i appreciate that. i can just look at kevin if i need. kevin, you teach, right? in addition to blogging.er, in sorry, pete. blo and so,gg you re used to being front of unruly crowds.g and you may also have some experience with a particularly nerve wracking speaking engagement. one of those engagements wrote you re not quite sure where the subject matter of your talk fits with the event at hand. and then, adding to that, you learn that perhaps, i don t know, c-span is going to broadcast your talk live on television because, hey, you know, live television.ppen this stills, happens apparently. but if you ve done any public ae speaking, you also know that yu moment where a that sense of re calm settles over you. i know that pete knows that because i ve now watched him speak beautifully a number of times in the past couple of days. i just want to let you know, e this s not happening to me right now. and so, without further ado. as many of you may know, on november 29th, 1864, appr
discusses this in massachusetts for 45 minutes. [applause] thank you. it s an honor to be introduced by a fellow nantucketer both of our kids were educated by them and it is great to see you here in brookline and it s wonderful to be in the coolidge center theater with this great bookstore and co-sponsored with the massachusetts historical society, which has been an institution that has been absolutely essential to my life as a historian. i sometimes sort of feel like i ve taken up residence in the archives there, and every book i ve done there has been a central information that has come from there but among the more so than bunker hill. one of the characters i delve into, the papers are there at what we call the mhs and it is an organization that is essential to anyone that is looking into not just the history of boston, but this country. and the genesis for a bunker hill really goes back to the summer of 1984. my wife and i had just moved to boston full-time. we were liv
afghanistan. the discussion hosted by the stemson center in washington, d.c. included analysts like stuart bolin, inspector general for iraq reconstruction and his recent report arguing that a the u.s. does not have a well executed plan to implement and oversee the reconstruction efforts. defense department and u.n. officials also participated in the discussion. this is an hour and a half. good morning everyone. i am ellen laipson and i m delighted to welcome you to the stimson center for this muggy of this conversation about war and peace new tools for messy transition. we are gathering at the time that we can see the end of both the iraq and afghanistan engagement, and this event in a way is pivoted around the offer by the special inspector general for the iraqi reconstruction to present some of the findings for the final report so the special inspector general office created in 2004 is now completing its work so it is a moment of reflection and looking back at what are s
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] sarah polk was on diplomacy and her strong suit is intelligence and political discussion. she made no bones about the fact she took an interest in politics. and that she was her husband s partner. she grew naup political household in tennessee. her father was a local politician so she grew up loving politics. she married james after he won a seat in the legislature. because she would not have married him if he had unfortunately for james k. polk he died three months after leaving the white house. and sarah began a 42-year widowhood. polk place became a shrine to her husband and she would invite anybody who wanted to to come to visit and see the objects she had collected through her long and illustrious political career. to live there for many years on her own. during the civil war, generals on both sides would come and visit her to pay respects. it is an
bloomberg knows better than that. thatheard some people say we stop crime. i can go door to door and stick it in. we cannot do that. i wish you would emphasize that we cannot allow police officers to do that because the constitution says you cannot. i appreciate the point. that is one more point from the judges ruling. judge s ruling. it may lower the crime rate but it is unconstitutional. that is not where we begin, that is where we end. situation, you can lock down an entire city. in that particular situation, that made sense will stop sense. legal and moral problems. we cannot look at these issues through the narrow problem prism of what could reduce crime. we have to look at public safety and the fact that we are a democracy with open values and tolerance. some sense of equal treatment. even people who disagree with me and think that this is a toward that should be used sometimes and disagrees with the court, i should mention, we have to look see our eyes wide open