same reason you're not going to get reform of the u.n. security council. any reform has winners and losers and shockingly enough, the losers will resist it. i ended up thinking it made sense to traffic in put up these thoughts. i do think there's one or two ways things could turn out better. one is the way i fear, which is only after a crisis have essentially business as usual is no longer sustainable. the problem is we pay an enormous collective price for the crisis. this is not the way any of you should want things to happen. the alternative is something of a new majority or plurality for reforms we need. i think aker, about for leadership willing to willing to in some ways combine the best of fdr, the fireside chats for policy reform and lyndon johnson and some good retail politics to bring it about. it's a longshot? are. is it possible? definitely. no way have they given up. americans can be counted on to do the right thing, but only after they've tried everything else. the real question for me is whether we get time before the crisis forces us to unde

there was a u.n. arms embargo in bosnia, and that essentially froze in place the military advantage of the bosnian serbs. we armed the croatians and bosnians secretly. it was gains on the ground by croatian and bosnian forces that ended that war. and i know it will lead to more bloodshed in the short term, but i think that, you know, arming the rebels will end the stalemate there. >> my understanding is that qatar and saudi arabia are arming the rebels. >> the rebels have claimed, and it's been lifted now, but the americans were limiting the type of weapons that could go in. they did not want sophisticated weapons go in. we're trying to, i think, vet who's getting these sophisticated weapons, but we really were limiting what kind of weapon was going in. and they've had lots of small arms and rpgs, but they needed more sophisticated stuff to deal with syrian armor and those kind of things. to me, it's you arm and arm fully, or you don't arm. not sort of half and half. thank you all very much. again, i

the e-mail says hey our u.n. office? i respond, should i be? and they respond, you might want to be in the office. so i respond, can it wait until halftime? the responses you might want to be in the office. that of course is the day that lehman brothers was about to go into bankruptcy and also the day that bank of america bought out merrill lynch and the day that wall street change forever. it events that followed an ugly weeks of the fall of 2008 have been chronicled in a lot of books and history. it's aig and the tarp and all these ugly payloads and all of this economic calamity happening at that time. i'm going to focus on a couple of aspects you might not know about that are important in understanding this in a global level. in the 19s the central bankers didn't understand each other and didn't communicate and act with common assault. that a change by 2008 in by the time 2008 rolls around there is very much a sense of common purpose among these guys. they meet six times a year. they go to basle switzerland. they have two days of meetings in

but in order to use something like u.n. membership of going to the international criminal court, or any other diplomatic or other tool at your disposal, you have to have a strategy. i have seen the slightest inkling of a stretch from palestinian politician four years. what are they doing? whether complex are they going to get the? i just don't see the. i see nothing in anything they see -- say, anything they do that if it were up to me, i would be trying to increase resistance on the ground to this grinding annexation and occupation process. i would be trying to increase pressure external in by, i don't know where you go are what where you go out what to where you go are what you do but there are many things you can do, and i would say, this is a process that was supposed, going to the letter of assurances which i have right here, u.s. letter of assurances, invitation to the peace conference which have right ere, these tattered copies ideas back in 1991. this process was supposed to end in 1997. they interacted was supposed

a u.n. arms embargo which essentially froze in place the military advantage of the bosnian serbs. we armed the croatians and the bosnian secretly. there were gains on the ground, not magical american airstrikes. i know it will lead to more bloodshed in the short term, but i think that arming the rebels will end the stalemate there. >> qatar and saudi arabia are our men. >> the rebels have claimed -- and it has been lifted now, but the americans were limiting the types of weapons that could go in. they did not want sophisticated weapons going in. new american effort. that is getting these more sophisticated weapons. we really were limiting what kind of weapon was going in. they have had lots of small arms and our peas that any more sophisticated step to deal with syrian armor and those kinds of things. to me it is your arm and arm fully or you don't arm. not sort of half and half. think you very much. again -- [applause] i appreciate all the questions and it's good to have this conversation. thank you. >> while we were in arizona, book tv with the help of our local cable partner ti

yes, again, fruit is a healthy buzzword that the ngdustry is putting out there, i especially to pull u.n., as presenting these two kids and as but wh have ave for sugar? uestnd 11 grams. that is more than: 2 tablespoo. that is significant.are >> one of the fascinating things [lau about chips, and i really think this is so interesting because y love potato chips. cou i couldn't figure out why they induce such incredible cravings and people. we know that the salt is right there on the surface of the the chips, providing what the industry calls the flavor bursts.dialls your saliva races to theinto pleasure center of the brain, which sends the signals. and they say, okay, let's get o more of that. we know that the senses are soae soaked with that. and that gives the pleasurable feeling. races the chips are also loaded with h sugar, a convertito starch itself, which begins to convert to sugar thet instant it hits your tongue. so you have the holy trinity yoe there of salt and sugar and fat, all interacting.duct, but but just just make you like the potter product but to make you want more and

they draw an analogy between the daily irritations and from government bureaucrats and rules and a u.n. conspiracy to remake american businesses, put in every house that are going to regulate the temperature for you. we couldn't figure out where that came from, and then vanessa went through the fox news transcript and there it was. many of the tea partyers that we talked to told us they watch fox news six to eight hours a day. so i think there was a big push about the time we were doing our interviews to get a certain scary image of environmentalism out there, and we can report it was working. >> all right. well, on that note, thank you for takenning. it was a wonderful discussion, and -- [applause] there's a reception upstairs, and they'll be signing books, on the second floor here. [inaudible conversations] >> coming up next, elizabeth liz price foley talks about her book "tea party: three principles." >> i am delighted to introduce you to our last author, elizabeth price foley who has written book on at the tea party. you make the tea partyhahey tea party is not a party, it's a move

i write about this, and i was just giving a speech at the the u.n. the fact that so many news organizations, um, in the time when half the population was opposed to war, the four major nightly newscasts -- abc, nbc, cbs and the pbs "newshour" -- two weeks around paul giving his push at the u.n., he was secretary of the tate at the time -- state at the time, it was a final nail in the coffin for so many because he'd been so respected for dragging his feet on war saying is the evidence in. but on that day, february 5, 2003, six weeks before the invasion, he said the evidence is in. and that swayed so many. but, you know, the population was wided. and -- divided. and these newscasts were so important at this time. they set the agenda. 393 interviews done around war in that two week period on those four newscasts. would we expect, 200, 150 would be with people for the war and against the war? no, three against the war. three anti-war leaders of almost 400 interviews. no longer mainstream media. it's an extreme media beating the drums for war. we know in