Transcripts For CSPAN2 Capital News Today 20130221 : compare

i got the sense that priscilla buckley and burnham were sort of distant ancestors of neo conservatives and meyer, of course, being a fusion test some -- the fusion test would have disagreements. was primarily about what conservative should do about the welfare state. um wondering what russia's role was in as ideological debates. >> a very good question. i would commend something he says which is, i don't believe there was much conflict about what position to take on the welfare state, but there was some. it was not russia's primary concern. his primary concern in terms of radiology was that national review must be in the logical, that the exact positions it took would very often be secondary, but that insofar as it had certain believe some these issues, in the issues, it should be really serious about holding other conservatives and especially public office holders to account in showing lead on them and in supporting candidates who were most likely to really be solid on those issues whereas brenham would, in fact and did in fact say in the example i have in mind, medicare and 65. it was inevitable. i mean, the nature of the health care situation, the elderly population, various things made it inevitable. rising mass pressure for it. congress had to accommodate that. making this new thing work as well as possible. does that sound familiar? it is good that there was a voice they're saying that. buckley was more free-market. he was more interested in economics and russia was. so i don't think there was a big dispute about the welfare state to the extent there was he would be the advocate of accommodating it. still, he is conservative, even an economic conservative. russia was not as libertarian, but in general the two of them lined up. i'm sorry? >> what about priscilla buckley? >> i simply don't know. what is perfectly clear is that she and prince or very close and a professional sense. their personalities meshed together really well. there were both very call people . they both believed in a very high literary quality for the magazine and in keeping things that just didn't measure up intellectually or that might be too extreme of the magazine. a little more accommodating to the hard right in respect. i am unaware that there was any real conflict between priscilla buckley, managing editor for about the same time that rusher was there. they overlap substantially. everyone liked to respecter, so she wasn't really involved in personal conflicts. there was a terrible personal conflict between burnham and minor committee launched a conflict as well, but neither of them ever quit, which is to their credit. two more. whenever. >> please. >> advice officially conveyed -- will take a question. no one to make sure and give a couple more clever quotes from rusher to share with you is barbara personality, just his cleverness. >> you must have had conversations with mr. rusher about his second term. he considered the presidency and unmitigated success. were there any reservations about a second term? ip iran-contra and president reagan's alleged declining intellectual capabilities? >> i apologize. i was wearing ear plugs earlier today. would you mind restating the question? loud. >> the question was regarding if he had any reservations about the second term in terms of his mental capacity declining or the iran-contra issues. >> okay. rusher on reagan's second term including iran-contra. >> yes. >> rusher was one of reagan's most consistent offenders among in the logical and leading moslem conservatives. as richard burr kaiser who is still a major figure of the national review and was a writer for it than in pretty give friend of rusher said to me if reagan was elected rusher decided he would defend him on every single thing. in terms of presidents this is the best guy were going. it will never be better, and it will never be as good. you have to back this guy upon everything. he had some concerns about reagan's first chief of staff who had come from the other wing of the party. he was -- he questioned whether someone like that to put his heart into aragonite program. a couple of years after that rusher is very upset about some -- legacy : technical pr mistakes on the part of communications people in the white house. so-so ought to be fired. to happen. his main concern in giving advice to raid in which he did not do a lot of, but his main concern seems to be let's make sure we are effectively communicating with the american people and getting around the liberal media. on iran-contra, what i say in the book is that he followed it with a kind of beautiful interest. i don't think you was -- had a great emotional investment in it. he was a syndicated columnist for over 30 years unwritten number of columns about iran-contra, taking the president's side. it came down to this, maybe reagan had been guilty of a few errors of judgment, but he said it seems to have come down to an overly solicitous attitude over and a really passionate attitude toward getting the hostages back . that's a crime of the heart. if ronald reagan has to have a weakness, and kind of glad someone. he was damned if you is going to let the democrats in the media who he saw as the same thing get a republican president. >> i'm going to take the risk of has rincon of the what would russia think what's going on to the question but i want to ask more about what you thought pressure might have to say about where national review is positioned. it seems increasingly to be positioned, i want to say in a more moderate place, a slightly less combative placed in some of the other outlets than average incidence. i would be interested to see what russia had to say about this. >> russia like almost any active reasonably responsible vigorous fearless conservatism. he therefore appreciate it talk-radio. he watched fox news. he specifically admired rush limbaugh, even 20 years ago before he was quite as much allows old name as he is now. i asked him about national review which for some time. for some time it had been more reportorial and is oriented that once was. and there were people who didn't like that. he said he was fine with that. although he also told me -- and i don't believe this is really a conference. when buckley himself retired from the actual editor ship of the magazine, he told them -- and i don't know if it was personally want. was very important that it not be just another conservative magazine. and so it's clear from that that he specifically mentioned the catholic ten if. he very much admires and respected it as part of national review's message and sensibility . she had no real beasts with national review has later years, although we did think there were some younger people there who probably should know more history and more of the right wing side of history. he had relaxed attitude. he did not have utopian expectations about how much people would know or have ideological there would be. in his older years even more than earlier he was very much a team player. a thing that comes out clearly in the book. >> an example of russia -- rusher what. >> in know the name of ted sorensen, one of the great wordsmiths for the kennedy presidency. i don't know if he ran for senator from new york, but he tried to cut tried to get it going in 1970. rusher in 1970 is really in his prime, about 47 years old that point. he has been a staple on talk radio in new york for about the last ten years. there is a man who is still alive and a belief still this area show in new york convention and radio now, a very prominent host a greatly admired russia. and sorensen basically accuses national review of racism and extremism and associates that with nixon and george wallace and loves it all together, not a very intellectually impressive performance. and rusher goes after and it keeps going after an and finally says based on your performance tonight you may think you're qualified to run for senate from new york, but based on your hysterical performance tonight you would not be elected dogcatcher. so sorenson says, it seems to me you're being rather hysterical. and he says, yes, but i'm not running for the senate. earlier on the show somebody -- south africa was already an issue. rush had not yet been there. somebody said his liberal opponents said have you been to south africa? he says, no, i haven't. but you must have been or you would not be making such heavy weather of it. now what did you learn? you think it's so important for us to know. he turns a weakness in the strength. don't give an inch. turnaround. is that the politics of personal destruction. certainly a politics of personal one upmanship. there was a role for wit and trauma. final ," off the top of my head, he love to ski. he also at one point visited the soviet union and at the national review group that got together. most of them went and i think it was the winter of 75 or 76. they don't have the right to grant permission. i'm not going to ask communist permission for anything, even to visit their country. he told me, i once said that i would no more go to the soviet union on vacation then i would if hitler had permitted it and skied in the austrian alps to our world war ii. he said buckley took some exception to that. it is a rather specialized point of view. may have handicapped me a bit, but i stuck with the. [applause] >> books about the financial industry in crisis. starting in a p.m. eastern, the personal finance industry. at nine kate institute president john allison argues that government policies caused the 2008 financial collapse. alan blinder makes the argument that government intervention prevented the crisis from being far worse. >> coming up on c-span a conference on a clear weapons proliferation and then on book tv supreme court justice and cynthia held talks about being the wife of former cia director. >> on the next washington journal, gun ownership in america. the center of republican integrity who recently wrote about the role of the bureau of our call, tobacco, and firearms and a background check system for purchasing firearms. live from the blue ridge arsenal, a gun shop and shooting range. in addition to interviews and live demonstrations executive director of gun owners of america and washington times senior opinion editor, author of this year's emily gets her gun. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs weekday's featuring live coverage of the u.s. and reid on weeknights was key public policy events in every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and give our schedules our website. >> at this conference on nuclear weapons former congresswoman says u.s. and russia should further reduce their nuclear arsenals to 1,000 deployed weapons. followed by a discussion about nuclear weapons in the middle east. this is just over an hour. >> welcome to the fifth annual nuclear deterrence summit. i am the president of publications and forms. before we proceed would just like to recognize a couple of our partners this morning. cbi. we appreciate partner in with industry to bring this summit together. we are meeting at an auspicious time those of you have the privileges of getting usa today saw in the headlines massive cuts expected. maybe an army. those cuts won't happen until after march 1st. a lot of folks are saying it's just not gonna happen. it is a crazy time. being in government and watching government, the public policy arena for 30 plus years, i find it totally debilitating and frustrating to watch what is happening, and i'm sure you do also. a lot of you -- a lot of you -- most of you, what you take, is going to depend on what happens in the next few weeks. what happens with the clear weapons is going to be critically important and how people view it. this is what this all about. dealing with our nuclear deterrent capability. for our opening speaker we half the hon. allan tonsure. he came to me and said this morning, this is not your fifth one of our first speakers will we started this series and so we are very happy to have probably for the half-dozen time we will have a real public servants. the hon. allan tonsure. [applause] >> a very special honor to be here as a guest of you. monitor publications. and very lucky in life. and no have our quadruple threat. a former former former former. former undersecretary of state, former member of congress, former chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee and former special envoy. that allows me to tell you that amount of government. for those of you that i worked with the last 16 years for those of you that i worked with for losers, let me just thank you personally for your patriotic service and for all of your work to remind you that are not speaking as someone in the government because and not. if i'm speaking as anybody says myself. one of the things that i do now that i'm out is i'm the vice chair of the scowcroft center. let me just say that because i am out of government i get to say what i believe and what i think is important. a little provoking. let me just say that my purpose today is not to rehash some talking points that have been cleared by everybody which was one of my former lives, but to put forward some of my own thoughts and opinions and over the last few years i've got into the habit of reminding you that in political parlor's all of you would be called my base. for those of you there have never worked in livermore because we on the too much about politics these days from the 24th lottery, just to remind everybody, the a group of people that are most important. when it comes to the anything and everything there clear your the base. that they could support the today the help we can work with you. eckermann bureau and poured it is to be active and for us to find a way to create a call for action on how to make sure that this interest group interest of the national security, interested about their weapons and the deterrent and not proliferation's, we all work together to augment the political capital and to inform and influence the american people. the choices that will be coming whether we want them to or not and how we can move the new and political policy. so i guess the question is obvious. where we and our nuclear deterrent? that think we think we have moved things pretty for. in many ways this is a changed. just over trough, the chin, 14, 15 years ago. fairly new term. we have done a lot to reassure everyone that we don't need to test. as much as things have changed, something seven. one of the biggest changes i think is that no one considers that we have any kind of real threat of a great power tool or any wonder. so that causes some people to question the value of a nuclear deterrent. certainly people that are my daughter's age, 21 years old, question the need for nuclear weapons. they don't understand the history, and because they are active voters we're going to need to make sure they understand the value at nuclear-weapons still place in our overall national security strategy, where they underpin major alliances and the way that we work both multilaterally and bilaterally and the number of different reasons. i think it's important that we consider the nuclear weapons complex in its totality because we can represent it that way. it's also important to remember that very few americans think of it the way. very few americans understand the number of people that work at the labs, work throughout the complex, the kind of science that has been developed there, and all of the many, many different innovations and technologies that have accrued to the american people because of the science developed there. despite all these realities of all the good that has been done in because we still have way too many weapons, the debate about the size and structure in the management of our stockpile is still one that is contentious. as i said, we created the in an essay in 1999. we have had a lot of accomplishments in the world arena. a very successful 2010. i was there for ten days as a hostage. we get the new start treaty negotiated and ratified. another hostage. we have not been able to ratify this ct bt. great consternation around the world. getting 67 votes is very difficult, and i can understand why the administration is really concerned about whether it has the political capital right now to make that effort. secretary carried would like to think that we can get a c t b t, and i think that as we look at the 2015, we have to have a pretty good excuse for the world community as to why we have not moved forward. that lack of action is put the entire world community into a very untenable place of waiting for the u.s. states to agree to agree to our own stated national policy. .. with roughly 15,000 total warheads in the deployed not deployed strategic nonstrategic baskets. unfortunately, bilateral relations between the united states and russia are not what they've been in most recent past. neither the united data rush to require them to be added to the teeth as we are currently, causing the price to main tape the dcom security and effectiveness of each country stop auto to be prohibitively expensive. perhaps in past times, when the united states and russia targeted each other company investment in effect admits that the stockpiles is easily justified. discussion of the size and context the nuclear ours at all has been traditionally thought of in terms of rats. the fact that computing arsenals, geopolitical tension, nato alliance security, et cetera. historically that no consideration is given to them in the stock file complex as there is general bipartisan and bicameral agreement and the intrinsic value of the nuclear arsenal strategically and as a deterrent. now, however, in the third decade after the end of the cold war with the now eliminated soviet union, i would suggest it is past time to look at the size and structure of the arsenal and minor that other macro strategic budgetary and political realities. if you listen to commentators on cnbc during the day when the market is open, you could really swear adversaries are unlikely to be a credibility of united states power more about the size of our debt than by the size of and apparently, sequestration, which was not to be so horrible that any and all measures be taken to avoid it. sequestration will rise next week. if sequestration goes ahead, and i think it well, the united states will need to cut $50 billion salon from the defense department are grand by october at roughly $500 over the next decade. it is not like the nuclear proliferation has disappeared as a threat and nuclear material and weapons proliferation continues to cause alarm around the world. north korea refuses the demands of the international community to disarm. to the contrary can the nuclear test at february 12 shows hostile regimes maintained dangerous and unrequited nuclear ambitions in spite of best efforts to dissuade them. iran continues to advance nuclear program in defiance of the united nations in a wide array of e3 companies that are maintaining punishing economic sanctions against the regime and its proxies. pakistan has a margin of nuclear arsenal faster than any country in the world, is chilling prospect that raises worries a future note where terrorists on. all along the time the senses center argues modernization and eight men of the strategic nuclear sense of arsenal though it will cost to train 352 and $392 billion over the next decade. you do the math. we need to think not just about the safety, security and affect domestic stock pile in maintaining the investment of the science base infrastructure and attracting the best human cap will, but we also need to consider the stock pile of complex of affordability in the overall requirement to shrink the federal budget. now let me remind you that i a&m remained one of the staunchest supporters of the nuclear weapons complexes, labs, the people in the mission. i have fought and will continue to fight for all that the united states needs to maintain our nuclear security asset, those human and cannot. until the time it is appropriate to note multilaterally turreted nuclear zero. as you know, the president says that will take patience and persistence and may not happen in this lifetime and he's a lot younger than i am. but i think we have to keep in mind that we should not commit to an arsenal and a complex that congress is not willing to fund any predict the bullet and consistent way. maintaining a safe and secure and effective deterrence requires consistent steady funding from the congress, even in an austere environment. and yet, the members of congress who take a truly significant interest in nuclear weapons continues to dwindle. our most numbers, there just is no base constituency yearning for satisfaction on these issues and most numbers are stretched thin to represent over 730,000 people. for those of nuclear complex facilities and districts, they do work and need to be supported, but they number less than a cup of dyson and that's counting the senators. hardly a short harsher to 218 votes needed in the house where 60 votes needed regularly in the senate. here are candidates for those in the nuclear policy community to build the support and shape the debate on the need for serious funding to maintain a robust arsenal and make the appropriate modernization and steady investments and laziness to knowledge he and innovative science to ensure an effective arsenal without his earning the testing. the american public won't make demands that a huge public campaign and we can't afford it and frankly we don't have the time to do it. president obama has done his part in every one of its budget submission to the congress. president obama has kept his promise to increase the size of the nsa budget, but as we all know, the president can only request funds. only the congress can authorize and appropriate. speaking of president obama, that may say that the american people have a president who is truly animated and engaged on the importance of our nuclear posture to the united states and international security. as we heard last week, president obama continues to make nuclear security and progress towards his agenda a priority. but the domestic agenda in his second term will be jampacked. his political capital is 30 stretched thin. does that mean we accept other national priorities may crowd out the attention for modernization, infrastructure investments and other things important to the complex? i hope not. with the presidential agenda, we the nuclear defense need to help shape the debate rather than assume the president alone cannot will expend political capital necessary to move our agenda forward. so what are some ideas for going forward jan new start, not that i don't have to be the one to lament the plan? let me see the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is a success, but it hasn't limitations. i believe we have more strategic deployed weapons then we need on our side and that new start as an address, as you know, nonstrategic and non-deployed strategic weapons. president obama should seek additional reductions with russia to shrink the size of our arsenal. i believe we should aim for a floor of one doesn't strategic deployed weapons but they limit of 2500 weapons total for each site, including strategic, nonstrategic, deployed and non-deployed. in a new agreement on bilateral reductions, we can most likely require renewed emphasis on reaching agreement between russia and nato and the united states on european missile defense. russia's requirement for the moment on european adapted approach is not possible or nasa's ares. russia should like to join the show they can not act ersatz native europe, now is the way to promote the ability and burden sharing for common european security. i call that moving from mutually assured action to mutually assured stability. what was new start look like? newest start, next start. first and most obviously an agreement would reduce nuclear weapons in the world between the two largest holders of the nuclear arsenal. second i would show progress towards article vi of the non-proliferation treaty ahead of the 2015.com. thereby increase our influence and hold another sector into account for their threats to the viability of the npt. third, follow-on reductions russia open the possibility of bringing in other countries into the nuclear reduction dialogue. if remake of nascar's two the united states and russian arsenals would begin to influence others to join a two letter lazing productions. and for it, by cutting the number of weapons in the arsenal in getting rid of the hedge weapons as best we can, we reduce the amount of funding needed long term for modernization. that doesn't mean we still don't need a lot of money. we need a lot of money. we need a lot of money to make sure it applies in the complex are second to none. we need a second to non-arsenal supported by a second to none complex that is modernized with terrific infrastructure and the second to none human cap obeys that once again will continue to lead the world in the best times. i am sanguine about getting back to the negotiating table with the russians and that may take some time. i don't expect much movement this year, nor do i think an agreement may be made until after 2014. i also think i progress an overall reduction, whether bilaterally or unilaterally will need to consider the situation in iran and whether the iranians have begun to acknowledge their international obligations to satisfy early answer the nature and extent of their nuclear program or not. glaspie said the agenda that needs capital fundraising is getting tbt ratified. the president has made it clear ratification is important to him and his administration, but it needs help raising political capital and voter awareness in order to achieve the herculean task of getting 67 votes in the senate. we currently don't have the political capital. so we should just print it like everybody else in washington does. it would be up to us and all those great arms control groups out there. visit us at the best interest of the american people and a commitment to a strong nuclear security to help the president influence and educate american voters on the important gratifying to see tbt. by letting the american people know we've been living under a 1993 but because we have not ratified the treaty in us and in force, we have achieved none of the benefits of the treaty. all we need are 67 votes to put the treaty into force and nothing in our current policy will change. seems pretty easy. so here we are in 2013 and i'm a quadruple threat former now happy in the private sector, better known as the real world. i just can't let go of these issues, though. i joined a group of business executives for national security in 1993 because i moved to california in 1989 and lived right at the livermore and wanted to know a more about it. this is before i ran for congress in 1996. we're enormously blast to have become researchers about the future of our weapons, the non-proliferation deterrence. it's our job in the nuclear community to augment the president's political capital and help ensure we can take the politically difficult steps on the road to pride and reaching bilateral reductions with russia while also asking our elected members of congress to fully fund a safe, secure and effective and affordable united states nuclear arsenal. thankthank you very much for listening today. i understand if any of you have an easy question i will try to answer it. thank you. clap mark >> questions from you folks? please identify yourself. >> thank you. todd jenkins material monitor. he talked about sequestration, which are one assumes is likely to hate. if you had to prioritize where you cut, we spend money and where you and invest, which he do so going forward we sequestration in mind? [inaudible] very so many horrible ramifications for sequestration. not only in our image around the world, but also for the confidence of the markets we can actually do what first post to do. i just think of the terrible situation. the idea of federal employees would be furloughed is just crazy. but if you're in a situation like this were the worst happen, i would not be for that, i would suggest that they don't have the time or temperament to prioritize because everybody's got their pet rock. so i would suggest that they do everything they can to that of the biggest part of the cut, that they basically look to the back end of it and they try to trim as best they can across the board. i think that's the only fair thing they can do. obviously that's impossible to do. there were some things that are wholly federal. i don't think we'll be letting people out of this faa towers and cutting not work for us sorry, you'd better put them on half staff. rome identify people from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. so i think some decisions have to be made on how to make sure that the things that are paying our soldiers and making sure that the families of the deployer taking care of. obviously veterans -- there's so many different things. right away you get 15 or 20 things and pretty soon you are making priorities. i think the thing is to enjoy this. the numbers have been out there for weeks. i think it's about political will to do it and i hope my former colleagues in the president get together together and do it. >> question here in the front. could you hold it her hand so we can get you a mike if you're ready to ask a question? >> ms. tauscher -- >> identify yourself. >> craig mello -- [inaudible] could you address your facts about the timetable and what you feel is the likely timetable for likely reductions of the type you would like and why you said not until 2014? that include reviewing interesting. >> when i left his undersecretary year ago, i stayed on a special envoy until august partly to manage the way through the election and the russian had made it clear publicly and privately they are not interested in sitting down for reductions. we began a conversation about a bigger macro topic of mutually assured stability, which include many different issues including missile defense, cyber, tactical weapons, other things that are part of the agenda. we need some confidence building. obviously things have not remained as warm a co-op or davis they were during the previous russian administration. but i tank everyone is hopeful. we certainly want to get back to the table with a bigger agenda, but right now i don't do this a lot in the two d. to do that. the russians to work closely with iran, so it's not like we are not talking. we don't have a knack of negotiation and hoping not rose will get through her hearing soon and get confirmed, she is a negotiator and will do a terrific job. but we need to have a partner. i also think it will take some time, depending on the agreement we have, we have to be mindful of renegotiate some into the ratified but i don't believe we can get something ratified in this environment. i took 2014 is a hurdle speedbump to get over. we also have to make is part of an overarching conversation about missile to fund and i still think there's a way to get that done that maintains all of our prerogatives in all of our security choices to ourselves, but at the same time brings russia into european security in a way that benefits everyone and builds confidence and moves us forward into a more cooperative agreement. >> questions here and one in the back. [inaudible] >> hi, you mentioned a certain numbers in your presentation. they sound like the numbers that might come out of the 490 day study. are we eventually going to see the results of that study anytime soon? and his virtues they imply that that a future s.t.a.r.t. treaty would deal them principally was not deployed forces? >> that is a great question. i don't know it's in the study and a longer to the extent that the part of it is long, long time ago, nothing i said is anything to do with that. these are my opinions about the numbers might be. i want to make a very important point. i am somebody who believes that we need a stronger complex as numbers go down. we need to continue to have tremendous invest in some infrastructure to get the best science, engineering, type allergy, high-performance computing, all the important things that the complex needs, that it more important day at or we have reductions in the day before. because the smaller the weapons complex, the more important it is to get it right. i than some has advocated for a long time is getting rid of hedge weapons so to speak because of their tremendous expense. you get rid of the hedge weapons and you have to be sure which you got us what you thought. i think we cannot make a that's a smaller number of weapons that we need even more math, science and technology he throughout the complex, that we need a strong nsa and unaccountable nsa than we ever have before because of what's happened 25, 30, 40, 50 years ago. when they made those investments 60, 60, 70 years ago, this is what we got numbers that make those recommendations on trent investments again because people need the innovation that come out of the weapons complex and that means that we have to be diligent, deface it, committed and prepared to go about these investments. not what we have been, which has been a little bit everywhere and frankly fighting against water projects for funding. 535 members have a press release ready to say that groundwater waste treatment plant in their districts and about 20 care about the weapons complex. that is not a site i want to be in anymore. there's a lot about this we've got to get better. i believe we can, but part of it is knowing what works for and i think we have to be for the excellence we've always had in a complex throughout the complex with thousands of people in making those investments more predictable and keeping unsteady strand so we improve this benefits for the american people. >> class question the back good >> tony spear, northrop grumman. imagine beyond the new start, one has been ip and appropriate number. how do we decide what the right number of weapons fire and at what point do we arrest having our peers emboldened to become peers of the united states quite >> is always a consideration and that will be part of what i assume this study is looking out. you know, as we've always said, the contacts of the stock pile is throughout base. today's threat base. it's about how you articulate characterize the turns. you have to constantly calibrated for the time to mean different as two different people, but also to make sure we have a safe, secure and reliable and affect a stop pile. that means there cannot be surprised as and there cannot be any lack of performance. so whatever that calibration and, that's the number. i think well within one allison you can find your place depending on the threat. one of the caveats i put out there if i don't think anything is going to happen at any major at the cannes while north korea has gone on that every once in a while and your ram is provocative. to this key. sends the wrong message. these are pieces of it, but lots of people have been so far it difficult to resolve, but should they have resolved, i think we have to then understand that there will be many people looking directly at us for saving and we've got to have an answer for the and the answer cannot be they were just happy having so many weapons. just not going to do it. i would rather make my own choices about why this size should be 1000 or 1500 manaus tome is going to be 50/50. right now, you know, let me say a much stronger. you cannot have a president at a budget for the congress and say this is what i need to have a safe, secure, reliable and affect a stop pile and then how the congress i am going to give you that minus five. how is that right? that's not. so we're going to have to find a way with the circle and part of his education. part of it is standing up for ourselves and making it clear, but also part of it is being innovative and i had to admit he has deciding to buy her lunch. we're going to buy her lunch, that way we get to do we want to make sure it gets fed. >> thank you. clap not [applause] >> it's a pleasure to be here. i like how you introduce a moderator to introduce the speaker. that's a good way to go. it's a pleasure to be here and i think our topic is a very timely one, one of which again there's probably no other area in the world more unstable and more of a concert with regard to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. in fact it's often called the arc of instability in that region because of that and obviously our focus has been on iran despite the fact they've been subject to numerous sanctions in the u.n. security council, numerous resolutions in the atomic energy agency to continue to embark upon this effort to acquire a nuclear capability and despite also the fact we've had a long history of over 30 years of efforts to create either a middle east nuclear weapon free zone for middle east weapons of mass destruction free zone. those efforts, as disarmament initiatives to attract frankly, charitably call it a total failure despite the npt review conference this effort to have a middle east nuclear free conference last year, no one was able to agree, again given the instability in the region of the arab spring process phenomenon and other things. .. >> the analytical, operation positions and israeli prime minister published extensively on issues related to the middle east including the theory in the context of the middle east. without further adieu. [applause] >> i apologize not having the slides. thank you very much for the invitation, and, so the question that i'm going to address is multilateral nuclear deterrent feasible, and, particularly, feasible in what seems to be inevitable, a polynuclear middle east. i won't keep you in suspense, probably not. any questions? [laughter] good. now i'll seriously address it because it's something in which i personally have been involved in counter proliferation efforts for decades, and happy we have reached the point where, apparently, we are entering a new stage. first of all, we have to understand when we say "nuclear deterrents," retend to be drawn back to the paradigm of the cold war, and i am -- i would like to explain why the cold war deternlts paradigm is actually completely invalid in the context of what we see in the middle east. the second strike capability, highly developed, robust intelligence capabilities, very accurate intelligence, sat satellite intentions, and it could alleviate concerns, and effective bilateral communications of the leadership of the two countries, minimal public opinion which intervened in public relations, and most of the nuclear alerts and crisis which took place during the cold war, the public, in both countries, actually, never knew about it until, and it's like a professional tango, but not a free for all folk dance. you have to be extremely professional and prerequisites in the context are now we have to address them, and will they exist in a multilateral polynuclear region? so many invoke the rational model. as a historian by education, i'd like to say this is accustom more honored in breach than observance, and the model has been relevant and true than most of what we know of history probably never would have had happened, and everybody just looks at history lessons, and we'd understand that. we have those who argued that, actually, nuclear weapons made countries responsible. once they get the nuclear weapons, a sense of responsibility descends from heaven, and, oh, my god, look what i got in my hands. i have to be responsible. you talk about reduction of the nuclear weapons, then i suggest united states now sell its nuclear weapons to every country in the world. you will get revenue. that certainly will help. you'll make all of the countries responsible, and then it will be peace on earth and good will towards all men, so, but seriously, i don't think anyone's contemplating that. we do not believe in that model. i'd like to quote somebody with far more expensive in nuclear conflict than i have who said that kennedy was rationale, rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. let's remember that. the question isn't actually deterrents and static, but the questions of the behavior of the various actors in kinetic situations and escalation, control of escalation processes, and far too much has been focused on deterrents as a static process and much too little on escalation and die name is -- dynamics in various contexts. averting the nuclear middle east, i raised a question regarding confidence. i personally, from my experience in the middle east, i think that i -- american -- the confidence in the american nuclear deterrent towards a potential iranian nuclear threat to the countries of the middle east, in other words, confidence that the american extended deterrents is enough to prevent other countries from going nuclear is actually at the lowest level that it could be. there is no such confidence. i think that's it's a by gone conclusion that when iran is perceives as coming, finally close to a nuclear capability, then saudi arabia, turkey, egypt, and other countries will move forward. this will, of course, raise the question of israel's nuclear posture, which, according to foreign press israel seems to have, i don't know about that. of course. attitudes towards nuclear weapons are going to be critical. now, we tend to see nuclear weapons as something devastating, something totally last resort, but is this the way that people in the middle east are going to see it? now, if we read the discussions in circles of islamic scholars who are very theoretically razeed the question of nuclear weapons, they try to find simile to what nuclear weapons are. one of the interesting similes, well, it's like ancient capitals because it's indiscriminant killing, and in the old days you throw a rock over the wall of the city and you didn't see who you killed, and that's like nuclear weapons. if they used catapults then, today would be nuclear weapons. there's various arguments in that, and people tend to say, oh, that's just religion. people are rational. that's not quite true. religious lines in the middle east are critical. i think that once iran goes nuclear, we're going to have a severe sunni-shiite play, and it's seen as a shiite's bomb threatening the sunni dominance in the middle east. we will probably see very close to that, a pakistani nuclear presence, an extended, and pakistan nigh extended tee -- deterrents in saudi arabia. they financed the nuclear program. they have prior agreement with them that if saudi arabia calls for it, they will provide them with nuclear weapons. i doubt that pakistanis will just deliver a bomb. they would probably station elements in the region, and this is going to raise the question regarding, for the first time, second strike capability against india which would complicate the south asian complex. eases cay collation -- escalation risk is higher than ever between the two super powers. it's command and control. we have to address the question of how command and control of nuclear weapons are -- influences deterrents. first of all, questions of custody. in the united states, it's accepted that the military people who have access to nuclear weapons go through security clearance. we trust them, and this is the way that most of the western countries, israel, certainly, has vetting procedures, but in most of the countries in the middle east, you will not provide a strategic weapon to anybody who's not your tribesmen, your cousin, and in iran, for example, the revolutionary guards, so, in other words, there's a concentration of capabilities, delivery capabilities, research and development, and weapons in the hands of small groups. the authority for use, anybody imagine an american style football or an american style authorization process in a country where you have a supreme leader who is directly connected to alla and would any supreme leader allow a president, and elected president, to have any influence over his decision to use strategic weapons? i doubt it. it doesn't fit into the paradigm of the regime. we also have to recall that command and control is very heavily culturally influenced. we know that today that american paradigms of command and control french paradigms, and russian paradigms differ according to the political systems they were involved in. the second strike consideration, there will be no mad in the middle east, which could counterbalance the risk proclivities, for the foreseeable future. the only country which may possibly have a second strike capability is israel. in other words, countries will be in constant fear of use it or lose it, and if you add to that the absence of intelligence, satellite intelligence, signal intelligence, then the level of fear and concern because you don't know what the other side is doing, and where you don't have a second strike capability so you can't detour the other side will probably enhance the propensity of the various actors to strike first. so when one country sees another country has gone on nuclear alert or doing a nuclear exercise, how will it know that it's directed against the other guy and not against them? in other words, we will witness spirals of escalation into alerts, and nobody will know the true intentions of the other side. if there's multilateral deterrents in a polynuclear nation, it may work for some time, but statistically you have to be lucky all the time, and the chances of being lucky all the time are rather slim so i leave you to decide whether you want to live in that sort of a situation and what the ramifications in terms of stability, energy stability in that region, ect., i assume, for example, that a country like iran, once it gets nuclear capability will learn very quickly that the best way to raise oil prices is to go on nuclear alert. the moment you have a nuclear alert in the gulf, oil prices skyrocket. you make a good -- you make a quick, few dollars; then you lower, but what happens if it doesn't work? now this last, i address the question of how does that affect the united states? certainly, it's affecting israel. this is something which is concerning. most israelis, certainly, concerning the prime minister, and the -- the minister of defense, and the intelligence community, but from the point of view that the united states, the paradigm of american deterrent is strategic. in other words, you do have the capability, if you want, to destroy a nation or destroy the world. you and russians together, certainly, but this is not what we're talking about. the nuclear weapons that iran and saudi arabia and egypt and the rest of the countries will have somewhere around the hiroshima style. in other words, in terms of today's nuclear weapons, they may be considered tactical nuclear weapons. now, if this sort of tactical nuclear weapon, for example, exploding a nuclear weapon in a desert area in saudi arabia, just to warn the saudis what we can do, then how does the united states respond? does it respond with a massive nuclear attack? does it respond with a tactical response? in other words, the flexibility and downgrading the thinking of nuclear response to some sort of tactical nuclear response in the context of the possibility of use of nuclear weapons by countries in the region, i think, is something that should be thought about. on that happy note, i'm trying to be optimistic. this is my optimistic presentation -- [laughter] i leave pessimistic one for another time. [applause] >> questions, comments? over there. >> on the perception of the subject, what, in your view of israel, in the middle east, do you believe there's a strong -- is the perception strong that the united states, give it a regional conflict of chemical weapons or the other thing, that the united states use the nuclear weapon, or given the current climate, what's going on, that perception -- well, leave it at that. what do you think is the view of israel and countries in that part of the world? >> well, i think that the view in israel, certainly, saudi arabia, and other countries in the middle east, american allies, is that a, the united states has abdicated its role in the middle east. we're talking about perceptions. we're not talking about -- i mean, america has an enormous military capability, but you don't see the military capability. you see what your projection of what may be in the future. i think that there's almost a consensus, at least among the arab countries that i speak with. i speak with a lot of them to various -- a lot of senior level, and they are very skeptical about the possibility that the united states will use nuclear weapons in such a scenario. they look in the natural -- the nuclear posture review, and, for example, it says if an ally of the united states to which the united states provided extended assurances is attacked by a nuclear state, something along those lines, then the united states responds with determination. the precise response will be decided by the president of the united states in its capacities as commander in chief of the armed forces. one person says to me, well, that gives a lot of room from maneuver everything from nuking them back to not inviting them back to the next olympics. [laughter] i think this is the attitude in the middle east, and i think that it is a fore gone conclusion that nobody is going to rely on american extended deterrence in the middle east in the foreseeable future. >> a question over here. >> hi. again, regional exceptions rather than speaker of the house, but i'd like to talk about the dynamics mentioned with pakistan, and the u.s. plans to withdraw from afghanistan with plans to keep a number of troops stationed in afghanistan. one, how do you think that whole situation would be affected if pakistan were, and, two, how do you think the last pakistan dynamics work if pakistan -- >> yeah -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah. the perception is that the expectation is that pakistan is going to go through, what i would call a vertical meltdown. it won't officially be a failed state, but when or gaps of -- organs of the state act on their own, and at the height of pakistani integrity of the nation, aq-kwan doing his own thing. you can imagine when a -- when the country starts to desint grate at various levels, what we are going to see in terms of a proliferation and involvement of pakistan and all sorts of things which are against our interestment i think the whole issue of india-pakistan is exacerbated as a result of this, as a result of the potential of pakistani involvement in the middle east which is also something which is almost obvious because the saudis financed, have a prior agreement with them, things indians would be extremely concerned about what they see as a second strike capability. pakistan stationing nuclear weapons far enough away from india in a place where india won't attack. there are a lot of ramifications here which will affect not only us, but also, i think, american policy towards south asia. >> another -- somebody here, okay. >> i want to ask your thoughts about the prospects for the npr -- sorry, the nbt related the conference held last year. how did that in the coming year, and can you address it? >> i think in a world which is moving towards hype proliferation and break down of the npt, the idea of -- and complete turbulence in the middle east and a di -- desint grate, and let's hope they do before they get nuclear weapons, but not after thattings and in such a context, talk about a nuclear premiddle east is -- it seems to me to be a pipe dream. it seems absolutely irrelevant to anything that's happening, and i -- i understand the need of people to come up with all sorts of ideal -- idealistic ideas, but we have to live in the real world, and the real world is how to deal with the current situation and not to dream up all sorts of utopian ideas. >> in getting into the description of the middle east, you mentioned the saudis, and the question is with regards to egypt, how they would get nuclear to take into account, the state of their nuclear research program, and speaking out of -- the relationship with the united states as it is right now. thank you. >> yeah. i think that, first of all, egypt, egypt has had the muslim brotherhood regime. the muslim brotherhood is on record for many years, and the various spiritual leaders of the muslim brotherhood are people like that stated it is the duty of every muslim country to acquire nuclear weapons because the potential enemies of the muslims to have nuclear weapons, and it doesn't mean just israel, but everybody else. i think that egypt also gnash liz -- nationalistically can't, and it's fortunately, syria's out of the game. syria's not going to be a country, but crumb l into all black holes. somebody took the -- had the foresight to take out syria nuclear programming advance, strongly condemned for that. i think that, i think that israel should get the nobel peace prize for taking out the iraqi and syria nuclear reactor. turkey, i find it very difficult to expect turkey with a nuclear iran, nuclear egypt, nuke la saudi arabia to continue to bask under the light of nato and rely on nato deterrence when they are living in that region. i think it would be very, very difficult to expect that so a -- i believe that turkey will also join in. the light side of it is that many countries are going to fall apart so they won't join the club. libya would have been a candidate in the past, but libya is also one of those what i call the humpty dumpty states, and once they fall apart, all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put it back together again. >> retired air force guy, and i appreciate the comments about the proliferation, the value of nuclear weapons there, treems to have an impact on trying to provide for or reclaim stability under extraordinary circumstances. our lack of study in work into crisis scenarios that we look at this typically in a static way more than these weapons deserve, actually, and politics deserve. my question to you is as you think through, have you thought through, do you have observations about how we all wake up the day after the next possible deployment of nuclear weapons? i mean, there's -- i don't know that we have thought through what it's like to wake up with the hostile detonation of the weapon because no matter where it happens, whether you're directly affected or not, the world will be very different that next day, and i just don't know. perhaps, the last question before we go enjoy lunch, we have an observation about that? >> yes. i think, as i said that a statistically, we will be able to expect that we won't be lucky all the time, and that the processes of the escalation and brinksmanship in the region in a polynuclear situation brings about that sort of scenario. i believe that during the process of constant escalation, we'll be jaded to the actual event when it happen, and then we'll say, yes, there was a little nuclear war in the middle east, and a small city in the middle east was destroyed and another small city in the country, and -- and let's go on. i think that once that happens, though, if it happened in a country to which the united states has provided extended assurances or in that area, then you will see the japanese and the south koreans and the taiwan ese waking up saying we can't rely op you anymore so with all do respect to the new pacific orientation of the united states, the question would be how did you -- how do you control the ripple effects of the sense of lack of confidence in the united states in the middle east? how do you present them from affecting your status, your posture in asia? what i think i'm trying to say is that the events are going to have, you know, chaos theory, the butterfly effect, and we, actually, i'm involved in preparing a number of sort of small war games and none of the outcomes we're looking at are very on the -- optimistic. >> well, i think that's all the time we have. please join me in thanking dr. bar for this. [applause] >> i join president obama today in asserting with urgency that our citizenry deserves a strong foreign policy to protect our interests in the world. a wise investment in foreign policy that yields for a nation the same return that education does for a student. no investment that we make that is as small as this investment puts forward such a sizable benefit for ourselves and for our fellow citizens of the world. that's why i wanted to have this conversation with you today, which i hope is a conversation that extends well beyond the borders of charlottesville, well beyond the university to all americans. when i talk about a small investment in foreign policy in the united states, i mean it. not so long ago, someone polled the american people and asked how big is our international affairs budget? most pegged it at 25% of the national budget. as they thought it ought to be paired way back to 10% of the national budget. let me tell you, i take 10% in a heart beat, folks, because 10% is exactly ten times greater than way we do invest in our efforts to protect america around the world. in fact, our whole foreign policy budget is just over 1% of our national budget. think about it a little bit. over 1%, a little bit more, funds all of our civilians and foreign affairs efforts. every embassy and program that saves a child from dirty drinking water or from aids or reaches out to build a village and bring america's values. every person, we're not talking about pennys on the dollar. we're talking about one penny plus a bit on a single dollar. where do you think this idea comes from that we spend 25% of the budget? i tell you, it's pretty simple. as a recovering politician -- [laughter] i can tell you nothing gets a crowd clapping faster in a lot of faster than saying "i'm going to washington to get tome this stop spending all that money over there." sometimes they get a lot more specific. if you are looking for app applause line, that's about as a guaranteed applause line as you can get, but guess what? it does nothing to guarantee our security. it doesn't guarantee a stronger country. it doesn't guarantee a sounder economy or more stable job market. it doesn't guarantee that the best interests of our nation are being served. it doesn't guarantee that another young american, man or woman, won't go and lose their life because we were not willing to make the right investments here in the first place. we need to say no to the politics of the lowest common denominator and of simplistic slogans and start making real choices that protect the interests of our country. that's imperative. [applause] >> see all of secretary kerry's speech at the university of virginia any time at c-span.org. >> if blockade is the principle naval strategy of the northern state, the principle naval strategy of the southern states is commerce. one gun on a pivot between the masts, but, again, going after merchant ships, one is all you need. if you caught a ship, the idea was come along side and put a prize crew on board, take it to a port where a prize court judge adjudicates it, sell it at auction, and you got to keep all the money, but, of course, because private tiering depends on the motive, the ship owner paid the men, the ship itself supplies the food, hires officers, and he republics a return on his money, and the crew expected prize money. without friendly ports where they could be condemned and sold, you can't make a profit; therefore, con federal pirate pirateering died out immediately, three months or a little longer. they found out they would make more money blockade running. >> the historian, craig simon, looks at the civil war at sea saturday night at 10 p.m. eastern this weekend on c-span3. [applause] greetings, welcome to the progressive forum. i'm founder and president of the progressive forum, america's only civic speaker organization, dedicated to progressive values and the largest speaker organization in texas. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] we are excited tonight to prevent supreme court justice sonya sotomayor launching her book called "my beloved world." please turn off your cell phones, familiar photography, or videotaping. it's not allowed. if our ushers catch you, they are authorize to treat you like a supreme court justice and a senate confirmation hearing. [laughter] the beautiful flowers on stage are flowers that are grown in lovely puerto rico. [applause] >> puerto rico, the roots of the culture and family who are regular florists and managed to find or kids and opals, gin gear, and other tropical foliage. thank you, c-span's book -- booktv, we here at houston, texas, welcome you, and our friends across the country joining us on television. thank you for joining us. [applause] i'm excited that mayor parker and kathy hubbard are with us tonight. denise parker -- [applause] she's one of my heros and one of my favorite people and a terrific mayor. please stand mayor parker and first lady kathy hubbard. [cheers and applause] you can see past presentations of the progressive forum on our website, great minds, like jane, richard, bill moyers and supreme court justice, john paul stevens. go to our website at progressiveforumhouston.org. that's progressiveforumhouston.org. we're pleased to give a book to every attendee tonight. just show your ticket at the distribution table at the grand foyer. additional books are also on sale in the grand foyer by the blue bell la book shop. after the presentation, she'll join me for a q&a. i should say that supreme court rules don't allow us to discuss court cases of the past, present, or future, but we will delve deeply into our fascinating story. justice society my your greets fans in the foy -- foyer. i cried when i read "my beloved world," and i also laughed. it is a good book. it will be a best story and required reading in high school and colleges. i'm amazed at the e-mails we've been getting from houston students filled with exclamation points. young people connect with sonya society my your. in her book, i was especially impressed by the scene of sonya and her brother, junior, as kids doing homework with their mother who was also doing hers studying to become a registered nurse, two generations encouraging each other. to me, justice society -- sotomayor's story should erase myth of individual determination. yes, her story is about individual determination, but it's also about community, family, and negotiates culture boundaries. it's about overcoming poverty and chronic disease. it's about insecurity, self-discovery, and the joys of growing as an authentic person. it's about deep success and in america as it really is. she's the first hispanic and third woman to serve on the u.s. supreme court. she was born in the bronx and raised in a public housing project. her parents moved from puerto rico to new york city during world war ii. her father became a factory worker. her mother joined the women's automobile -- auxillary core. her father died when she was nine. they were raised by a single mother. her brother is now a doctor. she graduated as valedictorian, graduated from princeton university, getting the highest prize for undergraduate while attending yale law school, editor of the yale law journal. she could have become a highly paid lawyer out of yale, but went right into public service becoming an assistant district attorney serving the people of new york, she served in almost all levels of judicial system including private legal practice as well as years on the federal bench. in 2009, president barack obama nominated and the u.s. senate confirmed sonya sotomayor as the 111th justice at the u.s. supreme court. [applause] [cheers and applause] [applause] after i got to washington in 2009, i met a whole bunch of texans -- [laughter] from everywhere in the large state, and i've been repeatedly invited to visit. you know, when you get a new job, you're a little busy, so i had not been able to come, but it's the tribute to the warmth of the people i met then that have been concerned in the few hours that i've been here already, that this is the third city on my tour. i was first in washington, my new home. i went back to the home of my heart, new york, over the weekend, and as you saw on television, i was back and forth a lot between the two. [laughter] this is my first trip outside. i'm delighted that this is my first trip to texas, and that i'm here in houston. thank you. [applause] i wanted to visit more than one city, and i am going to os p, but i can't visit every place i want to. i still have a day job, and i only have a few days to visit cities to promote the book, but i make a promise on television so that you can hold me to it. i will be back to visit other cities in texas. [applause] now, randall, where are you and suzanne sitting? i didn't see where you went to. oh, they are right there. you -- part of the reason that i could come, and it was randall and suzanne morton, the founders of the progressive forum, who put this visit together for me. they have extended every warmth and curtesy to me. i even had to have dinner tonight. [applause] i'm surrounded by flowers, some of which i describe in the book, from my beloved -- part of my beloved world, puerto rico. randall, suzanne, thank you. so, i'm here to talk to you about my book, and about what my book is about, and when i started to write it, there was one thing i wanted to accomplish , when you write a memoir, and i read many throughout my life, you sometimes come away asking your question, asking yourself a question, did i learn anything about this public person? regrettably, often, i have read books and memoirs or autobiographies and thought to myself, i really didn't learn much that i didn't already know from the news. i didn't want to bring that kind of book. i wanted to write something different, something where at the end of it, a reader could come away and say to themselves, i think i know her, and so what my beloved world intended in part to do was to let you into my heart and soul and to, in doing that, i hoped to show you who i was, but, also, to show you a little bit of you. there was a purpose for doing that. the purpose is captured in one part of my book. it's probably my favorite passage, and so i read it to you because it summarizes one of the very important reasons i read this book. it's on page 178, and it reads, "when a young person, even a gifted one, grows up without prosperous living examples of what you may aspire to become, whether lawyer, scientist, artist, or a leader in any realm, her goals remain abstract. such models as appear in books or on the news, however inspiring are revered, are ultimately too remote to be true, let alone influential, but a role model in the flesh provides more than an inspiration. his or her very existence is confirmation of possibilities one might have every reason to doubt, say, yes, someone like me can do this." it was my hope that every child, and, frankly, every adult who read this book at the end would say what i said during my confirmation -- not my confirmation, but my nomination speech, yes, she's an ordinary person just like me. if that ordinary person can do it, so can i. that's what i tried. [applause] to do in the stories of this book. to tell you my experiences and my feelings. as i perceived them at the time, and you'll find me talking in the child of the little son ya, and then give you the reflection of the adult sonya. wasn't so easied to do -- easy to do to put myself back in time and tell you what i was feeling, but i did it for a purpose, and that purpose was to tell you what i learned from those experiences, and in the process to have the hope that every single person in this room who has experienced even one of the difficulties that i have faced in life and those difficults are as diverse as growing up in poverty, having a chronic disease, and it's surprising how many people suffer from chronic diseases and live their lives never talking about it, to being a child raised by a single parent to pacing discrimination and whether it's about my ethnicity or my gender or it's about my background, we each feel the sting of it in some way, to simply being afraid, which i think most people experience, and we all create a bravado about, oh, we're okay, we can do this. yes, it's easy to say. it's hard to do, and so i talk about these things in as ordinary a way as i can and as candid and open a way as i could in order, i hoped, to give people courage to talk about and rethink their own experiences. there was a second purpose to discuss the book, but you see the books that i love are the books that i read and make me think on different levels that deliver more than one message because there is a beauty, i think, in reading books and discovering new things, and you'll learn about how i usedded books after my father's death to escape the unhappiness in my home, and they became a rocket ship out of that unhappiness, but a robert ship that landed me on far universes of the world when i found science to understanding places oil prices now have the wherewithallto do it, but i found india and africa, and places i heard about on television, but never imagined knowing, and i learnedded about them through books. i hope any child in the audience and whoever hears me speaks understands that television is wonderful, but words paint pictures. i'll read a passage in the book that will describe a scene in my childhood that will prove the point for everyone in this room because i think that these passages paint a picture of my grandmother that you don't need to see in the photographs in the book, although, it's nice that you have them k okay, but that also describes a piece of my life in a way that paints a picture for you without having a photograph of it, so i'm reading from page 16 of my book, and it reads, "she was going to cook for a party, and she wanted me to come with her to buy the chicken. i was the only one who ever went with her. i loved it totally and without reservation. her apartment on southern boulevard was a safe haven from my parent's storms at home. since those years, i have come to believe that in order to thrive, a child must have at least one adult in her life who shows her unconditional love, respect, and confidence. for me, it was her. be just like her, to age with the same exuberance and grace. not that we looked much alike. she had very dark eyes, darker than mine, and along face with a pointed nose, framed by long straight hair, nothing like my nose and short curly locks, but otherwise we recognized in each other a twin spirit and enjoy a bond beyond explanation, a deep emotional resonance that sometimes seemed telepathic. we were so much alike, in fact, that people called me little mercedes, which was a source of great pride for me. 4 4 no one among my cousins closest to me in age as much as my co-conspirator in every adventure had a special connection as well, but they never wanted to did with her on saturday mornings because of the smell. it was not just the chickens that smelled. they had baby goats in pens and ducks and rackets in cages stacked up against the wall. the cages stacked so high that she would climb up a ladder op wheels to see into the top rows. the birds would be all squawking and clucking and quacking and screaming, feathers in the air and sticking to the wet floor which was slippery when they hosed it down, and there were chickens with mean eyes watching you." one of my favorite parts of the book. [applause] so are you with me? [laughter] you know, at the end of my con fir ration process, everybody learns about my mother, and she is someone worthy of being learned about, but one say she says to me, son j ya, nobody talks about that, she was the most important person in your life, so i use to story to tell this, and there's so many people who don't get to know their grandmothers or grandfathers, but those who do know what a special kind of love it is so every mama, papa in this book, i hope you'll see a piece of yourselves in it because you're special. that brings me to a critically important part of this book and motive for it. during the con confirmation pro, i was being asked so many questions. now, i'm going to tell you the following: i always upset my marshalls when i do this. i'm going down to the audience. i'm sorry i can't go up there. you're too far up there. you know, i was hear earlier this afternoon, and i looked out here, and i said, oh, this is lovely, it's intimate. wow, is this big. [laughter] i can't go to you, and i won't go as far back as i want so you guys, many of you can still see me, okay, but i find if i walk among you, i prove my family right. they used to call me hot temper because i could never sit still. [laughter] i still can't, okay? [laughter] so people are asking me about my father and where he came from and what his family was like, and i really didn't have much to tell them they were asking me a lot about that about my own mother, and there were basic parts of the story that i knew, but there was a lot i couldn't answer, and, in fact, some of the information that came out during the con fir ration hearing prove to be wrong. in fact, i didn't know where my father was born. i thought it was from the town he had left from which was in puerto rico, but it turns out that was not true. he was born in a townings hey -- [laughter] i'll tell you one of the things that it goes to no end and pleases me was knowledge of that, but people helping me do the research on by family of puerto rico went to the local priests to look at our family's birth records, the priests greeted them, and they said to the person who was acting for me, i knew she would end up here. we were just waiting. he reached behind him and pulled out the book with the birth certificate of my father and his sister, and so it's a very touching moment, a very, very touching moment, a sec thing happened during my confirmation hearing. every morning, before i went to the white house or the senate, i would call my mother just to hear her voice. i don't talk to hi mother every day. i broke her of that habit a long time ago. [laughter] don't listen to me too much. your parents are telling you right now, you're victoria; right? they are not going to like me saying that, but one night i forgot to call her, after she had been used to me calling every day, and she was frantic, and i told her, oh, no, you know, because i get busy, you know, so i call her -- every week i talk to her, at least once a week, sometimes more, but i try to do it spoon tape yows -- spontaneously so she doesn't worry as much. another life management lesson, okay? i found myself calling her every 9 9fé!é!l ;é3xçx to understand the background by the time a camera in a few years later, my father had become such an alcoholic that my life with him was still bears the name. one of the gates of writing this book was finding out about a father he never knew and the above story that i never knew between him and my mom. so i'm going to read you just a piece of my book because of all the chat is a nice book, the one i love the most is chapter seven because it is the chapter of the story of her from my mother by just talking to her. it wasn't until i began to write this book nearly 50 years after i came to a truer understanding of my mothers grieve. my father and my parents relationship was combined by the narrow aperture through which i watched him as a child. that sense was frozen in time when my father died. a jury of induced grief was hardly more sophisticated psychiatric help of 5 cents a pop. the vague shame overhanging my father'sp. alcoholism silenced y conversation among the adult that might cause me to question what i thought. as we grew, junior my brother, speak more openly to each other. but he could have nothing to my analysis. he was six when poppy died and has virtually no members of my father or the time before it starts. and so with the vocabulary be of hindsight, i came to us in the intensity of my mother's grief and played some form of clinical depression that was never treated, but some hobbies of the south eventually. i had never before in all of these years has to very intelligent and perceptive woman or her own version of events. i would befuddle what i uncovered and even grateful to be the hot air version of that father and my mother than i ever knew.çvçrçxçrçtçpçp my parents relationship is richer and more complex than açq child could imagine in theñçñçv been captured as a grandmother's memory is fading faster with age. sometimes the row closest to eyes are those we now believe. where should i began, selling out? begin at the beginning and the rest of this chapter is that dori. i hope you'll read it to find the joy i do. [applause] so i pass on the greatest lesson of this book to every person in this auditorium who has a living parent, grandparent and or uncle, anyone who is a life that has a memory of your family's history, do what it took me six to five years to get to. sit down, talk to them. we listen to their stories with you hear the stories at sunday table or when you're a christmas and you could years may appear at [laughter] it's very thin ice in the latino culture, particularly the puerto rican one. it's the exclamation of here we go again. only i'll do it. how often have you heard the story and you think you know it? you think you understand the reasons behind it, though why. and so, i am giving you a free lesson. don't do what i did. don't wait until they're not here any longer. do it whenever you have the chance. and i have to tell you, i took the time during the busiest part of my life that i've ever had becoming a supreme court justice. and i did it for personal reasons. the personal reason was because i wanted to hold on to sonja. i'd been thrust on a world stage of my life was moving and husband is an incredible piece. and what happens to all of us is we forget how we got places. we think sometimes that happens or we forget to be grateful. and i didn't want to forget. this book is my memory. this book is here so the day i get conceded, my family and run will pick up the book, hit me over the head with it -- [laughter] and tell me to remember. but it is also a tribute to that moment that i check the very heart whitesnake created mostly in my sleep, but also my third nation kind. i haven't had a vacation in three years since i was nominated to the supreme court. i've taken a week off here and there. i even went to the beach for a week last summer. but everyday of my summer i treated this book like a job. i got up early in the morning. by 9:00 i was at my desk on a kitchen table. i've been talking entry to the phone, writing or editing and i worked every day from that time early in the morning until 6:00 and 630 pocket knife five days a week. and if you don't treat a task as a child, it doesn't get done. but the benefit was that i learned about my family. learn about yours. take the time no matter how busy you are. make the time and talk to those you love. you will find out the most incredible things i assure you. sereno, where are we on time? i want to get >> were so good. >> how much more time do i have? is all going to something else. i'm really good at that. >> five or seven minutes. >> we had a long talk before and i said the strong. tell me to choose. i've got some are walking to do. i didn't realize all those people are going to be up there. i want the people down here to see me a little bit. one of the things i love in this job is to privacy. once you get nominated to the supreme court, every eye in the world to sign you. i exaggerating. people around the world have come to the united states to tell me that they watched my nomination on tv and people tommy that they read our cases and follow the issues the court is looking not and because of it, everything you do is under constant scrutiny. you know, i have to hold onto people sometimes when i'm walking down places because of my broken ankle, so thank you. this is a little steep. then i read a book and show you the inside of my heart of my soul. you know i think i lost everything. so i hope it's been worth while, okay? [applause] but i started by talking to you about how we all keep things secret. and i started my book and i've been asked by many, why did you start with the chapter about the diagnosis of your disease, of your juvenile diabetes clinics i started by saying to all of you fwat i know much of many of iceu f1de the sad things in our lifeu it wasn't easy to talk about an alcoholic father.vufufufufu it wasn't easy to talk about thu terror i felt when my disease is diagnosed. and it was an easy to about people how it's an unfair present part of my life, bacillus asthma for many people. so her family members who are drug addicts and you learn in this book about a relative of mine who is my soulmate, my cousin. we were inseparable as a child, as children. you will see pictures on this but i will show you almost every picture of a child that i meant coming nelson is right next to me. nelson died of aids before he was 30. and i was with him the night before he died and many of the weeks before. and i read to you a passage. i read it to you because his sister saw me this past weekend at an event in new york and said to me, sonja, thank you. very few people remember who nelson was and now you've brought him back to life. and in his story, he might even teach kids some good. so i'll reach you chop or 26, a few paragraphs are met. if i try to understand in my heart how it could happen to children so closely matched could meet such different faiths, i enter a subterranean world of nightmares. the sudden panic when nelson's hands switched from mine and the price of the crowd, the moment i have eight but he cannot. reason seems a better defense against the pain. let me understand in my logical way what made the difference between two children who begin, says twins, inseparable and in our minds, virtually identical, almost but not quiet. he was smarter. here the father father wished for, that he shared with us a special blessing. why did i adore when he failed, consumed by the same dangers that surrounded me. some of it can be played in the door of machismo, the culture that pushes boys out into the streets while protecting girls,] but there's more.ño nelson had mentioned the one thing i had. call it what you like. discipline, determination, perseverance, the force of wellí even apart from his saying so, i know it made all the difference in my life if only i could not really, i would share it with every kid in america. well, you know what that's about stubborn. parents till you not to be stubborn, look at them and say that justice said it was a good thing. i've money of friends who have because money doesn't buy you it's an old adage. it's a very truer adage. nominated to the supreme court, not been so proud and arrogant that you think you know it all as one of the hardest things to do in the world, to say i don't know, help me, please. i hope my book will encourage more frequently. in the hand is not. it's about trying angry trying and trying again. i describe my failures and i of time not to let them knock you down, but to get up and try again and to understand that even if you don't reach the moon when you aim for, you can land on an asteroid that goes by but unless you try coming you can't achieve anything. you can't succeed in life without trying. so in the very adamant, and this is a book about trying, sometimes failing, but having arrived at a life, and i end the book with this, a life in which i can say, i am truly, truly blessed. thank you for sharing. [applause] >> why not choose stand of the ideas so i can have a drink of water? >> was done. >> the title of your book. >> wenatchee tell people where the questions came from. >> online come in many of you e-mailed them. >> some of these belong to people in the audience? >> s., thank you. [laughter] you've done me a lot of good today. i'm stronger also. the title of your book, "my beloved world" instrument home in your book called to puerto rico i return. what were your reflections and choosing not title? >> in the poem, there's a line that talks about returning to my beloved world in my world is not puerto rico alone, but it is an important sites of it and i thought it was so fitting to call this book "my beloved world" because i am introducing the world to the things i love despite your subscriptions that difficult times and challenges, the book is about love. a love of life, and love of people, as others experiences that his is strengthening me, even if their challenge. so the title just seemed right. and you know something? if you've never visited puerto rico, it's a great place to visit. by the way, when september 11th came, all of us i think not just in the ambient, but the entire world was riveted to the view and one of interviewing a woman from the wife said to the reporter, i've been watching the events in new york and as people are just like us. [laughter] at that some of you have said that about new yorkers. that moment he may realize that in all the unhappiness of september 11th, there is every sunshine and is in no way americans came together and it didn't matter where we were from, we stood together as a nation and not was a really important lesson. but it is also made me realize administrating this book that i wanted people to see this slice of my life is different from theirs. i doubt my experience as a puerto rican in new york is identical to mexicans in texas or identical to the experience of other immigrant or groups in different parts of the united states of the world. but we share so many commonalities. we share so much more and i thought in describing my world, my beloved world in the describe ways that i've tried to accomplish that people would appreciate this commonalities and they would, way with their own lives, even in the details might be different. >> you are famous for praising her confirmation hearing some of your speeches. why is a latina woman when i heard that, i felt there was more to this story. [applause] i thought there was more behind it. what can you share it us? >> there have been many misunderstanding about that phrase in the use of it in the article i wrote in the people didn't appreciate is where i came from and where i came from was being a person who sometimes felt books down upon by the larger society. people talk about latinas in terms like illegal alien. some are undocumented. buccal mailing and sign like oral drug attics, murderers did raikes allow to be undocumented, but they are different kinds of crime and like how crime is different than negative images people perch i am latinas in the united states. and i've always wanted to convey to the team i kid that we should take enormous pride in our culture, though we could be what i am, a very, very proud american with a latina heart and soul and that i didn't have to apologize to anybody for being that. [applause] it was not when i use the phrase to suggest. already. it was intended to do something completely different, to convey equality. because when you don't feel equal, somebody has to remain you sometimes that you are. and so i think it is a phrase that offended some and i wish i had campaign that, but its message was born from a sense of pride in knowing that i come from a very rich background and a very rich culture. not superior to any, but equal. [applause] that's what i hope will come out of people reading this book. >> from the bronx to princeton university, from one world to another in a series of culture shock coming you describe it as becoming a stranger in a strange land, but she discovered recently that interview cultural roles. what is your advice to others negotiating the same kinds of passages? >> what i done and i describe it in my book every juncture of my life inside methods of people from the latino community. i joined latino groups. i've advocated for some of the needs of the team as and i've done it because it given me a sense of comfort and security in my life. we'll gravitate to that which we corrupt and because the familiar unfamiliar is more maintain security and confidence building. but i'm very careful to give a more broader lesson in my book to talk about the need, not to insulate yourself within your community, but simply to use that as a springboard into the larger world. go back, not your culture, have your friends, feel their warmth, but that's okay therefore to support you if you fall down to push you down again and trying new things. i talk about loading bridges and not wallace in my book and i talk in those terms because i don't believe in isolation. i believe every community should try to go out into the world and embrace it all, whether it's going to a place like princeton that was completely alien to me to make in france were not latina. it's too convenient not to branch out and make friends different from you, the convenient doesn't help you grow. you have to take the risk of meeting new people to learn new things, an important game, taking the time to embrace who you are, but at the same time embrace others. i really wanted that message to come in the book. >> as a theme in your book and i think it started in high school when he workshare how to do it and he sat of the smartest kid in class and ask her how to study and you thought mentors also a euro. >> mentors are the most important thing in life. the first message i wrote about him being a role model was one of the most important mentors in my life, a federal judge of the u.s. district court for the second circuit in new york. we later became colleagues, but josé was the first really successful the team now that i had encountered when i was in moscow. and i was talking about how important he was because he was a role model of what i might be what to do and achieve. i intuitively understood seeking out that a friend from grammar school. i describe this in the book who gave up gold stars when he got good grades and i wanted some gold stars. but i couldn't figure out how to do it. there was one girl at venice school with for four years and she always got out the old stars and i wanted some. so i went to her and i just said, how do you study? i learned to write this but as i saw her again. believe it or not i didn't remember that story. she reminded me. [laughter] it was nice to include in the book. but she explained to me how she studied, how to underline the important facts that what she is agreeing on how to go through the next day before he checks and she would go through real looking at those important points that you said that so she went about remembering everything she had to remind her and answering questions in the quiz. up until then i read that one and that was that and she taught me memories and things wasn't photographic memory, you read and remember. you have to repeat it often until it sinks in. what a life lesson. i use it to this day. i tell law students, when you have to go into court, stand in front of the mirror and say your opening statement at different times. do the same thing with your closing statement and then pick up a friend who's not a lawyer so they can tell you what they don't understand. nothing i do do i do with that practice. and so, it was a lesson from her they really like me to learning how to be a good student. >> the supreme court is a mysterious and secretive world to most of us. how about sharing what your typical day at the court looks like. >> when i say it, most of you won't want the job. [laughter] and now, we spend most of our days are reading. we read briefs. we read amicus brief, briefs by friends of the court. we read the record created below. we read decisions of courts across the country who would face the question. we've done research and we write and then we add it at almost every day we are reading research and writing. doesn't sound very exciting, does it? been our opinion gets published and all of that again gets shown to the world. it's what people look at, but they don't really realize how much we have to do to get there and it's worked to get there, hard work. remember him as a judge that every decision he made, there's a winner and there is a loser. people forget about the losers because if they like a decision on the one, they think were smart. [laughter] if they don't like what we've done, they don't were smart. they think were lazy. or they think were doing it the same politics, but somehow we just don't want like with a like and want to do it our way. and it's so far from the truth. judging is a skill, a profession you're trained to look at issues in a legal way, to think about the questions not based on your personal likes or dislikes, but on the tools of interpretation to understand. so the process can seem boring to an outsider. to someone who loves long the way i do, it's completely engaging. the other half of the day, we are interact with the public. the supreme court gets visitors from around the world. i have been the schoolchildren as young a second grade. grammar school, high school, college, not just law school. i mean students are going to be doctors, students are businessmen. i meet with groups of all kinds are ascendant in the society who come to the court and meet with justices to have conversations about what we do. we get visitors around the world, judges around the world. i told you earlier that people around the world read our cases studies are the ecosystem and come to our court looking to meet with us and talk to us and for each of us to learn from each other. and i traveled. i traveled to law schools, prices teaching groups. i travel to other kinds of groups as well because i want to reach out and teach people about the long and how that makes me so passionate about what i do. you know, if in one meeting with people i can get them to understand our legal system a little better, i hope they'll become better citizens, that though the more act did citizen improving it for everyone. so are busy and lots of different levels, not just the courtroom. they have to argue cases before is a microcosm of the work we put into it. >> the most popular questions submitted was how did the justices get along? [laughter] i know the relations among you all are deeply collegial. so i'm wondering, what are the conference rituals in the ways you will build relationships? >> it starts with respect. if you come into this process appreciating that every single justice on the court has a passion and a love for the constitution and our country bring people up to nine, then you know that if you accept that as an operating truth, which it is, you understand you can disagree. you can understand you can disagree reset fully and sometimes passionate words if you read our decision, were not always so nice to each other in our decisions, but that because we really have it commit it to dnc we think is right. nsu on from the personal relationships, when people think they're right, they get really agitated. but we do that in writing. and in person, we treat each other with affection and love because we understand that commitment. and we respected. we're borrowing a phrase and i hope i didn't do many of those might look. i think it's unavoidable. we spend more time with each other than any of us spend with their spouses or friends because we worked together every day of the week. we are doing our work in our office or elsewhere constantly. so when you spend that much time with each other, you figure out a way. it's what family does every single day. try figuring out what movie are going to go to on a friday or saturday. >> i understand in your conference will take turns and they can't speak again patella comes around to you. >> it's a way of making sure nobody hogs all the time. [laughter] wednesday's revote on the cases we heard on monday from the particular week. on friday, we discuss and vote the cases we heard tuesday and if we have a wednesday, wednesday we break it up because it can take time sometimes to talk about a case. the chiefs are seen as two sister madness out all of the cases about. although we know it sought to ensure we are missing page. sometimes, not very often so say the issue is this the case and will come around to someone else and i'll say i disagree with you. i think it should be this one. you've got to start their. so he starts fire and tells you what it is and why. though explaining why he did think the other side makes sense. the next person to speak is the most senior judge after the chief in years of tenure. in this case is justice scalia. he says i either agree with achievement if i do, i do on every day than i think we should mention this. i don't think one of those the reason. we should answer this argument that way. he expresses what his thinking is and why and it goes down the line until it reaches the most junior adjustment. but somewhere someone i say i disagree altogether and they explain why they are descending and why the other side is wrong and if there's someone who joins us, though, and say we should save face, no we shouldn't say that. and by the time the conference ends when the writer of the opinion is ultimately assigned in the assignments are pretty chief of these in the majority. it is not in the majority, the next senior judge who voted in the majority of signs the opinion. and if it's a dissenting group, the most senior judge pixie writes that. by the time you sit down to write an opinion, you have a very clear outline of what your colleagues are thinking antisera job to write an opinion that other people will join because he needs five votes to win. there's a joke among judges. if you're a trial court, you make the decision. if you're on an appeals court, there's three judges. you know how to count to two. your vote in the other guys are the doing. if you're on the supreme court, you know how to count to five. your vote and four. but you have to write some people would join your opinion. you want to write so you get everybody to say you're right about this. so that's how the process of writing games. clearly after the drafts coming, sometimes people say you really are not thinking of it the way i am. i have to write differently on the inclusion might be the same amount of scholarly concurrence. i'm dissenting, but i'm not dissenting for the reason. i'm dissenting for this reason. but we try to come together as groups as often as we can. >> yesterday's inauguration, you were great. [applause] the inoculation reminds us of the power the constitution. why does the work? it's remarkable that if a document has worked for 223 years in the worlds must first nation. why do you think it works? >> as our forefathers didn't write a document for this time. they wrote a document to last the ages. the way they did that was to try not to define for their day, but to use terms and concepts that each generation could interpret to meet their needs. and so one of the biggest issues the court is constantly grappling with is in this aged new technology, what is an unreasonable search seizure mean? salutes s. about can the government fly over your home and use the knowledge she that takes the area mna premier hope. we we've got questions about we we've got questions about wiretap. we've had questions about gps tracking of people in cars and will have many more. and for sure, the forefathers had no idea that the computer and computer chips that come into existence. even benjamin frank and i doubt very much that he ever in his wildest fantasy imagine the things we could do today. if they had used terms that were more than they did, we wouldn't have been given the opportunity to define out with experience. and so they did a mixture. they did a mixture of some very, very clear things. you can't do this. one that we forget about today, you can't order the militia in peoples homes except in times of war. that's pretty specific. but there are many other things they left generally pay a 15 essay constant of our guided by that concept, but we're not wedded to a fixed time. >> and are there any trends, issues you might have your eye on? [laughter] >> are you a lawyer? i don't think this is to really talk about it. but i will talk about one thing that the recent election has given me gratification about. our forefathers versus state. that done by the way they were all men, so that's why i use the word statesman. they were people who are of the community there and. they were the elite of that society. they're businessmen come a successful farmers. they were people who had high education and actually traveled the world can learn from other cultures. the constitution was written by men who would study the government through history and of other countries in the cost of something unique for the time by picking and choosing from the various things they saw a common discarding the things they thought it didn't work and coming up with creative solutions for the issues they thought had not been resolved by other systems. so what i'm gratified by his more people are voting now than they have in past years because it worries me when citizens forgot that it is their obligation not to let the country just happen, but to create the country they want. that's why tell people when they asked me how do you feel about the immigration law? how do you feel about the debate of the second environment? i get all these questions because i generally have cases in the considering and i don't want people to believe i've made up my mind because i haven't. but if i and express an opinion, and that's without belief. but i often say to them is by our u.s. teammate? weyrich to asking yourself? what do you think? and what are you doing about it that you don't like some thing because that's what this country was founded on people getting up and starting a war to change a country and create a new one. so i'm not suggesting rebellion. far from not. but i am encouraging civic responsibility. we should be citizen state people. we should all be out there lobbying for things important to us. we change if you take charge of that change. >> last question. taking you back to your nomination, in the period from to swearing-in this court, this very moment that stands out as particularly meaningful quiet >> i think i spoke about it earlier, the moment when i realized how extraordinarily special and i'm otherwise. we take the people we love off in for granted. we sometimes don't really know homeport they are to us. the most special moment of all was that a friend broke my rule. i was at friends show me the press about me in the nomination race, but once it's done yet, you have to watch it. i watched my brother interviewed on television and you is describing me and he started to cry. and not womack,, like never before, i knew how it deeply my brother loved me. most of us don't get a chance to see or feel it except in of tragedy, illness or death. that may have been the greatest gift. >> thank you for a beautiful evening. here's a gift from us in the progressive forum. [applause] >> cynthia helms is the widow of richard helms. ann arbor, someone, she writes about the american intelligence community. she recently spoke at the british embassy in washington d.c. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> thank you. i'm back over here. is that right? thank you for this kind, nice event to the lattice to have here and that is i am most grateful to you and thank everyone for coming. susie is quite right when she said that six's diary was soothing -- [inaudible] a few new richard helms khanate there are eskimos in a cardboard box. so when they're going to say one, i finally said, can you cope with the box? he said what alex? is that the cardboard box had been dusting for years on the top shelf. so the only thing and it was his silk scarf, thinking it was love letters and some wonderful, beautiful women i did know anything about. i've written the book on iran and then i tried to write this book and found it too difficult to do because particularly the war and divorce another issues comes they gave it up and put all this stuff away and went to work. and then in 2011, micro grandchildren made me promise that i would do it. i had told them our stories through the years and nothing of early piece together, so he made me promise i would do it. in january, a year ago i was lucky enough to find chris, who is the ultimate person to work with. she's a complete professional and she kept me focused and she was fun and we were joined at the hip for eight months and they produced the whole thing in eight months, which in most grateful for her. that's how it all started. >> thank you. thank you for hosting this wonderful event and thank you all for coming to celebrate a remarkable woman and her intriguing life. i have long felt that the women of the greatest generation have not got their due. they have not caught the attention or credit they deserved and that's not to take anything away from the men. the men were extraordinarily patriotic, rave, survived the depression. they fought a war. they contributed to the baby boom after the war, but so did the women. the women have been gotten the attention even though they are just as talented, just a speech ergodic and just as important. cynthia helms have experienced up close and personal momentous event and she's also known some of the most famous people of the 20th century. i have been told or you're like forrest gump. msnbc back in 1964 when the beatles were here in their first tour of the united states, there is a reception here and she found a quiet spot for herself to get away from the crowd and found herself sitting next the cart me. of course she did. [laughter] her life was like that. the most remarkable thing to me about her she was not just a witness to history. she really that day. she's lived an extraordinary life and she is at all the incredible changes that have taken place in the lives of girls and women in the last century. when she was born in maldon, england, little grosser expected to be wives and mothers which is fine, but not enough. over the course of her life things changed and she changed too. i hope this book helps contribute to younger women is understand name of what their mothers and grandmothers winter and great grandmothers for that matter not to take for granted all that they have. she yearned all the time throughout her entire life to have a life of her ow

Related Keywords

Charlottesville , Virginia , United States , Marshall Islands , Turkey , California , Austria , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mexico , India , Egypt , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Libya , South Korea , Wenatchee , South Africa , New York , Moscow , Moskva , Japan , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , Hiroshima , Puerto Rico , Taiwan , Pakistan , Burnham , Northern Cape , Iraq , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Houston , North Korea , France , Manaus , Amazonas , Brazil , Texans , Americans , Mexicans , America , Marshalls , Puerto Rican , South Koreans , Russian , Pakistani , Iranians , Saudis , Iranian , Israelis , French , Iraqi , Soviet , Pakistanis , Israeli , Austrian , Russians , Japanese , American , Richard Helms , Sonya Sotomayor , Kathy Hubbard , Ronald Reagan , Craig Mello , Dumpty States , Cynthia Helms , Todd Jenkins , Ted Sorensen , George Wallace , John Paul Stevens , Denise Parker , Barack Obama , Priscilla Buckley , Suzanne Morton , Benjamin Frank , John Allison , Craig Simon , Forrest Gump , Richard Burr Kaiser ,