pedantic little league -- make sure your property is protected, you need to know what state or territory's laws you fall under. having that vague idea, am i in nevada right now, am i in california right now, that's exceptionally disconcerting to someone who wants to make sure that they are following the rules, that they're getting all of the benefit, all of the profit out of the land that they claim. the most contentious of any western state boundary must be the missouri-iowa line. because when it was defined for missouri in the 1820s, it ended on a series of rapids, called the rapids of the series of them when. no one was sure whether that meant rapids in the des moines river or the des moines rapids in the mississippi river. .org or do not sure which rapids that meant, nobody also any idea where although those rapids, which stretched for miles, what exactly is the boundary supposed to be. so missouri basically got to pick where its northern boundary would lie. this survey just sort of guessed, this is approximately where it should be. wins iowa was being organized as a territory in the 1830s, there was a great deal of confusion about where exactly the limit between the state of missouri and the territory of iowa should be. it was made even more complicated by the two governors, all of whom had rather militaristic reputations, the governor of missouri had ordered in 1838 essentially an open season policy on residents of the territory. it was a horrifying situation. the governor of iowa territory had been the governor of ohio and basically bullied michigan to get a chunk of land that he wanted around the toledo area. so now that he is the governor of ohio is going to try to fight for every square inch of his territory. so you have a state at a territory going up against one another. the territory is technically a creation of the federal government, and missouri complaint the federal government would swoop in like a protective mother to keep an eye on iowa and ignore the sovereignty of missouri. you have the issue of slavery playing in his will because missouri was a slave state and iowa intended to be a free territory, eventually a free state your to both sides on this competition as a way to get more land even for slave plantations or for free soil farms. and in late 1839 the governors of iowa and missouri ordered their militias to go to the common line and defend that territory for whichever side claims at the moment. as tense as that was for people who lived in that vague border area, it was the greatest thing ever. because there was a group that called themselves the harry nation. apparently rather heavily bearded people, and they would claim to live in whatever opposite territory or state when the local sheriff came to cut the taxes, if the missouri sheriff showed up, sorry, we live in iowa. and when i wished that they claim to be in missouri. they would host parties with cheers from both sides beneficial for both sides to it was this fantastic borderland region with nobody in charge but when the governors called their militias to the region, it was never realistic chance that you would have a minor civil war breaking out in large part of the same sort of issues that the ultimate civil war would take place a quarter-century later, the question of slave territory, free territory, whose authority is where. the federal government, state power. this was a major concern for the governors. it was a major concern for congress. for the militias, all they wanted to do was go home. because they were called out in the summer of 39. it was cold, snowy. it was a miserable situation. ultimately, the leaders of the militia simply decode peace on their own without consulting their governors. and to show their true feelings towards the governors of iowa territory and missouri, two deer were found and they were shot and hung up from a tree. they were stripped down and then they were buried ceremoniously with the muffled drum and everything in this very grand pomp and circumstance ceremony. one of the day representing the governor of missouri and the other representing the governor of iowa territory. so they symbolically executing their governors, very different and everyone would help to where the fire was in stable. so this is the sort of farce, insanity that goes on. this feud was known as the honey were. supposedly because that was very valuable honey bee trees in the region, that everybody wants to control of the honey those produced in these trees. that honey wars and usually portrayed as one of these adorable precious those little imps, those scams out there on the frontier. and yet it is a great deal about the impact of state boundaries. not only is there the question of authority, of who controls what territory and how much do you want to be in charge over your neighbor. do you want to compete with your neighbor, but also says a great deal about identity. because the governors at least were willing to fight for the idea that this is missouri soil, and this is iowa territory soil. it is essentially a part of our community. there was a joke that went around the region for the longest time that when the boundary was clarified, there was a farmer who lived in the region and was delighted to his at his farm had been defined as being in iowa. because he heard that the climate and the cell of missouri was terrible so we did want to be a part of that. it's this odd little balance of nonsense and yet we'll implications of identity, of authority, of legal power, even military power. so missouri iowa line which seems rather innocuous today meant everything to the people of the 1830s. there has been very little change to boundaries after places became states. in large part because if a state changes its boundary, that change has to be accepted by the state, by the federal government. and if it involved more than one state, modifying its lines, both states hav have to approve it se time with the legislature and the governor and the popular vote. often because data boundaries are defined in state constitutions as well. so you have to modify the constitution, the voters have to approve it. there have been a few examples of states that sought to modify their boundaries. for example, the three has worked out deals with kansas and nebraska to move pieces that the missouri river has shifted, even though the river moved, the boundary does not. you are left with these tiny little pieces of missouri on the nebraska side or the kansas side and vice versa. those areas become problematic. it seems like just some wasteland swamp land along the river, and yet if that's the piece of missouri, on the other side of the river and there's no bridge within 50 miles, 100 miles or so, people can do whatever they want into little piece of territory and missouri can't really stop them. even though it's attached to kansas or nebraska, they have no authority, no jurisdiction. some states have alternated of parcels, have surrendered one piece here and there. that's of course an ongoing thing because unless you're talking about hells canyon or the grand canyon or boulder canyon or whatever, rivers will move and that's one of the reasons that rivers may corbel boundaries because you can't have a boundary move. it needs to be clear and defined forever and ever, amen. it's everybody's property, everybody's legal authority is based upon that. the last time there was any major state boundary change in the united states was 1863 win west virginia broke away from virginia. that was during the civil war when virginia wasn't playing nice with the federal government. so that was a special case. the last time a peacetime change of state boundaries, state definitions, wasn't 1820 when main joined the added that a part of massachusetts and massachusetts let it go to be a separate state coming in as part of the missouri compromise. but that's the last time there was been any peacetime changes of a state boundary. that's 200 years ago now. i don't see it ever happening because if it happens once, it's never going to stop. if you let one place start to change the boundaries in any significant way, everybody is going to do in every county is going to want to become its own state. i don't really see anybody in any part in washington, d.c. say we are going to have to start making stars microscopic so they fit on the fly because we will have so many states. it's just not going to happen. spent this week's trip to denver, colorado, continues with the two of the denver press club with raines guinn. we learned about the history of the newspapers in the region. >> when i was a kid my father worked for "the denver post" that we used to come down here and once a month. does not out on the town. you couldn't see across this room for all the cigarette and cigar smoker i to people you could anybody from the sound of ice hitting cocktail glasses. you could imagine that scenario, that's where journalists from competing papers or the occasional radio personality or television personality would be your come exchanging ideas on meeting with local businesspeople, politicians. it was a place to get things off the record perhaps and to establish relationships that would lead to stories down the room. the denver press club has been the only 10 in this building which was erected in 1925. it's 91 years. i think the initial purpose of the denver press club was a gathering place for local journalists and politicians, businesspeople to the original footprint included room for four billiard tables. i think that took up a lot of the time. between playing billiards, drinking, chatting up with what they're going to write about what was going on locally was the point of being a member of the press club. one of my favorites is that during the eisenhower administration in the 50s, as most people know he married many dog from colorado springs. so she wanted a summer white house in colorado -- mamie dowd. a manager at the time, without much entourage as we see today, president eisenhower wanted to stop by for lunch and this tour has been rude to me. he would come to the back door, jimmy would be waiting in the booth. have a nice lunch, let a small number of people president eisenhower brought with him to wait for them. members i think were inclined to stay in the bar area and let them have some privacy. then he would leave probably to go play golf because he did a lot of that in colorado during the summer. behind you hav have a coat clost but i've been told that was a place for people are going to be interviewed but didn't want to be seen. that was originally the purpose of the coat closet was stepping year, mr. or mrs. diggen deere and we will interview in private or have a private conversation. -- dignitary. most people have never seen a pulitzer prize. this is one of the pulitzers for reporting for the columbine massacre. it was a dark day indeed, but the local press did such a good job they were honored with the pulitzer for reporting. across the room is another pulitzer for columbine. this one is for photography. certainly that image right there has quite a bit to say without needing to write any words to go with it. another pulitzer for photography was awarded to craig. he did an entire series on a returning iraqi war veteran who had a difficult time blending back into society. i think if you walk into the lobby of "the denver post" today you would see the entire series. it's a very powerful. my favorite is over here. it's also a pulitzer for photography, but these are commercial airline passengers looking out over the draped remains of returning iraqi war veterans. very powerful indeed. so the stories told by these pulitzers tiki to recant with visitors, of people have never seen a pulitzer and probably are never going to go someplace else where they might see one. so thinks the press club special. from my perspective when things started to change, it was when readership for both locals started to dwindle. the digital age had some impact on people picking up the paper and actually reading it. so when the rocky mount news closed, that was a sad day for everybody. there went a number of jobs in journalism that were never to be recovered. as "the denver post" has continued to shrink, that's when things begin to get real tough, especially for the press club. and for other competing places where the user to me, the university club or the principal club and some of the ones that i felt the effects. that's when things really change. we had a local who came in, look at some things, give some advice. he said in a denigrating way, this is a nice little museum. but he made a very good point. because these days while i look out much more positively than he did, this is amusing in a lot of ways but it's a great place where people who typically are not going to experience the essence of a pulitzer prize for the history of presidential portraits, to be able to come and be around that for an event, yeah, it makes it a good museum. it's as important as it can be at any point in time if you truly honor the past and you want the future to be as positive as it possibly could be. for the denver press club to go away for whatever reason would be tragic because all that history would be lost. every time somebody new walks through the front door and walks in the lounge and looks around, they always say, i had no idea. and by the time they leave, they want to return. i don't know how many places you can find like that but i know this place is always like that. >> we are in denver, colorado, this week with help of our local cable partner comcast. next talk to robert crifasi whose book "a land made from water" look at how colorado was founded. >> in many ways water was one of the central factors in colorado's development. over arching almost everything except perhaps gold in buffalo. water is one of those things that you cannot live without. it's central to colorado's lifestyle and existence. in many ways water defines what is colorado in the west. colorado was essentially a desert area your when the first americans and euro-american started come out in the west. in 1821, colonel long give up the south platte, through this very area where we are standing and down to the arkansas river and out. in his report he coined the term the great american desert. the road for days without seeing water. they saw just a little was of trees along the creeks in eastern colorado, things like the arkansas and the south platte were drawn or had very little water. there were no leaks. it was very dry and they realized that there was no possibility for agriculture, or so they thought. in his report he even said that the possibility for physical civilization did not exist in what is now colorado. in eastern colorado in the coming up from places like council bluffs or the missouri river, and for many, many miles, in fact many days on horseback, on the high plains the water coming out of the mountains would soak into the ground leaving essentially dry river beds. but when you got here near the front range at the foot of the mountains, many of those greeks were still flowing. so things started to change. by the 1840s, there had been meant and other beaver trapping had gone on extensively along the foothills. further north into the montana and wyoming. also they started to hunt buffalo. here where we're standing there would be herds of buffalo, brown bear, grizzly bear and other wild animals. brambles. a lot of animals like that. when fremont came up in 1840s he saw how green this area was calm and in his report he said i think there's potential for development here. so there was this gradual shifting in perception from a heartless, tedious and desert the one that some potential for agriculture. and then everything changed almost overnight. in 1858 just behind where we are standing at the junction of cherry creek and the south platte river they started to find some flakes of gold. the gold rush was on. and so within a matter of a couple of years, tens of thousands of settlers started to move into colorado. that's why denver was created right near where we're standing. boulder, colorado, springs, fort collins, all in rapid succession. people started to come in and look for gold. but almost simultaneously with that, some of people looking for gold realize that money was not to be made in the mountains it was to be made in growing food to sell to the farmers, to sell to the minors. they started to cut hay to give to the tools which are needed in the mind. they start to grow turnips and other vegetables and salad to the miners. we and all of that. to almost all of that concurrently with the gold rush was a rush to appropriate and utilize colorado's water. in thinking about appropriation, it was very different from what occurred in the eastern united states. in the east to incorporated ideas from england called the riparian doctrine. what that basically said is if you own the land next to a river, spring or a leg, you can access it. and use that water. wants to got to the west and realized that if any individual or corporation were to buy up the land along the river, you can effectively shut out everyone else from using that water. so a very radical idea developed in colorado, and that's the riparian appropriation, rather, the doctrine of farm approach creation -- appropriation. it stated something that whoever settled the land first would have the first right to water. the earliest court cases recognized that the eastern doctrine would that work in colorado. they said explicitly that you could build ditches across other people's land can imagine today creating a law and putting it in the constitution that would say, i can condemn a right-of-way against your private property to build a ditch. that's almost unheard of in america. yet that was what of the things that was done in colorado. they said we need to be able to access water, for without accessing water there was no possibility of a future for this state. so people that were the elites, perhaps people that would have benefited from privatizing the corridors along the rivers, realized that even then if you have the most diverse and egalitarian use the water across the landscape, it would create the greatest benefit for the most people. and so that's the way they went. in colorado's constitution, it says water is the property of the people. it also says that you shall not deny the right to divert water. and also goes on to say that you can condemn rights-of-way across other people's land to access water. it did cause problems when they started to do that. they were different perspectives on how that should occur. some people thought that the riparian doctrine should prevail. others thought that the colorado system made more sense. and so what happened was after the colorado constitution was enacted in 1876, they had sort of the skeletal outlines of what the prior appropriations doctrine looked like. all they needed was a court test to figure out what are the details and confirm that is, in fact, a constitutional way of going forward. so very interesting little story occurred up on the left and creek in boulder county. several people out there in 1878 that were living down below left and creek on the south range noticed that it was a very dry year and they were not getting water. they realized that a little higher up on left and creek settlers were diverting water and using it. ahead of the settlers, a fellow by the name of ruben kaufman was a civil war veteran who is in some of the worst battles of the civil war, he got together another eight or nine men and went up left and creek and all the way up into the mountains where there was a diversion, and left hand ditch company was taking water from the south into left and creek and bringing it down to their farms. he didn't like the idea they were getting their water and he wasn't. he went up there with these guys and tore out a diversion dam. they took matters into their own hands. the left and ditch guys were not happy about that. long story short, they have a trial in boulder. coffin and his buddies lost. left hand ditch company one, but they were not done, coffin. he appealed this to the colorado supreme court and the supreme court justice, former territorial governor, heard the case and was very intent on making the prior appropriations doctrine the law of the land. and so he wrote the decision that affirmed the prior appropriations doctrine as the legal doctrine governing water use in colorado. so that was the supreme court decision that it was replicated around the america west. as the state began to grow, people started to claim more and more water. foreign capital would come in. ever companies that were called for example, the english companies that start to build hundred mile long to choose in eastern and northeastern colorado. others would start to build bigger and bigger ditches. in denver private investors are less of the city's growth depended on water. they started to develop water systems on cherry creek and on the south platte river, eventually building big water systems and large dams in the mountains to supply colorado. by about the turn of the 20th century, the rise of private capital and the use of water became so money intensive that it became hard for private individuals and corporations to build ditches. and around that time, then you started to see governments getting into the action. the reclamation act was passed in congress, and then big cities like denver started to build reservoirs. and so there was this shift from private capital to a large governmental institution building the system your so to say that the water appropriation in the american west is still a bigger system, it changed. many ways the basic ideas of prior appropriation has remained. if you have a senior ditch, you have higher rights to the water that others who came after you. but other things have muscled their way to the table. you had rights for fish. you have rights for recreation. behind as its this issue, -- fish shoot. the possibly groundwater run for recreation. those things were never imagined when the water system was originally created, but starting with the environmental movement of the '60s and '70s, there was a shift in perception about how water would be used. it emerged that water was critical for environmental services. that water was needed for fish and wildlife. that it was needed for recreation. so people started to do things that would get more water into rivers, to protect riparian corridors, buy open space along a rivers and you redevelopment to improve the landscape. so appropriation is still there but it still of infrastructure in the background that gets things moving. but it's the other things that people see today like this ditch passage that gets people's attention. for the lifestyle we have out here in the west, it's critically important to have flowing rivers. they are a lifestyle community and they are environmental community. people live in colorado not just to beat and grow crops. people live in colorado because our national environment is so wonderful that it's something that is this really important to coloradans and to visitors after in the west. having those free flowing rivers is really one of the essential features in the west. we are challenged in how to balance our uses of water between the historic things like agriculture, water for cities and industry, and those values that bring us to colorado, like riparian corridors, canoeing, fishing, swimming and those sorts of things. and so there've been these challenges over the years as to how do reintegrate and manage our water so that the quality of life things are maintained. after all, why would you want to live out here if it was just sort of an urban desert? it essential to our characters to have these rivers as something that is a gym and a thing of beauty. >> next from our recent trip to denver, colorado, we talk with author helen thorpe who shares the story of four mexican girls who grew up in america without legal status in her book "just like us" your. >> i wanted to write this book because i felt that there was a conversation around immigration happening in this country that wasn't yet had a really deep level your he kept talking about an issue but we didn't understand it very well. i think there's a lot of fear and prejudice comes along with the subject of immigration. i think when people hear the word immigration, they think of a stranger or somebody is coming to their country from somewhere else amid wants to take something from them. take the job or take their national identity. i found myself intensely curious about people who were moving here without legal status. people who are entering as illegal immigrants are on document immigrants, whichever term you want to use. why would be choosing to live here in that manner? why would they not getting document? how hard was it to find work if you didn't have documents? what was life like if you were growing up in a family where your parents have made that choice and within facing a life as an undocumented student educating all the same opportunities that your friends had. at the outset of this project i found for students who were all straight a students earning top grades, they get all the right choices, succeeding in school, volunteering, playing sports, and all four students had grown up good friends but were divided in terms of the legal status. to did not have legal status and to have social security numbers, and although the legal documents in response to have to live in this country. the division between them meant that two students could work legally, to could drive legally, to could get scholarships to go to college and the other two could not do any of those things. so all of the inequality involved in being undocumented was playing out among these four friends in a way that made it through incredible painful for the two without legal status. they were watching their best friends have all kinds of opportunities and rights that they themselves did not possess. when they went home at the end of the day, each of them had siblings that were born in this country soliciting inequality was playing out within the own households. they were watching younger brothers and sisters have all of the rights and opportunities that they didn't have. it was incredibly painful for them t but it was very personal experience being undocumented. it wasn't like this just a missing piece of paper they didn't have in the file cabinet. everyday it meant they were watching their best friends for the younger siblings have opportunities they felt that they were equal to or could of taken advantage of, that just didn't because they didn't have legal status. i think a lot of times they would hear things in the medium like if only illegal immigrant would only get documents. why didn't they fill out the right forms? and so they knew that their parents had gone to visit attorneys, had tried to figure out how to become legal in the society if you walk across the border without legal permission. what can you do to rectify that situation. in every case the parents have been told you can't change or legal status while you were on u.s. soil. if you enter this country illegally you have to return to your country of origin to change or legal status. there's a specific ban that prevents anybody with undocumented status from becoming legal while the remain on u.s. soil or if you are the country the wrong way, you must leave in order to change your status. that generally wasn't well understood. people would speak about the issue as if they could just come if only they would lift a finger, if only they were not lazy they could just change their status ignobly seem to understand how hard it was, how their parents would have to leave the jobs they had secured in this country, give up their economic livelihood, go without wages for a long period of time, travel back to mexico, risk the possibility of getting stuck there again without good jobs in order to take the gamble that perhaps they might get legal status. so it actually was a big thing to try to change or legal status. you would hav have to give up te logic games and people didn't seem to understand that at all. so the four students i was writing about how all four families immigrated from mexico. they had arrived when students were fairly young, anywhere between three and seven years old. so the students themselves had grown up in denver, colorado, and it always gone to school in denver for the most part but their families were originally from farming communities right across mexico. all four students have parents who were spanish-speaking, who are doing menial work here, who really wanted to see their children have a different kind of life but they were equipped relatively to try to lead a different life. if the two students have documents were well underway to a path to college, and the two students who didn't have documents wil with the could not figure out how to pay for college. they were considered international students. if they try to qualify for a scholarship, they had to take international student rates. they couldn't qualify for the same come if they applied to a community college, they didn't qualify for the same rate of tuition at the best friends could pay, which was much lower. they had to take international student rate which was three or four times as much money. when i talked to the students about their future i remember in particular one conversation i had with a student who was one of the students who was undocumented, and she was watching her father worked as a janitor at night. he was cleaning the floors of the supermarkets here in town, putting locks on the floor with a big machine. her mom was working as a maid cleaning houses. what she said was her father really wanted for her not to have to do that work, was really important that you the chance to do a different kind of work. he had made that clear to her abundantly on many occasions. she was incredibly sad and frustrated that she was so stuck and couldn't figure out a way to pay for college because she can only envision a sort of future that would lead to the same kind of work that he was doing. when his hopes for and her hopes for herself and for every different kind of work. the language your parents use ones that they want her to be behind a desk. that's what they would say. it meant they really didn't want her to have to work with her hands. they wanted her to use her intelligence and have the opportunity to create a career for herself and would take advantage of how smart she was. the great obstacle was not being able to pay for college, given her lack of legal status. i have kept in touch with all four students. we got to know each other very well because i spent six years following them as they were growing up. i met them when they were seniors in high school and i followed them all the way through the point when they were about 21, 22 and had finished college. i'm still in touch with him today, and since the book was