tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 1, 2014 7:05pm-7:16pm EST
profiting of all this. the great eswar profiteering in history according to the studies coming out from bernie sanders and others. well, there you go. [applause] thank you very much. thank you. [applause] thank you, all, very much. [inaudible conversations] is there a non-fiction author or book you would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at booktv at c-span.org. or tweet us at
twitter.com/booktv. joining us on booktv is james rustin junior. his newest book is called "the accidental victim." jfk, lee harvey, oswald and the real target in dallas. what do you mean by the real target in dallas? >> it's a congress -- con have a luted -- i think all of them are nonsense. i think we have to bring it down to the psychology and mind set of lee harvey oswald the killer. what i've attempted to do is go to the core of his motive for picking up the weapon on november 22nd. >> you had to put two things together. the first is the attitude toward kennedy. where he had absolutely no -- for the president at all. admired the president for his
policies. the change in military danger from honorable to dishonorable. he appealed to connelly to change it in 1962 and that hounded him to change him and hounded him for the next year and a half. and i believe he put the face of connelly on the frustration. he had a rage and anger against connelly. but not such an attitude toward kennedy at all. >> how did you do the 50 years later? >> a biography of john connelly in 1989. in fact, i was on booktv back there in 1989.
on that. it was a 1680 page dallas side of it with connelly in the center. somewhat got lost in the stage of the whole life. so i very much wanted to be part of the conversation of the 50th anniversary and commemoration. that's why i went back to the material and dug deeper to the motive of oswald. now i think i have made a compelling case that oswald was going after connelly and not after kennedy. >> james rustin, jr., the author of the "accidental victim: jfk, lee harvey oswald, and the real target in dallas ." with a few weeks left in 2013, many public indications are putting out year-end list of notable books. these titles were included in the "chicago tribune."
in our school there's a decline of characteristic education and moral education, a kind of a move to replacing it with things like self-est teem programs or various therapeutic approaches. and we have a tried and true method of civilizing boys. through, you know, good sports manship they can get from coaches and a moral guidance, certainly from parents, most of all the from parent. but from teachers. and i think we have moved away
from that. the second problem with boys, and there are problems with girls too. right now i'm talking about the boys. i believe now boys have become second-class citizens in our school, and their problems are severely neglected. a young man today is farless likely to go college than his sister. you look at across all ethic groups and racial groups and socioeconomic groups and you find the boys are behind their female counter parts. they are farless literate. he's reeding about a year and a half behind the 13-year-old girl. most importantly they like school less than girls. they are less engaged. there may have been a time where it wasn't a big problem. you could get a high school degree and work hard and make it to the middle class. and there's some educators at
the harvard graduate school of education the passport to the middle class used to be the high school diploma. not anymore. there's a new economy. and the new passport to the middle class is education beyond high school. and girls seem to be getting it and boys less and less. i feel that problem -- i can't find major organizations or government groups. the department of education is still talking about the shortchanged girl. because they were deeply i think influenced by the early research. and that said girls were shortchanged in the 1990s. and so they haven't adjusted or adapted to the times. so we have a white house council on women and girls that concerned about the education of girls and girls don't fall behind, and when it's boys that are, like, every significant -- almost every significant metric significantly behind girls. so i think we need a white house council on boys as well. in a recent atlantic article
you write that women in the u.s. now earn 62% of the associates degrees. 57% of bachelors degrees, 60% of master's degrees, 52% of doctorates, admission -- they were baffled, concerned, and panicked over the birth female students begin to flee. officials at schools at or near the tipping point are helplessly watching as their campuses become like retirement villages with the surveillance act surviving men. >> yes. >> there are campuses that admissions officers are looking at i would say panicked.
an administrator at william and mary said we have to think about attracting more men. we're the college of william and mary not mary and mary. there's one -- educational statistician who said if current trends continue by the year 2068, the last male will graduate from college. he was being facetious. there's a grain of truth. it's a quite a mystery why the girl would be so -- so much more aware of the importance of education. and girls now have highers a per rations and some people will say no, it's only amongst -- for kids or, you know, manifest in the working class. it's across classes. you see the girls outperforming the boys.
again i celebrate what has happened with girls. it is inspiring and, you know, some of it may be because of the initiative of the shortchanged girls movement. i don't say everything they can was wrong. i wished when they discovered that there were gender differences in education, but i wish it happened instead of berking like a girl partisan movement it become an movement to improve the educational prospect of all children and help girls where they were behind and help boys where they were falling behind girls. and that would have meant yes --