Plenty of time for give and take around the table. Socialism is in the air right now but the book is a history. Im going to quickly set the history and spend some minutes on whats happening today and will have a backandforth or around the table. Socialism was climbed in the 1820s or 30s by the followers of a small group of anchors of british and french who were not out to overthrow government but had ideas of a Better Society of sharing and also had the idea that the way to get there was to demonstrate the validity of the ideas. They created data, followers created this through the mid 1800s, 40 to 50 experimental communities. Mostly in the u. S. Even those visionaries were europeans. Right in the u. S. . It was using to give land. The social were more fluid. Their ideas were taken tremendously seriously. Perhaps the most important was robert owen and he announced coming to the u. S. To create a community that would demonstrate his ideas and he was taken tremendously seriously. On his way, he commissioned an architect to produce a stale model of the idea of socialism community that he was imagined and it was on display in the white house in conjunction with his rival. Then a joint session of congress was convened to hear him present his ideas and not only did the senators sit to listen but members of the Supreme Court and outgoing president monroe incoming president elect jq adams, all listening to the presentation. The community he set up was called new harmony in indiana. It almost instantly collapsed in disharmony. What happened turned out to be exactly representative of the whole group of these experiments. Historians say their median lifespan was two years before new harmony. It might have been that the whole idea of socialism would have ended right there, been there, tried that. That was given a much more powerful life by this remarkable tagteam of political activists and philosophers of great power. They pulled off one of the great intellectual cons of all time. They were well aware of these results of these experiments. They participated in the open group and wrote about it. They said that doesnt matter, thats all utopian. Any attempt to create socialism by acts of human will are utopian. What is important is that i have discovered the laws of history, scientific socialism and these laws prove socialism is coming. What is science . The heart of science is experimentation. A win and their followers had this idea of a Better Society and they went and conducted experiments to demonstrate the validity which sadly was not demonstrated but they were real scientific socialists. Experimentation is no good, they say. They offer share prophecy but they did it in the name of science. The prophecy was very compelli compelling, people find it convincing. The second half of the 19th century, the socialist parties grew up mostly of marxist war, heavily under the influence of marxism and became major forces of countries all over europe. But there was a problem. Fifty years after the manifesto, marx and engels meeting intellectual, the air, he observed that the prophecy wasnt coming true. The workers would grow constantly more miserable until they were compelled to create the revolution without usher in the new age. There had been no revolution or signs of revolution. He said well, there has been no revolution because the prediction was wrong. It has gotten better. It has steadily improved. They were in a better position to register that because unlike most of them, he was actually from a proletarian family and much more attuned to their changes and standards of living. So he basically was socialist. The final goal of Socialism Means nothing to me but the Movement Means everything. What did he mean . Socialism was kind of at work in the road, the prediction but the workers would make the revolution had not been confirmed and you could either stick with the revolution but you couldnt have both. Bernstein said ill stick with the workers. He would continue to work for legislation with shorter hours and better pay but forget about this image of creating a new society. The opposite choice was made by lennon. Lennon was in siberia, he was infuriated by something. That was his frame of mind. He didnt disagree with the premise of bernstein thought. Its true they are not making the revolution but never mind the workers, we must have the revolution. He insisted this would somehow still embody the workers but this was purely mystical but despite the logic, it succeeded in taking power. In russia at a time when russia was falling apart. That changed everything because suddenly, despite the addictive failure of what the workers would do, suddenly the prophecy seems to be confirmed in the most dramatic way. Socialism was now in power in a big and important country. Russia was like six or 7 of the population of the world. The history had a direction, it was moving from the old system of capitalism to this new shiny future seemed to be confirmed. The result was that socialism was put on the map of the world politically like it hadnt been until that moment. The group virtually every corner of the world trying to emulate lennon. They came from existing socialist parties but socialist parties even though they lost some members work themselves energized and invigorated by the conviction that they were the future. Or is it would often put it, the future is going to be socialism. You have a choice, lennon or the benign socialism that we have to offer. There are no other choices. Then there was fascism, an offshoot of socialism. Fascism brought about Second World War and that spelled the end but in the aftermath of the Second World War, the other forms of socialism grew even more into socialism spread around the world. First of all, communism, thanks to the red army was imposed in Eastern Europe and north korea but there were also some indigenous communist movements that took power in albania a few years later, most importantly china. Ultimately about a third of the human race was living under communist regimes. Also at the democratic socialist were achieved successes in the decades after world war ii. They were able to form governments on their own with Coalition Partners and attempt to pursue their path to socialism. There is a whole new branch of the socialist tree that grew up in the aftermath of world war ii. That was in the new nations that were born through decolonization. African socialism, arab socialism. Almost all of these new nations embraced some kind of socialism. Sometimes just strong men wanting power and this was the way to describe themselves. So by the time we get to the mid 70s, we find a situation in which the curiosity to make things right, upwards of 60 of the population of the world was living under settlements of one kind or another calling themselves socialist but then the pendulum began to swing back for reasons, i can think of some that were important but it wasnt clear why. Through the 70s, we had the change in portal which i think was a significant moment even though the communists were taking power, they were defeated but they were led by the socialist party of portugal so it wasnt exactly a defeat for socialism but it was a trigger for the third wave of democratization, which in itself greatly weakened the force of communists around the world. And 78, we had the communist party of china with the rise of second revolution which although the communist party clung to power, a shift in the economics of china from freemarket economics. A year later, england with a platform i was out to socialism and in the 80s, the end of the soviet union and then also in the 80s onboard the lessons of the four dragons of east asia that were flourishing while all the rest of the third world stagnated for about 20 years under state led planning for economics growth. There was a turn also in the third world away from socialism. At that time, i wrote the First Edition of this book. Socialism was everywhere in every way into either failed or the democrats in europe pulled back from socialism and created welfare space. That was a wrap. Then they somehow had risen from the grave. My first thought was marxs comment was that history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy in the second time is first but venezuela, this rise first appeared in 98 turned out to be both a tragedy and of course. A farce. It was destroyed by maduro regime. At first shamus was revolutionary and he didnt declare himself a socialist but in zero five, he said we in cuba are pursuing the same resolution. It turned out not to be in either or. The results of giving the tragic repeat of so much of the history from the third floor socialism, we see guys in britain and america gazing upon this. It reminds me of mid Summer Nights dream where the enchanted prison looks upon the bottom, how beautiful. So we see the rise of corpsmen and sanders. Let me send a few words. At this moment, the new socialism, but they set aside sanders and about the great contributions of chavis and at least for a time, he was with maduro two. Maduro also was aoc in her colleagues that wing of the house had been very resistant even now to criticizing maduro, they were not endorsing it. The change in conversation of what trump is doing or shouldnt do, they cant bring themselves to give a clear condemnation of maduro. Corbin has been, has gone heat mostly for his antisemitism. All of you know who sanders is, many of you know who corbin is but some do not. Thank you. Hes now the leader of the British Labour party. The conservative party in such disarray over breakfast, its entirely possible that the labeled Party Equipment the election and the Prime Minister. Hes taken a lot of these stories, antisemitism which is only part, the hate is only part of the story. On the antisemitism, there was a time when it was possible for a fair minded observer to say their anti israel, anti playlist but not really anti jew. There was another and now a third there was an explanation. The one thing was his endorsement showing bankers playing monopoly on the backs of the enslaved, dark skinned, whatever, workers, slaves. Although they lived among us a long time, they dont get british and of course is cap next referring to zionists. In this linguistically, it doesnt work. Hes talking about jews and then just now, it was just recently someone found he had written an extremely long blurb in materialism which is a jewish conspiracy led by the house. So its too many instances to just say well, is against zionists. Theres Something Else here, he is immersed in a world that is stalinism. When i use that term, i dont mean that he was a member of the communist party but he was a columnist for the communist party newspaper. The worker of england changed his name to morningstar in the 60s or 70s but continued to be funded from moscow at that time. Thats his newspaper. He surrounded himself with Andrew Murray and some others not only come from the communist world but the communists were divided between the communist party of britain and of great britain. They were two rival areas, being that one faction was eventually pro your check before and the others were hardliners who were really stalling. This was the straight left group and corbins advisors comes from this hard line communist but the others called them the pinkies. Meaning that they supported the invasion of hungary and 50 states. They supported that. Corbins year, the prospect of corpsmen, never mind that they created socialism but the Prime Minister of england is certainly something very painful for juice but its impossible for me to see how the u. S. British Security Cooperation can continue if he were to become the Prime Minister and Bernie Sanders who is not the same thing as corbin, who called himself a democratic socialist, which is what i and some others call ourselves. But is he . We have, youve seen on Youtube Sanders in the 1980s, really at length about the regime in nicaragua. Just regurgitating propaganda, claim for claim, like for like with great assertiveness and indignation of anyone. Doing much the same for the claim to accomplishments in cuba. Even the honeymoon and giving a press conference, he wasnt as eloquent about nicaragua which it was the great things he had seen in the soviet union in terms of public transport and especially in terms of cultural programs that made available for the people at a low price. You may have seen in the New York Times yesterday that a reporter was asking him about this said, is there anything you said about the soviet union or latin america and the 80s that you think differently about today . He said, no. So what kind of socialism he believes in seems to me is quite up in the air. Sometimes he says well, scandinavia. More often, its apologist for sanders. Its sanders and cortez and they cant explain themselves but let me help. They really dont mean socialism at all, they mean socialist democracy but aside from the fact that these people arent so inarticulate about what is wrong with that line of argument is that there is a scandinavian model in a much bigger Public Sector we have in the u. S. But the Public Sector rests on thriving capitalists engines of growth. If you look at the world bank, they put out each year end ease of doing business index, writes all the countries in the world. Denmark is almost at the top, and third or fourth place. They make a congenial atmosphere for capitalists to do their thing but then they have high tax rates under reach of social Welfare Benefits but everything that sanders have to say is fiercely angrily anti capitalists. Alc capitalism is very redeemable. Sanders whole thing is that the feeling or class, oligarchy in our country are eliminating democracy on and on. Journalist who covered him way back in burlington, said its the same speech as when he was running in burlington but he substituted the word alien or fourth milling neck. No doubt this became he my essential. Back is what these people, the ideas, they are sometimes more and sometimes less open about, in a different spirit scandinavian social democracy. Thank you. Thousand terrific introduction. Unterman let me say, my name is jeff, im the editorinchief. Im with charles davison, founder and publisher. The book is called heaven on earth by josh. The rise, fall and afterlife of the socialist idea of socialism in the title. First published in 2002. We have a new addition now in 2019. I want to ask the first question, why did you write the book . As i said originally, the book was the kind of, it seemed to me of a tremendous important story that i would argue socialism was the idea that shaped political history in the 20th century. But also, an idea that i was entirely emerged in. I grew up in a home where my socialism was outside a family, the most important thing in my parents lives. I myself became interviewed with this and spent years of my life from the time i was 15 until 30, i was devoted and active socialism. I joined the young people of the same year that Bernie Sanders did. I was in high school in new york and he was in college, i did know him directly. I will open up in one second but thank you for explaining a bit more about your background and your relationship. I dont recall figure but you wrote an essay for crisis magazine, titled why a marxist throws in the towel. Do you remember the article . I didnt write the title of the article but way back in the 80s, there was something called the second box movement, meetings of some young radicals of the 60s who rethought their view of the world and i think others involved would have been. I saw myself as a radical and what led me to change was something that happened gradually. The first thing was initially, i was always anti communist but i had of you that too bad, alternatives in the world that was the capitalists, i could imagine Something Better than either one but with some reading and thinking, i came to realize that it was a mistake to equate these two that communism was infinitely more horrible than whatever was wrong with democratic capitalists. So i started to find a lot of my energies were devoted to the threat of communism which was quite substantial. I was decreasingly interested in fighting the capitalists. Also led to thinking further about economics and i didnt observe some of the softer democracies and scandinavia and i had a chance to observe israel with that party had always been in power. I noticed none of them ever created socialism in the imaginary ideal of a new human brotherhood. I realized it was a matter of this work for that for, how much government spending. Was very practical rather than the milling alien idea i had that this society could be replaced by something infinitely better. What id like to do is open up and try taking two or three at a time. The floor is open to everybody but i will first look at the side because we have for younger colleagues, two of them from the u. S. And one from ukraine and one from india. Im curious how you come to the subject matter and argument. You all have to speak. Tell us who you are. Im a senior at the american university. Who are you sitting next to on your right . You got to advertise for cspan. Come on, man. [laughter] im curious, is capitalism and finally commit and this final area becomes clear, this is inevitable. As you saw the report, you mentioned one third by the same time, they occurred in different conditions. China and russia were not industrial. I want to ask today, healthcare and such, increasing inequality, do you buy this you think theres Something Else . I am nick, im a lawyer. An occasional contributor to recess online, etc. I just have an observation. Very important to us discussion. When was not lying on the street. He was sent by the German Government to moscow with 9 tons of gold. You can buy a lot with that and you can look it up in the russian revolution. Then we will close into a continuous stream. [inaudible] where are you from originally . I live in the u. S. Now. [inaudible] [inaudible question] lets take one more in this round. Then we welcome back. My question is a followup on a recent question about why thoroughly bound i think is inequality mentioned, im thinking that in the last 700, 800 years, democracy has been advancing almost inevitably. His concern was, how do you protect liberty if democracy is advancing in that way . Just last week, i saw a piece by henry olson, how to make America Great again and he was saying conservatives have to address the issue of equality. Act with meeting a lot of this. The issue of nationalism, here is a kind of patriotism that people should feel very comfortable with. The issue of equality is the same way, you dont want to givs these problems otherwise the people who dont share your values will take advantage of it and how do you do that in the current context . [laughter] why the rebirth . The answer is, i dont know why. I do think weve been through this stretch of time up increasing disparity and increasing inequality. Gone from some comparison, 31, 300 to one, whatever it is but t this is a trend of the last 40 years or Something Like that. Its not a good trend. It was especially worrisome thoughts until a couple of years ago when not only was there disparity but when wages were stagnating or even coming in lower than they had tickets before so it wasnt just inequality but before the lower rungs were moving down, but certainly were not moving upward according to the official data that has begun to turn around in the last couple of years. People rising as fast as the people at the top but there were still rising, which i think may take some of the edge off. Is that the reason for this rebirth of interest . Certainly intuitively might be but it doesnt make it true. I just dont know. One thing that brings ashore in terms of following thought is that the people who i think would probably were hurting the most from this assignation seemed to be mostly trump loaders. They were not alc supporters and certainly it seems for these young socialists, as for radicalism, the younger, more affluent people. Its a big question and i agree with you it needs to be addressed but im just not sure from the causality here. As for the entry, you explained it, the idea that was around among communist groups rather than going forth politically in their own name, he should join larger, more moderate socialist party where they could somehow leverage more impact. I have very little doubt in my mind that corbin is an entry asked, he believed in more radical things. The american socialism, i cant figure that out. I dont know about alc but sanders has a really odd history because he was, he joined young people the same pure idea, which was a Democratic Socialist Group but before that, according to his biographer, ms. First attracted to him if he also participated in the labor union and went to israel which was affiliated with a pro soviet group. He was in the democratic socialist world. Then he was an electorate in cap the Vice President ial nomination of the socialist workers party, im sure people were not immersed in the world of socialism marxism will find this quite obscure but between socialists, each one hated the other two. Ive never heard before someone who involved themselves in all three. So what to make of his subdirectory is beyond me. Lets go to the next round. Im from ukraine. [inaudible] what is the contribution and resolve for socialist . Not only the huge appeal of socialist but the socialist idea is more than i radical social system, its a very big aspiration. There are a lot of people along the way who didnt really go by the blueprint. One thing, the appointments to socialism routinely, whether there was a move for the gender world, we have the civil rights move. Its fluoridated water and polio and socialists. This recent, weve had obama act which was the socialist Heritage Foundation condemned socialist so a quick word with that, what extent do the opponents condemn everything and set up this . Did you say [inaudible] patrick, you take that . So far, socialism into countries that dont have a strong authorization, especially in the u. S. My question is, do you think that kind of socialism in other countries, is actually weakening and thats why they have these other groups that are reaching out . I was wondering what you think, why they have this . [inaudible]. Assumptions modern liberalism and the goal at the end of the day. Whereas, fascism as i understand it can be more humanitarian ideology that in certain ways is a revolt against that. My question, what do you think of that hypothesis and second, the do you think that is part of the reason we are seeing the research is precisely that. Socialism is in certain ways but inherently attempted apology then [inaudible] that is a lot to chew on. In the enlightenment and the socialist ideas but the enlightenment was thrown out the window once you got a military style revolutionary and system based on dictatorship. I also wasnt talking so structurally. According to the biographers that is to the dinner table. I can see trying to put them to sleep and he was one of the top leaders of the socialist party at the point that he became pro war and at this point he had a great insight as he said at the time socialism will have to take account of the nations as well as class and this was as he said a heresy. What we did in creating this was to try to create a new socialism that substituted the nations for class and in many ways they both modeled themselves on women. Hitler when they took over they made a National Holiday the nazi Party Members addressed each other, comrades, they put the economy on a planned basis so that they could be faster than stalin after the four year plan and of course, hitler invented the peoples car. So, there were all these reminders of the socialist roo roots. I think what we see to some extent today among the left in general is a kind of recapitulation of mussolini with the idea that we want to see a kind of righteous struggle, but instead of defining it by their economic status defined by their nationality, and we should rally the good nations by those against the rich rogue raid, and i think we see that here in identity politictheidentity pole european context in which you are describing the socialist parties that have lost support but are trying to merge themselves into the identity movements. It is by all of the readiness of conservatives and antisocialist to whatever projects come along. Maybe we can do a Public Opinion survey, but i havent seen one. This technology to get back to your question has something to do with the rebirth. Of course i had no idea, but i could suggest one way in which it seems to be a people read tweets and not books. I wonder if there is less knowledge of history then there was when we got everything in tweets and blogs. We are going to take another round or two. The [inaudible] the u. S. Separation of powers to foresee mainstream policy changes that can happen that isa profound transformation, so i guess my question is what is at risk of the parties in the next election is [inaudible] to undertake the profound changes which are rubberstamped major disruptions in the system. Ive actually seen they havef the new populism in italy and hungary and the difference is they are the russians if there is athat thereis an attempt to r what they are working so hard to achieve and on the other hand, you have the success of the socialist so they are not back in power and as far as the socialists in this country, ive been reading the writer of the new book the socialist manifes manifesto. The striking thing about the book contrary to what he said, he has read history and the new ones into the old ones, he goes through all these and he knows all this stuff and still comes around to the idea that nothing is going to work. The ideas are off the wall, that he convinces Bernie Sanders that he is a social democrat, so, these people consider themselves to the left and coming up reading the post theres the Youth Division in berlin and germany who say we need real socialism and the party has failed us and we have to move away from the old democracy. It goes on and on. Hes not an extremist that in terms of the solution, it is real socialism which is coming back and they know that the bolshevik revolution failed but it turns out its one of those failures. Failures. Hours for work that he cant describe it. That is one of the announcements. Announcements. Whats the speed of this round of. Publicpolicy center the editor for many years. To me, it is kind of a spectacle to see those on the american left expressing their solidarity in various ways. Its repeating attraction to the apology for the authoritarian regimes and it has been made in the past. There are explanations he might offeoffer and certainly there ae slogans for enemies on the left, but i wonder whether you see this fatal attraction and what the explanation is. Repeating an old mistake, i find it so disheartening. I would like to see the young people come up with some ideas and make their own mistakes. Why do i have to repeat mine. And my grandparents and so thats really just my point is that this has been tried before. Its been tried over roughly six generations were a couple of centuries but every corner of the world its been tried in every different way people could imagine. Its never worked and often created compassion for the taking lives and at its best, it became a vehicle for some modest reforms or large reforms of the capitalist economy. Thats why i would rather believe these people are not reading history or rather than saying lets play russian roulette and maybe we will be luckier than earlier generatio generations. That is what was referred to a in the here aninto here and thee generations saying when they dont mean communism, they dont mean to do what they did but actually, socialism was tried by the non totalitarian socialist social democratic parties of western europe. Hes shaking his head as one of the classic examples they came with a big majority and the platform with a clean break from capitalism. This was to the early 80s and they began to implement this and the economy started sputtering so badly that within a year they announced the complete aboutface in the Australia Program and the then chairman of the socialist party said we are bringing about a reconciliation between the left and the economy, so whichever form. I honor the democratic socialist of europe. I dont put them in the same basket with the communist killers. And they did do some things that made the societies. What they could do with welfare. That brings me back to the question. What if the labor Party Wins Big and we have minister corbin. Will they enact radical changes in the British Society . My guess is that they will try, but this we have also seen before in much finer individual van was tried in the late 40s and build up the British Welfare state. The attempt to socialist by nationalizing the industries they did it but it didnt have the results that they expected the industries were struggling norwich after being nationalized. No doubt they were and that brings back the other point that i eluded to a that they would get to the mainstream antisemitism in a way that would be tremendously painful for me. But i would worry more about what it would do to the structure of that which kept the world peace that we have for good reason worried about what trump is doing with his dismissive attitude towards nato and americas first and its seeming indifference to the structures the United States uns built and kept the world of peace since world war ii. Its worth recalling that the most important of the structures in my mind, not the united nations, but was nato that has been the main bulwark of the peace especially since the cold war but found a role for itself postcold war and people dont know nato is actually an idea that springs from the British Labour party. The person who first came up with the idea with the foreign minister right after the war, and its hard for me to see how nato could end and or the record. They called him a frankenstein monster and regard nato as the main threat to world peace and of course, in this moment i dont necessarily mean that i think that anymore, but that is what he means and thinks and certainly could be madness for the United States and to maintain intelligence cooperation with the British Government headed by corbin on military planning. And so, the structures have already been weakened thanks to the u. S. Side, but they might be fatally weakened if corbin becomes Prime Minister. Final thoughts, finalround. I am on leave serving as the ambassador to the United States and i wasnt planning to say anything today to read the book and listen to the discussions but when you mentioned morningstar, when i was a teenager in high school the only british newspaper we had was that morningstar then dont publish newspapers. To be able to introduce any kind of socialist dictatorship but it was this kind of paradox i was learning before the society and at the same time it [inaudible] until i was 27, i lived out thef the socialism or socialist democracy. It was officially the socialist democracy. Thats the only thing i wanted to say that when i lived in this country also in the 90s when i was teaching at the universitys and i saw so many students of mine in all of these cultural theories, i just wanted to say that i could not understand it. I know its my fault and im prejudiced, but i dont feel any sympathy to anyone who likes socialism were introduced to socialisor introduce thesocialit socialism may change capitalism to better. After living through all this, i am just so skeptical about any kind of pro socialist thinking. Im not ani am not any kind of l conservative proponents. I didnt want to give any statement. I just wanted to explain why i didnt want to say anything because it wasnt this most radical form and i whispered in 1962, so it was already a. That is something i just wanted to say that for me it is still to understand how you may even be interested in understanding this and i think that the scandinavian model is something really different that is a very unique thing out of the welfare states and the capitalist syst system. Im sorry i dont have any questions. This is just a very quick footnote on the historical amnesia. Every year we did a survey of the curriculum requirements of over 111 colleges and universities. Less than 3 require their undergraduates to take any basic course of economics and less than 18 require the basic course on the history of the United States. I think the connection of ignorance and bad policy is selfevident. I used to be the general counsel and did some consulting now. A great comment and question. People are often much clearer about what they dont like and less clear about how to solve those who for example i was an Exchange Student in venezuela 1966 to 67, and i could see i took courses at the local university in caracas and i could see a great deal of poverty in venezuela and that is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and i thought this is a ticking time bomb. I took a sociology class and thaisa selfproclaimed marxism t didnt have a clue what it stood for. All he knew if this was to what hes alhe saw in venezuela at t. Now, to divine my question you get a wide range of answers and some would say hes a communist they dont have a clear understanding. You said you called yourself a democratic socialist one time, which you know longer are so my question is what is a democratic socialist, and why do you no longer consider yourself to be a democratic socialist pr back to the beginning. Thats the way life works. Go ahead. Plan on a and a couple of the other people that are here call ourselves the socialist point was to emphasize the contrast that is we completely support thfor dictatorships have sharedn this idea that you could have a different kind of economy without private property where everything was owned communally or shared from some sense at all to be achieved by democratic stages, today passing walls and convincing people that this would be a good thing to do. Thats why i find that sanders says today reaffirming his praise. They call themselves socialist dictatorships we had no sympathy for any of them unlike sanders is and gradually got a different understanding of economics it seemed to me. I think that my ideas about economics were kind of imaginary about how it might work without private property and the incentives that go with it. The last part to the ambassador. Last thing, me i think jeff, charles for hosting me here today. Im honored and flattered that all of you are here. Thank you very much. Cspan, thank you very much. This is the book heaven o heaven earth, rise and fall and lingering persistence and rebirth of the socialist idea. On behalf of the american interest, heres the american interest. Please read us and visit us. Thank you. Good luck with intellectual combat. You have your hands full and its good you ar youre doing wt youre doing. [applause] in many ways it is the way montana is changing and is one of the fastest if not the fastest in terms of growth in the country. The most famous permission for dinosaurs that is where we go to find triceratops and t. Rex, the most iconic are known from this formation, and we have that here in montana. Is an incredibly beloved author in montana, and i think that it gives this to the working people