technology and the time period that allows this to be built. [inaudible]? could you describe why cast iron [inaudible]?has i think walter s intent was looked like masonry. be idn t intend for this to a modern structure. he intended it to be appropriate to the rest of the capitol design. but, because of weight it could not have been built in masonry. just finished several years earlier the liberal of in the renovation capitol where once it will been destroyed by fire he went in interior roof structure which was made of very elaborate cast iron. that, he proved the resi resilience and economy of cast make multiple can hadn t pieces from a single mold and was able to then create this dome without an extensive cost lightweight gh possible.at it was [inaudible]? the existing foundations wouldn t support a structure so was calculated to what it would have been. say it would have been considerably higher than the 14 million pounds that the decisions were hat was element ultimately
terms of fighting for average folks and the middle class. if the first issue that we bring forward in 2014 our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not siding with average families, it is going to be a strong indication where the republicans are headed. when i say out of the the last time this round of benefits was renewed it was under president bush, a republican president. in employment was only 5.6% nationally, it is now seven. that only shows you in the past it has been a bipartisan issue that has supported mainstream republicans like george bush and to not have it now would show ourn how far over colleagues are moving. second issue. pay force.out i have a suggestion that most of us would support. it would be to eliminate the tax break that gives corporations a benefit for shipping jobs overseas. we could say for you i ve for ,hese months during that increased jobs here and decrease unemployment at the same point as helping our colleagues. the final point i would
there s the most recent book by peter snow which is when britain burned the white house. all of these books are great but the question or maybe the point that i m trying to make is that to the average person when they read a title like that, it s going to give them an impression that is not necessarily what really happened in washington, d.c. and i find it ironic that we have three books that talk about the white house, a very important public building, no question about it, where the president lived and it hurt the morale when you burn the president s house. no question about it. but to me, of all of the buildings that were burnt, the most significant was the capitol building. that s where the seat of government existed. and none of these books have that in their title. just interesting to me. and just so that you know they are all in good company, this is the title of a chapter in one of my books. washington is burning. we all do it. almost all of us that have been ta
accounts are not necessarily the most accurate thing in the world. but if these had been supported by other information, primary documents, i d be more likely to believe that they also burned but i can t find any of that. i just want to remind you that the americans were very upset about what was going on and when they talked about what had happened to washington, they tend to embellish the true facts. and then if you go down below, these were the things that were burnt after the evening of august 24th. so a better way to look at all of this is to compare what was actually burned on the evening of august the 24th. during that night. and you can see there s a very, very big difference there. and when we talk about the british burning washington, we re leaving the average citizen with this impression that the british came in and they burnt the entire city of washington, d.c. and if you look at this, you can see that the americans burnt a heck of a lot in the city, but you don t
in the war of 1812, obviously. so it s my pleasure to welcome colonel eshelman to the podium. [ applause ] good morning, everyone. thank you. that was a kind introduction. i have never been called colonel when i m been introduced. thank you very much. i want to add to the accolades expressed about the wonderful job the partners and all the individuals have done to put this symposium together. i have thoroughly enjoyed it. i hope you have as well. we still have an afternoon to go as well. itis not over and i m looking forward to it. before lunch, which is an important thing for all of us, i have a few words i would like to say about some of the myth that surround washington, d.c. specifically, i m going to talk about three myths. i m going to present them to you in the form of a question. the first one is did the british really burn washington city? question number two. is the white house really called the white house because it was painted white because of the scorch marks